Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124 Message started by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:58pm |
Title: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:58pm
The AGW religion is falling apart at a very fast rate, faster than first anticipated.
With a surety of about 99%..... 8-) 8-) 8-) Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:10pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:58pm:
Which links to a puff-piece by James Taylor. Of James Taylor, sourcewatch says Quote:
Now, was it peer review or pal review? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:24pm
Meteorologists Reject U.N.’s Global Warming Claims
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/ |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:26pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:10pm:
Beats an email survey asking you two questions and then going on to become consensus....!!!!!!! |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:24pm:
Of the Heartland Institute, sourcewatch says Quote:
Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:24pm:
Of James Taylor, sourcewatch says Quote:
The study in question is in the journal Organization Studies. I can't vouch for its bona fides. If Ajax is running true to form, it's less peer review than pal review. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:49pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
Whatever....? Its out there...that's all that matters....! |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:51pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:49pm:
When it's convincingly established that the majority of the best qualified say there's no risk, I'll stop worrying. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 3:53pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:57pm:
Quote:
I should add that, to one who doesn't pretend to know how to find all of the necessary data, let alone analyse and interpret it, where the majority opinion lies is just about all there is. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:15pm
Muso, the volume of questionable "science" is increasing. It's supported by an increasingly sophisticated infrastructure that seems to lend credibility, where credibility isn't due.
Would you consider a sticky, giving guidance on assessing the bonafides of references, journals, etc? Something like http://barnardonwind.com/2013/06/27/how-should-you-assess-the-quality-of-a-wind-health-study/, but focused on climate science. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:56pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:15pm:
Show me one piece of evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years.......????? Just one.........????? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by rabbitoh07 on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:13pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
What Ajax's link does not tell us is that the study in question was merely a survey of the members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) - a professional body for the mining industry. And even considering this - the heading: "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" is simply a lie Firstly: Some 70% of the respondents were mining engineers. Not scientists. Secondly: the majority of the respondents actually acknowledge that athhropogenic emissions are impacting upon climate. Only 27.4 percent of these Albertan mining professionals are deniers like Ajax. http://www.apegga.org/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf Give up Ajax. Your nonsense is getting more and more pathetic. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by rabbitoh07 on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:17pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:56pm:
Oh dear. Firstly - no one has ever claimed that "Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years". Please stop trying to build silly straw men. However - if you would like one piece of evidence that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations - how about stratospheric cooling? Explain to us why the earth is warming yet the stratosphere is cooling, if it isntt due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations? Could you do that? Without making things up? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:15pm rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:13pm:
It took me a while to notice that the article which is the subject of the opening post is more than six months old. That set me wondering why it has sunk without trace. Not even the denyosphere is promoting it. So I searched Skeptical Science for the name of the lead author of the study. The only relevant hit was this comment Quote:
Ajax, check your sources. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:23pm rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:17pm:
Hey rabbit you been on the turps mate....??? Quote:
rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:17pm:
The stratosphere warms and cools with the amount of sun light it recieves. As far as I know greenhouse gases like CO2 and NOx deflect incoming sun rays helping to cool the Earth in the stratosphere while at the same time trapping the energy that has filtered through and deflecting back to the Earth helping keep the lower atmosphere warm. Have you got a new revelation...?????? I'm all ears.......!!!!!! |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:25pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:56pm:
Trying on such an obvious strawman tactic is, to put it bluntly, dishonest. It's also stupid, because it erodes whatever credibility you might have as a genuine denier of climate science. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:27pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:15pm:
John Cook and his algorains over at sceptical science, you trust what they say. Sorry champ....... I cant for that one......???? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:28pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:25pm:
LMFAO I cant believe it another.....do I have to remind you...!!!!! Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:31pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:27pm:
The difference being that Skeptical Science is a reputable source. You evidently favour the opposite. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:32pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:31pm:
Ok now I've heard it all......??? You're obviously not interested in the truth are you....!!!!! |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 8:11pm Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:32pm:
The truth is what I keep telling you. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:22pm # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:15pm:
Yes. That's a great idea. I'll PM you about another. There are a lot of these Far Right Think Tanks in the US (and Australia to a lesser extent). These include the Heartland Institute, and the Marshall Institute. Whenever you see Willy Soon, Sally Baliunas and the Idso family, you can be sure that there is a not too well hidden agenda. John Christy and Ron Spencer at UAH are not too far behind them. Sourcewatch already does a pretty good job at exposing these guys. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by rabbitoh07 on Aug 31st, 2013 at 12:09am Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:23pm:
Yes. I quoted for you the current IPCC position: most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations You are quoting from the as yet unpublished AR5 which apparently says: at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s Neither of these positions is the same as your straw man: "Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years". You are a liar. You have been caught lying again Please stop it. You are not smart enough to get away with it. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by rabbitoh07 on Aug 31st, 2013 at 12:14am Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:27pm:
You are in no position to be questioning anyones credibility. You are the person that has just started a thread titled: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming and then referred to a survey of Canadian mining professionals (70% of which were mining engineers - not scientists) which showed that only 27.4 of the respondents were AGW deniers. You are a liar. You have been caught again Please stop it. You are not very good at it. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:22am
Hey lads when your colleagues criticize your work and your too arrogant to take notice what does that say about you or the corp. you work for.
