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:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists.

Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model.

The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.”

Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused.

‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model.

These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.

Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life.

They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model.

These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers.

They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.”

Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists.

We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists.

Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

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:
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:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Which links to a puff-piece by James Taylor. Of James Taylor, sourcewatch says
Quote:
Attorney James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication produced by the Heartland Institute think tank, and devoted to "sound science and free-market environmentalism," which labels the scientific consensus on climate change as "alarmist." He is also a Senior Fellow for Heartland
...
"Taylor received his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College and his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law, where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice"; "He has presented environmental analysis on the CBS Evening News, CNN, and Fox News Channel; on numerous national radio programs; and in virtually every major newspaper in the country."
...
It is unclear whether Mr. Taylor has any background in climate science.
...
Taylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds, and the Heartland Institute, which has consistently received funding from ExxonMobil. [3] While Taylor espouses through Environment and Climate News that climate change is neither a significant nor man-made problem, and that scientists who say it is are environmental extremists, others argue that a "major purpose of the publication has been to look at global warming from industry's perspective" rather than through the viewpoint of real science.

Taylor is the author and coauthor of several articles including "What Climate Scientists Think about Global Warming," "State Greenhouse Gas Programs: An Economic and Scientific Analysis," and "New Source Review: An Evaluation of EPA's Reform Recommendations," each devoted to advancing his climate skeptic viewpoint.

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:
Now, was it peer review or pal review?


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:
Meteorologists Reject U.N.’s Global Warming Claims

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

Of the Heartland Institute, sourcewatch says
Quote:
The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

    "Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."


Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:24pm:
Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

Of James Taylor, sourcewatch says
Quote:
Attorney James M. Taylor is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication produced by the Heartland Institute think tank, and devoted to "sound science and free-market environmentalism," which labels the scientific consensus on climate change as "alarmist." He is also a Senior Fellow for Heartland
...
"Taylor received his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College and his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law, where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice"; "He has presented environmental analysis on the CBS Evening News, CNN, and Fox News Channel; on numerous national radio programs; and in virtually every major newspaper in the country."
...
It is unclear whether Mr. Taylor has any background in climate science.
...
Taylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds, and the Heartland Institute, which has consistently received funding from ExxonMobil. [3] While Taylor espouses through Environment and Climate News that climate change is neither a significant nor man-made problem, and that scientists who say it is are environmental extremists, others argue that a "major purpose of the publication has been to look at global warming from industry's perspective" rather than through the viewpoint of real science.

Taylor is the author and coauthor of several articles including "What Climate Scientists Think about Global Warming," "State Greenhouse Gas Programs: An Economic and Scientific Analysis," and "New Source Review: An Evaluation of EPA's Reform Recommendations," each devoted to advancing his climate skeptic viewpoint.

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:
I can't vouch for its bona fides. If Ajax is running true to form, it's less peer review than pal review.


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:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
I can't vouch for its bona fides. If Ajax is running true to form, it's less peer review than pal review.


Whatever....?

Its out there...that's all that matters....!

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:
Evidence, not consensus, is what counts

My latest (and last) Mind and Matter column in the Wall Street Journal:

Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.

Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts.

My friend objected that I seemed to follow the herd on matters like the reality of evolution and the safety of genetically modified crops, so why not on climate change? Ah, said I, but I don't. I agree with the majority view on evolution, not because it is a majority view but because I have looked at evidence. It's the data that convince me, not the existence of a consensus.

My friend said that I could not possibly have had time to check all the evidence for and against evolution, so I must be taking others' words for it. No, I said, I take on trust others' word that their facts are correct, but I judge their interpretations myself, with no thought as to how popular they are. (Much as I admire Charles Darwin, I get fidgety when his fans start implying he is infallible. If I want infallibility, I will join the Catholic Church.)

And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous "hockey stick" graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium.

Within a few years, however, I discovered that the first of these graphs told the opposite story from what I had inferred. In the ice cores, it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa.

