| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> The Myth of the 97% consensus claim http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437466191 Message started by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:09pm |
|
|
Title: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:09pm
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers. Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor. The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:10pm
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus. In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters. Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change. Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous. Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing." Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:13pm
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
|
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:32pm
12 months old opinion piece, originally from the heartland foundation. Should be in the extremist section.
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:32pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:10pm:
Well - apart from the fact that the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming, and only a fool could not see the negative consequences on human habitation that that may pose. BTW - are you able to show us yet where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". You have been telling that lie (or some variation of it) for quite some time now - but you can never show us the evidence to support it, can you. Why is that? Don't you think it is time you just admitted you were telling porkies? It is clear to all concerned that you are a liar. Who do you think you are fooling by constantly running away from the accusation? You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you simply show us evidence of this? I have searched all of their websites - and they all say that the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming. |
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:41pm ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:32pm:
how does being a year old change anything since it was produced and published in a peer-reviewed publication? too much credibility for you to cope with? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:42pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:32pm:
so not able to debunk the ACTUAL OP, you resort to repeating your usual junk. No surprise. SCHOOLED! |
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:46pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:41pm:
Heartland Institute 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."[1] An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability: "Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."[2] www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:48pm
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1997 $unknown Mobil Corporation Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference 1998 $30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report 2000 $115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation Climate Change Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990 2001 $90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report 2002 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report 2003 $7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving 19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report 2003 $85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation General Operating Support Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report 2004 $10,000 Exxon Corporation Climate Change Activities Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report 2004 $15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation Climate Change Efforts Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report 2004 $75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation General Operating Support Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report 2005 $29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report 2005 $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report 2006 $90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving General Operating Support Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report 2006 $10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Anniversary benefit dinner Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report 2006 $15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving general operating support Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:15pm ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:48pm:
Well that certainly throws a spanner in longies argument . |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mothra on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:17pm
Nice work Greens ... ;D
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:32pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:42pm:
longy knows abbott is feeling the heat :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:43pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:09pm:
From polling CLIMATE SCIENTISTS - ONLY Polls conducted in the past - by climate change denial lobbyists - have famously included pharmacists and veterinarians (... and probably chiropractors and aroma therapists) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:07pm Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:43pm:
Which paper Zimmerman? ' Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.” Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” Not CO2 specifically, but land use change etc. And a very small sample. Error values? Anderegg 97 - 98% of 200. Again a small sample. Error values? John Cook 0.03% - wow huge. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:12pm
Extracts from the "Exxon" email.
http://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm 'Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.' 'It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical than many other large corporations.' The author of the email was Lenny Bernstein, a PhD in Chemical Engineering who was also a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 (Industry) of the Mitigation section of the IPCC AR4. Not a Climate Expert. The Guardian and Truth - ever at loggerheads The “newly unearthed missive” was not from 1981, nor from 1989, nor 1999. It was not an Exxon document at all. Instead, it was an email written in 2014 to someone at Ohio University and publicly printed by the University with the author’s permission on the University website … hardly a “newly unearthed missive”. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:15pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:42pm:
You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you simply show us evidence of this? I have searched all of their websites - and they all say that the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming. Why so shy? Just show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why is that sooooo difficult for you? We both know why - don't we LIAR. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by it_is_the_light on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:16pm
many blessings
weekender being exposed again pushing government and corporate agendas carry on , good show namaste - : ) = |
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:21pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:41pm:
Heh!!! An opinion piece on some nut job denier blog is now a " a peer-reviewed publication"!?!?!? Liar. Why can't you show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".? You keep making this claim. Where is the evidence? Let me guess….you are quoting another silly opinion pice you found on another nut job denier blog, aren't you!!! Why not just admit it? Why continue with your pathetic lies? Just man up. Don't be such a snivelling little liar. Show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"..or admit you are a liar. You are not fooling anybody |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:07pm mothra wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:17pm:
\ nice work of what? showing how easy it is for retards to reject data because of who wrote ABOUT it? the survey isnt done by heartland, that was done by a peer-reviewed publish research team. I not the absence of any comment on the actual facts, just the usual nonsense about who wrote an article. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:08pm Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 7:43pm:
at least TRY to read the article, dope. this was a peer-reviewed survey done by climate scientists themselves. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:10pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:15pm:
comment on the OP, rabbit-droppings. stay on topic instead of on ideaology and hysteria |
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:12pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 8:21pm:
read the peer-reviewed article fool. http://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_report_codebook_and_XLS_data |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:15pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scien... http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-... http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caug... http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.... |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:15pm
Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey
by Dennis Bray On May 26, the Online version of the Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece titled ‘The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?’ It was written by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer. The brief bio informs the reader “Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.” The posting contains the statement “Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.” Since the time of publication, the opinion piece, or parts thereof, has been widely distributed, more often than not verbatim, in the blogosphere. We, (Bray and von Storch) the authors of the ‘Rigorous international surveys’, find this disconcerting. Bast and Spencer make claims about our work, which are inaccurate if not outright false. This is not the first time that statements of us have been misrepresented – the case of Ameling in August 2013 was another blatant one; thus it may make sense opposing publicly such claims. In the WSJ opinion piece, Best and Spencer inform the readers that based on the results of our survey; there is disagreement ‘with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models’. What IS the consensus on the reliability of climate data and computer models? What are our results compared to so that such a claim can be made? A second conclusion reached by Blast and Spence reads 'They [climate scientists] do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change'. On this account, first, Blast and Spencer do not seem to have taken the time to read our discussion of the use of the term prediction versus the use of the term projection, a paper which itself raised a lot of comments, i.e. prediction and projection, in climate science, are synonymous. But the point here is the claim of correlation between the understanding of clouds and the ability to assess the future of climate. What the survey asks is how well the respondent thinks that climate models can deal with clouds. Admittedly the confidence is fairly low. However when asked ‘Concerning TEMPERATURE VALUES, how would you rate the ability of GLOBAL models to simulate mean values for the next 10 years’, (and the next 50 years)’ the response was considerably more positive than that assigned the assessment of clouds. The correlation of the two variables was a minimal .09. The point being, our results are modified in a way so as to support the opinions of many blog authors, not just Bast and Co. This amounts to manipulations, and to damaging our academic reputation. We, Hans von Storch and myself would like to clarify that, in undertaking the surveys, we attempt to produce results that are as objective as possible. It is not our intention to provide fodder for this camp or that camp, we are not acting as partisans of any particular persuasion and we do not particularly appreciate being stuck with a label assigned by some third party imagination. klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/misrepresentation-of-bray-and-von.html |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:04pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:07pm:
Have you ever noticed that everything you accuse others of saying you have said yourself ? No ? Most of us have. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:13pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:10pm:
You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you simply show us evidence of this? Why all the evasion? You make a statement - then run away like a little girl when asked to support it. You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". this is a remarkable claim. If true - surely you could just show us evidence, couldn't you? But no. You can't It leads me to believe that you are nothing but a snivelling, lying little creep. Do you have anything to change this opinion that (and everyone else reading this exchange) has of you? |
|
Title: Re: 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:23pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:12pm:
Yes. I have. Have you? Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Now - at least you gave a link here. And funny - not a single scientist in that survey said that they are not convinced that climate change is occurring - yet YOU say that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Where is the link for that? Or are you just a snivelling, pathetic little liar? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:25pm Ajax wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:15pm: |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:13am
Seriously! Why waste time and energy on deniers? Even the organ grinders have left them behibd.
