AGW Revealed As a Gigantic Scientific Deception

[questioner]

Q:
A point of correction: You and yours are the players and we (The Sceptics) are the umpires calling foul!

You are not competent enough to be an umpire of science. The community of scientific researchers are the umpires of science, not those ignorant of it.

[questioner]

From Richard Lindzen:
Abstract:

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf

This is one man's opinion of the progress of science. I personally find a lot of it argumentative and unsupported. The paper is poorly witten and doesn't discuss the merits of alternative explanations of the progress of science. It's thesis doesn't take reality into account.

Large grants are needed because progress in science demands it. Studying the earth is expensive. It requires extensive placement of equipment, satellites and computers. All the work that could be done by individuals with pencil and paper has already been done. Arrhenius tried to model climate change that way in 1896. He had to make a whole host of assumptions because he didn't have data. He didn't have accurate IR spectra to calculate the clear air radiation of GHG's. We still don't have a climatological model for clouds, because computers can't do the calculations from first principles because the time scales and distances are too small scale to be integrated into a global model.

Perhaps the outstanding example of how necessary big science is to progress is the Cern super collider. Without it the string theory of elementary particles could never be tested.

If you have big science which costs big bucks, power structures and politics are inevitable. This is necessary. Lindzen has a particular problem with it because he is an oddball. He may resent the lack of respect his ideas have in the climate science community, but he still does have a job and graduate students, despite the stupid articles he has written for the Wall Street Journal and the Canada Post.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Without the odd balls we would not be where we are today!
Science needs outside umpires to call foul when they step outside the3 bounds of reality like you do. The fact remains that you are disconnected from the real world!
Q:
you would have fit in well during the Holy Roman Empire if you could have been accepted into the brotherhood of the church and it appears as if you are attempting to find a position in the current incarnation of religious elitism.
99% of all scientific advancement was done on a shoe string budget. nothing new has been discovered but much money is being spent refining discoveries made by garage scientists.
You would have fit in better with the high priests of the Aztecs who sacrificed people to appease the gods because of changes in the weather.
People are waking up to the waste in the scientific field they are supporting and will stop the spending if scientists do not correct the problems first. The climate science field will probably provide the tipping point if some in medical research do not beat them to it as that field is running a close second currently so it is a toss up whether health care or climate care will provide the last straw to break the camels back. I personally talked to the camel and he says the burden is getting excessive.

[questioner]

Q:
Without the odd balls we would not be where we are today!
Science needs outside umpires to call foul when they step outside the3 bounds of reality like you do. The fact remains that you are disconnected from the real world!

Science never relied on outside umpires. The Vatican tried and failed on the solar system, and the Evangelicals will fail on the question of evolution.

Q:
you would have fit in well during the Holy Roman Empire if you could have been accepted into the brotherhood of the church and it appears as if you are attempting to find a position in the current incarnation of religious elitism.
99% of all scientific advancement was done on a shoe string budget. nothing new has been discovered but much money is being spent refining discoveries made by garage scientis/quote]
The current problems do not lend themselves to being worked out by garage scientists. This is true in Climatology and Particle physics. There is no substitute for high powered computing, satellites and super colliders. All the easy stuff has been done. Since you don't really understand the science well enough you are not qualified to make judgments about this.

You would have fit in better with the high priests of the Aztecs who sacrificed people to appease the gods because of changes in the weather.
People are waking up to the waste in the scientific field they are supporting and will stop the spending if scientists do not correct the problems first. The climate science field will probably provide the tipping point if some in medical research do not beat them to it as that field is running a close second currently so it is a toss up whether health care or climate care will provide the last straw to break the camels back. I personally talked to the camel and he says the burden is getting excessive.

You are ranting about things you don't understand.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Wrong on all counts!
You are definitely not familiar with the history of science and religion. In the past the church was the consensus and the fathers of modern science were the umpires and odd balls. You keep forgetting a basic issue: If it is a consensus then it is no longer science because science is about searching for answers not about finding support for personal agendas.
What you continue to describe as science is public relations work and political activist activity.
The main problem with the heading on this thread is the use of the word scientific because AGW left the scientific realm long before it was called AGW. It has always been about getting research grants by promoting fear.
Your claim that the earth is so complex it requires complex scientific research groups to understand which in turn require massive funding to support is BS.

[questioner]

Q:
Wrong on all counts!
You are definitely not familiar with the history of science and religion. In the past the church was the consensus and the fathers of modern science were the umpires and odd balls. You keep forgetting a basic issue: If it is a consensus then it is no longer science because science is about searching for answers not about finding support for personal agendas.

The church was not science. It did not foster experimentation and exploration of alternative hypothesis. It was anti science, just like evangelism's opposition to evolution is today.

There was nothing odd ball about Galileo, Newton, Leibnitz, Tyndall or the other pioneers of science, in that their ideas were accepted and admired. Almost all won honors promptly after publishing their ideas.
Check their biographies.
There is such a thing as established principles of science. If people have ideas that violate these principles they are the odd balls, and they will get no respect from scientists.

What you continue to describe as science is public relations work and political activist activity.
The main problem with the heading on this thread is the use of the word scientific because AGW left the scientific realm long before it was called AGW. It has always been about getting research grants by promoting fear.
Your claim that the earth is so complex it requires complex scientific research groups to understand which in turn require massive funding to support is BS.

You don't understand what you are talking about and are full of BS. The complexity of climate has been a huge ongoing problem that has not been solved because of complexity. There is no simple solution and there will never be one.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
You just provided a good description of the IPCC and those organizations that are promoting AGW and catastrophic climate change. They are not science groups no matter what they claim as their actions define them not their words. Altho their words provide evidence of their lack of scientific integrity.

[questioner]

Q:
You just provided a good description of the IPCC and those organizations that are promoting AGW and catastrophic climate change. They are not science groups no matter what they claim as their actions define them not their words. Altho their words provide evidence of their lack of scientific integrity.

Another statement out of ignorance. You don't understand the first thing about the physics of climate and think that you know enough to criticize the scientific documents written by scientists for the IPCC.
You are the one who is motivated by politics.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Good joke!