As for the "hockey stick" graph, it was effectively critiqued by Steven McIntyre, a Canadian businessman with a mathematical interest in climatology. He showed that the graph depended heavily on unreliable data, especially samples of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, the growth patterns of which were often not responding to temperature at all. It also depended on a type of statistical filter that overweighted any samples showing sharp rises in the 20th century.


the rest here
http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/i-may-follow-the-crowd,-but-not-because-it's-a-crowd.aspx

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:
Evidence, not consensus, is what counts
...
the rest here
http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/i-may-follow-the-crowd,-but-not-because-it's-a-crowd.aspx
That link is to the blog of Matt Ridley. Of Matt Ridley, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Climate expertise unclear

It is unclear what expertise Mr. Ridley has developed that leaves him more qualified to assess climate science than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists.

2011 "skeptic bingo" denier speech

A speech Ridley gave in 2011 was "a textbook Gish Gallop, full of false claims, logical fallacies, and trivially true but irrelevant “facts”. It was...“skeptic” bingo", reported the host of the blog The Way Things Break; he characterized Ridley as "a techno-optimist of the Lomborgian mold", and debunked a few of Ridley's claims[3], noting inconsistencies and errors like:

    "Ridley wants us to know that the climate changed rapidly in the past- but yet we’re also supposed to believe that climate sensitivity is very small. He also flubs basic concepts- equilibrium sensitivity is not the same thing as transient sensitivity..."

Associations

Ridley sits on the advisory councils of the British lobby groups Sense About Science and Reform.

He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation[4]

Northern Rock bank failure

The failure of Northern Rock was the first run on a British Bank since 1878. Under his chairmanship, the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a "high-risk, reckless business strategy".[5] MPs identified the directors of Northern Rock as "the principal authors of the difficulties that the company has faced". They singled Ridley out for having failed "to provide against the risks that [Northern Rock] was taking and to act as an effective restraining force on the strategy of the executive members".

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:
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.


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:
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.


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:

# wrote 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.


Show me one piece of evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years.......?????

Just one.........?????


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:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
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.


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.

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:
     
Charles0853 at 10:48 AM on 17 February, 2013

It has been gratifying to see how many have pointed out Mr. Taylor's egregious interpretations of the Lefsrud and Meyer study, including seeing the authors of the study politely but firmly insist his interpretation was erroneous. Taylor has tried this tactic before, most recently with his "analysis" of a suvey of members of the American Meteorological Society.

The editors of Forbes should be aware that Mr. Taylor's articles are providing rich fodder for those of us in the academy who wish to teach our students how not to interpret science.

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:
Oh dear.

Firstly - no one has ever claimed that [i]"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?


Hey rabbit you been on the turps mate....???


Quote:
IPCC say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.



rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:17pm:
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?


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:
...
Show me one piece of evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years.......?????
...

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:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
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.


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.

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:
     
Charles0853 at 10:48 AM on 17 February, 2013

It has been gratifying to see how many have pointed out Mr. Taylor's egregious interpretations of the Lefsrud and Meyer study, including seeing the authors of the study politely but firmly insist his interpretation was erroneous. Taylor has tried this tactic before, most recently with his "analysis" of a suvey of members of the American Meteorological Society.

The editors of Forbes should be aware that Mr. Taylor's articles are providing rich fodder for those of us in the academy who wish to teach our students how not to interpret science.

Ajax, check your sources.


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:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 4:56pm:
...
Show me one piece of evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is solely responsible for the warming in the last 100 years.......?????
...

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.


LMFAO I cant believe it another.....do I have to remind you...!!!!!



Quote:
IPCC say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s

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:
...
John Cook and his algorains over at sceptical science, you trust what they say.
...

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:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:27pm:
...
John Cook and his algorains over at sceptical science, you trust what they say.
...

The difference being that Skeptical Science is a reputable source. You evidently favour the opposite.


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:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:27pm:
...
John Cook and his algorains over at sceptical science, you trust what they say.
...

The difference being that Skeptical Science is a reputable source. You evidently favour the opposite.

...
You're obviously not interested in the truth are you....!!!!!

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:
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.


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:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:17pm:
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?


Hey rabbit you been on the turps mate....???


Quote:
IPCC say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.





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:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:39pm:
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.


