Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

The consensus is over that AGW is happening, not necessarily how much or the exact impacts.

   
• It's nothing to worry about

   
• It's alarming, and potentially catastrophic

   
• We can mitigate the impacts

   
• We can't do anything (other than:)

   
• We have to pauperize most of the world!

Accusing science of group think only serves to make yourself look uninformed.

What about the AGW (I mean, CAGW…) trope so entices you?

Sang: Let me 'splain somethin' to you, Lucy: If a scientific theory predicts, and those predictions fail to happen; that means that the theory is wrong.
Of course, if a "scientific" theory doesn't predict — it isn't a scientific theory…

And yet it doesn't approach consensus thinking. The consensus is over that AGW is happening, not necessarily how much or the exact impacts. Accusing science of group think only serves to make yourself look uninformed. Meanwhile, I'm still eagerly awaiting any actual data from you.

it's actual observed temperatures

Tell me which IPCC projections were within 0.1 degrees C of the actual global temperature and which were further away and "'splain' " why? Blah, blah, blah…

The reason I discount alarmist claims of catastrophic global warming predicated upon rising levels of atmospheric CO₂ is in part empirical and in part theoretical: To start with the latter, the models mostly focusing on CO₂ predicted much more warming, and at a faster rate, than we've actually seen; to me, this means that their focus is, at best, blurry.

One fundamental! flaw!in! the! use! of! this! number!is!the!assumption! that! small!
changes!in!surface!air!temperature must!represent the!accumulation!or!loss!of!heat!by!
the!planet because!of! the!presence of!greenhouse!gases!in! the!atmosphere and,!with!
some!reservations,! this!is!a reasonable!assumption!on!land.!! But at!sea,!and!so!over!
>70%!of!the!Earth’s!surface, change!in!the!temperature!of!the!air!a!few!metres!above!
the! surface may! reflect!nothing!more! than! changing vertical!motion!in! the! ocean in!
response!to!changing wind!stress!on!the!surface;!consequently, changes!in sea!surface!
temperature!(and!in!air!a!few!metres!above)!do!not!necessarily represent significant!
changes in!global!heat!content although!this!is!the!assumption!customarily!made.

In suchandsuch year, the average global temperature was X

And I also note Longhurst is a biological oceanographer not a climatologist.

Extraneous exclamation points are a product of the copy/paste.

Why do you keep repeating this?

Are Oreskes, Cook or Lewandowsky climatologists?

All this leaves us in the uncomfortable  position of having two competing
mechanisms before us,  and a choice to make: (i) the observed heat gains are
attributable to anthropogenic heat that has entered the oceans or (ii)changes in solar
radiation received at the sea surface have been sufficient to cause the  warming.
The! IPCC asks no such questions, and rejects outright anything other than an
anthropogenic effect.!

Because we have all these "skeptics" who aren't even in the field.

[…] it would be easier [to] be skeptical of a theory if you're not actually researching in it

Seriously, Sang, why do you support so vociferously the mostly political output of a decidedly political UN group?

Nobody tried to silence anyone else for having a different theory.

It's just one hasn't been presented that can withstand peer review.

When one claims climate change is because of increased solar activity and the opposite has been happening, it won't gain scientific traction for example.

The consensus is because no other viable theories seem to exist[…]

It's just that this issue has been politicized by fossil fuel money.

Then it turns out Exxon-Mobile may have been illegally surpassing data from its own researchers indicating the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming.

As the comedian John Oliver so aptly put it in commenting on a recent Gallup poll that found that one in four Americans disbelieve in climate change: “You don’t need people’s opinion on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking: ‘Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ Or ‘Do owls exist’ or ‘Are there hats?’”

To reject a cascade of scientific evidence that shows that the global temperature is warming and that humans are almost certainly perhaps might be, but we can't prove it, [nor] the cause of it, is not good reasoning, even if some long-shot hypothesis comes along in 50 years to show us why we were wrong. [And that's why we have to take drastic action, right now!]

In scientific reasoning, there is such a thing as warrant. Our beliefs must be justified. This means that we should believe what the evidence tells us, even while science insists that we must also try our best to show how any given theory might be wrong. Science will sometimes miss the mark, but its successful track record suggests that there is no superior competitor in discovering the facts about the empirical world. The fact that scientists sometimes make mistakes in their research or conclusions is no reason for us to prefer opinions over facts.

True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don’t need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.

In scientific reasoning, there is such a thing as warrant. Our beliefs must be justified. This means that we should believe what the evidence tells us […]
True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. [Not consensus opinion? ]

When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don’t need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.

In social science, it's common to use trained human raters to subjectively rate or score some variable — it can be children's behavior on a playground, interviews of all kinds, and often written material, like participants' accounts of a past emotional experience. And we have a number of analytical and statistical tools that go with such rating studies. But we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings. That's completely nuts. It's so egregious that I don't think it even occurs to us as something to look out for. It never happens. At least I've never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.

But it's happening in climate science. Sort of. These junk studies are being published in climate science journals, which are probably not well-equipped to evaluate what are ultimately social science studies (in method). And I assume the journals weren't aware that these studies used political activists as raters.
(source)

Yet when one claims "climate change" is because of increased anthropogenic COsub2[/i], a few inexperienced scientists (and a lot of leftist politicians!) pile on!

True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don’t need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism.

The politically driven push to manufacture a premature consensus on human caused climate change and create an argument based on bootstrapped plausibility has misdirected climate science for the past two decades.  The hockey stick attempted to wipeout secular variations prior to the 20th century, but even Mike’s Nature trick spliced the early 20th century warming as an integral part of the blade.  At most, only a small fraction of the early 20th century warming was caused by CO2 (this issue was recently addressed in a post by Vaughan Pratt).
(source)

As the link Belfrager shared points out […]

At most, only a small fraction of the early 20th century warming was caused by CO2 (this issue was recently addressed in a post by Vaughan Pratt).

At that time, there was an increase in solar activity, as opposed to a decrease which what's happening now. Nobody is silly enough to think the sun doesn't factor into climate trends.

New York Times op-eds usually point out — what?    Liberal talking points.
I read the piece: It was a political screed.

because Oakdale is a RIGHTist.