Re: Is stupidity taught?
Reply #36 –
The only thing that's unsettled is how much humans are impacting the climate and exactly what those impacts are.
The only thing?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: We know he's guilty! Of course, he may not be guilty of this particular crime; indeed, it may only be Original Sin… But you should convict him!"
Now another word on Oreskes. You understand that her work was a survey, not scientific study, right? And the difference between the two? I have to ask this because I see conservative blogs that don't seem to understand this.
Please stop reading conservative (or liberal) blogs, to get your take on recent science, Sang! That's just plain silly…
(How, btw, does Oreskes "frame" her findings?! Feel free to offer quotes from her work.)
That being said scientific papers able to refute AGW are all but non-existent.
Since the modeled climate has failed to materialize, and the models are pretty much all that supports catastrophic AGW, you'd think that refutation enough… (If you were concerned with the science.) But not in the fields you claim expertise! (There's your "bait-and-switch, btw: Are the human-caused effects on the climate small, medium or large? Local, regional or global? Are the causes well-understood? The AGW crowd has answers for all these questions, ad hoc… But not convincing ones, unless you're a True Believer!)
In what way is this a bait and switch? Humans greatly increase the amount of gas known to cause climate change in sufficient quantities, and the climate changes. It's that cut and dry.
When you say "known" you actually mean hypothesized… The reason I say this is because these gasses have not abated; they have increased considerably, by human agency. Yet the climate has not warmed apace, and other predicted effects have not shown themselves. You have the IPCC and many scientists committed to the GCMs, which have obviously failed… And anyone who wants to find out why is labeled a "denier"!
(You and I both know that this "denier" is a synonym for "heretic" — and such a term stems from an obvious history. Would you embrace it? Somehow, I think not…)
But you talk about refuting papers!? Observation has refuted the position you like: Man's impact on "the climate" via the exploitation of fossil fuels must be curtailed! Because SCIENCE! And when the actual science fails to support your position you revert to quasi-religious or overtly political propaganda.
Now the challenge is to reduce those emissions […]
That's exactly what the IPCC's charter used, to focus its "understanding" of climate change! A Mission Statement…
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say? - obvious drawbacks?
It doesn't even occur to you how silly conflating science and politics is.
…:) It escapes you, that pointing out when others do so is a service — to those interested in the science?
———————————————————————————————————————
Yeah! I'm pretty sure I know the difference between a survey and a scientific study of the climate. Which makes me wonder why you were so impressed by the surveys!?
@Sparta: The evidence of "common descent" is pretty convincing… And the geological and cosmological underpinning of the arguments for an Earth that is in the neighborhood of 4 billion years old are, likewise, pretty convincing.
But I can't see why anyone who isn't a specialist would need to agree!