I would imagine the people whose careers depend getting grants and publishing results have a vested interest in getting more grants and keeping negative results from being published.

Why did a bunch of politicians get together and come up with standards and goals and label everyone who is not fully convinced their 'science' is creditable skeptics or deniers?

The ecosystem is very complex and has thermostats built in that are not being accounted for.

Right, all the scientists are lying and committing research fraud, and Trump and the GOP are telling you the truth. Got it.

The fact that you call it "their" science kinda gives the game away. I don't think the word "science" means what you think it means.

Climate science is indeed a very complex field and the scientists who do this research spend years studying the subject. Unless you are qualified in this area, brushing off what they do with a trite statement like "it's complicated, they don't get it" is simply the height of arrogance on your part. What makes you think you know better than they do what needs to be accounted for? How do you know what is actually accounted for? What are your professional qualifications?

thermostats itt

"Negative" results are as important to science as "Positive" results.

He might mean that there are processes like the water cycle that provide negative feedback and so tend to stabilize the climate. But since he doesn't specify, it's gonna be hard to check if his thermostats are accounted for or not.

I think the poster you quoted is suggesting that the "negative" results are swept under the rug for financial gain; he is measuring the integrity of others by his own yardstick.

Actually, negative results are vastly more important than positive results. Almost no one gets famous for confirming **** we already knew. Hard proof that climate change isn't real would be an insta-Nobel, no one is going to sit on that in exchange for some grant funding.

That certainly happens - and a lot of it occurs within Industry sponsored research - as opposed to independently funded studies.

Ben Goldacres Bad Science is a great resource for that kind of practice - which seems to occur quite regularly, though not exclusively, within Big Pharma.

He did a TED on it also in 2011 Battling bad science

I think it is not constructive of you for the one post you do reply to to be a gish-galloping wordbomb from a longtime climate denier ITF who also did not stick around to defend that post ITT.

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1093697638455824384
Hey whaddya know, we're all over this ****.

Guess they didn't get the memo about the thermostats.

Yet when at least 3 posters in this thread tried to argue that melting sea ice indeed contributes to sea level rise, and I corrected them, I was ridiculed for it and had all sorts of motives attributed to my quoting facts. That's how this community works, which is why very few non-lemmings venture into these politics threads anymore. You have to toe the line to get normal civility.

I've had my fill of fun here for a while.

But you post a lot in the rigged thread....ugg.

Science is always evolving, how can it ever be settled? Here are some scientists that say they were suppressed.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...9-EE9098538277

Looking back through the thread, the poster who initially mentioned melting icebergs contributing to sea level rise has subsequently outed himself as a climate change "sceptic", and even then, I'm pretty sure he says in his own post that this is not the case. You seem to have created this straw man out of thin air.

You weren't ridiculed, you were criticised for cherry-picking and presenting scientific findings in a misleading and disingenuous manner in service to a political ideology. Can you quote at least one post where you were ridiculed?

Classical mechanics evolved into general relativity and quantum mechanics in the 19th century, but it was sufficiently settled at the time to bring us the industrial revolution.

Just because science evolves and becomes more accurate over time doesn't mean it can't be sufficiently settled for certain purposes and make sufficiently accurate predictions at a given point in time.

By the way, this evolution you talk of is a feature, not a bug.

This sounds reminiscent of the cranks who peddle perpetual engines or "alternative medicines", and cry "suppression" and "conspiracy" when they aren't taken seriously.

physical sciences are different than biological sciences - so where does 'anthropomorphic climate change' fit?

He can’t. He’s conflating that statement with his inability to show a citation for his new claims yesterday when he posted all day but had to get to work so couldn’t provide the information for us.

Misspoke, meant 20th century. /nitpick

It probably straddles both - the study of the climate itself belongs in the realm of physics and chemistry, the study of the effects of climate change on living organisms belongs in the realm of biology.

However, I disagree with your assertion that these disciplines are different in the context of our discussion. How are they different in this regard? As a reminder, your position is that the science is not settled and therefore we can't draw any conclusions, and my position is that is is sufficiently settled for us to draw the conclusions which the climate change "believers" have drawn ITT.

I stand corrected, it is anthropogenic

there are no human characteristics with climate change.

Not a bad idea to take a break from posting here. It can be a difficult adjustment from regular forum posting. The rules create a lot more work for anyone posting non-obvious claims and that can get frustrating. I take your over-sensitivity and lashing out at the entire forum again to be a sign of that frustration.

The rules are there for a reason and so yes everyone is asked to toe that line or accept the consequences.

You’ve done nothing ITT but parrot out lies, bad-faith arguments, and conspiracy theories. It’s frankly unfair that the rest of us are expected to follow civility rules in the face of dishonest AIDS posting and I think the mods should consider whether unsupported climate truthing should be modded any differently than 9-11 truthing and why.

Your response to the substantive point of my post is conspicuous by its absence.