So, the more you talk the more you know?
So, the more you talk the more you know?
Do you know what a citation is?
How about, 'the more you write, the more you know?'
That seems to describe your view
Not at all what I posted.
Try this: http://researchguides.uic.edu/c.php?g=252299&p=1683205
“ClimateGate” (2009) proves you can’t trust scientists to tell the truth when it comes to the climate-change debate. But I was skeptical of climate science way before ClimateGate occurred.
Scandal and corruption driven by denial.
I must have still been asleep. However, “the more people quote you, the more you know” isn’t any more valid.
Yes, climategate did much to reveal the corrupt inner-workings of the the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. Thanks to the leaker/hacker, as well as the work of journalists and citizen scientists such as Stephen McIntyre, we know that IPCC insiders were guilty of the following: journal tampering, suppressing publication of articles critical of their work, violating FOIA laws and conspiring to do the same, hiding the decline, intentionally misrepresenting data and methods, stonewalling and otherwise inhibiting the auditing of their work, failure to disclose adverse results, colluding with friendly journal editors to violate the IPCC’s own review process rules, giving false testimony regarding their own work, and other conduct unbecoming scientists.
The way I look at it, the star witness of the global warming movement, the IPCC, has been utterly discredited, along with anyone else who aided and abetted its misdeeds. Prestigious journals such as Nature, scientific societies such as the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society, government agencies such as NASA and NOAA, universities such as Penn State, corporate media and science journalists,… also have no reputation left.
Given all this, how can we trust anything the climate science establishment says?
When they revert to the scientific norm of publishing solid research with reproducible results,
when their methods and data are not obscured.
A citation is not typically a quote but a reference to someone’s work, typically acknowledging the importance of their idea in the development of the new knowledge being presented.
Al thought there are times that the reference is negative, pointing out what the author perceives to be and error in the reference, for the most part citations indicate that the people working in the discipline acknowledge the signifiance of your work.
The more your work is cited, the more it is recognized as contributing to knowledge.
Such a low standard of proof.
What fraction of the primary literature in the field have you read?
ROFL, if you want to make your point then man up and state your argument.
FYI, if you were a regular reader on the subject you would know that most of the published research is largely irrelevant to the core question. It’s about the impacts of climate change and takes a catastrophic warming scenario (usually RCP 8.5) as a given and then explores the various impacts to areas of the environment where the researcher does have expertise. Such “what if” research has a role but has no bearing on the validity of the assumed warming scenario taken as a given assumption.
I am asking for you to apply the “norm” not leaping to your conclusions, but revealing the data that you use (and the data ignored) and the methods you use to draw conclusions about the corruption of climate scientists who are establishment in the field.
There are so many charges of corruption, dishonesty, and lack of integrity on threads like these. How solid is the factual basis for such bread charges? Why are so many skeptical of science but willing to fall right in line, uncritically, with mud thrown against them.
PS “man up”?
Seems to me it’s reasonable to at least question the asserted causes and likely effects.
Lots of things cause CO2 and lots of things cause climate change. Two things that have troubled me for years about this debate are:
Nobody actually experiences it. This debate has been going on for years, and yet things that should have happened with climate change have not happened. In addition to my “day job” I raise cattle. I try to stay on the “cutting edge” of that pursuit, and climate changes would cause a person, and the University extensions as well, to change practices; something they’re very quick to do if science bears out the need for them. And yet, very climate-sensitive practices have not required change, and none of the real experts recommend any change in climate-determined approaches. There are lots of examples, but on dramatic one is the influx of Australian and New Zealander ranches into this part of the country. The nature of the way they do it restricts them to a very narrow climatic zone. And yet, in the fifteen or so years they have been here, they won’t go an inch north or south of the climate zone they find ideal.
In all the hullabaloo, nobody considers the effects of other “manmade” activities; some of which are startling. More specifically, manmade desertification wrought by bad agricultural methods has desertified about 1/3 of the total world grasslands. That might not do much at the north pole, but it has catastrophic “climate changes” over wide areas, including even rainfall. It has seemed to me that before we start requiring elderly people in the Dakotas to freeze in the dark for lack of cheap energy, and double the cost of food by restricting fuel use, we ought to ensure that at least our own (U.S.) manmade causes of climate changes be alleviated. But, of course, just as with use of fossil fuels, what we do in the U.S. is not going to have an appreciable effect on worldwide conditions. Making utility rates here “skyrocket”, as Obama promised, will have no effect on China.
As to the propositions of the “climate change” community of writers and prognosticators, they’re all over the place. To me, it’s a political debate, and not much more than that.
I think that you need to do a more extensive search of the reports on this subject. May not be noticable or remarked on where you live, but it is where I live. You would have to integrate over such observations to understand global climate change
nobody considers the effects of other “manmade” activities; some of which are startling
Of course such effects are considered.
How dare you. Don’cha know cow flatulance contributes to global warming?
my issue with the 97% claim is that it is 97% of those who wrote papers but when the politicians use the number it becomes 97% of scientist.
and the sheeple follow!
With all due respect, I have been reading the arguments and counter-arguments for years. With some reports and studies even I can readily see flaws. With some, I do not have the technical expertise to affirm or deny what the writers claim. What I do know is that there is a lot of dissent within the debate as to all kinds of assertions. If one truly “integrates” all of the literature with which ordinary people are presented, one must necessarily be skeptical of all claims.
When it seems all “remedies”, of which I, at least, have heard, will cause suffering to human beings, I feel obliged to opt against them.
It is reasonable to be a AGW skeptic if you have a valid argument. I won’t even argue that we did not have a warming period from 1886 to 1999. It’s a whole another matter when those who propose climate change try to argue away the 15 year cooling off period and any current data saying its the warmest on record or saying that CO2 alone causes warming rather than in addition to other greenhouse gases, both man-made and caused by nature. You just need to go back 120,000 years ago where climate was 2-3 degrees centigrade warmer (i.e. due to global oceanic levels) where CO2 was much lower than today so you don’t even have to go back that far. The climate during the medieval warm period and Roman warm period was warmer than that during the Little Ice Age and we have ice core data to suggest it was warmer than 1886. I don’t know how we can suggest that the current climate is warmer than the medieval or Roman periods when all we have is ice core data from Greenland, Antarctica, and mountain ranges. It’s just not a sufficient sample of the temperate and tropical regions.
My problem is with the A part of AGW. GW happens. GC happens. The climate always changes. I have a hard time believing that humans have a material change on the climate. We have some change. We have to in order to live our lives. And alternatives sometimes do more harm than good - they’re worse than traditional fossil fuels. For instance, we had gasoline than we had MBTE and than had to scrap that for ethanol because MBTE was a dangerous pollutant. So sometimes you may have less carbon dioxide or CFCs but have more toxicity.