There is no such thing as "climate science"

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Do you know what an alleged "climate scientist" is and does? I posted it above. Did you read it?

Yes, and you would too if you read the study that you referenced.

They are American Meteorological Society professional members who list "climate science" as their area of expertise. No where does it mention that their degree is in "climate science" or that they refer to themselves as "climate scientists".
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
Cool chart that gives a 52% consensus of 100% AGW just like I said. Go f-cking figure.

Where does the 97% come from?
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
that's twice in this thread now you've flailed about...please learn how to insert an image billy. thanks eh.


I never tried to insert it as an image. I linked to the document.

Not individually but perhaps collectively!

Nope, that is even worse. Science isn't about simple mob rule. It is about facts.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
Yes, and you would too if you read the study that you referenced.

They are American Meteorological Society professional members who list "climate science" as their area of expertise. No where does it mention that their degree is in "climate science" or that they refer to themselves as "climate scientists".
If they are meterologists, what do you think they do for a living? Lay carpet? Piss around with models all day dreaming up "scenarios"?
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Cool chart that gives a 52% consensus of 100% AGW just like I said. Go f-cking figure.

Where does the 97% come from?

52% consensus among people who mostly do not actually conduct peer reviewed research in this field. 78% among those who actually publish in the field, 88% if you include people who think that it is equally human and natural.

The 97% figure comes from line 130 of the document that you posted.

If they are meterologists, what do you think they do for a living? Lay carpet? Piss around with models all day dreaming up "scenarios"?

They study the climate. If you take a look at the membership requirements for that group, it doesn't seem like it is just "meteorologists" signed up as members, which is even more reason to stick to the opinions of people who are actually published research scientists, not just people who paid their 100 dues to join this club.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
I never tried to insert it as an image. I linked to the document.



Nope, that is even worse. Science isn't about simple mob rule. It is about facts.


I never said you tried billy.

you posted the same link twice without having the knowledge (or courtesy) to insert an image from a 30 page .pdf file. m'kay?

carry on now. :lol:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
According to the posted definition and outline of what an alleged climate scientist is they don't work in any scientific field or collect data at all.

You are still contradicting yourself. Like you'd said before of knowing what you don't know. This is one of those times to rest on those laurels.

Earth science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following fields of science are generally categorized within the Earth Sciences:

Geology describes the rocky parts of the Earth's crust (or lithosphere) and its historic development. Major subdisciplines are mineralogy and petrology, geochemistry, geomorphology, paleontology, stratigraphy, structural geology, engineering geology, and sedimentology.[3][4]
Physical geography covers aspects of geomorphology, soil study, hydrology, meteorology, climatology, and biogeography.[5]
Geophysics and geodesy investigate the shape of the Earth, its reaction to forces and its magnetic and gravity fields. Geophysicists explore the Earth's core and mantle as well as the tectonic and seismic activity of the lithosphere.[4][6][7] Geophysics is commonly used to supplement the work of geologists in developing a comprehensive understanding of crustal geology, particularly in mineral and petroleum exploration. See Geophysical survey.
Soil science covers the outermost layer of the Earth's crust that is subject to soil formation processes (or pedosphere).[8] Major subdisciplines include edaphology and pedology.[9]
Ecology covers the interactions between the biota, with their natural environment. This field of study differentiates the study of the Earth, from the study of other planets in our Solar System; the Earth being the only planet teeming with life.
Hydrology (includes oceanography and limnology) describe the marine and freshwater domains of the watery parts of the Earth (or hydrosphere). Major subdisciplines include hydrogeology and physical, chemical, and biological oceanography.[citation needed]
Glaciology covers the icy parts of the Earth (or cryosphere).
Atmospheric sciences cover the gaseous parts of the Earth (or atmosphere) between the surface and the exosphere (about 1000*km). Major discipline are meteorology, climatology, atmospheric chemistry, and atmospheric physics.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
If you show up at a medical conference and tell people that you don't believe that penicillin is an antibiotic, then don't expect to be taken seriously by the other doctors. If you show up in a course on relatvitiy and say that you don't buy that whole E=mc^2 business, don't expect to be taken seriously by other scientists.

And in case you think is just us big bad AGW proponents picking on teyh Galileo like skeptics, keep in mind that WUWT (the most popular skeptic website out there) says that the electric universe theory is hooey adn won't discuss it on his site. Roy Spencer--a heavy hitting skeptic scientists--states that he has absolutely no time at all for people who refute the greenhouse theory.

POPULAR SCEPTIC HEAVY HITTING SCEPTIC SCIENTISTS Refuters of the greenhouse lark are solid dependable thinkers not at all suited to the popular consensus scientism of this century. The electric universe is a solid gold fact.

I suppose you'll stand in line to pay your CO2 tax in hopes of regulating solar electrical output.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
97% of mythical "climate scientists" agree yet consensus is nowhere close to that in the real earth sciences which is where climatologists meteorologists hydrologists geologists etc are grouped. There are no climate scientists in the earth sciences world.

You can't make it exist by wishing it was real.

And you can't make people who actually exist and their work disappear just because it doesn't conform to your opinions.

