New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[CajunRed]

My thought is...once all so-called scientists and believing politicians get themselves into electric cars...solar houses...and stop flying...then I'll do the same.

[Ragin4U]

It seems like there are one of two issues here. Either you are ignorant of what science is and how it works or you intentionally post things that confirm your personal or professional bias. When you say "science is perfect" , "pure", "irrefutable science" it leads me to believe one of those two possibilities.
You seem to want "proof" and as I have posted before, there is no proof in science. The universe, being an open system, makes it impossible to say something is 100%. Heck even our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton first described it. Something so fundamental and universal, and it took a crazy haired patent clerk to understand its nature and then even he wasn't satisfied with his understanding. Science is ALWAYS changing as new discoveries are made, technology improves or a Newton, Einstein or Greene comes along.
You have talked about the disparate nature of climate science. Again, I'll repeat, the Earth is complex and interconnected. It is impossible to use one discipline to study climate. There are a multitude of processes that interact. If anything, it seems like the amalgamation of all of these branches of science coming together would be MORE convincing.
Science is about probability. And yes 97% of scientists have some level of agreement that a portion of the current warming of the climate is man-made. And they too understand that there is a certain percent error, as in all science, that they are incorrect. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a certain percentage chance that you will develop diseases related to the inhalation of carcinogens. It doesnt mean you will absolutely develop one of these diseases but you have to play the odds. If I go to 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me I need to take this red pill or I will die, I'll take the red pill. You?
You have doubted the ethics of scientists before and I take offense to that. Are there unethical scientists? Of course, just as there are unethical doctors, policemen and engineers.
It sounds like you are making a blanket statement about the morals and professionalism of people that I know well and I can assure you that you are incorrect. You have stated something about money. I know hundreds of scientists and know dozens well. None of them have gotten rich. Either in the private sector or toiling at universities and other public institutions.
I am constantly amazed at people who pick and choose what they will believe when it comes to science. Some wont vaccinate their kids because some Hollywood idiot and one UNETHICAL scientist says it causes autism. But those same people will pop a pill to deal with anxiety. They will scream about GMOs and want to close borders over Ebola but not listen to experts in the field. Some believe that Planet Nine will kill us all in a month but not buy into decades of data showing the accelerating warming of the Earth.
The idea that scientists are all in on some hoax is ludicrous. Scientists love to poke holes and debunk others' hypothesis. When you get scientists to agree, you have a real anomaly!
You pointed out that scientific models were wrong in the PWS and the Gulf. I could argue that they were more right, as a percentage than wrong. And models are a valid way to attempt a prediction for complex, long term systems. Do you doubt Rob Perillio when he uses hurricane models to predict land falling hurricanes?

[Zeebart21]

It seems like there are one of two issues here. Either you are ignorant of what science is and how it works or you intentionally post things that confirm your personal or professional bias. When you say "science is perfect" , "pure", "irrefutable science" it leads me to believe one of those two possibilities.
You seem to want "proof" and as I have posted before, there is no proof in science. The universe, being an open system, makes it impossible to say something is 100%. Heck even our understanding of gravity has changed since Newton first described it. Something so fundamental and universal, and it took a crazy haired patent clerk to understand its nature and then even he wasn't satisfied with his understanding. Science is ALWAYS changing as new discoveries are made, technology improves or a Newton, Einstein or Greene comes along.
You have talked about the disparate nature of climate science. Again, I'll repeat, the Earth is complex and interconnected. It is impossible to use one discipline to study climate. There are a multitude of processes that interact. If anything, it seems like the amalgamation of all of these branches of science coming together would be MORE convincing.
Science is about probability. And yes 97% of scientists have some level of agreement that a portion of the current warming of the climate is man-made. And they too understand that there is a certain percent error, as in all science, that they are incorrect. If you smoke cigarettes, you have a certain percentage chance that you will develop diseases related to the inhalation of carcinogens. It doesnt mean you will absolutely develop one of these diseases but you have to play the odds. If I go to 100 doctors and 97 of them tell me I need to take this red pill or I will die, I'll take the red pill. You?
You have doubted the ethics of scientists before and I take offense to that. Are there unethical scientists? Of course, just as there are unethical doctors, policemen and engineers.
It sounds like you are making a blanket statement about the morals and professionalism of people that I know well and I can assure you that you are incorrect. You have stated something about money. I know hundreds of scientists and know dozens well. None of them have gotten rich. Either in the private sector or toiling at universities and other public institutions.
I am constantly amazed at people who pick and choose what they will believe when it comes to science. Some wont vaccinate their kids because some Hollywood idiot and one UNETHICAL scientist says it causes autism. But those same people will pop a pill to deal with anxiety. They will scream about GMOs and want to close borders over Ebola but not listen to experts in the field. Some believe that Planet Nine will kill us all in a month but not buy into decades of data showing the accelerating warming of the Earth.
The idea that scientists are all in on some hoax is ludicrous. Scientists love to poke holes and debunk others' hypothesis. When you get scientists to agree, you have a real anomaly!
You pointed out that scientific models were wrong in the PWS and the Gulf. I could argue that they were more right, as a percentage than wrong. And models are a valid way to attempt a prediction for complex, long term systems. Do you doubt Rob Perillio when he uses hurricane models to predict land falling hurricanes?

