[vtsnowedin]

https://youtu.be/A_RxpB3wtvU

Nice rebuttal of the new EPA head clown.

The problem with denier Pruitt is that denial does not reap the benefits that he thinks it does. Nobody is going to shut down Exxon and they can pass any carbon tax costs down to the sucker consumers. But those sucker consumers are going to have to pay for flooding of low lying coastal regions of the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of current dollars.

Do you actually think there is something or some policy that could be done or adopted that will stop the changes in the climate we are experiencing? If so what is it and how will you get enough of the worlds population to do what is needed to achieve that goal?
That the climate is changing is not the argument. It is what if anything can be done to change it back and failing that how will we adapt to our new climate?

[KaiserJeep]

Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus."

-----Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

[dissident]

Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus."

-----Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles. Lindzen is twisting facts and outright lying by insinuating that scientists operate by consensus. No they f*cking don't. It is actually a competitive field where scientists rush to submit publications not to be preempted by other scientists. Scientists push their own interpretations of the data and get into heated debates about this. Peer review is a type of battlefield where competitors have to come to a truce based on facts to have the paper published. This is pertinent to the paper contents and not some global consensus designed for political consumption.

Monolithic science my ass, you corporate whore. For those that do not know, Lindzen was funded by coal companies. Science is the closest thing you will find to an ideal market economy consisting of many small producers in perfect competition. Corporations are the ones that want to impose state capitalism and bootlick conformity on this system. Good thing is that most scientists can't be so easily bought and are passionate about their work.

[rockdoc123]

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.

apparently you haven't read all that many scientific journal articles then, here is a small sampling:

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change." Science 306.5702 (2004): 1686-1686.

Doran, Peter T., and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90.3 (2009): 22-23.

Hewitson, B. C., and R. G. Crane. "Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa." International Journal of Climatology 26.10 (2006): 1315-1337.

Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs. "Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change." Science & Education 24.3 (2015): 299-318.

Van der Sluijs, Jeroen, et al. "Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity." Social studies of science 28.2 (1998): 291-323.

Smol, John P., and Marianne SV Douglas. "From controversy to consensus: making the case for recent climate change in the Arctic using lake sediments." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5.9 (2007): 466-474.

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?." Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (2007): 65-99.

Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. "The emerging climate consensus: Global warming policy in a post-environmental world." The January Group [available at www. thebreakthrough. org] (2009).

Kerr, Richard A. "Three degrees of consensus: climate researchers are finally homing in on just how bad greenhouse warming could get--and it seems increasingly unlikely that we will escape with a mild warming." Science 305.5686 (2004): 932-935.

Maurer, Edwin P. "Climate model based consensus on the hydrologic impacts of climate change to the Rio Lempa basin of Central America." (2009).

Walther, Gian-Reto, et al. "Consensus on climate change." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20.12 (2005): 648-649.

Grundmann, Reiner. "Ozone and climate scientific consensus and leadership." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.1 (2006): 73-101.

Bray, Dennis. "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited." Environmental science & policy 13.5 (2010): 340-350.

Rizzuto, Tracey E., Susan Mohammed, and Robert J. Vance. "Marching in-step: Facilitating technological transitions through climate consensus." Computers in Human Behavior 27.1 (2011): 185-194.

van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence." PloS one 10.2 (2015): e0118489.

Power, Scott B., et al. "Consensus on twenty-first-century rainfall projections in climate models more widespread than previously thought." Journal of Climate 25.11 (2012): 3792-3809

Maibach, Edward, Teresa Myers, and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human‐caused climate change is happening." Earth's Future 2.5 (2014): 295-298.

Githeko, A. K., and A. Woodward. "International consensus on the science of climate and health: the IPCC Third Assessment Report." Climate change and human health: risks and responses (2003): 43-60.

Lewandowsky, Stephan. "Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue." Psychological Science 22.4 (2011): 460-463.


van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?." Climatic Change 126.1-2 (2014): 255-262.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac, and Samuel Vaughan. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science." Nature Climate Change 3.4 (2013): 399-404.

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. "Scientific consensus and climate change: the codification of a global research agenda." Energy & Environment 4.4 (1993): 362-407.

Blockstein, D and Wiegman, L. “The Climate Solutions Consensus”. Island Press, (2009): 336 pages.

[KaiserJeep]

For all you believers in consensus, the rubber is about to meet the runway. In the past administration, R&D climate funding was available in relative abundance, and the only contenders for the money were seeking to prove AGW. Now government funding on climate is much reduced (or soon will be) with preference in awarding funding given to those seeking to disprove AGW. We are about to experience a convincing demonstration of "objective" scientific research. The sound of grant proposals being "flipped" from one position to the reverse will soon be deafening. Which is fine with me, I have always considered this topic to be politics and not science.