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just an incomplete list.

And there's been a huge amount of peer reviewed paper published on climate science related to Global Warming.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

99.83% of which supports the theory that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and is here.

So based on the evidence gathered by studying the real world we have a very high confidence that the emission of billions of tons of CO2 has had a significant effect on the global climate system that will continue as we emit more CO2 and have other impacts.

On the other side there is also well documented evidence that big tobacco and the fossil fuel sector have been funding a disinformation campaign that tries to counter this evidence with ongoing media releases and political lobbying. Basically intellectual fraud when the vast amount of established data points clearly to a very strong link between increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and an increase in the global average temperature...Global Warming.

Is it complex, yup, is it uncertain in scientific terms, no way.

Which is why deniers here and in other places like the government of Canada have taken to attacking science directly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/m...ientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859

Hundreds of federal scientists said in a survey that they had been asked to exclude or alter technical information in government documents for non-scientific reasons, and thousands said they had been prevented from responding to the media or the public.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which commissioned the survey from Environics Research "to gauge the scale and impact of 'muzzling' and political interference among federal scientists," released the results Monday at a news conference. PIPSC represents 60,000 public servants across the country, including 20,000 scientists, in federal departments and agencies, including scientists involved in food and consumer product safety and environmental monitoring.

Ignoring information because it doesn't jibe with the status quo on something this crucial is criminal not to mention idiotic. Thanks to Harper and people like his fishing buddy Ford we're rapidly becoming seen as a nation of fools by the rest of the world.

The endless advocacy of a clearly fraudulent campaign as Global Warming denial here can only add to that.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
And you can't make people who actually exist and their work disappear just because it doesn't conform to your opinions.b


List of climate scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just an incomplete list.

And there's been a huge amount of peer reviewed paper published on climate science related to Global Warming.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

99.83% of which supports the theory that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and is here.

So based on the evidence gathered by studying the real world we have a very high confidence that the emission of billions of tons of CO2 has had a significant effect on the global climate system that will continue as we emit more CO2 and have other impacts.

On the other side there is also well documented evidence that big tobacco and the fossil fuel sector have been funding a disinformation campaign that tries to counter this evidence with ongoing media releases and political lobbying. Basically intellectual fraud when the vast amount of established data points clearly to a very strong link between increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and an increase in the global average temperature...Global Warming.

Is it complex, yup, is it uncertain in scientific terms, no way.

Which is why deniers here and in other places like the government of Canada have taken to attacking science directly.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog



Ignoring information because it doesn't jibe with the status quo on something this crucial is criminal not to mention idiotic. Thanks to Harper and people like his fishing buddy Ford we're rapidly becoming seen as a nation of fools by the rest of the world.

The endless advocacy of a clearly fraudulent campaign as Global Warming denial here can only add to that.
A colloquialism doesnt put a BSc on your wall. That is all the term "climate scientist" amounts to is a colloquialism and nothing more.

If it weren't a colloquialism agronomists wouldn't be labelled "climate scientists" for simply writing a paper on scenarios that might happen if AGW were fact.

Wow... More 'facts' from a blogger.

Yep, the debate is over

Deprogramming ain't easy.

Google
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Personally I believe there is too much money in the special interest group
category to just move on. Most of the climate change has been an on going
saga called the life cycle of the planet. Hot cold and in between. I don't
believe most of the nonsense and fear mongering anyway. Oh and I won't
be giving up my V8 truck and air conditioning anytime soon
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
With exponential increases of CO2, would you expect a year in the past or the present year to be the warmest in modern record?

Looks to me like no real severe sh*t since 2005, so maybe it's just our strong imagination! At first glance I was going to suggest stay the f**k out of Galveston.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
8O
So much arguing over semantics that don't really matter. Climate science is a field of study. So is life science. So is food science. So is forensic science. Deal with it. These are common fields and keywords in job search engines among academic listings, why is that? They are common search terms because they are fields of science, and employers are often looking for more specialization than just the top level of subject hierarchy... What does it matter anyway? It's irrelevant if you call me a life scientist or a clinical scientist. What matters is my work. Read the literature, aka: read the ƒucking manual.

:lol:
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Personally I believe there is too much money in the special interest group
category to just move on. Most of the climate change has been an on going
saga called the life cycle of the planet. Hot cold and in between. I don't
believe most of the nonsense and fear mongering anyway. Oh and I won't
be giving up my V8 truck and air conditioning anytime soon

We've enjoyed the good times, it's the coming generations who are going to be hit hardest with the effects of Global Warming. The cost is already huge when you look at the severe flooding we had in Canada last year, the droughts and heat waves that can become intense under the new conditions and the inevitable rise in sea level that is already underway and will continue as the planet continues to warm.

Anyone owning coastal property in Canada is getting ripped off hugely by the Harper government and the fossil fuel sector. There's very little doubt that there is a direct link between our activities around energy production and the changing climate system that can have such devastating effects. We've also seen recently what happens when the PM and his government go up against the legal system, this will likely increase as this issue moves into the courts as it inevitably will as the damages increase.