Tillerson moved on years ago and accepted the reality of climate change. The really, really scary bit is that the organ grinders are now talking mitigation through geoengineering. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:53am Radical wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:13am:
True. But Longweekend is such a complete lying twat - it amuses me to see the lengths he goes to squirm away from the crap he posts. Isn't that right Longy - you pathetic, dishonest little man. Still waiting for you to who us where show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".? Will you ever own up to being a snivelling little liar? Or will you just start a new thread and post the same crap again? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:25am Radical wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:13am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:32am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:53am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:38am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:32am:
The climate deniers won years ago. Any chance of limiting the warming to two degrees in an orderly sensible form is long gone. It doesn't take much grey matter to know that for ecocidal maniacs who are so ecologically challenged that they cannot understand the most basic fundamentals about this planet's life support systems it's ideological. You cannot reason with that ideology. Especially when its response is to elect a barking mad rottweiler as its leader. Its the ideology that has got us in this mess. Now have a look around. Are they putting the brakes on? No, they are quite literally making the hole bigger. The only way you'll get change is to get 100,000's on the street in the major capitals. That's what you need to work on. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:46am ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:15pm:
and despite all the bluster the fact remains that the supposed 97% consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, it doesnt even form a majority. And that's before you even discuss the validity of consensus as a scientific tool at all which most would reject outright. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:06am Radical wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:38am:
a more powerful motivation would be ACTUAL warming and ACTUAL massive sea rises an so on. failed predictions are not really winning over anyone. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:14am
What fact Washedoutweekend?
You have posted a propaganda opinion spouted by a group funded by exxon. A company that once funded 9 out of 10 denialist sites so to muddy the water. Your peered review link, the authors of, has stated the writers of your opening post opinion are lying. That means your dead on the water ... you have nothing ... time to stop quacking old duck. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am
In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:26am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:23pm:
Nope, Climate change is occurring, has occurred for millions of years in the past and possibly millions into the future. It is the effect of CO2 on climate change that is being debated. You can't just define your own terms. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:31am
... and on it go's, on and on and on ;D
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:43am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:25am:
I thought this piece was a rather damning indictment of the warming movement and where they at considering the amount of time and money they have invested in convincing us all of the dangers of climate change ... ” The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.“ — Graham Richardson, Friday May 22nd, 2015 No one has engaged them? That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF. With a budget of nothing we’re winning. Why? We have nature on our side.* The world isn’t warming, the models can’t predict the real climate, and half the population have wised up to the propaganda. The main arguments of those who would control CO2 are not scientific, but insults and bluster, shutting up and disqualifying critics rather than answering politely, and producing the evidence. The University of Queensland offers a whole course in namecalling to train people to “engage” deniers. But the public know that the endless drought ended, the dams filled, the predictions were wrong and that “denier” is not science. Namecalling isn’t working anymore (so keep it coming Graham, it helps the skeptics :-) ). http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/no-one-has-engaged-the-deniers-says-graham-richardson/ |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:28pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:26am:
Longy tells us however that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". (but cannot ever seem to show us evidence of this) And then posts a paper that says not a single scientist in that survey said that they are not convinced that climate change is occurring. Longy really is a lying fool. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:35pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:26am:
No - it isn't being "debated". The effects of CO2 on climate change are well understood. The actual consequences of these effects are still unclear, because it involves modelling chaotic systems - but the simple fact that CO2 emissions are warming the planet is not being 'debated' by sane people anywhere. It is happening. Silly lies and nut job blogs posted endlessly by Longy does not change this. Only the truly ignorant (i.e. Andrew Bolt fans) still "question" the impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions on climate. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by tickleandrose on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm
Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'. Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have. But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity. While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.
Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations. That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways. This is the future, that I wish to have. Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way. Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life. Perhaps even driving us to extinction. But then again, mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving. Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:45pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:35pm:
How much Climate Change is being caused by CO2? By what metric was this derived? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:52pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:45pm:
has it ever occurred to you actually READ something about this topic yourself? (well - beyond the Andrew Bolt blogs?) There is a lot of information out there. Let me know if you need help understanding it. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:46pm Radical wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:38am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by double plus good on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm
When is this bunch of bored middle class progressives going to create another hysteria for us all to get caught up in? Remember the Y2K threat?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm tickleandrose wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:41pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:08pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 10:20am:
If you read the comments section at the end of the peer-reveiwed report, a few respondents make the same point that consensus means absolutely nothing in the pursuit of science. Scientific consensus has been wrong more often than right. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:13pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
there was 100% certainty that the sun orbited the earth and that the earth was flat. There was also 'proof' that there were 4 elements and that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. Getting closer to the present, the atom was INDIVISIBLE and in fact, its meaning inthe original greek is 'indivisible'. There was also 'ether' the mysterious substance that physicists the world over believed existed to transmit EM radiation such as light. The consensus on the nature of gravity is about to be overturned as we discover gravit does not obey maxwells laws at the galactic scale hence the embarrassment that is the 'consensus' about dark matter - a susbstance we cannot see or detect. consensus is important to lesser minds but to actual scientists, is worthless - especially the really good ones. btw did you know that doctors beleived smoking was good for you and that 25 km/hr was the maximum speed the humn body could endure? Consensus... the convenient alternative to evidence. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:55pm:
and in 20 years when climate change hysteria is offically dead we can point to you (and a whole lot of others) and laugh. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:15pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:08pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
Spend billions on a failed infrastructure that could be better spent improving the lives in impoverished nations? Cheap electricity, running water, no need for dung cooking fires. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:12pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:13pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:08pm:
Rich countries do little to alleviate the plight of impoverished countries. For example, much of USA's foreign aid budget goes to states such as Afghanistan, Israel and Iraq for purchase of weapons and munitions. The aid beneficiaries are actually the USA corporations which supply weapons and other goods to these countries. There is no such thing as cheap electricity. Global warming will reduce the availability of water, especially for impoverished nations. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:45pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:00pm:
If you are wrong tens of trillions of dollars are wasted. If I am wrong the evidence will actually appear in time to do whatever needs to be done. Ironically, this is a version of Pascal's Wager. I dont see you giving your life to God based on the logic you employ above. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:56pm Unforgiven wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm:
But global warming will result in more water vapour ( evaporation). Or do you have another explanation where global warming will reduce evaporation? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:45pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:56pm:
Seriously - you need to actually READ about this subject instead of just asking stupid questions: How global warming impacts water With climate change, the water cycle is expected to undergo significant change. For example, a warmer climate causes more water to evaporate from both land and oceans; in turn, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water – roughly four percent more water for every 1ºF rise in temperature. Changes like this are expected to lead to specific, and in many cases negative, consequences. Some parts of the U.S. – in particular, the Northeast and Midwest – can expect increased precipitation and runoff, especially in winter and spring, leading to increased flooding. Other areas – notably the Southwest – can expect less precipitation, especially in the warm months, and longer, more severe droughts as storm tracks shift northward leaving arid areas increasingly dry. Rain versus snow can make a critical difference The form that precipitation takes is also subject to change in response to warming: climate projections for many regions of North America suggest less snow, overall, and more rain. In areas dependent on the gradual melting of snowpack to supply surface water through the warm months, this means lower flows and greater water stress in summer – a trend already in evidence in parts of the western U.S. While the effects of climate change on groundwater are not fully understood, rising water competition and stress at the surface are likely to drive greater use – and overuse – of this resource. Overall, wet areas are expected to become wetter and dry areas drier, placing additional stress on the nation's over-taxed water systems as well as water-dependent sectors. Water quality affects people and ecosystems Declining water quality is another consequence of climate change. Water temperature, for example, will generally rise in streams, lakes, and reservoirs as air temperature rises. This tends to lead to lower levels of dissolved oxygen in water, hence more stress on the fish, insects, crustaceans and other aquatic animals that rely on oxygen. As more – and more intense – precipitation leads to increased runoff in certain regions, we can also expect more pollution to be washed into our waterways: sediments, nitrogen from agriculture, disease pathogens, pesticides, and herbicides. Naturally, the pollution load in streams and rivers will tend to be carried to larger bodies of water downstream – lakes, estuaries, and the coastal ocean – where one of the more dramatic consequences of heavy runoff can be blooms of harmful algae and bacteria. The tide is rising One of the starkest effects of climate change is the anticipated rise in sea level worldwide. This occurs for two main reasons – the expansion of the ocean as it warms, and the increased melt from ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. Along with alarming threats to coastal communities, infrastructure, economies and ecosystems, this rise has implications for available freshwater, as rising sea levels drive saltwater into freshwater aquifers. To be useful for drinking or irrigating, more water from our aquifers, then, would need to be treated, usually by energy-intensive processes. Given the wide range of human activities that depend – directly or indirectly – on water, future climate-driven changes in water resources will affect many aspects of our lives. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/water-and-climate-change.html#.Va9Ah-s9PKA |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:09pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:
Remember - this is the bloke that tells us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" - but runs away when asked to show evidence of this. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Rider on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:10pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
Which is simply not the case as the debunking has shown. Try again another day, we need more humour. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:17pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:
According to the Argo buoys 0.023C/decade. There's a lot of warming to be done before the water expands. rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:
Tell us how much and in which direction. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Rider on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm Unforgiven wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 4:15pm:
Wow. Socialism and Dumbism. You really are a fact free zone aren't you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:07pm:
we should have a discussion on the mythological existence of 'experts'. these same experts predicted a whole host of events which failed to materialise which essentially strips them of the right to be called 'experts'. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:25pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:09pm:
Well he's run away again. And he also has not answered this point to his argument that scientific consensus is meaningless (see below) ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Rider on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:25pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:
It's the vibe...... Billions of tax payers money blown for absolutely nothing. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:29pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:25pm:
the thread is about the myth of the 97% consensus claim. How about you stick to topic for once. Or is it too hard? and the FACT of the subatomic structure is not a consensus position but a proven FACT. idiot. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm Rider wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:25pm:
the water cycle is going to change? how? The hydrological cycle is basic and is virtually impossible to change. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm Rider wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:10pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:36pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:29pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Rider on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:43pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:
No. Garbage deflection. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:44pm
So now that it has been PROVEN that the majority of climate scientists DONT support the hysteria, what are you going to do? make up some more facts?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Neferti on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:44pm
Somebody said something about the Tide is High .... Blondie will fill you in. ;D 8-) :-* ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8O-Qn9QMog |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Greens_Win on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:47pm
...