So (for those who have any left the day after St. Patrick's day) don't go crying in your beer. There is actually not going to be much change in policy or actual impact on people. The climate debate has always been one act in a three-ring circus, intended to divert your attention from corrupt government. The actual difference to most Americans will be nil. Only climate researchers will see a change, and it will be a significant but not dramatic change, they must publish a different piece of creative fiction to get government R&D funding.

Meanwhile the merry dance of drilling/pumping/piping/refining/retailing/burning of oil and gas will continue, as will the digging/transport/burning of coal. Obama simply said different words than will Trump, before each juiced the He!! out of the energy companies paying them through the system of lobbyists. The American way of life is safe and secure and will not noticeably change.

As for me, I will still be seeking out a homestead and a lifestyle as free from dependencies on FF's as I can make them. Politics does not trump reality, even when the POTUS is named Trump. But if there are fewer nuts screaming shrilly about AGW/CC, that will be a blessing, those whack jobs are SO ANNOYING.

[kiwichick]

@ kj..................mate you need professional help

[ROCKMAN]

KP - Yes indeed: the hypocrisy on both sides has been well established. I, for one. have no problem accepting the possibility of AGW existing to some degree. Was well studied by the Rockman working on his BS in Earth Science back in the early 70's. But belief or non-belief isn't very relevant in the real world since there has never been much EFFECTIVE EFFORT to alter the path the we are on even by the vocal and RELATIVELY influential powers that be espousing concerns over climate change. Pointed out a valid example just yesterday: the EU Commission, composed of the most environmentally concerned collection of countries on the planet, VOTED OVEWHELMINGLY AGAINST a resolution to ban Arctic oil exploration. Future oil consumption that would not only add to AGW but also pose a direct risk to that "pristine environment". And making the vote even more hypocritical: it wasn't a binding resolution. Even had it passed it would not have penalized any country, such as Norway or Denmark, for developing Arctic oil.

IOW even a grandstanding environmental concerned ploy with no teeth couldn't garner support from the most anti fossil fuel collection of greenies in the world. In that case does it really matter if any conclusive evidence supporting or denying climate change due to AGW be developed? If the answer is no then why would we provide much space here arguing about it?

[KaiserJeep]

Well said RM. You and I stand on opposite sides of the AGW/CC debate, but we are not that far apart, as we are both close to center. And we agree about the central fact: that the policy impact is practically nil, it's all about diverting attention from the politician behind the curtain, who is pocketing cash as fast as he can.

As for the rest of you, who still cling to your cherished delusions about "saving the planet", you need to grow up and acquire an adult perspective on the world. It does not matter what a politician says, only what he does. Politicians with both Liberal and Conservative credentials are busy lining their pockets, while a steady stream of brown stuff is flowing from their backsides, into the mouths of those who still think that if they could simply vote for the right person, after figuring out who that was, we would all be saved.

Give it up. The government is not going to take care of you, you have to do that yourself. The basic responsibility to find enough food and water and shelter and healthcare and energy is yours, for the rest of your life. THEY understand this better than you do, they have always been taking care of themselves first. There have been a few oddballs like Ross Perot and Bernie Sanders (bet you never read those names together before) but they are exceptions to the rule, and thus rightfully regarded as aberrant individuals. But people like Obama and Trump are mainstream.

So lose the unhealthy preoccupation with politics, AGW/CC, religion, or whatever else afflicts you. Get on with your life.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles. Lindzen is twisting facts and outright lying by insinuating that scientists operate by consensus. No they f*cking don't. It is actually a competitive field where scientists rush to submit publications not to be preempted by other scientists. Scientists push their own interpretations of the data and get into heated debates about this. Peer review is a type of battlefield where competitors have to come to a truce based on facts to have the paper published. This is pertinent to the paper contents and not some global consensus designed for political consumption.

Monolithic science my ass, you corporate whore. For those that do not know, Lindzen was funded by coal companies. Science is the closest thing you will find to an ideal market economy consisting of many small producers in perfect competition. Corporations are the ones that want to impose state capitalism and bootlick conformity on this system. Good thing is that most scientists can't be so easily bought and are passionate about their work.

Where did you hear that Lindzen was funded by coal companies?

[KaiserJeep]

It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

----Thomas Smith

[Ibon]

It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

----Thomas Smith

Remember Asimov's bathroom analogy which has been quoted on this site dozens of times but addresses this.

Isaac Asimov on dignity

Q: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?

It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door: “Aren’t you through yet?” and so on. In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
— Isaac Asimov, American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University, best known for his works of science fiction and for his popular science books (1920-1992),

There are entitlements on the political left and right which will be severely challenged by the upcoming physical constraints whether caused by climate change or peak oil, both of which most of us here agree are two symptoms of over population.

The entitlement of social justice for all is about as absurd as the idea of unlimited and unregulated individual freedoms in an over populated world. Both are quaint ideas that can be nurtured and enhanced in times of opulence, both become under siege when external physical constraints start to bite.

This is why the current political divide is really about both parties whining over an ideal of a past that wont cut it in the future when you see where we are heading.

All of this explains of course why climate change became a political issue.

The friction around the topic of climate change is really about the lack of space as apposing ideologies get moved by constraints toward the bottle neck.

In times of opulence you can have two ideologies standing side by side and cohabitating the same space. The political left and the political right can indulge in their respective ideologies and there is enough wealth and space for both to be emboldened.

We should pay attention why all the growing heated polarity in our culture and politics that seems to be growing.

I define this as ideologies under siege from forces external.

Forces that will continue to heat up the divide but that will also one day break it.

[dissident]

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.

apparently you haven't read all that many scientific journal articles then, here is a small sampling:

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change." Science 306.5702 (2004): 1686-1686.

Doran, Peter T., and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90.3 (2009): 22-23.

Hewitson, B. C., and R. G. Crane. "Consensus between GCM climate change projections with empirical downscaling: precipitation downscaling over South Africa." International Journal of Climatology 26.10 (2006): 1315-1337.

Legates, David R., Willie Soon, and William M. Briggs. "Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: A rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change." Science & Education 24.3 (2015): 299-318.

Van der Sluijs, Jeroen, et al. "Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity." Social studies of science 28.2 (1998): 291-323.

Smol, John P., and Marianne SV Douglas. "From controversy to consensus: making the case for recent climate change in the Arctic using lake sediments." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5.9 (2007): 466-474.

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?." Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren (2007): 65-99.

Nordhaus, Ted, and Michael Shellenberger. "The emerging climate consensus: Global warming policy in a post-environmental world." The January Group [available at www. thebreakthrough. org] (2009).

Kerr, Richard A. "Three degrees of consensus: climate researchers are finally homing in on just how bad greenhouse warming could get--and it seems increasingly unlikely that we will escape with a mild warming." Science 305.5686 (2004): 932-935.

Maurer, Edwin P. "Climate model based consensus on the hydrologic impacts of climate change to the Rio Lempa basin of Central America." (2009).

Walther, Gian-Reto, et al. "Consensus on climate change." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20.12 (2005): 648-649.

Grundmann, Reiner. "Ozone and climate scientific consensus and leadership." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.1 (2006): 73-101.

Bray, Dennis. "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited." Environmental science & policy 13.5 (2010): 340-350.

Rizzuto, Tracey E., Susan Mohammed, and Robert J. Vance. "Marching in-step: Facilitating technological transitions through climate consensus." Computers in Human Behavior 27.1 (2011): 185-194.

van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence." PloS one 10.2 (2015): e0118489.

Power, Scott B., et al. "Consensus on twenty-first-century rainfall projections in climate models more widespread than previously thought." Journal of Climate 25.11 (2012): 3792-3809

Maibach, Edward, Teresa Myers, and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human‐caused climate change is happening." Earth's Future 2.5 (2014): 295-298.

Githeko, A. K., and A. Woodward. "International consensus on the science of climate and health: the IPCC Third Assessment Report." Climate change and human health: risks and responses (2003): 43-60.

Lewandowsky, Stephan. "Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue." Psychological Science 22.4 (2011): 460-463.


van der Linden, Sander L., et al. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?." Climatic Change 126.1-2 (2014): 255-262.

Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac, and Samuel Vaughan. "The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science." Nature Climate Change 3.4 (2013): 399-404.

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. "Scientific consensus and climate change: the codification of a global research agenda." Energy & Environment 4.4 (1993): 362-407.

Blockstein, D and Wiegman, L. “The Climate Solutions Consensus”. Island Press, (2009): 336 pages.

Take a hike denier. These samples are all fluff pieces. There is not a single physical process paper in the above list. "How to communiate"? WTF is that? I have submitted papers on model process studies and not "how to communicate". I have presented at conferences my work and have listened to other researchers present their results. I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research. A title such as:

The scientific consensus on GCR impacts on the atmosphere dynamics

sounds utterly retarded. You are listing articles aimed at policy people. They are not even physics review articles.

[rockdoc123]

Take a hike denier. These samples are all fluff pieces. There is not a single physical process paper in the above list. "How to communiate"? WTF is that? I have submitted papers on model process studies and not "how to communicate". I have presented at conferences my work and have listened to other researchers present their results. I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research. A title such as:

Good God man.....can you read? Each of these published articles uses the term consensus in the context of climate change in the title of the paper, let alone in the body. I didn't have to dig very deep to find such articles. Hence your comment:

I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles

simply points out that apparently you haven't read much.

The scientific consensus on GCR impacts on the atmosphere dynamics sounds utterly retarded.

It does indeed but probably because you just made this statement up. There is no such title listed in the papers that I pointed to. Not sure what point you are trying to make here other than apparently you can't read.

I have never seen or heard the term "scientific consensus" used since it has no meaning in the context of research

and I have never actually seen a red panda, although I am pretty sure they exist. I just haven't been someplace where I would run into one.

And there are lot's of scientists involved in climate research who use the term "consensus" in the context of climate research all the time. Here are a few quotes as examples:

The latest IPCC report makes no bones about stating the consensus that human-driven climate change is occurring and it is important.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland

That’s why there is a 97-98% consensus amongst climate researchers that human-caused emissions are causing global warming.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam University

.the overwhelming consensus is that the globe is warming. The overwhelming consensus is that this is making changes to severe weather and rare events, be it heavy rainfall, droughts,

Dr. Greg Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research

We’ve had over 100 years of scientists trying to prove this theory wrong, and there is close to unanimous scientific agreement on this as you’re ever going to find, with at least 97% consensus among scientists who actually work on the subject.

Professor Mark Cochrane, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence.

The chances that we’ve got it wrong, that the scientific consensus is wrong about this, that there isn’t a major human influence on climate — the chances that that’s the case seems to keep reducing as we get more and more data.

Dr Peter Stott, Met Office, UK

[dissident]

You lost the argument, roc-tard. You have not provided a single citation dealing with the physics that backs up your claim. You cited a bunch of fluff aimed at policy people (many of whom do not even have any science background) and now you make public quotes. When some media drone asks about the certainty of climate science use of the term "consensus" is an accurate empirical observation of the published literature.

But that does not imply that those publications were produced by some grand "criminal" enterprise as you are insinuating. Those papers were produced by independent handfuls of researchers (laboratory papers have many more co-authors because lab work is labour intensive and every technician gets credit) who often do not agree with each other. That is the opposite of the claim spouted by paid corporate whore Lindzen.

[rockdoc123]

You lost the argument, roc-tard. You have not provided a single citation dealing with the physics that backs up your claim. You cited a bunch of fluff aimed at policy people (many of whom do not even have any science background) and now you make public quotes. When some media drone asks about the certainty of climate science use of the term "consensus" is an accurate empirical observation of the published literature.

this is what you said precisely

The term "scientific consensus" is one used in politics and internet fora. I have never seen this term circulated at conferences and in scientific journal articles.

to which I responded by posting a number of "scientific journal articles" that clearly use that term and now you pivot to somehow change what you originally said.

the quotes are from actual climate scientists, not from media persons. Those scientists believe there is a consensus and they seemingly have no problem speaking about it.

But that does not imply that those publications were produced by some grand "criminal" enterprise as you are insinuating.

exactly where did I "imply" that. I never did. What I am saying is your contention that the term consensus has never appeared in a scientific journal or has been used at a conference is complete and utter nonsense.

That is the opposite of the claim spouted by paid corporate whore Lindzen.

YOu haven't provided any evidence that Lindzen said anything of the kind. Your interpretation of the quote that KaiserJeep posted is complete nonsense. It is clear you need a course in remedial english.

[dohboi]

dftt

[onlooker]

https://dgrnewsservice.org/civilization ... ialnetwork
STUDY FINDS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL DUE TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY
A euphemism for you can't handle the truth

[dissident]

https://dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/ecocide/climate-change/climate-change-denialism-due-to-cognitive-dissonance-rather-than-scientific-illiteracy/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
STUDY FINDS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL DUE TO COGNITIVE DISSONANCE RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY
A euphemism for you can't handle the truth

Dubious. Few have the education background to evaluate radiative transfer, global circulation modeling, cloud and aerosol processes, etc. Climate science is one of the most broad spectrum in terms of processes that determine the results. Most are scientifically illiterate on condensed matter physics and that is a much narrower field in terms of theoretical machinery.

Cognitive dissonance is the direct result of ignorance. It is about swallowing some bubble reality and being unaware of the alternatives.

[Synapsid]

(smugly):

I have seen a red panda.

[Subjectivist]

https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c

What does an actual climate scientist say?