Being a Global Warming denier is a losing proposition and right now the Harper government is taking us all down that road on a national level even though a few conservative MPs have the guts to speak up.

Conservative MP Peter Braid says extreme weather and climate change linked - Kitchener-Waterloo - CBC News

In what is being considered a first by a member of the federal Conservatives, Kitchener-Waterloo MP Peter Braid stated publicly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics that recent extreme weather and climate change are connected.

“We are seeing the effects, the impacts of climate change,” Braid told host Evan Solomon on Monday. “With climate change comes extreme weather events. We saw that through the floods in southern Alberta, we’re now seeing that with the ice storms in Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto, with the extreme cold across the country.”

Solomon later asked Braid to confirm he was saying that extreme weather and climate change are related, to which Braid replied, “Absolutely, I’m confirming I said that.”

And the Harper government knows for a fact that its claims of working to decrease the emissions of CO2 by the nation are complete nonsense.

Canada's carbon emissions projected to soar by 2030 | Environment | theguardian.com

Canada's carbon emissions will soar 38% by 2030 mainly due to expanding tar sands projects, according to the government's own projections.

In a new report (pdf) to the United Nations, the Harper administration says it expects emissions of 815million tonnes of CO2 in 2030, up from 590Mt in 1990. Emissions from the fast-growing tar sands sector is projected to quadruple between 2005 and 2030, reaching 137Mt a year, more than Belgium and many other countries, the report shows.

Worse, Canada is likely under-reporting its emissions. An investigation in 2013 found that Canada's reported emissions from its natural gas sector, the world's third largest, could be missing as much as 212Mt in 2011 alone.

So get used to the kind of extreme weather that can take lives and cause economic devastation and when it gets much worse in the coming years be sure to remember who refused to do nothing about it in Canada. The name on the top of that list is Stephen Harper.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
8o
so much arguing over semantics that don't really matter. Climate science is a field of study. So is life science. So is food science. So is forensic science. Deal with it. These are common fields and keywords in job search engines among academic listings, why is that? They are common search terms because they are fields of science, and employers are often looking for more specialization than just the top level of subject hierarchy... What does it matter anyway? It's irrelevant if you call me a life scientist or a clinical scientist. What matters is my work. Read the literature, aka: Read the ƒucking manual.

:lol:

lmfao!!!

What is Climate Science

Essential Principles of Climate Science
* Life on Earth has been shaped by, depends on, and affects climate
* We increase our understanding of the climate system through observations and modeling
* The Sun is the primary source of energy for the climate system
* Earth's carbon cycle and climate system are the results of complex interactions
* Earth's climate varies over time and space
* Evidence indicates that human activities are impacting the climate system
* Human decisions involving economic crisis and social values influence Earth's climate systems

Q.What is climate science, and how does it differ from meteorology and climatology?
A. * Climate science is distinguished from the more general discipline of atmospheric science or meteorology by its emphasis on climate as opposed to weather. Climate science is the study of average conditions over some time period, whereas meteorology is the study of actual events. It has been said that "climate is what we expect, and weather is what we get". Climate science is distinguished from climatology by practitioners in the field by the fact that climate science relies heavily on numerical models for the study of climate processes, whereas climatologists primarily use statistical methods to study climate. Climate scientists also use statistical methods to study the output of their numerical models and to compare these results with observations. The distinction is in the wide use of numerical models by climate scientists. These numerical models (in contrast to, say, statistical models or conceptual models) are based on the fundamental laws of physics and have essentially the same basic equations as models used by fluid engineers to study fluid motions in combustion chambers, flow around airplane bodies, and flow in pipes and ducts.

Q.What types of phenomena do climate scientists study, and how do you go about studying those phenomena?
A. * Climate scientists study long-term trends in average meteorological conditions and changes in these averaged conditions from season to season, year to year, decade to decade. They do not generally engage in forecasting or prediction of actual events (e.g., tomorrow’s temperature or precipitation) but rather average conditions (e.g., daily maximum and minimum temperature to be expected on a July day of any year). They do engage in projecting future scenarios of climate, as opposed to forecasting actual future conditions. For example they might project a future climate scenario (say the decade of the 2040s) that had an average daily maximum temperature for September that was 3.5°F higher than the current average daily maximum for September. But they would not predict the sequence of daily maximum temperatures for that decade. The phenomena studied by climate scientists include average conditions of all meteorological variables, such as the change in average conditions of precipitation, temperature, humidity, pressure, wind, and cloudiness, or average occurrences of events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and storms. Both climatologists and climate scientists study climate change, but the climate scientist would use numerical models to further seek answers to questions such as what variables are changing, how much are they changing, why are they changing, and what are the consequences of these changes.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
So get used to the kind of extreme weather that can take lives and cause economic devastation and when it gets much worse in the coming years be sure to remember who refused to do nothing* about it in Canada. The name on the top of that list is Stephen Harper.

It really wasn't my intent to support the deniers here.

*anything
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
It really wasn't my intent to support the deniers here.

*anything

The more you hop up and down squawking like Henny Penny, the more you support those grounded in reality who are trying to bring the programmed like yourself back to earth and sanity.


You're welcome!