But hey we do have time............................... |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:56pm
Opinions (especially of people who don't work in the field) are useless.
A survey of peer reviewed papers is a different matter. That's based on peer reviewed evidence , not opinion. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am muso wrote on Aug 31st, 2013 at 9:56pm:
There not opinions by some part time climate enthusiasts like over at sceptical science blog. These are prominent scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC and other AGW religious organisations, who think the world is coming to an end because man throws up a miniscule amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Its not ignorance this is arrogance......!!!!! Like I said though we have time and time will prove all the scams and lies wrong. I just hope that when that does happen all the carbon taxes and ETS systems around the world will be rescinded. Taxing the air we breath will not stop companies dumping chemicals into our rivers. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Sep 1st, 2013 at 9:01pm Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
... Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm # wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 9:01pm:
Hey dude at the end of every page on sceptical science blog there is a section where people send in their comments. I don't know about now but last time I had a look many comments where against the article or the information being presented. But I have heard that if sceptical science is losing out right they delete the comments. Now what happen to my threads, why are some being closed....??? And why are others being modified......??? Seriously gentlemen the moderator should not be biased but neutral. So how is it that this forum has alarmists running the Environmental section.........?????? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 8:05pm
I said that I would close some threads because there were too many on the same or similar subjects. Post on one of the threads that is open.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 10:56am Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
I've no doubt that some posts are deleted. That can be because the post is abusive, defamatory, SPAM or other legitimate reasons. The site naturally attracts denialist SPAM. Your assertion that it happens only "if sceptical science is losing out right" is unsubstantiated. Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
As you've not been able to substantiate your beliefs, this might ease your concerns: Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 12:22pm Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
If you're talking about your posts being modified, that happened only once by accident, and I openly apologised for it immediately. It's easy to do because as a moderator, there are two buttons very close to each other. One is "Modify" and the other is "Quote". Sometimes when using an HD monitor, it's easy to click the wrong one, then realise after its too late. Other mods have had the same problem. I also sometimes fix typos or grammatical errors on my own posts after the event and I have a bad habit of adding to a post when I think of something extra. You can do the same. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 5:43pm muso wrote on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 12:22pm:
The bottom line is a moderator shouldn't be biased...??!! |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 7:41pm
I haven't deleted any of your posts, and if you make a valid point, I will agree with you.
If you were a poster on a forum on the topic of Geology, and started topics on the Flat Earth Society, do you think that the moderator would have no position on established geology? http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2013 at 12:46pm muso wrote on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 7:41pm:
Please.....the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming is far from settled. As we will see in the coming years, it will be proven a fairy tale invented by the elite and supported by the greens to tax us on the air we breath. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 6th, 2013 at 2:10pm Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 12:46pm:
Thats a rather paranoid conspiracy you have there batman. What elements of the science that underpinns AGW confuses you so much? Can you refer to any global or national scientific body, university, research organization, scientific society etc or major corporation that refutes the high school level AGW science that is also validated by measurement and experimentation? Take your mask off batman, its embarrassing listening to your pathetic pseudo scientific drivel |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by # on Sep 6th, 2013 at 2:20pm Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 12:46pm:
Back to conspiracy theories. ::) |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2013 at 3:46pm # wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 2:20pm:
Your religion is going to fall apart because its based on lies. |
Title: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:08pm
Mr. John Cook cant even tell the truth about the consensus.
Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by # on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:16pm Ajax wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
Of Jo Nova, Sourcewatch says Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:46pm # wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:16pm:
You guys really have the craft of character assassination down to a fine point don't you. Do you know that Jo was once on your side running around the country side for the greens party telling every that manmade AGW was indeed real. She was one that also searched for the truth and when she came across it she knew it......... 8-) If anyone wants to know the truth about Antropogenic Global Warming.......? Then Jo's site tells it like it is, nothing but the truth.....!!! http://joannenova.com.au/ |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Aug 28th, 2013 at 9:17pm
Are you Dave Evans? No can't be. Dave has a degree in Maths.
Quote:
.. and then she met Dave Evans , and they lived happily ever after in a state of mutual denial. Quote:
- because his arguments are based on facts that can easily be verified. |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Rider on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:52pm muso wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 9:17pm:
- because his arguments are based on facts that can easily be verified. [/quote] Easily the most discredited piece since that hockey stick fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourself Muso for being sucked in by this complete and utter twattery. The paper is a disgrace. Bullocking reproduced on many websites, see one of your favourites WUWT - shows exactly what the social sciences and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/ |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:24pm Rider wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:52pm:
Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper? |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:10pm muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:24pm:
Read the OP dude...?? |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 8:15am Rider wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:52pm:
Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:47am # wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 8:15am:
If you want the truth about global warming then these two sites are some of the best...... What's Up With That (WUWT) http://wattsupwiththat.com/ AND Jonova http://joannenova.com.au/ |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:01am Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:47am:
Quote:
Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:47am:
Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:18am Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:10pm:
Nobody provided a link to the paper, so I can't say anything about it. |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:20am muso wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:18am:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by # on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:55pm Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:10pm:
In the OP, Jo Nova quotes a letter from Richard Tol. Of Richard Tol, sourcewatch says Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Rider on Sep 4th, 2013 at 11:14am Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:20am:
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3% continues at - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ Muso and #, I imagine you'll be combing through all your misinformation today deleting all references to 'consensus' .... nah, didn't think so ::) |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Sep 4th, 2013 at 11:41am
As I said, consensus of opinion is irrelevant. I'll have to see what John Cook's survey was about, but if I had received something asking my opinion, I'd probably say "Why are you asking this? What's the point of asking opinions? Do a literature search instead. In fact, I doubt if I would have taken it seriously.
Ah. I just checked it, and that's what he did: Quote:
People don't use emotive terms in scientific papers. It would be laughed out of the peer review process. "Dangerous" is by implication only, and it would be outside the scope of most of those abstracts to make that conclusion. Quote:
Dr David Legates is funded by the Heartland Institute (no surprise there) |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Rider on Sep 4th, 2013 at 12:50pm muso wrote on Sep 4th, 2013 at 11:41am:
Dr David Legates is funded by the Heartland Institute (no surprise there)[/quote] And so what?? Why do you need to attack the messenger? Just part of the strategy isn't it? |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Sep 4th, 2013 at 2:20pm Rider wrote on Sep 4th, 2013 at 12:50pm:
Was that an attack? It's always best to check what motivation anyone would have for being so petty and disingenuous. What did I say in the earlier part of the post? That was the main point. |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Sep 4th, 2013 at 2:37pm
For example, here is an abstract of a scientific paper. It would be facile to suggest that this does not include the word dangerous and it therefore did not support the IPCC conclusion. It's pretty obvious that it does.
Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 5th, 2013 at 6:26pm Rider wrote on Sep 4th, 2013 at 12:50pm:
generally that is the case with most scientific papers. You will however see highly charged language and emotive terms used in many scientific papers, even is the hard sciences such as physics. for example, "Catastrophic effects" rather than instabilities or collapse. "Lethal" rather than toxic etc plenty of examples to illustrate this point. Don't be afraid of words But as we all know there are many corporate players that stand to lose market share and suffer reduced profit margins as a result of communities demanding action to mitigate the CATASTROPHIC and DISASTROUS effects of AGW |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Sep 5th, 2013 at 6:57pm
Yes. I'm not saying that the word "dangerous" is never used. It's just more common to be more specific. The example I posted was understated. This is fairly typical. It will be "bad news". It's only from the context that it amounts to much more than say a speeding fine in the mail.
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2013 at 11:30am
Just goes to show that John Cook and his blog Skeptical Science are only concerned about one thing and that is pushing the athropogenic global warming religion.
So a few wealthy individuals receive benefits by taxing us all on the air we breath. These wealthy individuals are playing on the conscience of these so called greenies to do the right thing by the Earth. Skeptical science blog is anything but sceptical. Quote:
Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by # on Sep 6th, 2013 at 2:06pm
This might ease your concerns:
Quote:
|
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2013 at 4:20pm
Well its too bad Mr. Cook couldn't even get the consensus on climate change right.
Its also too bad that he has ties to Al Gore....?? Maybe he wants in on the gravy train.......??? |
Title: Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Post by muso on Sep 6th, 2013 at 6:46pm
As usual, no comment on my posts. Just more disinformation, dropping the argument when you are shown to be wrong.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 10th, 2013 at 11:26am
Repeated spam post deleted. I did warn you. Please don't litter this forum with identical cut and pasted posts.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:56am muso wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 11:26am:
This is a new pear reviewed paper that disproves John Cook's paper on the consensus about global warming being caused by humans. Its not a repeat.....!!!!! Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:00am Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:56am:
It probably is. I don't care for papers that are reviewed by fruits. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:10am muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:00am:
How can you be a scientists when you're so one sided. Doesn't that make you ignorant of the facts....!!?? The other thing could be that you're too arrogant to investigate the other side...??!! Science is not about consensus...?? Its about being sceptical all the time....!!!....whether you agree or not....????? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:45am Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:10am:
Glad you realise that. Science is not about consensus of opinion. It's about factual evidence. This paper is about consensus of opinion. Therefore it's irrelevent - even if it was reviewed by a peach as you say. Quote:
You should try it. The first step is to answer the questions. Ruthlessly question the basis of your pet theories. Pet theories are feral, rabid creatures. They will bite you and turn you into a raving lunatic. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:48am muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:45am:
WTF....and what was John Cook's paper then...???? Quote:
There not pet theories my friend its called REALITY. Please come back down to it.....?? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:51am Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:48am:
It was a review of peer reviewed papers that had been verified. It did not seek opinions. Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:48am:
Down to Earth? Is this about the moon landing again? Please tell us more. Who do you think shot JFK? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 10:06am muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:51am:
They've got their claws in you deeper than scientology has its claws in Tom Cruise. Quote:
more ad hominem, would have thought this would be below a scientists. But then again your mob is calling for the death of skeptics isn't it. Not to mention scaring children into the religion. Its a religion and a very dangerous one at that...!!! http://youtu.be/JfnddMpzPsM Quote:
Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:36am
Isn't he a music psychologist or something? I mean it's stretching it a bit far. I don't have anything to do with him.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:38am
Ad hominem? Was that an insult? Aren't you proud to be a Moon Landing denialist?
How do you stand on Vaccination? Water Fluoridation? UFO Conspiracies? Quote:
That's a new one. Better than Reductio ad Hitlerum, but similar. Reduction to Scientology? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:44am muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:36am:
He's on your team....??? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:45am
Does he play the drums? Sorry. You've got me.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:46am
:D ;) :)
muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 11:45am:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 5:33pm
Oh and that paper - I already answered the claim elsewhere. It's an incredibly stupid claim - that because a paper didn't include the word "dangerous", it didn't agree with the UN conclusion.
Position: It is dangerous to put your hand in a fire. 1. Putting your hand in a fire may have dangerous consequences, including serious burns. 2. Putting your hand in a fire is likely to result in serious burns. By the logic of the paper, only Statement 1 agrees with the original position, because it includes the word "dangerous".. That's how silly Willy is. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2013 at 5:41pm muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 5:33pm:
Four prominent scientists have produced a pear reviewed paper saying Mr. Cooks math is out of wack and you're still defending him. Go figure....... :D ;D :-* |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2013 at 5:41pm muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:45am:
Yeah sorry muso...but, right back at ya.... And using a medical condition as a reason to discount an argument is pretty pathetic... |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:08pm
Medical condition? Oh yes, you mean his mental health I take it.
He doesn't really react to many stimuli. You see, he's a raving looney, as more people in the UK already know. http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/ Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:35pm muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:08pm:
Umm no, using the fact that Lord Monckton suffers from Graves disease (his 'bug eyes' ) as a reason to dismiss his opinion on AGW is pathetic..(which is why you post his photo whenever you make reference to him) |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:44pm
In this case, I was warning Ajax of the perils of Pet Theories, and the fact that if he wasn't careful, he could end up as a raving nutjob. Naturally, I posted a picture of a raving nutjob as an illustration. His eye condition is totally incidental to the fact that he's a raving looney.
If I had meant that Ajax could have gone blind, then I would have said so. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 12th, 2013 at 7:44am muso wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:44pm:
There is nothing wrong with Lord Monckton theories on AGW. He's actually right on the ball. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:09am Summer Shattered - No warming since February! http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2012_05_01_archive.html |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:11am Ajax wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 7:44am:
I suppose you went to his rally in Australia. http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 14th, 2013 at 3:43pm muso wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 8:11am:
If you can listen to that fraudster John Cook over at skeptical science. And help Al Gore get rich from his carbon credit franchise. There is nothing more to be said...... :o :D ;D |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 14th, 2013 at 4:44pm
So you disagree with the paper I linked? I thought it would have been right up your street.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 15th, 2013 at 12:49pm muso wrote on Sep 14th, 2013 at 4:44pm:
You really make me laugh you know that...!! Always trying to twist or distort what others have said to your inclinations. Sad.............................................!!! And you call yourself a scientist......???? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 15th, 2013 at 3:34pm Ajax wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 12:49pm:
I've started a thread on Denial Depot. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 15th, 2013 at 7:12pm muso wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 3:34pm:
Do you want a medal......????? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 15th, 2013 at 9:36pm
I thought you would enjoy some of the articles on Denial Depot. They don't seem to like Al Gore.
Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 15th, 2013 at 10:50pm
Shouldn't the title of this topic be listed in the comedy section?
Or perhaps the deception section |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Vuk11 on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:28pm
For anyone who hasn't seen, Burt Rutan's data analysis of the IPCC reports. He shows the data they left out and various tricks they use to manipulate the data.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf The IPCC fifth assessment report is going to be coming out soon. I want to make some predictions and show you where I get the conclusions from. The report will push: - Rising sea level - Ocean acidification - An upcoming potential short-term increase in warming, blamed on GHG wrongly - Increase in violent storm intensity while leaving out decrease in quantity As well as some misc. findings that I find quite interesting: - The removal of c02 from the atmosphere massive delay - Climate model uncertainty to be played down - Some more climate model prediction problems The next post will start with the evidence for my predictions. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Vuk11 on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:45pm
Rising sea level:
Peer review paper - http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/1987/2013/tcd-7-1987-2013.pdf "Most glaciers and ice caps (GIC) are out of balance with the current climate. To return to equilibrium, GIC must thin and retreat, losing additional mass and raising sea level." "We compiled all available AAR observations for 144 GIC from 1971–2010 and found that most glaciers and ice caps are farther from balance than previously believed. Accounting for regional and global10 undersampling errors, our model suggests that GIC are committed to additional losses of 30 ± 11 % of their area and 38 ± 17 % of their volume if the future climate resembles the climate of the past decade. These losses imply global mean sea-level rise of 163±73 mm, assuming total glacier volume of 430 mm sea-level equivalent. To reduce the large uncertainties in these projections, more long-term glacier measurements are needed in poorly sampled regions." Ocean Acidification: Peer review paper - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0591-5 The above article sites 53 experts for their consensus in the following: ""We find a relatively strong consensus on most issues related to past, present and future chemical aspects of ocean acidification: non-anthropogenic ocean acidification events have occurred in the geological past, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main (but not the only) mechanism generating the current ocean acidification event, and anthropogenic ocean acidification that has occurred due to historical fossil fuel emissions will be felt for centuries. " So whilst they admit it isn't the only driver, AGW is the main driver of acidiciation according those these 53. My prediction is a push on the anthropogenic side and a down play of the other causes. "Experts generally agreed that there will be impacts on biological and ecological processes and biogeochemical feedbacks but levels of agreement were lower," So the level of consensus is lower on these impacts. However they fail to state whether they believe the impacts would be beneficial or harmful. Just a consensus on "impacts" "The levels of agreement for statements pertaining to socio-economic impacts, such as impacts on food security, and to more normative policy issues, were relatively low." So low level of agreement as far as socio-economic impacts go, I wonder if they will ignore the lack of socio economic impacts/consensus on these impacts. Aerosol heat increase: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034008 "Recent studies have suggested that the resultant decrease in aerosols could drive rapid near-term warming, which could dominate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) increases in the coming decades." You read it right, a decrease in aerosols creating a temporary? short-term warming. "the contribution of aerosol reductions to warming between 2000 and 2040 is around 30%." "Thus, while aerosol emission reductions contribute to gradual warming through the 21st century, we find no evidence that aerosol emission reductions drive particularly rapid near-term warming in this scenario. In the near-term, as in the long-term, GHG increases are the dominant driver of warming." Why the turn around? It's because they are above that statement talking about a specific scenario. Which is: If c02 goes down the rate of warming from a decrease in aerosols also goes down. Increase in violent storms: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901112000494 "Projections indicate an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity, but overall a decrease or little change in the total number of cyclones." I am predicting (in the next report) graphs showing the increase in severity, while down playing or forgetting to mention a decrease in quantity of cyclones. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Vuk11 on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:56pm
Misc. interesting finds:
Climate models: Peer reviewed paper - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00541.1 For reference - (MJO) = Madden–Julian oscillation "Only one of the 20 models is able to simulate a realistic eastward propagation of the MJO." Political tricks: Peer reviewed paper - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00494.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false "Climate scientists face a serious public image problem because the next round of climate models they are working on are destined to produce a wider rather than a smaller range of uncertainty. " Now for the best part.... "New communications strategies that do not solely rely on the ‘weight of evidence’ argument but instead aim to win hearts and minds are required." Looks like they are admitting the evidence is against them and they need to switch tactics to "win hearts and minds" Removal of c02 from the atmosphere fatal problem: Peer reviewed paper - http://oro.open.ac.uk/37694/ "Elimination of anthropogenic CO2 emissions after 2300 results in slowly decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. At year 3000 atmospheric CO2 is still at more than half its year-2300 level in all EMICs for RCPs 4.5–8.5. Surface air temperature remains constant or decreases slightly and thermosteric sea level rise continues for centuries after elimination of CO2 emissions in all EMICs. Restoration of atmospheric CO2 from RCP to pre-industrial levels over 100–1000 years requires large artificial removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and does not result in the simultaneous return to pre-industrial climate conditions, as surface air temperature and sea level response exhibit a substantial time lag relative to atmospheric CO2." So they would have to find a way of not just stopping c02 emissions, but removing them from the atmosphere, even then it would take 100-1000 years to return to pre-industrial climate conditions. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:01am
That's a pretty big post and it will take some time to go through the points. Perhaps it would be better on its own thread.
The point about aerosols is valid, but I don't think anybody was trying to hide anything. It has long been known that if it wasn't for the enormous emissions of aerosols, global warming would be much more serious. I've pointed this out before that if all the Chinese steel plants and other industries that are allowed to emit particulates were to close down today, the net effect would be warming. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:57am
Since the IPCC relies on computer circulation models.
