Is climate change an infalliable "science"?

When I was 12 years old, living in a Los Angeles suburb and already being indoctrinated in government schools, I was subjected to an environmental module that said that man's use of fossil fuels was increasing carbon in the atmosphere, which would cause a global ice age by the year 2000. It didn't happen, and in 2000, the result will be warming.

The American Meteorological Association has stated that the support of global warming is cause enough to doubt a member's credentials.

Science is the study of facts and whether they support hypotheses, not the suborning of facts to support one's politics.

Once again someone has muddied the water with ad hominums and wild accusations about unscientific science. What's left out is established heat and atmospheric physics. Let's look in: We know for a fact that there is such a thing as 'the greenhouse effect'. We know for a fact X amount of CO2 in our paper thin atmosphere is what keeps the planet from dipping below zero every time the sun goes down. We also know that heat moves from positive to negative. The heat in your six pack will melt the ice in your cooler. The heat leaves the beer for the colder ice. We also know for a fact that the more robust the green house effect is the more heat will be retained, or less heat will be allowed to escape into space after sunset. We also know that every year since the early 1800's, the beginning of the industrial age, when we began to burn more and more coal and later more and more oil the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. From 284 ppm in 1830 to 386 ppm today. Nobody disputes ANY of the above facts. The physics of the situation are clear. Above X amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more heat will be retained. All of that excess heat has to go from positive to negative....that is it goes to heat up land, water and ice...the collected data clearly shows this effect and the physics demand it. At 400ppm, a number we will reach in less than a decade the heat index MUST rise and at 450ppm the rise will be rapid and harmful to agriculture and the lives of billions of people. The CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels...29 billion tons a year as opposed to 'volcanoes' .3 billion tons. Also, the sun isn't getting any hotter, just more energy is being retained. If anyone can explain away the data and the physics they're really on to something...but they can't. 'Warming' and climate change is real...no 'Al Gore' needed.

<<and understand that most of AGW is based on well-established physics and observations, not climate models.>>

Bob, you seem to think that climate models and physics are mutually exclusive. In reality what happens is that to get a numerical answer from the "Laws of Physics"is that one has to make a "model"to do the actual numerical calculations

You, in general need to be careful about non-specifically referring to "The Laws of Physics"supporting your claims. For example, yesterday when you proclaimed that a rise of 75 degrees per century would not be allowed by the laws of physcs, you needed to cite whic specific laws and show some numerical calculations to support your personal assumptions. For example. if you thought there was a law that a body's temperature never changed, you could have said "There is the 4th Law of Thermodynamics, which says the temperature of an object never changes, and a 75 degree rise would violate it". Then we could see whether such a law actually existed, and if it existed whether its implications were the implications claimed by you.

EDIT

<<Sorry, I shouldn't have included that I could link my papers, which I can't, since they are in Word.>>

Umm so these papers you were bragging about were not actually ...published...anywhere? They are in your basement or something?

BTW it is interesting that you honor Milton Friedman with your screen name and then criticize climate science as not an exact science. Economics is not an exact science, and I am not aware of Friedman's predictions being particularly accurate. If they were, I would be interested in you educating me.

Miltion

your own statement says it all really

"I know it sounds like I was making that up, but I don't care."

Although for someone who has been dead 4 years your sentence structure is very good.

Joez:

"The American Meteorological Association has stated that the support of global warming is cause enough to doubt a member's credentials."

Sorry I don't know what the American Meteorological Association is, the organisation to which most U.S. Meteorologists are members is the American Meteorological Society and I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious why you provided no link to back your statement.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.ht...

You may want to look deeper into the meaning of this phrase you used "suborning of facts"

Science is not infallible -- virtually by definition.

Our understanding of any scientific principal is usually in a state of change. There are only varying degrees of uncertainty.

Consider gravity as an example.

In 1687 Newton provided us with an excellent theory and equation to relate gravitational force and mass. The equation was so good that in 1846 it helped lead to the discovery of a previously unknown planet, Neptune, based on perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.

But of course now we know that Newton's theory of gravitation does not work to explain everything about gravity, and among other things it cannot explain the perturbations in the orbit of the planet Mercury. For that we need Einstein's Theory of General Relativity published in 1915.

Does that little bit of history mean that Newton was an idiot or that his theory is useless? Of course not. But it does mean that Newton, like all scientists was fallible. Science is not a matter of mathematical "proofs." It is a matter of finding data and formulating theories that explain the data -- often in successive approximations.

The "details" in your question don't seem to be questions at all, and are little more than a collection of misconceptions and straw man arguments, so I am not going to bother responding to them.

You provided one artical from a few years ago and from Fred Singer who is retired. Try to find one single current published climate researcher who does not believe that man is causing the environrment to warm. You'll find some varied opinions about the rate and a very few who believe that nature is somehow contributing as much as man, but you will not find a single current climate researcher who does not believe in man-made climate change.

The Singer article is seriously out of date. He points to the sun as a possible natural cause of the warming. In 2007, that was indeed a hot topic, but in the three years since the continued high temperatures during both a La Nina pattern and a solar minimum have left few if any climate scientists still believing that man is not overwhelming the effects of the sun.

There is no silencing the good scientists. Spencer and Lindzen get more coverage of their work than does anyone else. The people who are shouted down are the ignorant ranters. Your post for example is a rant agaist the news, but shows a lack of appreciation of the depth of research that has made climate chance so obvious to real scientists. Your politics are not an excuse to ignore the real science. Educate yourself and you will understand the real problems are already happening and the much more serious problems that we may face in the future.

I would have liked to see your "mounds of evidence" because fronkly I do no believe it exists.

I checked your link. Your expert source is Fred Singer, of tobacco smoke fame.

Climate change isn’t a science, it’s a consequence of an episode. Climatology is a science, so too are many other disciplines that involve climate change; none of them are infallible in the generic sense of the word. There are aspects of climate change and climate science that are as close to infallible as anything ever can be but you can never achieve infallibility when taking a discipline as a whole.

Can you provide credible links to back up your claims of extinction level events, data manipulation, the blaming of every single natural disaster on global warming or legitimate evidence to the contrary. Please check that your sources are not oil company shills and facades.

I would very much appreciate seeing your research and reading the papers you have written. I have a database of most published works (from skeptics and believers alike) so may already be familiar with your work. I have access to everything from JAMC, IJM, IJC, JGR, AC and P, GPL, RSP, MNRAS, AJ, AMS Bulletin, Climate Dynamics, Climatic Change, Climate Research and many others.

If your work is unpublished I would still be interested in reading an abstract, conclusion or summary which you can copy and paste here.

- - - - - - - - - -

COMMENT: TO JEFF

You received several thumbs down because at the moment a certain denier is using multiple accounts to systematically give thumbs down to AGW proponents (regardless as to the content of the answer). As a scientifically minded person yourself, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty in determining the trends and from that it's pretty easy to conclude who is behind it.

Take it as a compliment, they're incapable of refuting your arguments so resort to abusing the system instead.

Yes, I would love to see your "papers" and "research". Frankly, at this point, you sound like another denier nutjob.

-------

Your link is just another rehash of denier talking points that have been debunked countless times.

---------

I'm sorry, I'm unwilling to spend time on a 2 yr old article by Singer. His supposed "refutation of AGW" is nothing more than unsourced, inaccurate drivel, all of which has literally been debunked time and time again. If YOU want to add anything substantial to this discussion, I suggest you stay away from people like Singer, and understand that most of AGW is based on well-established physics and observations, not climate models.

-----------

Paul

"Bob, you seem to think that climate models and physics are mutually exclusive. "

Ah, the strawman argument. A favorite tactic of the deniers. I never once said that climate models and physics are mutually exclusive. BUT, based on your proclamation of such models as "junk", I assume you know that they aren't simply based on fundamental equations; there's some wiggle room.

Your second paragraph to me isn't pertinent to this question, so I'll answer it on your "How fast is the Earth heating?" question.

Links to your papers would be helpful yes. Without them you are just making a biased opinionated statement.

I'm curious why I received a thumbs down just by asking a question. Regardless, after reading the article, it states exactly the same things we have been debating in here. Basically what the author is stating is an increase in temperature would increase clouds and provide a negative feedback. Something that has been postulated before by a few scientists. However the evidence does not point to that occurring.

Trevor: It's alright I'm use to the denial yahoo answers propoganda machine and their down voting.