chazzed said:
No, you don't. You like to bring up old studies or data that have been refuted. Then, when you are called out for it, you don't deal with it. You just move on to some other old study or data. You don't have an open mind and you care for consensus in the science community. Save the misleading information for your oil industry brethren.
First of all, most of us here use linear mode, not threaded, so you come across as someone who is pretty late to the party if you reply to an old post without quoting.
Second, there is no such a thing as "old data", accurate weather measurements such as tidal gauge records have been used for nearly two centuries with the same methodologies and degree of accuracy. It is only through the use of
reliable long-range data sets that we can gauge whether the current trends are out of the ordinary, as opposed to unreliable theoretical projections climate models, which are the main tool used by the alarmists to push the CAGW narrative.
Third, your third sentence here makes no sense, it is actually because I have I have an open mind that I've invested enough time to get to the bottom of this issue. I actually used to believe in CAGW.
Fourth, the consensus in the scientific community is exaggerated, it is nowhere near the reported 97%, which was the result of
a survey of papers done with an egregiously flawed methodology by John Cook, a cartoonist/activist with zero credentials as a statistician or scientist.
The other source of the 97% consensus was
a survey questionnaire which is as equally flawed as Cook's project above.
Furthermore, the scientific consensus has often been wrong. Science isn't about majority votes and the established dogma. New ideas have often faced resistance from the scientific establishment and public opinion, going back to the days of Galileo. More recently, scientists who made groundbreaking discoveries like the bacterial origin of ulcers, or the nature of plate tectonics were ruthlessly attacked and marginalized by their peers.
And more specifically on the scientific consensus about climate, there was
a global cooling scientific consensus in the 1970s, with the belief that human activity was causing the earth to cool, and that we were headed to an imminent ice age. That scientific consensus turned out to be bunk, as the significant global cooling that took place between 1950 and 1975 was followed by a period of warming in the 1980s/90s, after which the scientific consensus became one of global warming. That was then followed by a period of relative stability, so the fuzzier term of "Climate Change" replaced the buzzword of "Global Warming" sometimes in the 00s/early 10s.
Last, I've never worked in the oil industry. I actually have worked in the green housing industry. Furthermore, Wall Street and the banking industry are fully behind the global warming industry, they stand to make trillions from the carbon trade markets, with nearly every human activity and industry regulated and monetized, in a scheme that was created by the likes of Enron's Ken Lay. as well there are tens of billions in public and foundation funds available for research that goes along the prevailing global warming narrative,
while skeptics like Judith Curry get pushed out of academia and face career suicide by going against the dominant dogma.