It will be hard for any of their predictions to come true. In this case theory and the real world are like chalk and cheese. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 16th, 2013 at 11:00am Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:57am:
Where are you getting this term "computer circulation models" from? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 16th, 2013 at 12:44pm muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 11:00am:
You've never heard of this term before........?????? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 20th, 2013 at 4:08pm Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:57am:
Ajax has just described the perils of forecasting for complex systems! WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! :o :o |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 20th, 2013 at 4:16pm Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 12:44pm:
Only from you. Which computers are circulating? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 20th, 2013 at 4:22pm Vuk11 wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:45pm:
I realise that it's Burt Rutan's analysis, but the aerosols are from manmade pollution. Currently they are negating some of the radiative forcing from CO2. If and when the aerosol emissions are reduced, the warming will be from that CO2. It's an unusual way of looking at it. It's a bit like saying that hot weather is not caused by the sun, but by the clouds clearing. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Vuk11 on Sep 20th, 2013 at 9:26pm muso wrote on Sep 20th, 2013 at 4:22pm:
Thanks for the clarification. Just a note these aren't from Burt Rutan, only that single link to his analysis. The rest are parts of abstracts from some peer reviewed papers most of them 2012-2013. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 20th, 2013 at 10:18pm Vuk11 wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:56pm:
How critical is that anyway? The Madden Julian Oscillation is a very short term phenomenon. Typically it comes around every 3 weeks or so. I remember following it around during the wet seasons of 2010 and 2011. I don't think its necessary for long term climate predictions. It can be factored in empirically. Quote:
That doesn't really mean much without contextual information. Quote:
That's a basic shortcoming of scientists generally. Risk communication. There is a serious risk, but communicating that risk by just using cold factual evidence is not really effective. What is really needed is to put things into a useful context for non scientists. Risk communication is an interesting area. Have a look at Peter Sandman's site. He is probably the foremost expert on risk communication. There is nothing sinister about it. It's just putting things in a way that means something to people. He used to have some great case studies on Risk Communication. I presented a paper on the subject about 15 years ago. It was controversial because it related to scientists communicating to corporate management as opposed to the public. Another speaker from the CSIRO had a few issues but he finally realised that it's a very similar problem. http://www.psandman.com/ Quote:
[/quote] Quite frankly I think it would be counter productive. The atmospheric CO2 is not coming down any time soon and those organisms that will be killed off by it won't recover if we reverse the trend. It's not a big ticket issue as I see it. There are much bigger issues. I once suggested bioengineered forams that would absorb carbonate quicker and die quicker, thus increasing the rate of the oceanic carbon sink. Even if this was considered at some future date, it would take thousands of years to work. |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Chimp_Logic on Sep 20th, 2013 at 10:55pm Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 9:57am:
Have you verified that with the Heartland Institute or Andrew Bolt? Surely they have published something on this in the peer reviewed scientific literature for everybody to read? |
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 21st, 2013 at 9:58am Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 20th, 2013 at 10:55pm:
Hey chimp What are you saying..........?????? Are you saying that most of that doomsday prophecy coming from the IPCC is actual real world data. I cant believe you're that naïve....are you......????? Most of their doomsday data comes from computer models. And we all know about computers right chimp....!!! Sh!t in........Sh!t out...........!!!!! |
Title: There has never been a consensus on AGW Post by Ajax on Sep 27th, 2013 at 9:08am
There has never been a consensus on global warming.
And John Cook's attempt to show that there was is really pathetic and shown to be fraudulant. Show me the consensus.....................???????? This is how this consensus started. Quote:
This is how John Cook tried to prove the consensus Quote:
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Ajax on Sep 27th, 2013 at 9:22am
Why have you done this again.....??????
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by muso on Sep 27th, 2013 at 10:08am
Same subject. Don't start new threads on the same subject, or you may end up with a short holiday.
|
Title: Re: Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Post by Deathridesahorse on Sep 28th, 2013 at 1:37am
hey ajax, is this thread a lie or what???? :D :D :D :D :D
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |