Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 04:17:37 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on April 14, 2015, 02:49:50 PM

Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 08:39:34 AM

Quote

Just generally, the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 rather than the other way around has better explanatory power, and makes more intuitive sense to me as well.

So, do we believe you or thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers? Isn't it a bit more relevant what makes sense to people who are actual experts?

Firstly, many of the 'thousands of scientists and thousands of scientific papers' don't say what most Warmistas have heard that they say.

I don't know what these so-called "Warmistas" are saying, but there is a clear consensus that it's warming, and that it's caused by human emissions.

Quote

Secondly, 'thousands' of people confessed to witchcraft over the years and were punished appropriately. 'Thousands' of experts in witchcraft formed a strong 'consensus' about the subject and used state-of-the-art science to deal with the various catastrophes that witches brought about.

So now you're resorting to comparing science with superstition? Even a child is able to tell the difference: Science is based on actual facts and data. It's verified through huge amounts of research. On the other hand, witchcraft is superstition where all it has going for it is blind faith.

You are basically attacking all of science here, and equating it with superstition. Why am I not surprised?

I'm specifically attacking 'climate science' because in my observation, 'climate science' is attacking science itself as I understand it. Not being a religious person, I rely on science generally and have traditionally had a high regard for science and scientists. The climate science cult has damaged my feelings about science generally, but not (yet) destroyed them.

And I am totally equating current climate science with superstion, and particularly the Christian religion wherein one can be at least partially absolved of their sins by paying some group for whom the high priests work. That's but one of a startling (and amusing) list of analogies.

Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 04:17:37 PM

Quote

Thirdly, if one is ejected from the ranks of 'expert' by going against the grain then no, the surviving hypothesis is not especially relevant.

Who has been "ejected"? Scientists disagree on things all the time. And they settle things by publishing papers on the topic. Thousands of such papers on climate have been published by thousands of scientists, and there is a clear consensus. I dare you to name a single respected scientific body that does not accept AGW.

In order to explain away the consensus, you will need to resort to conspiracy theories similar to "Bush was behind 9/11", "Moon Landing Hoax", "vaccines are harmful and were created to kill people", "the aliens were already here, but the world's governments are hiding it". There's simply no other way to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

By the way, this is a good example of the major contradictions from those who reject science: First it is claimed that their friends are ejected from scientific positions, but then it is claimed that their friends have produced lots of studies disproving AGW. You can't have it both ways. And by the way, Richard Lindzen and a number of other scientists who are still happily publishing scientific papers disprove the claim that you are ejected if you go against the grain.

So not only major contradictions, but also obvious factual errors. It basically looks like you are making up arguments as you go.

Scientists with tenure or outside of academia are well represented among the 'deniers', others tend to speak up near the ends of their careers, and yet others are like Freeman Dyson are so highly regarded and of a particular disposition that they just don't care.

The only reasons I can see for getting into climate science at the start of one's career would be 1) one sees the field as a way to promote a particular unrelated agenda and receive money and accolades for doing totally shoddy work (a-la Dr. Mann), and 2) one is only capable of doing shoddy work but wants to be a 'scientist' anyway.

I took a course in 'environmental engineering' a long time ago. The teacher just read nonsense and expected us to write it down at lightning speed and regurgitate it for an exam. After several weeks I told the prof in no uncertain terms that the class was a waste of time and money and I bailed. We had a professor with a similar style for designing steel structures. In that case there was a lot of important stuff to learn. It was unpleasant and difficult, but the material was necessary in order to do a job correctly. The 'environmental' stuff was absurd, and I could have done a better job of doing rational environmental design work myself with no training whatsoever. Ultimately I decided that civil engineering was about 80% currupt back scratching (or worse) and the other 20% was boring busywork and did software engineering instead.

Quote from: hofor on April 14, 2015, 04:17:37 PM

...

BTW, everyone knows that GW Bush didn't have much to do with 9/11. That was mostly Cheney's baby. And it is a fact that vaccines have been developed with the expressed goal to sterilize humans. They work by causing abortions very early in the term (the woman has been induced to develop antibodies against certain hormones responsible for sustaining a pregnancy) so depending on one's interpretation of when life begins, it is basically a fact that vaccines 'were created to kill people'.