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.

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:
     
Charles0853 at 10:48 AM on 17 February, 2013

It has been gratifying to see how many have pointed out Mr. Taylor's egregious interpretations of the Lefsrud and Meyer study, including seeing the authors of the study politely but firmly insist his interpretation was erroneous. Taylor has tried this tactic before, most recently with his "analysis" of a suvey of members of the American Meteorological Society.

The editors of Forbes should be aware that Mr. Taylor's articles are providing rich fodder for those of us in the academy who wish to teach our students how not to interpret science.

Ajax, check your sources.


John Cook and his algorains over at sceptical science, you trust what they say.

Sorry champ....... I cant for that one......????

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:
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. 


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:
...
There not opinions by some part time climate enthusiasts like over at sceptical science blog.
Substantiate your assertion. Quote one posting on http://skepticalscience.com/ that isn't based on peer reviewed science.


Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
These are prominent scientists ...
Still, you'd have to wonder why they're such a tiny minority.
...

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
Like I said though we have time and time will prove all the scams and lies wrong.
...
Back to conspiracy theories. Have you tried therapy?

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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
...
There not opinions by some part time climate enthusiasts like over at sceptical science blog.
Substantiate your assertion. Quote one posting on http://skepticalscience.com/ that isn't based on peer reviewed science.


Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
These are prominent scientists ...
Still, you'd have to wonder why they're such a tiny minority.
...

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
Like I said though we have time and time will prove all the scams and lies wrong.
...
Back to conspiracy theories. Have you tried therapy?


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:

# wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 1st, 2013 at 10:31am:
...
There not opinions by some part time climate enthusiasts like over at sceptical science blog.
Substantiate your assertion. Quote one posting on http://skepticalscience.com/ that isn't based on peer reviewed science.
...


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.
Which supports your assertion how?


Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
But I have heard that if sceptical science is losing out right they delete the comments.
Further unsubstantiated assertion substantiates your earlier unsubstantiated assertion, in what way?

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:
Now what happen to my threads, why are some being closed....??? 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375841990/129#129


Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
And why are others being modified......???
As I understand it, some words are verboten. The forum software automatically traps them. Alternatively, you could be imagining things.


Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
Seriously gentlemen the moderator should not be biased but neutral.
The moderator needs to know a bit about what they're moderating. One of the duties of moderation is to protect readers. Allowing your climate science denial to go unchallenged would violate that responsibility.


Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
So how is it that this forum has alarmists running the Environmental section.........??????
Definitions of "alarmist" generally refer to unjustified, unwarranted or excessive alarm. How is reporting the views of the vast majority of the best qualified alarmist?

As you've not been able to substantiate your beliefs, this might ease your concerns:
Quote:
Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.
...
After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion. The site currently maintains over 160 articles addressing the merit of common criticisms of the scientific consensus on global warming, such as the claim that solar activity (rather than greenhouse gases) is responsible for most 20th-century global warming. Each article, referred to as an "argument", first presents a quotation from a prominent figure who made a direct claim regarding global warming, then follows with a summary of "what the science says".

Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers. Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results.

The home page of the site also features blog posts by a number of regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item. Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate.
...
Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

Cook is trained as a solar physicist ...

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.

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:
And why are others being modified......???


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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 2nd, 2013 at 2:01pm:
And why are others being modified......???


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.


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:
Why a Flat Earth?

Why we don't believe the world is round
Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims



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:
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:
Why a Flat Earth?

Why we don't believe the world is round
Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims




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:

muso wrote 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:
Why a Flat Earth?

Why we don't believe the world is round
Scientific data and measurements backing up our claims




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.


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:
...
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.

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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 12:46pm:
...
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.

Back to conspiracy theories.  ::)


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:
Dear Professor Høy,

I was struck by a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters with John Cook, a University of Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.

My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail.

I found that the consensus rate in the data differs from that reported in the paper. Further research showed that, contrary to what is said in the paper, the main validity test in fact invalidates the data. And the sample of papers does not represent the literature. That is, the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.


Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/

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:
...

Quote:
...
Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/

Of Jo Nova, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.
...
Nova runs the Australian company Science Speak,[2] the main aim of which is to promote AGW denialism.