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:51pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:25pm:
Spartacus my dear Patriot I was once a believer just like you, for at least 6 months after I had seen An inconvenient truth. That is until I actually started to do some investing only to find that CO2 has never and will never control temperature here on Earth. Oh yes the conspiracy theorist well when banks and bankers are heavily financing the alarmism you start to say to yourself W.T.F. these guys are only interested in money why are they trying to save the planet. Bankers save the planet.....huh......I'd like to see that...!!! Once they get it up and running even more CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere and then of course they will also create technical recessions with this $2 trillion dollar market (carbon derivatives) once they get it going. Also ask yourself where in history have scientist told other scientists to shut up and take notice because they are right and everyone else is wrong. Science is about being sceptical until your formulaes and theories match the recordings (data) of the real word. Anyway I need food, if you don't believe me then believe in the failings of the IPCC climate computer models, they cant predict the next decade let alone predicting climate change 100 years from now. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:09pm
Ajax, that spartacus is not really a sharp tool although he is certainly a tool. he will reject all of your graphs for reasons that will be fascinating but will essentially be the nonsense he is well known for.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:18pm innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 11:43am:
Bump :) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:09pm:
What a shame a fellow Thracian warrior and a freedom fighter to go to such waste. I guess Spartacus always did have a thick head, the poor lad. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by red baron on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm
Human's effect on the climate pales into insignificance compared to the solar flares activity of the sun. It will be the Sun that will determine the future of the Earth NOT humans.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:32pm Ajax wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm:
he can recite dogma well... but so can a tape recorder. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:51pm Ajax wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:51pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:55pm red baron wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:25pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 9:00am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:51pm:
and yet ironically, he didnt cut and paste anything. Damn, you are stupid. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:15pm lee wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:
Which part of this post didn't you understand? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1437466191/59#59 Did you even read it? Or visit the link it was extracted from? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:20pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:29pm:
Yes. A thread started by a proven liar. Remember - you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". That is a lie - isn't it. If it weren't - you would have provided evidence to support that statement by now. Don't you think you should apologise for telling lies before you go start making more new threads based on the crap you read on denier blogs? You are simply a lying troll. Address your lies first - don't simply go adding to them. Now - you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". will we ever see evidence of this? Or will you just try to maintain your lie. You really are not fooling anyone you know. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:38pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 5:31pm:
Wow!!! Not just a liar - but also profoundly stupid!!! What a combination! The hydrological cycle is driven by heat. Change the amount of heat in the system - the system changes. The planet is warming. THis is beyond doubt (yes - I know you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" - but this is clearly a lie. You seem incapable of showing us evidence to support this bizarre claim). A warming planet means more heat driving the hydrological cycle. This means (briefly): - more evaporation - increased precipitation in some areas - decreased précipitation and drought in some areas - more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increased glacial melt - significant impact on existing aquifers You can read more here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/water-and-climate-change.html#.VbBRtes9PKB and here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=72 and here: http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~jasone/publications/evans&schreider2002.pdf and here: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/129/2013/esd-4-129-2013.html THere are mountains of evidence. I would be happy to supply you with more - as soon as you apologise for telling lies to the Forum. NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM DO NOT all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming", do they. That was just a lie that you told, wasn't it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:59pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:38pm:
my company TEACHES on the hydrological cycle, twit. 0.6 degrees has changed NOTHING in that cycle nor would ten degrees, certainly not a dramatic change. I suspect you dont really know what the cycle is. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 3:59pm double plus good wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 1:48pm:
As opposed to the rabid ravings of the retarded right. They brought us the Yellow Peril, Reds under the beds, the Domino effect, the non-existent WMDs and ISIS is coming to get us. All empty idle threats that they used as an excuse to unleash wars resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands and wind back democratic freedoms in the name of democracy. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 4:40pm Radical wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 3:59pm:
Please move to Syria. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:08pm
If you will excuse the pun, the climate debate has started to hot up again in recent months. It is hard to put your finger on why, but then again, this is one debate that has long since divorced itself from the reality of facts, figures and science.
Both sides of the debate have been… hang on! Why must there only be two sides and why must there only be two camps? Surely there is room in the middle and across the spectrum, right? Well, in short, the answer is no. The nature of any debate that gets hijacked by ideology and faith is that it very quickly polarises into the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps and no alternative positions are allowed. It is he death knell for serious discussion. Now back to my original sentence… Both sides of the debate have not exactly done themselves proud. The rhetoric, the personal abuse and the arrogance of some of the loudest voices has been obscene, that is when it hasn’t been laughable and error-filled. Al Gore probably kicked things off with his once-lauded and now much-derided movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which was lumbered with so many factual errors, exaggerations and outright lies that the name of the movie has been the punchline to many a joke. The much hyped and much publicised ‘hockey stick graph’ has fared little better. Once proudly displayed by the IPCC to all and sundry, the graph and its underlying methodologies have now been reduced to being generously described as ‘bad science’ or less politely, outright fraud. Not that the other side can hold its head up all that high. Self-styled Lord Monkton has been a running sore and embarrassing global joke for some years now and self-respecting people try to ignore his ravings. And then there are the conspiracy theorists always ready to muddy the waters of any otherwise, sensible discussion. Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the ‘denialists’… Sorry, let’s digress yet again. ‘Denialists’? A term like that is rather harsh and extremely derogatory and speaks volumes about those that use it – none of it good. The fact that Queensland University even has a course to help people counteract (largely throw insults) anti-climate-change viewpoints ie denialism is a disturbing state of affairs. So back to Graeme Richardson… Former Australian senator Graeme Richardson recently complained that the Climate Change Critics had taken over the majority opinion because ‘no one has engaged them. Wrong Graeme. That’s not the reason. Not even close. Politicians of all stripes love to consider the average person as some kind of gullible mug who will swallow whatever message is the loudest. While sadly there may be some truth to that, most people retain sufficient intelligence and experience to work out what is a truth and what is a lie, especially when it is rather obvious. The world has been told for three decades now that we are all going to drown, fry, starve or die in other ways because of ‘out of control, catastrophic climate change’ and yet, nothing much has changed at all. Any Australian with a few decades of life to refer to has experienced drought, flood, heat, cold and extreme weather events. And not one of them is historically remarkable. When Tim Flannery came along claiming that Adelaide will run out of water, Sydney will never fill its dams and we are all going to burn up from uncontrolled heat, experience and scepticism caused most people to ignore that prediction. The subsequent flooding rains and decommissioning of desalination plants due to full reservoirs pretty much put paid to such predictions. Except it didn’t. Even in the face of near 100% failure of climate predictions, the same people keep making the same claims and with the same results. The reason the significant majority of average people reject the notion that climate is out of control and we are all going to die is the complete and total failure of any of these prophecies to be fulfilled even in small measure. While NASA and NOAA might trumpet loudly (and some would say hysterically) their claims that 2014 was the ‘hottest year ever’, they are talking about hundredths of a degree alongside error margins of tenths of a degree. People are not stupid or at least not that stupid. It is a bit like predicting a St Kilda premiership each and every year. After 20, 30,v40 years of disappointment, you quickly learn to treat such predictions as the wishful thinking they are. The Pro-climate-change groups have orchestrated some truly appalling actions in pursuit of publicising their venture. While the Al Gore movie could be dismissed as just an embarrassment, the Climategate scandal cannot. Professional scientists colluding to ‘hide the decline’ and hiding data that did not support their central hypothesis. The Hockey Stick fiasco and the continued support for a graph that had literally been proven wrong showed up some people and groups’ motivations to be extremely suspect. But the absolute killer statement was… ‘The science is settled’ Perhaps the silliest thing said of a scientific discipline since the infamous statement by late 1800s physicists that ‘we know pretty much all there is to know about the atom’. No science is ever settled and certainly not climate science which is a relatively young discipline. At least when Rutherford discovered the subatomic structure, physics moved on. The same cannot be said for the loudest voices in Climate Change groups. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:09pm
For a while we were subjected to the screams that 97% of Climate Scientists agree with Catastrophic Climate Change only to find out later that it wasn’t even remotely true and that now, a detailed and substantial survey concludes that the majority have no such opinion at all. Instead, most claim they have no idea of how much humans are involved in warming or how much more warming there will be – if indeed any. And that is before we even ask the question as to why consensus even has a place in scientific endeavour. The majority of significant scientific advances are actually achieved while debunking the current consensus opinion.
But all jokes aside, it has now started to get serious. Sea level increases have been predicted to be anything from 6 metres to 100 metres by 2020 while the actual rise is mere centimetres. NOAA has decided to ‘rework’ the sea level data and surprise, surprise, when they had done so, the results 100% mirrored IPCC predictions. Yes, 100%. Not just close but perfect. This is a very serious development. Historical revisionism like this is the stuff of totalitarian governments, not scientific bodies. If a scientist is afraid of making mistakes or being wrong then he is definitely in the wrong game. And now, NASA and NOAA reworking together to rework the temperature data and early reports indicate that they have managed to eliminate the near 18 year long pause in temperature change. The indisputable 18 year pause in warming has been a major thorn in the side of the pro-climate change activists. It is a major deviation from predictions. It took years to even get major bodies to admit the truth of this, even after ClimateGate where this fact (no warming) was what they were trying to hide. And watch them eat their own! University of WA was planning to bring in an overseas academic with impeccable credentials to manage a Climate Centre, but the academic and activist pushback was so severe they pulled out of it. The furore was so intense that you would think they were inviting Lord Monkton to run the place. Instead, it was an academic who thoroughly subscribes to the Catastrophic Climate Change theory. So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches. So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same? The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control. In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent. Reprinted with permission |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 9:18pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:38pm:
rabbitoh08 the IPCC computer climate models have proven to be a failure what they predicted back in 1990 have not come to pass in accordance with the observed data. Their predictions were way over what has been observed, meaning they are wrong and have estimated, calculated wrong since their analysis is wrong. The amount of CO2 going up into the atmosphere is for ever increasing yet temperatures have tapered of. Where is the link between Anthropogenic Global Warming CO2 and temperature....????? What about the hot spot in the tropopause weather ballons and satellites have failed to detect this hot spot that appears in the IPCC computer climate models....???? What about the non sense that the missing heat was going into the oceans, we have the ARGO system of buoys and they too have failed to find this signature footprint. Once bankers have the $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives up and running do you think they will reduce the amount of CO2 going up into the atmosphere to break this market...??? In time our superannuation will become entrenched as an investment in this market would you like to see it crash then....??? What about the fact that Rothchild's son is peddling the alarmist cause doesn't this ring alarm bells for you...?? Well I guess it would if you don't know who he is.....???? What about the fact that banks and bankers are pumping billions that's billions of dollars into the AGW religion...??? And if anything should ring the alarm bells for you is that the alarmists scientists are saying to the rest of the scientific community to sit down and shut up we are right everyone else is wrong......???? Science is about being sceptical until your predictions backed up by your calculations can be observed in the real world and not computer programmes. These peddlers of doomsday have been caught out on so many occasions, here is the last one for tonight, the famous hockey stick. Why did the IPCC publish in 1990 the hockey stick showing the medieval warm period and the mini ice age and a decade latter they replaced this with Michael Mann's hockey stick which had both these cycles omitted....???? What about climate gate........????? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:05am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 4:40pm:
What and miss out on ISIS storming our beaches and beheading each and every one of us! Nobody creates hysteria over mythical threats like the right. Their latest hysterical manouevre is the newly created militia to defend our borders from women and children in leaky boats. Threat mythology, its the preserve of the rabid Right. The denialist myth that AGW is a leftist conspiracy, like the "Reds under the bed" bs and the domino theory bs, is a barking mad denial of reality. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:47am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:
Wow! The liar really is showing himself to be a complete fool now. Your company TEACHES on the hydrological cycle does it? And what is your role liar? Making the coffee? Seriously - who do you think you are fooling you ignorant fool. You are a liar. THis has been proven. You told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". This is nonsense. We all know it. Now you pretend to know something about hydrology!!! What a pathetic lying twat you are. Please - tell us oh hydrological guru - how exactly does an increase in temperature not affect how water behaves in the environment? What exactly does your company say about this? Who is your company? Are they all as freaking stupid as you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:52am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:09pm:
How about you stop regurgitating poo from denialist blogs and explain to us why you told us that NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". You are a liar. Why do you keep running away? It is a simple question - you made a statement - please show some evidence for it. Until you do that - please stop posting more crap. Please explain the lies you have already told. Why do you keep running away from the question? (we both know the answer - don't we) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:58am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:
Oh - and just BTW, I have a Masters degree majoring in hydrology. You are silly twat that tells lies on the internet, Seriously - who do you think you are fooling? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:23am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:47am:
an increas of 0.6 degrees which is all thathas been observed changes absolutely nothing in the hydrological cycle - as if you even know what that is which you clearly dont. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:25am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:58am:
so you would be well versed in 1D, 2D and 3D modelling, turbulence calculations and GW/SW interaction? assuming you even know what any of those mean without googling them. So mr expert, tell me what modelling calculation kernel you use in your hydrological flow modelling. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:27am rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:52am:
MET UK has articles on their own website called 'explaining the pause'. the IPCC has a lot of info explaining the 'hiatus in warming',while NOAA's current project is in reworking temperature data and have announced that the new results 'eliminate the pause'. they all talk about it, fake hydrologist. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:46am
from our materials...
 000430_04_15Session_01_-_HOW_IMPORTANT_IS_GROUNDWATER.jpg (210 KB | 64
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:28am Ajax wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 9:18pm:
Actually Matthew England of UNSW claims to have found the missing tropical hotspot. Somewhere over the Tasman Sea. Just taking a holiday, it seems; and forgot to tell anybody. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by scope on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:34am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:46am:
So you plagiarize material for your company, even going to the extent of removing the source from the lower right . So sad longweekend. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:28pm scope wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:34am:
that diagram is public domain and been around for decades. nice of you to completely miss the point. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:29pm
Seems rabbit droppings and is claimed Masters degree in Hydrology has gone missing.
no surprise. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:50pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:27am:
Show us these links liar. Why can't you do that? Too embarrassed to show us that you do not understand the difference between global warming and surface temperature? Come on liar - you told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Let's see it liar. I have already shown you, NASA says: Global temperature rise All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. Warming oceans The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8 Shrinking ice sheets The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. Declining Arctic sea ice Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. They do not seem to 'agree' that there has been a "pause in global warming". http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Why did you tell that lie? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:54pm
Then go and show us a graph of surface temperatures for the past 20 years, fake hydrologist. Source it from NASA, MET or anywhere else reliable.
go ahead. see for yourself, fake hydrologist. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:56pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:25am:
Mr Expert - please explain to us how increasing the heat in the hydrological cycle will not affect it? What causes evaporation Mr Expert? What cause ocean currents Mr Expert? What causes wind Mr Expert? What causes ice to melt Mr Expert? I think you may find that the amount of heat in the system may have a little to do with it. And the heat energy in the system is increasing. Because the planet is warming. And you think this can have no impact on hydrological cycles!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:00pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:54pm:
Why do you want to limit it to just surface temperatures liar? Why are you ignoring the majority of the planet's heat content? You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this? I just showed you that NASA says nothing of the sort on their website. They say: Ice is melting Oceans are warming Temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising. All because the planet is warming. No mention of a "pause in global warming". Nothing of the sort. You appear to have been caught telling a big fat lie |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:04pm
on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.
0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:11pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:04pm:
Stop running away liar. You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this? Why are you only interested in surface temperature? Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle? 0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:14pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:59pm:
--> level 8s would laugh at you: the rainfall patterns for the south of Western Australia have witnessed 30 year trends. The explanation is that the anti-cyclones off of Antarctica are no longer reaching in to the continent like they used to. Wind patterns are changing. Wind is driven by heat and heat content is held by the atmosphere. The amount of water vapour in the air is directly related to the amount of CO2 in the air as this is driven in and out of solution by heat itself. It's called a complex system... complex systems are sensitive to intial conditions and the sun does control it all in the end but orbital factors control that and so what dominates over what at any particular point in time becomes a complicated story. But to say 0.6 degrees of temperature increase means nothing is like looking at interest rates and pretneding you know everything about the economy: they are all indicators of a complex system and thus need corroboration from each other to actually mean anything. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:34pm
So a complex system can't explain why rainfall patterns change?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:48pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:11pm:
barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE fake hydrologist. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by scope on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:02pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:28pm:
Public domain yes, with the source intact, I found this 1800 times on the net in each case the source was still in place, why did you remove the source , so the people you lecture would think it is your diagram ? Pathetic! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:15pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
Still waiting for that answer. You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this? I think you have entertained us enough with your gross ignorance of heat exchange in the water cycle - how about you actually get back to explaining why you told a big fat lie? Does an "expert" like you really need somebody to explain to you the difference between surface temperature and total heat content? Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004). http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html None of those numbers are negative are they. All positive. That means the planet is warming, doesn't it |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:39pm scope wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:02pm:
my lecturer provided it. Given his age and experience he may have actually done it himself! He has already authored THE text on groundwater hydraulics so perhaps yes. Not exactly an on-topic comment tho, is it? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:41pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:15pm:
so... fake hydrologist. It appears you are unwilling to produce a TEMPERATURE GRAPH and we all know why - because it shows that pause you are intent on denying. and why arent you at least TRYING to answer that hydrologists question? I framed it specificially so that google would not help muc. You'd actually have to know about hydrology. fake liar |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:09pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:23am:
And half of that is due to urban heat sink ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:31pm
and in yet another MET scandal, last week the MET declared a record 36.2 degree day in England before discovering that the temperature sensor was in the blast zone of no less than a Boeing Passenger Jet at an airport!
confirmation bias. all a climate hysteric needs to scream like Chicken Little. what the hell is a temperature sensor doing anywhere near aircraft????? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:58pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:31pm:
They are to make sure the engines don't overheat. ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bam on Jul 25th, 2015 at 5:09pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:09pm:
No need to provide a detailed rebuttal. The whole article is a load of crap. Here's why. It's a load of opinionated waffle on a topic that has nothing to do with science. OPINION-BASED SURVEYS HAVE NO BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC FACT. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 25th, 2015 at 6:36pm
Yep John Cook of 97% fame has been identified as an identity thief. Real trustworthy fellow.
'If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.' 'John Cook: … If a few more agree with the idea of this blog post (noting it won’t directly engage Watts or even mention him, it’ll be a general discussion post) and the direction I propose we go with the d-word issue, I’ll have a crack at writing it over the next day. EDIT: sorry, accidentally posted this under my Lubos_Motl username, sorry for any confusion :-( …' http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/ |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 25th, 2015 at 6:50pm Bam wrote on Jul 25th, 2015 at 5:09pm:
hmm guess who DIDNT read the article and the fact that it references a PEER-REVEIWED published report. not real good at honesty and intelligence are you, pebbles? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 26th, 2015 at 1:40pm
and bam goes missing....
again. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 26th, 2015 at 8:49pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
Your thought experiment implies the temperature change is confined! :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 26th, 2015 at 8:51pm lee wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:34pm:
30 year trends are 30 year trends ;) ;) If you want a circle party I love these things so bring it on :) :) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Jul 26th, 2015 at 9:14pm
And 60 year trends, 500 year trends?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 27th, 2015 at 9:18am lee wrote on Jul 26th, 2015 at 9:14pm:
dont bother engaging with DRAH. he is quite literally insanse brought about by drug use. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 27th, 2015 at 9:23am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 9:18am:
The drugs were bad enough but the slight warming that is well within natural variation finished him off :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Jul 27th, 2015 at 10:13am innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 9:23am:
I think it is also some copper poisoning. He probably tries to eat it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 7th, 2015 at 12:47am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:41pm:
You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". So far - you have failed to show any evidence of this whatsoever. It appears that you are a liar Are you now trying to tell us that "global warming" is only related to surface temperature? why is that? Why are you ignoring the increase in ocean temperature? Why are you ignoring the decrease in the cryosphere Global ocean heat content certainly doesn't support you lie that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"." You told a lie. Even if we just restrict ourselves to just surface temperature - you are still lying: And nowhere does "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" You are a liar. You have been caught red-handed telling lies. longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:41pm:
Seriously?!?! Who are you trying to fool? You get caught telling lies - and you try to divert attention away from it. Yes- I get it. You are some half-arsed computer monkey that somebody has taught how to punch numbers into TUFLOW or something. Good for you. Then you come out and tell us that rising temperature will have no effect on the hydrological cycle!!! Really!!! Do your employers actually know how pig-ignorant you are? Now - sonny - stop telling lies. Stop trying to pretend you are something you are not. And stop trying to avoid the question. Why did you write: "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" That is just a 100% lie isn't it. Don't you think it is about time you admitted this? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 10:09am lee wrote on Jul 26th, 2015 at 9:14pm:
Why not just ask God for the answer to everything? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 10:11am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2015 at 9:18am:
...longy wants me to go away because he is sick of getting owned ;D ;D Longy, they all love me here mate because i own you!! :) :) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:47am
rabbitoh08, Ocean heat according to the Argo buoys, adjusted since they once showed cooling- and that would never do, show 0.023C/decade warming. Scary eh? Why do you think that even though the Argo buoys measure in C, they convert it into zetajoules? It makes it scary.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:24pm
Lee, could you perhaps explain this graph?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm
It is a graph of the Sea Surface Temperatures of the North Atlantic.
