Hmm? Age in itself is not a boon. On the contrary you get more set in your ways, and do not accept new research. Research papers should be evaluated on their own merit, not how old the guy writing it was, or how much experience he had. 

Also, I would love for you to get me some sources on that hurricane stuff. Afaik, it's worse than before, but you could very well be right. (the consequences could be more dire though) We have the whole media culture of fear brainwashing us at the moment, but  just as I won't just take your word for it, I do not think the media etc. is right at face value either. 

I do not know anything about economics. I do not know anything about law. I cannot use knowledge of those fields to assess how much you know about them based on your post. I do know about science and the culture of science and academia.

-"Scientists aren't scientists, they're people with degrees in varying fields". I'm not going to say anything about this.

-"Most of them being referenced are professors." Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

From Wiki-"Professors are qualified experts who generally perform the following:

• manage the teaching, research and publications in their departments (in countries where a professor is head of a department),
• conduct lectures and seminars in their specialties (i.e., they "profess"), such as the fields of mathematics, science, humanities, social sciences, education, literature, music or the applied fields of engineering, design, medicine, law, or business;
• perform advanced research in their fields."

"A professor is a highly accomplished and recognized academic, and the title is in most cases awarded only after decades of scholarly work to senior academics. In the United States and Canada the title of professor is granted to most scholars with doctorate degrees or equivalent qualifications (typically Ph.D.s) who teach in two- and four-year colleges and universities, and is used in the titles assistant professor and associate professor, which are not considered professor-level positions ^[2] in many other countries, as well as for full professors."

So, deferring to a professor in an area of his or her expertise seems to be preferable to deferring to a guy who claims to be more knowledgeable than the professors are for reasons that are nebulous to me.

 Doug Osheroff (one of my former professors)-worked at Bell Labs and won a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Steve Chu (another former professor)-Bell Labs and won a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Michael Peskin (another former professor)-SLAC (he didn't work at Bell, so he is a dolt).

Peter Michelson (grandson of Michelson of the Morley-Michelson experiment and another former professor who is know the Chair of the Dept of Physics at Stanford)-Ames Research Center (another imbecile).

And so on. These guys are not scientists; they are just professors and should not be viewed as knowledgeable according to you.

-"Norman Borlaug was a scientist, he was studying specific problems and researching ways around them.  If you'd asked him about something outside his work without having him read up on the data used to make the presentation, Joe Blow would have been just as likely to be right."

True.

-"Some guy teaching chem 101 that reads an article without ever looking at the data they used to achieve their assumptions is not a scientist."

True. But who is talking about some guy who teaches intro chem? I'm certainly not. I don't know where this is coming from.

-The same can be said for the rest of your paragraph until this:"Actual educated climatologists are all but non-existent.  The people working on this "problem" aren't climatologists either, they're physicists, geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, paleo-climatologists."

Physics is at the foundation of understanding the climate. The foundation. The fact that you don't or can't understand this shows exactly what you do not know (in addition to your not understanding what a professorship, especially in the natural sciences, actually entails. If you think any professor at any major university just got the title out of the cracker jack box instead of earning it via research, you know nothing of academia).

Fluid mechanics both air, winds and sea (Navier–Stokes equations, Boyles law)-check

Radiation and conduction of heat (the heat equation, inverse square law)-check

Phases of fluids (water leading to cloud formation, latent heat of phase change)-check

et cetera.

I do not think it is too much of a stretch to see how chemists, astronomers, meteorologists, etc can meaningfully contribute the understanding the climate as well.

You do not know anything about academia. You do not know what it takes to become a professor. You do not know anything about physics (at least not enough to know how the discipline would be applicable to understanding the climate).

You do say this: "As such, I can indeed claim to be far more knowledgeable in this area than the vast majority of the peer reviewers and survey respondents that just happen to have degrees in vaguely related fields." and yet you cannot see the relevance of the aforementioned disciplines. I see this statement as evidence of either hyperbole or delusion. Based on your lack of knowledge of this subject, to me it calls into question what you do or do not know about the other subjects you proselytize about on this thread and forum.