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:

Ajax wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 4:08pm:
...

Quote:
...
Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/

Of Jo Nova, Sourcewatch says[quote]Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.
...
Nova runs the Australian company Science Speak,[2] the main aim of which is to promote AGW denialism.
[/quote]

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:
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.


.. and then she met Dave Evans , and they lived happily ever after in a state of mutual denial.

Quote:
How can you trust John Cook?


- 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:
Are you Dave Evans? No can't be.  Dave has a degree in Maths.


Quote:
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.


.. and then she met Dave Evans , and they lived happily ever after in a state of mutual denial.
[quote]
How can you trust John Cook?


- 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 peer pal review has degenerated to.

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:
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 peer pal review has degenerated to.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/


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:

Rider wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:52pm:
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 peer pal review has degenerated to.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/cooks-97-climate-consensus-paper-crumbles-upon-examination/


Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper?


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:
...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/...

Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.

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:

Rider wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 12:52pm:
...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/...

Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.


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:
...
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/
...
Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.


Ajax wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:47am:
...
AND

Jonova
http://joannenova.com.au/
Of Jo Nova, Sourcewatch says
Quote:
Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.
...
Nova runs the Australian company Science Speak,[2] the main aim of which is to promote AGW denialism.

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:

Quote:
Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper?


Read the OP dude...??


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:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Quote:
Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper?


Read the OP dude...??


Nobody provided a link to the paper, so I can't say anything about it.



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:
...
Read the OP dude...??

In the OP, Jo Nova quotes a letter from Richard Tol. Of Richard Tol, sourcewatch says
Quote:
... according to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small". He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming".

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:

muso wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 11:18am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:10pm:

Quote:
Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper?


Read the OP dude...??


Nobody provided a link to the paper, so I can't say anything about it.



http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article



“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:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.


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:
Write briefly and to the point. Say what you mean clearly and avoid embellishment with unnecessary words or phrases.
(from the style guidelines.)


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:
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:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.


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]Write briefly and to the point. Say what you mean clearly and avoid embellishment with unnecessary words or phrases.
(from the style guidelines.)


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:

Quote:
Dr David Legates is funded by the Heartland Institute (no surprise there)[/


And so what?? Why do you need to attack the messenger? Just part of the strategy isn't it?


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:
Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?

    Wallace S. Broecker



During the last glacial period, Earth's climate underwent frequent large and abrupt global changes. This behavior appears to reflect the ability of the ocean's thermohaline circulation to assume more than one mode of operation. The record in ancient sedimentary rocks suggests that similar abrupt changes plagued the Earth at other times. The trigger mechanism for these reorganizations may have been the antiphasing of polar insolation associated with orbital cycles. Were the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 levels to trigger another such reorganization, it would be bad news for a world striving to feed 11 to 16 billion people.

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:

muso wrote 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]We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.


People don't use emotive terms in scientific papers. It would be laughed out of the peer review process. "Dangerous" is by implication only....


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:
In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled, "Got a call from Al Gore's people today" John Cook proudly posted,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html



Quote:
"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011

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:
Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian blogger and author John Cook. In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a large database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments commonly put forth by those involved in the global warming controversy who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.
...
After reading a 2007 speech by US Senator James Inhofe who claimed that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science to be an internet resource that examined the scientific support of the most common arguments against mainstream scientific opinion. The site currently maintains over 160 articles addressing the merit of common criticisms of the scientific consensus on global warming, such as the claim that solar activity (rather than greenhouse gases) is responsible for most 20th-century global warming. Each article, referred to as an "argument", first presents a quotation from a prominent figure who made a direct claim regarding global warming, then follows with a summary of "what the science says".

Rather than fully qualifying each claim, the site focuses mainly on challenging it by citing counterexamples for why it is incorrect, and structuring these examples into an overall rebuttal of the original claim. The site primarily gains the content for these articles from relevant peer reviewed scientific papers. Many articles have been translated into several languages, and are split into up to three levels of technical depth. Rather than active advertising or media relationships, Cook has focused on structuring the site primarily for optimization in search engine results.