It just doesn't show ever increasing temperatures, which is what the models tell us. Of course things can change, but dropping sea temperatures may not be good for the likes of Europe this year. But June is close to mid-summer in the Northern Hemisphere, so warming would be expected by now. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:32pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
Ummm no it doesn't it shows the temperature anomaly. At least that's what the y axis says. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:33pm
You are right. Do you think the anomalies shows consistent warming?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:35pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:33pm:
What they show is consistently warmer than average years since 2001. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:41pm
It also shows SST anomaly as similar to 1981. But the cooling hasn't turned as yet.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:44pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
You have to factor in the effect of the Antarctic ice melt which will lower the temperature of water. Even though its colder the ice melt water will be on the top layers of the ocean until it's mixed because fresh water is lower density than sea water. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:47pm
How much will Antarctic Ice melt affect the Northern Hemisphere?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:41pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:47am:
What else should heat content be measured in? Temperature is an indicator of heat content or don't you know that? :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:43pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
Why doesn't your link show me your graph? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:44pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:24pm:
Graphs really do require titles... ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:45pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
My gawd, you have been taken to pieces son :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D I feel so awful for you NOT ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:47pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:33pm:
Still back for more,... don't even stop to apologise for your error! :D :D You must vote liberal or something ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:50pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:41pm:
Lol, like wtf :o Why doesn't this guy get dedicated threads on banning him for spam? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Hey, THE MECHANIC: YOUR SKILLS ARE REQUIRED :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 3:51pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:47pm:
EVER HEARD OF GOOGLE ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 4:09pm
Yeah that's a website that tracks you.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 4:27pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 4:09pm:
oh, that's why you want me to use it on your behalf :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 4:36pm
I think you have enough intelligence to do as you wish. I may be wrong.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Very_Vinnie on Aug 7th, 2015 at 6:42pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 9:08pm:
The blog is the "work" of one Peter Bast - President of the Koch Brothers (and previously Exxon, among others) owned Heartland Institute Check THIS out, PEOPLE ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute Based on Bast's past "form" - if 97% of this blog were total fabrication it would come as NO SURPRISE to anyone familiar with the Heartland Institute and the Koch Brothers |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 6:58pm
Interesting
Who is sourcewatch? 'SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.' http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Very_Vinnie on Aug 7th, 2015 at 7:40pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 6:58pm:
Perhaps you could hand us the extreme right-wing, capitalist and corporate organization version of who REALLY controls The Heartland Institute ? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 7th, 2015 at 9:01pm
Oh,no another conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you can contact Marla and converse.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Very_Vinnie on Aug 7th, 2015 at 10:04pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 6:58pm:
Perhaps you could hand us the extreme right-wing, capitalist and corporate organization version of who REALLY finances and controls The Heartland Institute ? lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 9:01pm:
WELL, I gave you a CHANCE |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:26pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 4:36pm:
okeley dokeley then ,.. let's all just get together and waste internet address space like it's parliament question time under bronwyn bishops speakership shall we :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D okeley dokeley then ,.. let's all just get together and waste internet address space like it's parliament question time under bronwyn bishops speakership shall we :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D okeley dokeley then ,.. let's all just get together and waste internet address space like it's parliament question time under bronwyn bishops speakership shall we :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Robot on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:39pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
The graph you have provided is the surface temperature for the North Atlantic--it does not show global temperature changes. The nickname for climate change is 'global warming', not 'North Atlantic warming'. The global temperature has increased steadily for decades. From NASA: climate. nasa. gov/images/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg.jpg |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 8th, 2015 at 12:10am Robot wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:39pm:
If you get lee angry he might beat his wife :o |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 8th, 2015 at 11:36am Robot wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:39pm:
lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 2:33pm:
Do you see any claim for Global Warming there? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Aug 8th, 2015 at 11:40am Robot wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 11:39pm:
We all agree on this, but is it natural warming or as the IPCC explains it, all due to mans emissions of CO2...??? That is the crux of this debate / argument...!!!!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Aug 8th, 2015 at 6:34pm
It's fascinating watching the climate hysterics absolutely and totally reject the PROOF that the '97% consensus' claim was bogus and borderline fraud.
AS if te mere notion of 97% consensus on ANYTHING is likely, nevermind on a controversial topic like this. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 8th, 2015 at 9:29pm longweekend58 wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 6:34pm:
Longy |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Aug 9th, 2015 at 1:40pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 9:29pm:
and unsurprisingly, you are unable to debate the point because you are secretly embarrassed to have been some comprehensively SUCKED IN to such an obvious and transparent claim. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by The_Barnacle on Aug 10th, 2015 at 11:36am longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
Wow longy if you really are a hydrologist then I can only guess that you are being deliberately misleading to try and win an argument. It doesn't reflect too well on you. Of course ice in the interior of Antarctica is too cold to melt, but the ice on the Antarctic coast is much closer to 0 degrees and much of it has been melting. You would also know that when ice that is on land melts into the oceans it increases the sea level. You would also know that when water warms it thermally expands, which also increases the sea level. As for the 97% I am far more inclined to believe a scientific organisation like NASA than a right wing ideological group funded by the fossil fuel industry. Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:28pm longweekend58 wrote on Aug 9th, 2015 at 1:40pm:
Heh!!! This from the guy that tells us "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". But when asked (over and over again) fails to show any evidence of this whatsoever. It appears that you are a liar. Don't you have anything to say in your own defence? (And please - no more evasion. Don't give us that tired old "I already showed you" routine again. You know you haven't. You are not fooling anybody.) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm lee wrote on Aug 7th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
Yes - that North Atlantic Sea Surface temperature graph is interesting. But why just select one small portion of the world's ocean? And why select just the tiny fraction of that ocean that is the surface temperature? the same website you are quoting from has global ocean temperature as well: 0 - 100m: and 0 - 700m http://www.climate4you.com Why didn't you show us these graphs instead? make it fairly clear don't they, that the planet is warming. And makes Longy's claim that: "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" seem very, ,very silly. Doesn't seem to be any pause in the warming of the world's oceans, does there Longy? You told a lie - didn't you Longy. NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM DIDN'T all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming, did they. You just made that up - then ran away like a little girl when called on it |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm
Uh oh someones cherry picking
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:51pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm:
"This is what the NASA release is addressing: In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world’s oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures. Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the “missing” heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array. “The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said JPL’s William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. “The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.” In summary, NASA reports that deep ocean water temperatures neither explain the increase in ocean surface temperatures, nor why global temperatures appear to have paused in recent years." http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/185975-nasa-report-released-deep-ocean-waters-show-sign-warming-9-years/ |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:51pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Yes. Between Lee's cherry picking and Longy's flat-out lying - these deniers show themselves to be a pretty sad and ignorant bunch. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:51pm:
Is there a reason you posted this quote without explanation? What exactly are you trying to tell us? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 1:04pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
That Nasa, in this particular paper admitted they couldn't explain the 'slow-down' (or hiatus) in temperature increases in recent years. I know you're a bit slow....but surely the highlighted sections are self-explanatory (to rational people, anyway) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Kiron22 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 1:33pm
Why are people bothering to argue with Longy? He is clearly a troll or mentally retarded.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 10th, 2015 at 2:01pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm:
Ok let's do your graphs. Graph A - 0.4/60 = .0066 0r .066C/decade Graph B - 0.15/35 = .004 or .04C/decade Now the data is sparse but it seems the trend over the last 35 years is lower than the overall trend. Also of course measurement accuracy is doubtful; especially as the early years depend on "noisy" data from ships. Measurement accuracy includes both observational and instrumental accuracy. Instrumental accuracy cannot be averaged out. The adjusted Argo data shows .023C/decade; but Argo buoys have only been place since 2000. Do you expect coming out of the LIA that there would be no warming? There has been a 30% increase in CO2 since the 90's, any rise due to CO2 is in the noise. Of course El Nino's, a sun warming event, is natural. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by longweekend58 on Aug 10th, 2015 at 4:32pm The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 11:36am:
perhaps you should open a crack in that mind of your just enough to see that the rebuttal to the 97% consensus nonsense was done by... climate scientists. you know the type - seeking answers instead of ideology? No, perhaps you don't. Your lot really struggle with ANY fact that disagrees or doesn't fit 100% in line with your doctrine, don't you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:39pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 1:04pm:
But it does nothing to change the simple fact that the planet is clearly warming. Surface temperatures are still clearly increasing, and remain at historically high levels. Even recent La Nina years are among the warmest ever recorded. Oceans are clearly warming - though not below 700m as was initially expected. The cryosphere is still clearly decreasing. THe planet is clearly and unambiguously warming. Yes - there is some uncertainty as to why surface temperatures (a very small part of the global heat budget) seem to be increasing a a slower rate than other parts of the system - but the planet is still clearly and unambiguously warming. That quote does nothing to pace any doubt in this. All is does is say no increase has yet been measured in the ocean abyss . It certainly does nothing to support Longy's often repeated lie: "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming" Notice how he is still running away from that lie? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:40pm lee wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
But why just select one small portion of the world's ocean? And why select just the tiny fraction of that ocean that is the surface temperature? Were you trying to be deliberately dishonest? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:44pm lee wrote on Aug 10th, 2015 at 2:01pm:
ENSO isn't directly related to solar irradiance, it is driven but changes in oceanic currents. Solar irradiance may affect the magnitude of an ENSO event, but no - El Nino isn't a "sun warming event". |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 11th, 2015 at 1:05pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:44pm:
...lee is trying to reduce the complexity of the thermohaline cycle to a linear equation. What else can a crack smoker in a batman suit do ?? ::) The level of debate on this forum reflects exactly the level of debate in our houses of parliament and the lib voters are so embarrassed because they have just been very publicly told it's their fault! Question time today will be very interesting indeed! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 11th, 2015 at 1:13pm Ajax wrote on Aug 8th, 2015 at 11:40am:
The ol' wedge politics! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 11th, 2015 at 3:38pm
Rabbitoh08, Ships "noisy" data, now incorporated in NASA and NOOA data sets, has error bars of +/-1.7C. Now tell me your warming from tampered data sets in statistically significant.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 12:39pm:
Actually it does support that NASA at least did accept there had been a 'pause' (or at least a noticeable slowdown) in global warming. That they have now decided that there isn't/wasn't and that "they never said it" doesn't change that NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations did acknowledge it, which makes Longweekend's statement true. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
No. It doesn't. Not at all. Do you understand the difference between "GLOBAL warming" - and the very, very small part of that phenomena that is surface temperatures? Or are you just pretending to be ignorant? gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
No. Longweekend's statement in not in anyway true. Thatis why he cannot find anything to support it. NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming". Look at their websites - they all say the exact opposite. Once more - there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature. What don't you understand about this? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 11th, 2015 at 6:24pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
'Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11ºC per decade over 1951–2012. ' https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf 'Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012. This trend — referred to as a "global warming hiatus" — has sparked a lot of debate and given rise to a reasonable question: Is global warming coming to a halt?' http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ The "hiatus" has also been called the "pause" 'A global warming hiatus,[3] also sometimes referred to as a global warming pause[4] or a global warming slowdown,[5] is a period of relatively little change in globally averaged surface temperatures.[6] In the current episode of global warming many such periods are evident in the surface temperature record, along with robust evidence of the long term warming trend.[3]' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus Really, do we need to do this each and every time? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 11th, 2015 at 8:02pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 5:52pm:
Yes it does, I know it goes against your deeply held belief on the subject, but it has still been acknowledged at one point. That's the beauty of the internet though, isn't it. Even if you go back and edit your own websites/literature, it's almost impossible to find every copy. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:48am lee wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 6:24pm:
Yes - it appears we do need to do this each and every time - until you can understand this simple fact: there is far more to "global warming" than the tiny, tiny bit of it that is surface temperature. What don't you understand about this? Are you being deliberately dense? Or are you really just that ignorant? What is it? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:54am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 8:02pm:
No.. It is not a "deeply held belief". Longweekend is a liar. This has been proven. NASA, the IPCC and probably the other organisations DO NOT acknowledge a "pause in global warming". If you think they do - then show us where What NASA says is: Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Are you now a big a liar as Longweekend? Reading what an organisation says on their website is not a "deeply held belief". It is simple fact. I have given you the link. NASA does not acknowledge a "pause in global warming". That is a lie. It is a lie that Longweekend told. It is a lie you now seem to be supporting. Do you really want to be seen as a snivelling liar like Longweekend? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:58am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
No it doesn't . Are you really this stupid? Or are you as dishonest as Longweekend? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
Oh.. You are a big a liar as Longweekend. How pathetic. Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming". We are waiting liar. Not just surface temperature - A tiny part of the global climactic system. