Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

all using the same Squed base identification of how tree rings grow which is similar in both cold drought like conditions as well as the warm drought conditions they pre disposed to use.

Wrong. Different data sets, Different methodologies.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lets see a paper by a geology undergrad on dendrochronology that misidentified cool dry conditions as being warm dry .

OK - let us see it.

[Hardhead]

I just saw this.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salarie...ientist-Salary

Is this what's supposed to be driving thousands of climate scientists to lie?

the money?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I just saw this.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salarie...ientist-Salary

Is this what's supposed to be driving thousands of climate scientists to lie?

the money?

plus grant stipends
Notoriety for some not saying they all do it for the money far from it but there are some that do make a lot of money

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong. Different data sets, Different methodologies.

same issues with the terms of reference

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Great non-answer.

PSI says Michael Mann is facing bankruptcy, you say he is a multi-millionaire. Are you both right?

yes I do do you remember why ?
Or are willing to tell us why he went from multi millionaire to bankruptcy ?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

The 97% 99% Cook studies again? Really? Look at your quote again:

"97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree"

I frankly don't even understand why you're still pushing this one, or ever pushed it. Your argument is with all those skeptic scientists, and no, there's quite a few more than just SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER, SPENCER.

you mean like this ?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

here's some spectrum running:


You have but to show the world that the CO2 or something else from natural forces would have caused warming anyway, and the whole case for humans causing Climate Change will blow away like yesterday's dandelions.

If you or anyone else cannot... we need to go with what we know, right?

pie chart time

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean this conclusion?

"These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper."

Not sure you want to use this paper to support your unfounded statement that publications are avoiding publishing science which supports the theory that GW is not man-made. But maybe you spent as much time reading the Zharkova paper as the post I wrote that you so quickly called BS on.

Originally Posted by jackdale

This one

Quote:
This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

But she only considers natural forcings in the paper, while in interviews she affirms role role of CO2 as GHG and that any GSM will allow us time to deal more effectively with global warming.

Let's try and put an early end to the suspense on this one for a change. I know Zharkova puts greater emphasis on Newhaulesque() solar output theories, but what is this particular scientist's overall position on AGW? It sounds like she acknowledges the role of CO2 in warming (they all do), and your post suggests she also believes GW is a threat (that we need more time to deal effectively with). IOW, is she one of the skeptics ineligible for publication these days or what?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll start with fish's sense of smell in the 22nd century.

You mean it hasn't already happened?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Let's try and put an early end to the suspense on this one for a change. I know Zharkova puts greater emphasis on Newhaulesque() solar output theories, but what is this particular scientist's overall position on AGW? It sounds like she acknowledges the role of CO2 in warming (they all do), and your post suggests she also believes GW is a threat (that we need more time to deal effectively with). IOW, is she one of the skeptics ineligible for publication these days or what?

she does everything she can to stay out of the official MMGW stuff
She is a foremost astrophysicist. Therefore her papers are primarily published in the appropriate science journals.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Let's try and put an early end to the suspense on this one for a change. I know Zharkova puts greater emphasis on Newhaulesque() solar output theories, but what is this particular scientist's overall position on AGW? It sounds like she acknowledges the role of CO2 in warming (they all do), and your post suggests she also believes GW is a threat (that we need more time to deal effectively with). IOW, is she one of the skeptics ineligible for publication these days or what?

here is a talk she gave last November that will fill in some of the blanks .
https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

What's wrong with that? That's the way it should be - as far as I can tell. I don't logically understand how that stands as criticism of scientific research establishing the existence of MMGW.

The research subject (climate here) is observed, quantified, and analyzed, according to scientific method - end of story from a science perspective.

Is the standard supposed to be that any scientist who does not conclude "there is nothing more to ever be learned about climate" -- that the scientist must therefore not be credible?

On the other hand, if there is something more to be learned about a subject, and a scientist discovers it - he/she must therefore not be credible?

I've never heard of any 1st world government just saying they are going to stop paying for scientific research of the earth's climate. If no one is ever going to say that - why wouldn't the scientists have a job either way, no matter what their research shows, way back from the beginning? When, exactly, would that fear of unemployment have started?

Why would observed and quantified scientific data "go along" in "numbers" with a mass conspiracy, and not just be what it, in fact, is?

Why would the vast majority of human climate scientists ever start such a huge, thousand part, conspiracy in the 1st place, and not just do the jobs they were paid for?

I'm not trying to make any argument - just understand the literal nuts and bolts of the conspiracy theory - on a literal ground level. How it actually, in real life, is alleged to have actually happened. I've heard a ton of vague accusations, but always in such sweeping generalities - there is no way to plug the accusations into the actual history of climate science research. Climate research was getting funded, no matter what it was finding, from the beginning, and it was always going to be funded. It's a major part of our planet, and it's always changing. So why would scientists ever feel like they needed to save their jobs from the git-go?

When did it all start, exactly?

In my opinion anyway, no mass or lesser conspiracies or corruption, little if any greed, mostly sincere motivations, and funding for research on an important issue that is for the most part legit but has been politicized so has created excesses and some abuse. As for the scientists themselves, they are mostly just gravitating to where the best opportunities lie, just like any other profession. But my understanding is, when applying for a grant, you need to identify a proposition or hypothesis for which you intend to research and hopefully prove, and then demonstrate how it may or may not support the theory behind AGW. As Jackdale & others love to point out, almost every major institution and academic research facility have come out supporting the mainstream AGW position, so if you go to work for one of them your best chance of getting a grant is research which supports your employer's stated position. It's not an issue of corrupt scientists, but of a system that's potentially producing biased and potentially skewed/corrupted results.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I just saw this.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salarie...ientist-Salary

Is this what's supposed to be driving thousands of climate scientists to lie?

the money?

Yeah they are in for the money.

Katharine Hayhoe explains how they rip off the rest of us.

https://youtu.be/Iq8Jo9QN0qA

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

What's wrong with that? That's the way it should be - as far as I can tell. I don't logically understand how that stands as criticism of scientific research establishing the existence of MMGW.

The research subject (climate here) is observed, quantified, and analyzed, according to scientific method - end of story from a science perspective.

Is the standard supposed to be that any scientist who does not conclude "there is nothing more to ever be learned about climate" -- that the scientist must therefore not be credible?

On the other hand, if there is something more to be learned about a subject, and a scientist discovers it - he/she must therefore not be credible?

I've never heard of any 1st world government just saying they are going to stop paying for scientific research of the earth's climate. If no one is ever going to say that - why wouldn't the scientists have a job either way, no matter what their research shows, way back from the beginning? When, exactly, would that fear of unemployment have started?

Why would observed and quantified scientific data "go along" in "numbers" with a mass conspiracy, and not just be what it, in fact, is?

Why would the vast majority of human climate scientists ever start such a huge, thousand part, conspiracy in the 1st place, and not just do the jobs they were paid for?

I'm not trying to make any argument - just understand the literal nuts and bolts of the conspiracy theory - on a literal ground level. How it actually, in real life, is alleged to have actually happened. I've heard a ton of vague accusations, but always in such sweeping generalities - there is no way to plug the accusations into the actual history of climate science research. Climate research was getting funded, no matter what it was finding, from the beginning, and it was always going to be funded. It's a major part of our planet, and it's always changing. So why would scientists ever feel like they needed to save their jobs from the git-go?

When did it all start, exactly?

The section of my comment you quoted wasn't criticism on my part, it was just the fact of the matter.



But I will say that imo there is a whiff of gravy train that hangs over the climate science industry.