Is the ocean broken?

I smell bull too.

 

I love this article. I haven't finished reading it. I just arrived back in Puerto Rico again, but so far, it's how I imagine a lot of these things go.

There's a phenomenon that was first described in the Korean airline industry, now known as Cockpit Culture. It is the reluctance to speak out against authority by those who are more afraid of offending than getting it right. This cockpit culture has even been blamed for deadly crashes when all other systems were found to be sound. A copilot will sit and watch his superior fly their plane into the ground, rather than point out a failing in his superiors.

I believe this can also happen in any industry and those reliant upon technical knowledge, like the sciences, are the worst. Very few "experts" appreciate having their expert opinions questioned.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Suspecting something is not the same as rigorously demonstrating something.

Half the country suspects something.

Many patriotic-sounding organizations have tried to debunk AGW.

Heartland Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Enterprise Institute
Americans for Prosperity
The Heritage Foundation

Good luck.

 

U.S. Cities Are Vastly Undercounting Emissions, Researchers Find

• When cities estimate the amount of greenhouse gases they emit, they tend to undercount, on average, by over 18 percent
• The resulting annual missed emissions would be nearly one-quarter higher than those of the entire state of California.
  
• The errors seemed to be simple miscalculations, ranging from 90% too low to 40% too high
  
• Earlier studies found that emissions of methane were also undercounted by many cities

The study was published in the journal Nature Communications

 

The problem with debunking AGW is those who believe AGW claim their sources, their propaganda and only their approved publications can be used to debunk them. It's a lopsided ridiculous argument, but AGW fans are obstinate. So are we. Can there be a consensus? Only by squelching one side. That's what is attempted. The science is settled, no debate permitted. It is obvious we won't ever be able to peacefully coexist, when our voices are effectively silenced.. Our side is against censorship. We should apply the tactics of the left TO the left, to even the playing field. It is contrary to our principles, but we are fighting an unpricipled foe. Harsher measures are called for. Do as they do, back to them..

 

Yeah.

 

The story that I posted showed that what you need to be able to do is show that the math is incorrect, or that the data has not been properly evaluated, etc. It is insufficient to simply moan from the comfort of your rocking chair.

What a laugh. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh-types, QAnon, etc all can spew their unsubstantiated views with little restriction.

President Bush was well known in scientific circles for cutting back on science funding, and climate-related funding in particular. And Trump was much worse. He blatantly put political lackeys in scientific research organizations for the express purpose of throttling publication of science conclusions that differed from his desired outcome.

Science and scientists expect challenges to their research. That is part of the rationale for the peer review process. Those most familiar with the studies in question are given the opportunity to try and pick the research apart before it is officially published. And the debate often continues even after publication. That's how science works.

Even AGW websites designed for public consumption allow for vigorous debate. For instance, on the pro-AGW website Skeptical Science, I took a look at the first topic they have in their MOST USED COMMON MYTHS column, called What does past climate change tell us about global warming? At the end of the article they have well over 800 comments, asking questions, and making criticisms. Most of their articles are open for comment and criticism.

Even this thread is a repudiation of your unfounded assertion. You are free to post here just like anyone else. The fact that you usually don't suggests you really don't have anything authoritative, scientific or substantive to post. When you do post it's mostly just your own whining.

So no, the AGW-denier crowd has not been, and is not being, censored.

So much for your claims of being a Christian. Turning the other cheek... Let God do the sorting of the wheat from the tares...

 

After a while you run out of cheeks.

Acts 12, verses
21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.

22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.

23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

 

Tradition has it that St Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he didn't feel worthy to die in the same manner as his Lord. You need to grow some cajones.

 

I see you edited your original statement.

Exactly, and to that should be added:

Romans 12:19

Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord."​

God is big enough to take care of Himself. He doesn't need or want your help.

It's rather scary to have pseudo-Christians, like Yob and yourself, openly advocating violence against those they disagree with. We've had an awful lot of that in the US over the last few years. It's at times like these that I'm embarrassed to identify myself as a US citizen. Hopefully cooler heads will eventually prevail.

 

that's a myth about Peter and The Romans wouldn't have agreed to it. Crucifiction worked by suffocation. Upside down doesn't require the victim to pull on the nails to lift himself to breathe. Makes crucifiction useless.

You preach ourside has to play by the standard rules while your side keeps changing rules to suit yourselves. REMINDER OF VERY OLD RULE. WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND!. CYCLES BACK TO YOU IS THE LATEST PHRASE

 

The rules are you have to show your data, and you have to show your work. It's the same rules for everybody, always. That's the way science works.

That why Nick Brown, mentioned earlier, was able to challenge the current view. He took a look at the published math, it was wrong, and he demonstrated what was wrong.

That's what you and your fellow AGW-deniers need to do. No rule changes needed or desired. No violence needed or desired.

 

This sounds perfectly reasonable, even self-evident. But then there's, "You can trust me, my data is good, but if you don't believe science, get a three billion dollar network of measurement instruments and do your own data collection. As scientists, we encourage you to do that."

I don't have access to even one satellite data point. Logic is the only tool I have at my disposal and in a World where we are being fed a data diet chosen by others, our banquet of information eaten with the silverware of reason has to sit on a plate of faith.

ImaginaryNumber, I love you, really I do. You demonstrate your reliance upon your faith with every article you post. Nothing at all wrong with that. You have my admiration for your efforts, time and passion. Just be aware that even you need faith, because you don't know anymore than any of the rest of us ordinary pseudo-scientists.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Actually, you do have access to the temperature data sets. They were acquired through public funding, and they are in the public domain. And that is the strength of the scientific system. Anyone can double check the data and the processing process, and see if they come up with differing conclusions. That is what Nick Brown did. Here are a few of the many data sets publicly available.

The UK's Hadley data sets

NOAA's data sets

AGW skeptic Roy Spencer's data sets, which he gets from NOAA.

Thanks for the LUV. Maybe I will have the good fortune to meet you in person some day. Would love to see your homestead.

I absolutely agree with you that I am taking what scientists say on faith. And in fact, all scientists take on faith everything that other scientists say. My personal observation is not that scientists don't make mistakes; they certainly do. Rather I have observed that the scientific process is the best method we human's have devised for making sense of the physical world, and for mitigating the inherent biases that we all bring to our observations and understandings. I believe that the fantastic wealth that we in the developed nations enjoy is due in large measure to our leaving behind religious dogma of how the physical world doesn't works, and instead replacing it with empirically-based science, engineering, and technology.

That being said, we humans may not have the wisdom to prudently harness our unprecedented knowledge and skills. We may burn ourselves up with CO2, or blow ourselves up with Uranium, or poison ourselves with chemicals, or otherwise do ourselves in by many other methods.

 

or destroy freedom with tyranny