Oh...for your enjoyment, here is a list of organizations that have members that you are also far more knowledgeable than as well.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Yes, you've posted your magic consensus repeatedly.

I've had a few years of physics.  I understand the basic principles of everything involved from my high school AP and university classes.

That doesn't mean I can look at a paper saying how adjustments were made, why adjustments were made, and know they actually were accurate.  It's a claim.  A claim is substantiated by checking the facts, not by having an education.  I actually do have a formal education in exactly what you're referencing.  I do not have a degree.

The people with doctorates in the appropriate fields are the ones that actually understand what all those wrong models are comprised of.  They're still wrong whether you know or not, but it takes a guy with substantial education to recognize all the various factors being applied.  I don't have the foggiest idea what some of the factors are.  I've educated myself to a great deal on this subject, but I will gladly bow to the doctorate on the minutia of the water cycle.  The model is, however, wrong, whether I know why it's wrong or not, when it fails to actually model future trends.  They can go back and fiddle with the inputs to make it fit the past all they want, but until they get one that predicts, it doesn't matter.

The problem with AGW isn't something you need an education to see.  It doesn't even help.  If you don't actually check the source data, mark the adjustments made, and see for yourself whether they actually were as claimed or not, you have no idea whether the temperature record is accurate or not.  I did.  Peer reviewers don't, the data doesn't even come with it.  The GHCN records are actually a rarity in that the people doing the reviews were physically capable of checking the source data, because they're posted government records.  Such things typically aren't even available.

Temperatures would have to actually be increasing abnormally for there to be something scientific to argue.  Any high school dropout could debunk this theory because they haven't.  We have about 40 years of solid records, showing a 30 year upward trend, followed by a decline.  They were already teaching the climate cycle responsible for that when I was in grade school.

The longer term records have been shown to be questionable, if not outright fraudulent.  From cherry picking tree rings to show a warming trend that wasn't there, to making unfounded adjustments in excess of a degree to "correct" for time of observation biases that had fractions of the impact stated, where they existed to begin with.  The skeptics are just people that looked and came back with a WTF.

Edit:  What the Fuck?

Geoman, you just shot yourself down while claiming we're in something unusual.  Do you actually look at the shit you post?

Our unusual solar minimum is right there, graphed for all to see, and completely fucking normal.  We're not down .1%, we're down .01%.  You're switching the change in intensity over the cycle, with the change in the intensity of the cycle itself.

You then toss in an article claiming that a grand solar minimum, which we ain't in, would only knock .3 centigrade off the temperatures.  We already dropped twice that from where we're supposed to be.  Is it not registering that we're half a degree cooler right now than the last IPCC predictions were?

Then you counter piss poor volcanic activity with you think there was a volcano in Argentina.

It's another little nothing, not even as big as the one in Iceland.  The kind of cooling we've seen, which started before either of these volcanoes, would take dozens of major volcanic eruptions spanning the last decade.  Which would have radically increased CO2 levels.

Largely unmonitored.  As in we know fuck all about that which we speak of.  We've been looking at something for ten years and assume it wasn't completely reversed in the 90's and accounted for the warming trend itself.

They shoot themselves down further, el'nino is in abeyance.  If the ocean can drop surface temperatures this much by a change in currents, it stands to reason that maybe it was the unusually strong el'nino cycles that were causing much of the warming.  It's one or the other, either the ocean can't explain the rise in surface temperatures, or it can.  Pick one.

Dunning Kruger until you're blue in the face, it wont change cherry picked tree rings into something else, and it wont make a survey of the entire USHCN into a case of cherry picking stations.  It isn't the skeptics that have had to cherry pick things to get them to fit the theory.

Psyhcoak, a big volcanic eruption like Pinatubo had a much larger cooling effect than we're observing know.

We're talking about fractions of a degree here... that doesn't take 1 major volcanic eruption, a few smaller ones can contribute to that as well.

It's not about the solar maximum being deeper by 0.02% ...  it's about it being longer. It takes the sun longer to heat up. Here, the graph in this article shows it better.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123212001002

In any case, the temperature variation we are talking about are very small. It doesn't take much to upset a small trend for a short while.

So you have taken physics classes, then I think it's even stranger that you fail to comprehend these things. You just have no sense of scale and proportion, and that makes you a very poor judgment of these things.

I suppose you've never taken a geology class... you just don't have a clue about how incredibly slow the earth moves and processes things.

Ah, found it, this one is perhaps better.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1785461/as-scientists-predicted-global-warming-continues/

It shows the temperature record of the last xxx years, corrected for known variability.

In any case the temperature changes we are talking about are of the order of 0.3 degrees... imho that's nitpicking.

Imo it's better to learn from the very ancient past, when the atmospheric conditions were more like the conditions we face if we continue to terraform our planet like we're doing now. After all, we're only at the very beginning of this process and the current less-than-one-degree increase we're witnessing, is just the first increase of many that we'll face in the coming years.

THAT is what models tell us. We poor all of our knowledge into a comprehensive model, and let the computer figure out what our knowledge tells us what will happen IF this or IF that. IF we continue to terraform earth, then the models agree with the very ancient data - that the earth will become much hotter than it is now.

So let's appreciate this kind of knowledge and let us not throw that all away just because of a 0.2 degree inconsistency .... or you can wait about 50 years for more data, data which will just confirm that the models were correct (because the models are pretty damn good because our knowledge is pretty damn good). And we'll have wasted 50 years of our time.

But whatever, I don't really care that much. You can continue this nitpicky discussion without me, for real this time, no kidding.

China is a fascinating subject on it's own, and they will feel the consequences of global warming as well. (the north is arid and water starved, and is 2/3rds of their agricultural output, increased global temperatures will not help that) However they are really a multiheaded beast. China is too big to simplify, there are so many different things going on at once, that they make understanding US politics seem small in comparison, and that is not a small accomplishment.

If you got the data, I got the time. If you don't, well then...yea.

Hmm.. so maybe a solution to the global warming if we can't fix it slow could be to make one of the supervolcanoes blow up? (I think we have like 10 of those right?) The US national park one Old Faithful? I think, some volcano in india, and indonesia etc.

First, they are not "contrarian" papers.  That is ignorance talking.  They are scientific papers.

Second, they already support the model that is in existence and has yet to be disproven.  Science 101 - Until disproven, the null hypothesis remains in effect.

Third, I did not give you a comprehensive list as I was not asked for that.  Merely a list.  I have other links as well.

Fourth, the contention was the IPCC was some kind of holy grail of Climate Science.  By showing you recent papers that were NOT included I debunked that assertion.  I did not set out to prove an alternate hypothesis.

Please read what is said, and absorb it.  That way at least you can respond on point.

Stop lying.   You had 3 ad hominems in your one sentence dismissal.  I called you a child because that is what you acted like.  If you want to discuss this rationally, stop throwing around false allegations and petty ad hominems.

You are welcome to be a tool for anyone you please.  Stop trying to project your own problems onto others.

No, opinions do not count.  Facts do.  Learn the difference.

No absorb this-You play semantics. Gamow-the universe is expanding. Hoyle-the universe is steady state. The inability to see that these are opposing thoughts is ignorant...do you follow?

The model is where? Oh yea...nowhere.

By telling you that all papers are not created equally and you still not grasping that fact lets me know that you are incapable of being discriminating. This is why you post as you do.

Apparently, the point has skewered you.

You have no idea, do you?

1. Feynman died in 1988 so even if he had said something about AGW data it wouldn't be relevant to 2013. Never mind the fact that I don't think he ever said any such thing - where did you find this quote?

2. Thank you for at least citing a source, more than most arguing against AGW. However, the paper you cited only deals with surface temperatures not increasing as much as expected by the models, which we've already dealt with a number of times in this thread. Surface temperatures account for a very small percentage of total increased heat.

3. I'll just ignore the last bit - I'm not really interested in the mudslinging going on between blogs.