Yeah....NOPE. I seem to remember the East Anglia University emails..... Ever heard of them?

[Just1More]

4U, you are bordering on making this very personal... and I have not. So, here goes my lecture that can still maintain not getting personal. First, I am not ignorant of science. Science is perfect. The study of the sciences is not. Get that straight, and you'll understand my position. And the ethics I refer to is in rendering opinion before it's time. And that is a human flaw. It does not condemn science or scientists. And the financial and fame connection to climate science and scientists has nothing to do with how wealthy each participant is. I'm not talking about their taking of personal wealth. I'm talking about the competition within their professions. They are getting research dollars and publishing by being on the right side of this argument. Again, it's a human thing. And many are seeing careers blossom where there was little opportunity. Many of the publishing scientists are constantly meandering outside of their fields of science.

I'm glad you involved cigarette smoking and its carcinogenic effect. You see, science is perfect in defining tobacco as a carcinogen. It is irrefutable. The odds of whether an individual's exposure will cause cancer is not the science of determination of it being a carcinogen. The science of human defense systems and the science of genetic predisposition is also a pure science. Just because the complications in that science do not make studying it perfect, does not mean the science itself is not perfect. Just because we cannot isolate every single fact does not destroy the inherent perfection of science itself.

Gravity is perfect. It defines itself. Studying gravity is not perfect. Studying it will only reveal the absolute truths about gravity. But gravity itself is perfect. If man in studying gravity came to a premature decision that gravity was going away because of man's removal of iron from one area of the planet and moving it to another... in the middle of the industrial revolution... it would not bother a botanist or a hortaculturist that no more iron ore was to be mined. It would have global economic impact. It is not the scientist being premature. It is the human with "ist" describing his vocation.

And yes... in climate science... there has been far too much speculatory assumptions draped around the science of climate. You earlier stated that climate science was not disparate. And now you say "disparate is good". No, when you are studying the stars, clearing the room of the other 50 "ists" is a good thing... and leaving the astrophysicists to converge on the science involved... is a very good thing. I don't care how many "ists" it takes to study climate science. I understand the need for just about every field of science. What I am condemning is the stupidity of the public and the public mouthpieces that condemn those that question climate science assumptions of cause and effect... consequences... and remediation potential. They do not say "I do not know yet". They give answers. It has gotten extremely unpopular to say "we just do not know yet". And that ____es me off. I will praise these humans for the gifts they possess... but I will also slam them for the human traits they pretend do not exist in the human scientist. And the stupidity of drawing premature conclusions... as a disparate body of scientists... with very little pure climate science evidence... is very very pathetic.

PS I never said it was a hoax. They are human... and I completely understand the path that they are being led down. They need to Please and study way way more before giving any definitive conclusions.

[Turbine]

It's getting hot in here, and I thinks it be caused by Humans.

[Just1More]

4U, my criticism of the ecosystem damage modeling miscalculations with the BP oil spill have nothing to do with the value of models. Stop and listen for a second. It is the premature and definitive conclusion aspect I have a problem with. What substantial data and modeling does man have that understands Earth climate science? If it were so well understood, do you think tree rings would have been the greatest scientific tool utilized in the 21st century to analyze Earth's historic climate... and provide the kinds of politically derived conclusions made? I love science. I love what some people get to do in science vocations. I despise unscientific conclusions. Planetary climate science is so massively complex... the data is infinitesimally small... yet our conclusions are bold and definitive. Scientists should not allow that to be.

[Ragin4U]

I've been no more personal than you have been when you attack the ethics of hundreds or thousands of scientists.
I understand that you are saying that "science" is perfect and I guess that is where you are losing me. Everything has an actual value. The temperature in this room has an actual value but the measured value will always have a discrepancy. The closest science can get to the true value is just "almost", never perfect.
Scientists dont get published and they dont get research dollars without a strong foundation for their work. Publication, in a peer-reviewed journal, not on Dr. Oz or some other charlatan's tv show, means that other scientists get opportunity to replicate the study or experiment. The biggest problem facing the scientific community isnt ethics or research, its communication and education. The general public, for the most part, misunderstands the verbiage of science. They equate a theory with a hypothesis, guess or general idea that Jim came up with in the shower. If I am discussing science with a general audience and someone says "oh that's just a theory" I know not to discuss scientific concepts with that person because they do not have a basic understanding of science and how it works.
You have repeatedly stated that you dont want scientists to state conclusions until some nebulous time that they have enough proof and I say you are absolutely wrong. Other scientists and the public would never get to replicate, study and generally poke holes in work unless it is communicated. Conclusion is an important part of gaining knowledge and communicating that knowledge. A conclusion doesnt mean "this is it and there is no other possibility". It means this is the most probable outcome based on the data that is available. A high school science background makes this clear. Science is probability. You stated that science is perfect when it refers to cigarette smoke as a carcinogen but to get technical, only some of the 4000 or so chemicals contained in cigarette smoke are carcinogenic. And to further the analogy to include all of science there is still some possibility, however slim and maybe statistically irrelevant, that benzene,arsenic, etc are NOT carcinogens. Thats what scientists try to convey, that the probability is that the current climate effects that are being observed are PROBABLY due to human activities. Now there is variation as to what those probabilities are depending on the scientists or group.
You state that scientists dont want to say "we dont know yet" and nothing could be farther from the truth. Scientists understand that when they say "this happens because of this" they mean "to the best of our knowledge, using the data at hand, this is what we know". This is why science has a communication problem.
You are correct when you state that just because science hasnt nailed down every last possibility when it comes to cigarette smoke yet it is still labeled a carcinogen. Likewise, just because science hasnt nailed down every last possibility when it comes to climate change, doesnt mean that the probability isnt there. I'm ok with my doctor saying "Joe, because of your family history of heart disease, you should only eat cracklins every other day". He's not saying I will die of heart disease, just that there is an increased probability. I will follow that advice because the consequences of not following an expert's advice could be catastrophic.
You seem to accept the idea that science has concluded cigarette smoke is a carcinogen but when the same scientific processes deem climate change anthropocentric, you balk. I dont understand that. It seems that you would want an autopsy of the patient before you would accept the diagnosis. If the idea of human driven climate change is correct, we are looking at one of the last stages where we may be able to do something about it. To wait after the autopsy for "proof" will be too late.
Speaking of scientific models, the models are only as good as the data fed into them. Two of the best ways to get data on climate and atmospheric concentrations of oxygen ,CO2, etc is from tree ring data and ice cores. I'm not sure why this is a problem.

[Turbine]

The general public, for the most part, misunderstands the verbiage of science. They equate a theory with a hypothesis, guess or general idea that Jim came up with in the shower. If I am discussing science with a general audience and someone says "oh that's just a theory" I know not to discuss scientific concepts with that person because they do not have a basic understanding of science and how it works.

How do you feel about, or what is your opinion on, something Einstein stated as fact?

"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."

[Just1More]

4U, it isn't "personal" when I discuss the misbehavior of those involved in climate science. I never said anything about their communication regarding the science. They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders. Either they should state that "for the purposes of politics involved in climate science, we have nothing to provide"... or actually go on the offense for the poor use of their information and attack these groups for making horrendously premature decisions.

You are balling up my analogy on cigarettes as carcinogens for no good purpose. The point isn't to dissuade a scientist/medical researcher from giving even imperfect conclusions that save lives... with only a consequence to the tobacco industry. The point with respect to climate science is that science has defended the claim that the huge penalty if we do not act on the relatively thin information... it's ok... it is astronomically bigger than the penalty if we are wrong (about man and his manipulation of the greenhouse effect). THAT is incorrect! There's a HUGE penalty politically that could throw mankind into a catastrophic tilt. This gets brushed off and it should not.

So without question, I want this to move to the forefront of what science discusses with the ignorant public. There's a giant difference between what scientists communicate amongst themselves... how they challenge each other... and how this gets presented to the public. My statement of them Please is in casually giving conclusions to the public. All the general public is doing now is saying "I believe in it because scientists all agree". Agree on what? They only agree man is contributing to greenhouse gases. They aren't capable of concluding the things politics is using this information for. And they cannot stay out of that result. They need to be far more in tune with the massive impact energy decisions have globally... or specifically state "what we are studying cannot be used to make deterministic decisions". What people keep calling "climate scientists" are scientists in 99% fields of science without direct planetary climate at its core. There is massive misrepresentation of the science involved and its ability to be conclusive in several substantial ways.

To me, your medical viewpoint is equivalent to thinking you know something about a brain tumor and cutting half of the head off to remove the tumor and save the patient. The world agrees that the fossil fuel side of the head being cut off is inconsequential to the future of the person. I represent the patient that has a highly functioning brain and only request that the doctor study the tumor and the need for amputation a little closer before putting me under and telling my wife to sign the amputation paperwork. The premature decisions in the political circles due to irresponsible statements (IMO) by the "climate science gang" is unacceptable. And targeting people that say so is also unacceptable.

Let me ask you this, Joe... one publication stated that our greenhouse gas contribution (given we will continue to contribute for many more decades regardless of how fast we curb CO2 emissions) is already past catastrophic. This claim was by several noted scientists. What would you say if they said "it doesn't matter what we do - so let's just keep doing it and see if we're right."? I think you'd have a similar attitude to me. You'd say, "Please and keep studying. You can't get this wrong." Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't like either sides of this adventure. But only one side is being treated like a major potential catastrophe.

[CajunRed]

...on the other hand, I'll keep it short.

OIL.