Sahara Desert Snow Storm

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It wasn't that long ago (25 years), that the vast majority and scientific consensus believed that without a doubt stomach ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and worry, and those ulcers were treated with surgery and antacids.

Then along comes one guy who has the nerve to question the entire medical community and suggest ulcers are caused instead by a bacteria. He was laughed at by everyone, indeed.... "how could anyone be so stupid to believe a bacteria could actually live in the human stomach?"

Well guess who was right? Look it up.

Today, stomach ulcers are nearly universally treated with antibiotics, saving millions of people from painful and ineffective surgery.

You are right. Should we then call the CO2 deniers as "ulsers"

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It wasn't that long ago (25 years), that the vast majority and scientific consensus believed that without a doubt stomach ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and worry, and those ulcers were treated with surgery and antacids.

Then along comes one guy who has the nerve to question the entire medical community and suggest ulcers are caused instead by a bacteria. He was laughed at by everyone, indeed.... "how could anyone be so stupid to believe a bacteria could actually live in the human stomach?"

Well guess who was right? Look it up.

Today, stomach ulcers are nearly universally treated with antibiotics, saving millions of people from painful and ineffective surgery.

Exactly. Science will continually evolve and update as new evidence comes along. Plate tectonics is another example.

And it's not just one guy looking to find other drivers for the recent spike in planet heat content, there's monster buckets of money and fame waiting for anyone who can do that. Ask Willie Soon.

So why is there no science pointing to other significant drivers apart from humans?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It wasn't that long ago (25 years), that the vast majority and scientific consensus believed that without a doubt stomach ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and worry, and those ulcers were treated with surgery and antacids.

Then along comes one guy who has the nerve to question the entire medical community and suggest ulcers are caused instead by a bacteria. He was laughed at by everyone, indeed.... "how could anyone be so stupid to believe a bacteria could actually live in the human stomach?"

Well guess who was right? Look it up.

Today, stomach ulcers are nearly universally treated with antibiotics, saving millions of people from painful and ineffective surgery.

Yes, there are examples like this happening in science, more commonly in the softer sciences, and most especially when there is big money involved (the makers of all those placebos remedies).

HOWEVER, there are vastly more contrary examples. It is the common story of everyday science. The scientific process, with all it’s human flaws, pushes towards better understandings of reality.

People bring out this lone wolf trope as if it proves anything. Most of the time the lone wolf is just the kid who is (falsely) calling wolf. Eventually people learn to ignore him as the evidence mounts.

The current state of peptic ulcer research is that (WebMD):

No single cause has been found for ulcers. However, it is now clear that an ulcer is the end result of an imbalance between digestive fluids in the stomach and duodenum. Most ulcers are caused by an infection with a type of bacteria called Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).

There is always room for disagreement and better understandings of reality. This is what separates science from religion or other dogmas. Not to say scientists don’t suffer from the same human foibles as the rest of us. But that is the wonder of science; it is a process that accounts for this. When a consensus of the strength and magnitude emerges such as is the current case around human induced climate change, the odds of the few outsiders being correct is tiny. It could happen, which is why I would never support banning or de-funding those who seek other explanations, but history does not favour the denier side.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Exile

The first graph in the article Gord cited showed amplification of warming in the Arctic, a well known phenomenom that is indpt. of so-called CC but can be accentuated by warming in other parts of the earth. The graph also showed temp anomalies on the cooling side for large swaths of Russia, Alaska, Greenland and other areas. So which of these temp anomalies would you prefer we ascribe to climate vs. weather?

"Denier" has a religious connotation. Skeptic, cynic, doubter, challenger, etc. suggests one who questions conventional opinion & conformity, not necessarily one who always opposes. I figured it wouldn't take long for this sort of discourse to start.

All too rational, but in the eyes of the smitten you are still a mere denier. It is a matter of faith after all.

While your last paragraph appears to recognize the faith-based (i.e., religious) quality of many CC believers, you have not been paying sufficient attention as to how broadly this applies. Climate change skeptics, particularly of the anthropogenic variety, a group to which I adhere, albeit without loyalty or pledge, are routinely mocked, shunned, belittled, reviled, and consigned to the same category as atheists are by all religions that relay on faith.