The home page of the site also features blog posts by a number of regular and guest contributors, which may be new rebuttals of a certain argument or simply the blogger's view on a relevant climate news item. Like the rebuttals, the blog entries tend to hold a consistent tone that the scientific opinion on anthropogenic global warming is generally accurate.
...
Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness. Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world", and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics. In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

Cook is trained as a solar physicist ...

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.

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:
Repeated spam post deleted. I did warn you. Please don't litter this forum with identical cut and pasted posts.


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:
Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

Posted on September 3, 2013      by Anthony Watts      


UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

“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%.   

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/


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:

muso wrote 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.


This is a new pear reviewed paper that disproves John Cook's paper on the consensus about global warming being caused by humans.


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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:56am:

muso wrote 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.


This is a new pear reviewed paper that disproves John Cook's paper on the consensus about global warming being caused by humans.


It probably is. I don't care for papers that are reviewed by fruits.


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:
Science is not about consensus...??


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:
Its about being sceptical all the time....!!!....whether you agree or not....?????


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:
Glad to 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.


WTF....and what was John Cook's paper then...????


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.


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:
WTF....and what was John Cook's paper then...????


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:
There not pet theories my friend its called REALITY.

Please come back down to it.....??


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:
It was a review of peer reviewed papers that had been verified. It did not seek opinions.


They've got their claws in you deeper than scientology has its claws in Tom Cruise.


Quote:
Down to Earth? Is this about the moon landing again? Please tell us more.

Who do you think shot JFK?


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:
When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms. The bizarre ruling sets a landmark legal precedent and could have broad implications both in Britain and abroad.

The case began when Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger PLC was laid off in July 2008 for his criticism of management on the basis of climate change beliefs. Mr. Nicholson, who renovated his house to be greener and refuses to fly by air, was upset that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, had an employee fly to him in Ireland to deliver his Blackberry.

When Mr. Nicholson began to gripe and express his environmental sentiments, he was later dismissed. He took his former employers to court, contending that the same laws that protect religious freedoms protected his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”

http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+Afforded+Same+Legal+Status+as+Religion+in+UK/article16721.htm



Quote:
Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
Richard Parncutt : last updated 25 October 2012

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com

Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.

So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.

Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW,

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/


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:
They've got their claws in you deeper than scientology has its claws in Tom Cruise.


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:
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.   


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:
Does he play the drums? Sorry. You've got me.


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:
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.   


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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 9:10am:
Science is not about consensus...??


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:
Its about being sceptical all the time....!!!....whether you agree or not....?????


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.




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:
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.


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:
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:
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.


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:
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.


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:

muso wrote 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.


There is nothing wrong with Lord Monckton theories on AGW.

He's actually right on the ball.


I suppose you went to his rally in Australia.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html


Quote:
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers To Support Your Arguments Against So-Called "science"


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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 7:44am:

muso wrote 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.


There is nothing wrong with Lord Monckton theories on AGW.

He's actually right on the ball.


I suppose you went to his rally in Australia.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html


Quote:
450 Peer-Reviewed Papers To Support Your Arguments Against So-Called "science"


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:
So you disagree with the paper I linked? I thought it would have been right up your street.


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:

muso wrote 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.


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......????


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:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

muso wrote 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.


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......????


I've started a thread on Denial Depot.


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:
We stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can't grasp anything as certain as a fact.

Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called "experts" in their "peer reviewed journals" say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.

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:
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.



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:

Ajax wrote 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.



Where are you getting this term "computer circulation models" from? 



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:
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.

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:

muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 11:00am:
Where are you getting this term "computer circulation models" from? 



You've never heard of this term before........??????


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:
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.


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:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 15th, 2013 at 11:45pm:
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.


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. 


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:
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."


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:
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. "


That doesn't really mean much without contextual information.


Quote:
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"


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:
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.

[/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:
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.



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:

Ajax wrote 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.



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?


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:
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell


So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from?


It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.

Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic.

That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions.

The first:



“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”


Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked:


“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”



So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/



This is how John Cook tried to prove the consensus



Quote:
Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

“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%.   

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Read more here


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/



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.