Maggie's Farm

Post-truth.


That is correct, which is why science took so long to develop.


No. Global warming didn't evolve into climate change. They are different terms, and mean different things.


The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively, and the basic equations were discovered more than a century ago. What is complicated is how the excess heat will be distributed through the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere.


That is incorrect. Values are gauged against empirical observation.


A more prevalent problem in science is inertia, but evidence always trumps in science. If you read the primary scientific literature, there just isn't significant contrary evidence. That's because climate science is founded in the basic physics of heat and energy.


That misrepresents how science works. In actual practice, scientists look at as much data as they can, then go out and collect more from every possible source.

Ocean

Space

Ice

Atmosphere

Because that's what scientists do.


Perhaps to Scott Adams, but not to experts in the field.


That is incorrect. Scientists use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions.


Yes. The technologies that are likely to avoid the worst consequences of climate change are those technologies that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. That's rather the point.

Will Bithers: you seriously don't expect anyone to read any of your links

Heh, heh. The links are to pictures.

• The first is of the deployment of an Argo scientific instrument, part of a network of such instruments which measure the temperature and salinity of the oceans.
• The second is of the launch of an Indo-French climate satellite.
• The third is of scientists collecting ice cores in Antarctica.
• The fourth is the launch of the launch of a radiosonde for measuring the vertical profile of the atmosphere.

Let's review why we posted those pictures.


But that's now how science works, certainly not climate science. Scientists collect data from as many sources, and in as many ways as they can, from the air, from space, from oceans, from the ice.

But that's now not how science works...

Will Bithers: where is the Comin' Ice Age?

You're probably referring to popular accounts from the 1970s or so. There was never a scientific consensus concerning global cooling. There are two countervailing anthropogenic influences; particulates which cool the climate, and greenhouse gases which warm the planet. It was clear to scientists early on that greenhouse gases would predominate over the long run. Meanwhile, industrialized countries in the West addressed the problem of particulate pollution, largely through environmental protection legislation.

Will Bithers: where are the 50,000 climate refugees?

There are probably several million climate refugees, primarily due to desertification. This has led to political instability, such as in Syria where, over the last twenty years, nearly a million people were forced off the land into cities, fomenting unrest.

Asked and answered.

Assistant Village Idiot: The word "experts" remains an incantation for you.

Not at all. Adams made a number of claims concerning climate science that were ill-founded. Our comments were directed towards those claims — which are the topic of the thread.

Assistant Village Idiot: It's as if you cannot fathom any other place to go and think that progress is steady and incremental.

Hardly. Scientific progress is more often characterized by fits-and-starts, blind alleys, and false trails.

Assistant Village Idiot: I work in a field where the experts have been overthrown twice in my career

How exciting. Which field is that? And what were the overthrown conjectures? Was it scientific research that overthrew the previous understandings, or willy-nilly everyone changed their minds?

Assistant Village Idiot: Try Nicholas Nassim Taleb, maybe.

Try Isaac Asimov, maybe.

Will Bithers: for the next four and probably eight years

The Trump team is talking about cutting off funding for climate research, apparently in the mistaken belief that if you close your eyes, it isn't there.

The rest of your comment doesn't seem related to the topic of the thread.

Will Bithers: its related as an example of how you evade challenges

Changing the subject to personal attacks is not a "challenge", but a fallacy of diversion.

Jack Walter: I'd swear he was the ghost writer for Adams's blog.

We would never be so craven as to say "I’m endorsing the scientific consensus for the same reason I endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first part of the election – as a strategy to protect myself."