Tarski wrote:Coggins7 wrote:Its just a fact. Do you deny it?
Its also utterly irrelevant, as the sources for my views on AGW are distinguished experts in the climate science field who do not happen to share either the endless streams of government grant money that flows unendingly to researches who's research provides politicians and government bureaucracies with the kind of science they are looking for, I.e., science with policy ramifications, or the background ideological motivations of many in the AGW movement.
I find your continued attempt to shut down critical debate by claiming access to arcane, gnostic knowledge beyond the ken of a non-scientist--while first rate climate scientists, skeptical of AGW hysteria, write books, monographs, and magazine articles for the general reader articulating and explaining in clear terms the basic nature of the science and what the data may or may not mean, to be, for all intents and purposes, another in a long series of your white flags.
Look, the point is so much simpler.
I imagine you are in a room with 42 topologists. Two of them claim that a certain proof about the cohomology of some orbifold is incorrect. The other 40 say it is a correct proof and hold that opinion even after hearing the arguments of the two.
Now we both agree that the opinions don't prove anything.
But if a nonexpert agrees with the 2 and not the 40 then some explanation for that choice is needed.
Now if the 2 used to be 3 or used to be one seems of little consequence. On what basis would you side with the two? That it is a growing minority???
The only thing I can think is that you would have some other possibly, personal, political or religious reason. What could it be? That you think the cohomological arguments of the two are better than the 40?
Please answer: On what basis could a non-mathematician have for siding with the two?
It's just mysterious.
On what rational basis does a nonexpert go with minority opinion in a scientific field? You are attracted to the minority scientist's handsome smile? He is in your church or bowling league?
For you it is clear that the science is not the issue. You have bought into a conspiracy theory that involves the grand war between the left and right and a falsely perceived plot to foist socialism on an unsuspecting world (poppycock by the way). What else could it...
blah, blah, blah, rama, lama, ding dong.
The facts as they stand:
Nothing in empirical climate science, present temperature measurements, or in other related sciences confirms or supports the mathematical models. Temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, where the models predict AGW to be most pronounced and measurable, is of the opposite sign predicted by the models (it is not, and has not been, warming).
The Antarctic as a whole has been cooling in recent decades, not warming, the poler bears are fine, the planet begin cooling after 1940, warmed again after the seventies, and warming then ceased ten years ago. Hurricane intensity and frequency have been trending downward since the thirties. We are recovering from the Little Ice Age, and may continue doing so for a while yet.
Capitalism, freedom, property rights, and economic growth are good. Socialism is bad.
Man cannot destroy the planet, even if he set out to do so. Environmental degradation is not our primary problem as a species. Moral, ethical, and cultural degradation are our primary problems, and will, if left to run their course, destroy human civilization (less the planet) if something is not done. Yes Tarski, the sixties are real, they are here, and we have only a limited time left to do something before the "tipping point" is reached.
The real inconvenient truth is that the actual truth is so inconvenient.