Going to your first paragraph, in which your ultimate question is my assignment of whether the relative temps of arctic areas at a particular time is climate or weather. Unless it is a test of my true faith, it is irrelevant, and if it is a test it is inane.

For whatever it may matter, my post was just an attempt to provide Mr. May, whom I do not know, but who is certainly a revered presence on this forum, with a thought that might improve his argument, even though I disagree with it.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by conachair

So why is there no science pointing to other significant drivers apart from humans?

Because it's even more farcical to suggest we can control volcanos or solar flares, so there is no money in it.

Carbon credits on the other hand are big business.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, there are examples like this happening in science, more commonly in the softer sciences, and most especially when there is big money involved (the makers of all those placebos remedies).
.

Climate science is the definition of softer science and there is definitely big money involved with carbon credits, solar/wind subsidies, electric car subsidies.

But hey, I'm just a denier so understanding the fact that all the predictions are well within the margin for error is irrelevant.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Because it's even more farcical to suggest we can control volcanos or solar flares, so there is no money in it.

Carbon credits on the other hand are big business.

And the oil/coal companies supporting the deniers are penniless?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Because it's even more farcical to suggest we can control volcanos or solar flares, so there is no money in it.

No comparison whatsoever.
Lots of solid science showing human released greenhouse gasses can increase the heat content of the planet, no smoking gun elsewhere to explain the increase which is happening despite the big buckets of money available for anyone who can come up with something.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

But hey, I'm just a denier so understanding the fact that all the predictions are well within the margin for error is irrelevant.

Could you explain what that sentence actually means?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

And the oil/coal companies supporting the deniers are penniless?

Certainly not but any research that comes from them is automatically denied by the eco-faithful as tainted while the research supporting the eco-faith position are automatically correct when it is just as much the product of the desires of those paying for it. It's the double standard that I find objectionable when the data does not show a clear pattern of man made climate change.

The evidence for man made climate change is sketchy at best and the idea we can meaningfully impact climate is pure farce.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It wasn't that long ago (25 years), that the vast majority and scientific consensus believed that without a doubt stomach ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid and worry, and those ulcers were treated with surgery and antacids.

Then along comes one guy who has the nerve to question the entire medical community and suggest ulcers are caused instead by a bacteria. He was laughed at by everyone, indeed.... "how could anyone be so stupid to believe a bacteria could actually live in the human stomach?"

Well guess who was right? Look it up.

Today, stomach ulcers are nearly universally treated with antibiotics, saving millions of people from painful and ineffective surgery.

It was not too long before those 25 or so years that climate change meant another ice age. Given the ability of humans to put two and two together and arrive at more incorrect answers than there are theoretical solutions, the one right answer has suddenly become clear: Anthropogenic climate change is attributable to stomach ulcers and placebos. As a skeptic I refuse to acknowledge the possible involvement of pseudo science and monetary incentive, let alone out right lies. We all know the whole thing should be underwater by now, along with Kiribati and California. BTW, I have yet to determine why a bunch of "sailors" are whining about more water to use for cruising.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

It was not too long before those 25 or so years that climate change meant another ice age.

It didn't. There was more work predicting warming back then than cooling, why not do some research yourself? It's easy if you want to keep an open mind.

The global cooling mole « RealClimate

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by conachair

It didn't. There was more work predicting warming back then than cooling, why not do some research yourself? It's easy if you want to keep an open mind.

The global cooling mole « RealClimate

Getting a little denialistic aren't we? I was around back then and no one mainstream was talking about global warming. It was all about the next ice age.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Getting a little denialistic aren't we? I was around back then and no one mainstream was talking about global warming. It was all about the next ice age.

Which is why it's not a good idea to listen to the media if you want to know anything about science.

From the link you didn't read..

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

7 articles predicting cooling
44 predicting warming
20 that were neutral
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by conachair

It didn't. There was more work predicting warming back then than cooling, why not do some research yourself? It's easy if you want to keep an open mind.

The global cooling mole « RealClimate

To answer your question: Because I was alive and had ran life experience in the rough time frame. There was no need to "research" more subsequently doctored material. Duh. But it is still fun to twit the true believers who need no science and will brook no opposing views.

As to post #89, by the same person: Are we underwater yet? But that is "science" for you, as determined by the number of supposed articles an alleged researcher selects. OMG.