This is not true. The data has not been "debunked", certainly not "repeatedly".
Uh huh - "not" - er, at least "not repeatedly."
Data and hypotheses drawn from these have obviously been evolving as all scientific knowledge does, but it has not been "debunked".
Uh huh - "evolution." Sure.
So why are you so much smarter and more insightful than about 97% of the world's climate professionals?
97%? Wow - who'da thunk. Is that a lot?
They apparently "bought into" the "hoax". And I bet they have forgotten more about climate science than you have ever known.
"Forgotten.." sure... uh huh... I guess that which they forgot didn't make it through their evolutionary process.
Personally I believe it not because I'm a climate scientist (I'm not) but because I got a doctorate in earth science and when I read the actual science (not just blogs) the data and interpretations make sense in the areas of science that I do have a signficant background in.
"Doctorate?" Phd - congratulations. "
Doctor Thaumaturgy." Impressive.
...But, you just said... Oh wait, you don't
just believe. Gotcha. You actually
know.
But then I've put in a lot of work to get to this level of scientific understanding. It's not just a "night school kind of thing". I spent 11 years in undergraduate and graduate school followed by 5 years of postdoctoral study and the last 11 years as a research scientist.
Wow - post doctoral study too - and a research scientist to boot. Very impressive.
So when I read science I at least have an understanding of how science works and what the scientists are saying and how they are saying it.
Uh huh. That's good - very good...
C'mon admit it - you're a conservative, right? You vote conservative, right? You didn't vote for Obama - go ahead, it's ok, you can admit it... I'm right, aren't I?
"underlying premise"? Interesting. Because that underlying premise was initially developed in the mid-1800's and the idea of agw was first proffered in 1898 by the "father of physical chemistry".
1880's - wow, and by the founder of physical chemistry, very impressive - I did not know that about chemistry (just a dumb engineer myself).
And in the intervening 113 years the underlying premise has not really been shown to be lacking. The main events have actually been in firming up the real extent of the effect.
"Main events" - sure...
No, what this indicates is that you and your fellow "Skeptoids" have almost no real understanding of the underlying principle or the history of the development of the hypothesis over the past 113 years.
"Skeptoids" - thank you, doctor. Maybe we should pay more attention to the evolution of chemist's premise and all the main events it predicted...
Just curious: when you read Tyndall's work from the 1850's, what part of the ir-absorbing ability of the CO2 molecule do you find most "controversial"? When you run your FTIR and you see the CO2 absorption peak, what do you think about that? When you look at the countless paleoenvironmental studies that outline the relative "climate sensitivity" of many greenhouse gases, especially CO2, what, specifically, do you find to "Debunk" there?
Who me? Tyndall? Nah, I like Cussler better. Dirk Pitt's pretty cool...
Just curious. I mean, you talk largely and expansively about how wrong the science is, perhaps you can fill us in with your insights.
"Expansively?" Thank you. Good to know I'm not too narrow...
Ya know, when it comes to believing the work of Svante Arrhenius or Edwin Willers I'm probably going to go with the guy whose name is on several chemical concepts that underlie the foundations of physical chemistry before I go with the other name. Just an fyi.
Back to believing, are we?
The reason I like to mention this, Dr. WIllers, is that according to two independent studies using different methodologies, it appears that the vast majority (about 97% ) of people who study this sort of thing for a living and understand the data more than the sum of all of us on this board seem to feel it is a reasonable hypothesis.
"Dr. Willers?" Aw, go on now...
That actually does count for something. It isn't "religion" that drives that, it's data.
No, just... (as you said) belief, and evolution, and 2 "independent" studies suggesting a majority opinion...
Interesting claim. So what specificallyl do you find at fault with regards to, say, the stable isotope data on 13-C/12-C ratios of carbon in the atmosphere?
Oh golly professor, "stable isotope data," "ratios" - I'm sure you believe way more about than I ever will...
I assume of course you know what I'm talking about here, so I'd be interested in learning your insights and your rebuttals to that. (
NOAA explanation of the effect)
Ah, mmmm....
Can you explain why the 13-C/12-C ratio is dropping almost exactly as one would predict from dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel-derived CO2 into the atmosphere?
Dropping is it? Wow - is that good?
Also, which specific paleoenvironmental or even recent analysis of climate sensitivity due to CO2 do you find most controversial?
"Climate sensitivity."
Here's an illustration from
Knutti and Hegerl, 2008
Boy, you gotta love Knutti and Hegerl... what a great pair.
Of course, you no doubt, understand the implications of such a sensitivity in regards to humankind's impact, so I'd be interested in your "insights"
Oh, I'm a sensitive sort of guy myself, so I do empathize, I really do...
(Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to provide anything like "science" in defense of your points in any way whatsoever. If I expected that I wouldn't be on this board, I just like presenting data and hearing the crickets in response from the skeptoids.)
Belief, evolution, climate sensitivity, 2 independent studies, a majority opinion, ratios, Knutti and Hegerl... crickets...
...and "skeptoids"
I think I'll get a second opinion... doctor.