The EPA fires most of its scientists and advisory boards

[ocean515]

There were some initially. No more. There is now firm consensus. You might as well question gravity.

No there isn't. The bludgeoning of those scientists who attempted to question the methodology and theories of the paid AGW scientists had it's initial effect, but no longer.

 

[ocean515]

I have giving you formal statements put out by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most elite scientific organization on the planet. I can give you text book references as well if you like. Or from other national and international organizations.

I presented reference to research on the impact of forest fires and the relationship of CO2 release. Your response didn't touch on that, nor has the AGW community touched on that.

I do notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. This is common by AGW'st types, as they don't want to touch those facts, and the influence it brings to the agenda.

 

[ataraxia]

No there isn't. The bludgeoning of those scientists who attempted to question the methodology and theories of the paid AGW scientists had it's initial effect, but no longer.

Show me the evidence.

 

[ataraxia]

I presented reference to research on the impact of forest fires and the relationship of CO2 release. Your response didn't touch on that, nor has the AGW community touched on that.

I do notice you completely ignored the rest of my post. This is common by AGW'st types, as they don't want to touch those facts, and the influence it brings to the agenda.

I did. Please reread my reply. The statement says that the CO2 put out naturally in the past is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 put Out now.

 

[longview]

There no uncertainty at this point.

If you do not think there are any uncertainties, I do not think we can discuss the topic technically.
The IPCC devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainties.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

TS Technical Summary 114
TS.6
Key Uncertainties
This final section of the Technical Summary provides readers with a
short overview of key uncertainties in the understanding of the climate
system and the ability to project changes in response to anthropogenic influences.

The ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 C is based mostly on the uncertainties in our understanding
of how clouds interact with radiation Baede, et al 2001 IPCC TAR Key concepts in Climate Science.
Since 2001 the range of ECS has not narrowed.

 

[ataraxia]

If you do not think there are any uncertainties, I do not think we can discuss the topic technically.
The IPCC devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainties.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

.

Sure. There are uncertainties about modern gravitational theory as well. Science always entails some uncertainty. It does not mean it should be ignored when the evidence is overwhelming enough. The uncertainty now is even less than when the IPCC report came out.

 

[longview]

Sure. There are uncertainties about modern gravitational theory as well. Science always entails some uncertainty. It does not mean it should be ignored when the evidence is overwhelming enough. The uncertainty now is even less than when the IPCC report came out.

Actually the uncertainty has not gone down in almost 20 years, and may have increased a little.
The rate an object fall at one gravity is likely within .1% and has not change for over a century,
Whereas the uncertainty for ECS is greater than 100% of the input warming.
Input warming being the direct forcing from doubling the level of CO2 at 1.1 C,
the range of uncertainty for ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, or 3 C or uncertainty, for an input of 1.1 C.

 

[ataraxia]

Actually the uncertainty has not gone down in almost 20 years, and may have increased a little.
The rate an object fall at one gravity is likely within .1% and has not change for over a century,
Whereas the uncertainty for ECS is greater than 100% of the input warming.
Input warming being the direct forcing from doubling the level of CO2 at 1.1 C,
the range of uncertainty for ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, or 3 C or uncertainty, for an input of 1.1 C.

Links?

 

[Moot]

Nice try, but all of your conclusions are based on computer models written by the same liberal climate scientists who are predisposed to blame it on humans

Actually no....my conclusions are based on the abundance of observable evidence and logic. Whereas your conclusions are simply based on your political bias, ignorance and hate.

 

[longview]

Links?

You first! The IPCC is clear about the range,
You said, "The uncertainty now is even less than when the IPCC report came out."
Yet provided no link to back up your claim.

 

[longview]

Actually no....my conclusions are based on the abundance of observable evidence and logic. Whereas your conclusions are simply based on your political bias, ignorance and hate.

There is moderate evidence that adding CO2 can cause some warming, and that there are possibly some positive feedbacks.
The actual observable evidence is like plant hardiness zones, whose cause may or may not be attributable to Human activity.
I don't buy into the idea that the researchers are all liberal hacks, they are simply doing the job they were trained to do,
Win grants and fund whatever their real research is. Graduate schools teach classes with innocuous names,
like "Research Methods" which teach people how to read between the lines of grant RFPs request for proposals.
This includes reading the backgrounds and writings of the reviewers.
If the grant is to study the impacts of AGW, the proposal that questions the existence of AGW, will not win.
A person has spent 10 years in University, and now has 5 years before tenure review,
to prove they can bring in the research dollars.

 

[ataraxia]

You first! The IPCC is clear about the range,
You said, "The uncertainty now is even less than when the IPCC report came out."
Yet provided no link to back up your claim.

Sure. Not sure why you can't just google it yourself though. It's easy enough.

Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate change : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

So now your turn.

 

[Moot]

There is moderate evidence that adding CO2 can cause some warming, and that there are possibly some positive feedbacks.
The actual observable evidence is like plant hardiness zones, whose cause may or may not be attributable to Human activity.
I don't buy into the idea that the researchers are all liberal hacks, they are simply doing the job they were trained to do,
Win grants and fund whatever their real research is. Graduate schools teach classes with innocuous names,
like "Research Methods" which teach people how to read between the lines of grant RFPs request for proposals.
This includes reading the backgrounds and writings of the reviewers.
If the grant is to study the impacts of AGW, the proposal that questions the existence of AGW, will not win.
A person has spent 10 years in University, and now has 5 years before tenure review,
to prove they can bring in the research dollars.

Well, thats a pretty warped view of science works. So if you don't mind, I think I'll stick with the scientific method and peer reviewed consensus.

 

[longview]

Sure. Not sure why you can't just google it yourself though. It's easy enough.

Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate change : Nature Geoscience : Nature Research

So now your turn.

For one thing we were discussing ECS and not TCR which has a different range.
But it seems in 2016, 2 years after your citation, they are still trying to figure how to narrow the ECS range down from
it's original 1.5 to 4.5 C.
Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity - Stevens - 2016 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

 

[Mac77]

Actually no....my conclusions are based on the abundance of observable evidence and logic. Whereas your conclusions are simply based on your political bias, ignorance and hate.

You are right about one thing.

Neither of us has evidence that global warming - man made or natural - will lead to the basket of woes that the liberals are so excited about

You are in a panic based on computer models created by professional fear mongers

 

[longview]

Well, thats a pretty warped view of science works. So if you don't mind, I think I'll stick with the scientific method and peer reviewed consensus.

It is how it really works, Most researchers have a pet project (what they really want to investigate),
but cannot get funding.
By winning grants, they get research space, purchase lab equipment, and buy course release time, and research assistants.
They put in the due diligence the grant requires, and publish the results, with the write up sounding like what they think the
granting agency wants to hear. (followup grants mean more money, equipment and space).
At some point they are tenured, and have enough equipment to conduct the research they really want to do.

 

[ataraxia]

Actually the uncertainty has not gone down in almost 20 years, and may have increased a little.
The rate an object fall at one gravity is likely within .1% and has not change for over a century,
Whereas the uncertainty for ECS is greater than 100% of the input warming.
Input warming being the direct forcing from doubling the level of CO2 at 1.1 C,
the range of uncertainty for ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, or 3 C or uncertainty, for an input of 1.1 C.

You keep parroting that back. Evidence and links obviously have no power over you. So what possibly could?

And of course, I am still waiting for your links. Are you a machine? A program?

 

[Moot]

You are right about one thing.

Neither of us has evidence that global warming - man made or natural - will lead to the basket of woes that the liberals are so excited about

You are in a panic based on computer models created by professional fear mongers

Speak for yourself. The science is my side....and all you have are denials steeped in ignorance and hate.

 

[longview]

You keep parroting that back. Evidence and links obviously have no power over you. So what possibly could?

And of course, I am still waiting for your links. Are you a machine? A program?

Post #114 repeat
Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity - Stevens - 2016 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library
2 years after your citation, they are still trying to figure how to narrow the ECS range down from
it's original 1.5 to 4.5 C.

 

[Moot]

It is how it really works, Most researchers have a pet project (what they really want to investigate),
but cannot get funding.
By winning grants, they get research space, purchase lab equipment, and buy course release time, and research assistants.
They put in the due diligence the grant requires, and publish the results, with the write up sounding like what they think the
granting agency wants to hear. (followup grants mean more money, equipment and space).
At some point they are tenured, and have enough equipment to conduct the research they really want to do.

Well, I disagree that grant funding predetermines the outcome of scientific research....but if you have a better method of getting funding for research, then please do share.

 

[Mac77]

Speak for yourself. The science is my side....and all you have are denials steeped in ignorance and hate.

Science is not a show of hands democratic exercise

 

[longview]

Well, I disagree that grant funding predetermines the outcome of scientific research....but if you have a better method of getting funding for research, then please do share.

It is not that it predetermines the outcome, it does not, but the answers to the questions asked fall within a range,
since the range of ECS is quite large, the researcher has no problem stating the finding fell into that expected range.
As to funding methods, The NSF is almost the only game in town, and they are not asking if AGW is real or not.

 

[Moot]

Science is not a show of hands democratic exercise

Science is based on scientific method and observable evidence....that's why it's not on your side.

 

[longview]

Science is not a show of hands democratic exercise

I have been in Research and Development for more than 3 decades, and it is difficult to get
3 Phd's to agree on a good place to go to lunch!
Scientist by their very nature are a very skeptical lot, and should be!

 

[Moot]

It is not that it predetermines the outcome, it does not, but the answers to the questions asked fall within a range,
since the range of ECS is quite large, the researcher has no problem stating the finding fell into that expected range.
As to funding methods, The NSF is almost the only game in town, and they are not asking if AGW is real or not.

The debate on whether AGW is real or not...is over. It is real and it is happening now and you don't need to be a scientist to see it. So forgive me if I don't buy what you're selling.