496 Scientists oppose AGW!

[kiwistonewall]

Go to WUWT and check it out.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/


496 Notable Scientists (most PhD) have been "black listed" for opposing the IPCC and Kyoto. Actually, many are just Scientists who just let the data speak as it stands.

My point is: Is there a White list of more than this who openly support the IPCC and Kyoto? My count is about 5! lol

[trbixler]

Any chance the 5 suck at the governments fountain of funds? Just a guess on my part.

[trbixler]

"Spencer: The Inquisition"



wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/spencer-the-inquisition/

but then who is in charge

[stranger]

My cousin in the academic business, every family needs a black sheep, says there about fifteen total AGW believers. All grant grubbers.

Stranger

[scpg02]

Jun 22, 2010 20:45:51 GMT kiwistonewall said:

Go to WUWT and check it out.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/


496 Notable Scientists (most PhD) have been "black listed" for opposing the IPCC and Kyoto. Actually, many are just Scientists who just let the data speak as it stands.

My point is: Is there a White list of more than this who openly support the IPCC and Kyoto? My count is about 5! lol

Many of my friends are on that list. They are currently designing a pin or something that they can wear that will show the membership in the club. A few were upset they were not higher on the list.

[hunter]

Jun 26, 2010 8:21:18 GMT scpg02 said:

Jun 22, 2010 20:45:51 GMT kiwistonewall said:

Go to WUWT and check it out.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/


496 Notable Scientists (most PhD) have been "black listed" for opposing the IPCC and Kyoto. Actually, many are just Scientists who just let the data speak as it stands.

My point is: Is there a White list of more than this who openly support the IPCC and Kyoto? My count is about 5! lol

Many of my friends are on that list. They are currently designing a pin or something that they can wear that will show the membership in the club. A few were upset they were not higher on the list.

Yet true believers all over the blogosphere are denying there is even a list.
It is interesting and heartening to me that those stuck on the list are taking the "Red Badge of Courage" approach against the CAGW McCarthyites.
As Kirk Douglas' friends said, "I am Spartacus".

[socold]

These people put themselves on the 'list' by signing public policy declarations. Calling it a blacklist is just an all too predicatble way of trying to dismiss the fact that there is indeed a consensus and most climate researchers accept AGW rather than deny it. That consensus is something which those public policy petitions (like the oregon petition, leipzig declaration, etc) were trying to pretend doesn't exist.

[icefisher]

Jun 26, 2010 12:47:01 GMT socold said:

These people put themselves on the 'list' by signing public policy declarations. Calling it a blacklist is just an all too predicatble way of trying to dismiss the fact that there is indeed a consensus and most climate researchers accept AGW rather than deny it. That consensus is something which those public policy petitions (like the oregon petition, leipzig declaration, etc) were trying to pretend doesn't exist.

The problem Socold is the petition and declaration you mention above establishes prima facie that no consensus exists.

So they are not just "trying". . . . . they instead proved.

[nautonnier]

I missed it - somewhere - can someone tell me when it was decided that scientific hypotheses could be falsified/proven by voting?


I was under the impression that the scientific method followed Karl Popper type approach:

"Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. "

By definition this means that it only needs one person to demonstrate that the hypothesis is wrong - and it is wrong - regardless of the number and qualifications of scientists who thought it was correct and the number of papers that they write.

or as Einstein said restating Popper: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong"

It follows that anyone that appeals to a 'consensus' is NOT a scientist.


However, there is another problem as they are not scientists (or at least not approaching this area scientifically), there has been no attempt to agree a falsifiable AGW hypothesis. Therefore, in the proponents' minds whatever happens proves the existence of AGW.

I feel that the very fact that no falsifiable hypothesis has been developed is _itself_ a falsification of AGW.

[socold]

Jun 26, 2010 16:31:10 GMT icefisher said:

Jun 26, 2010 12:47:01 GMT socold said:

These people put themselves on the 'list' by signing public policy declarations. Calling it a blacklist is just an all too predicatble way of trying to dismiss the fact that there is indeed a consensus and most climate researchers accept AGW rather than deny it. That consensus is something which those public policy petitions (like the oregon petition, leipzig declaration, etc) were trying to pretend doesn't exist.

The problem Socold is the petition and declaration you mention above establishes prima facie that no consensus exists.

So they are not just "trying". . . . . they instead proved.

A consensus doesn't mean every scientist in the world supports an idea. Some people want to pretend only a minority of scientists that accept AGW. That's not the case.

[socold]

Jun 26, 2010 18:07:08 GMT nautonnier said:

I missed it - somewhere - can someone tell me when it was decided that scientific hypotheses could be falsified/proven by voting?

RealClimate explains why knowing the overall view of climate scientists does matter:

The answer lies squarely in the nature of the public ‘debate’ on climate. For decades, one of the main tools in the arsenal of those seeking to prevent actions to reduce emissions has been to declare the that the science is too uncertain to justify anything. To that end, folks like Fred Singer, Art Robinson, the Cato Institute and the ‘Friends’ of Science have periodically organised letters and petitions to indicate (or imply) that ‘very important scientists’ disagree with Kyoto, or the Earth Summit or Copenhagen or the IPCC etc. These are clearly attempts at ‘arguments from authority’, and like most such attempts, are fallacious and, indeed, misleading.

They are misleading because as anyone with any familiarity with the field knows, the basic consensus is almost universally accepted. That is, the planet is warming, that human activities are contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (chiefly, but not exclusively CO2), that these changes are playing a big role in the current warming, and thus, further increases in the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are very likely to cause further warming which could have serious impacts. You can go to any standard meeting or workshop, browse the abstracts, look at any assessment, ask any of the National Academies etc. and receive the same answer. There are certainly disputes about more detailed or specific issues (as there is in any scientific field), and lots of research continues to improve our quantitative understanding of the system, but the basic issues (as outlined above) are very widely (though not universally) accepted.

It is in response to these attempts to portray the scientific community as fractured and in disagreement, that many people have tried to find quantitative ways to assess the degree of consensus among scientists on the science and, as with this new paper, the degree of credibility and expertise among the signers of various letters advocating policies.

I feel that the very fact that no falsifiable hypothesis has been developed is _itself_ a falsification of AGW.

It is falsifiable.

[sigurdur]

How so socold?

[icefisher]

Jun 26, 2010 18:32:50 GMT socold said:

Jun 26, 2010 16:31:10 GMT icefisher said:

The problem Socold is the petition and declaration you mention above establishes prima facie that no consensus exists.

So they are not just "trying". . . . . they instead proved.

A consensus doesn't mean every scientist in the world supports an idea. Some people want to pretend only a minority of scientists that accept AGW. That's not the case.

Having more than a minority is not a consensus either.

[socold]

-Demonstration that the earth hasn't warmed since 1950.
-Demonstration that human activity isn't increasing greenhouse gas levels
-Demonstration that rising greenhouse gases cause less warming than human aerosol emissons cause cooling
-We reach doubled atmospheric co2 and temperatures are no higher

[sigurdur]

Jun 26, 2010 19:05:33 GMT socold said:

-Demonstration that the earth hasn't warmed since 1950.
-Demonstration that human activity isn't increasing greenhouse gas levels
-Demonstration that rising greenhouse gases cause less warming than human aerosol emissons cause cooling
-We reach doubled atmospheric co2 and temperatures are no higher

Your 1st point is a mute point as the warming is nothing remarkable for the late 20th century. In fact, it is a repeat of the warming of the early 20th century.

Human activity has increased GHG by a small percentage. The correlation with co2 and temp is not causeation.

Your 3rd point is debateable.

Once again....on your 4th point, correlation is not causeation.

At this point, using the 4 items as metrics of falsification, we have not achieved a falsifiable hypthosis.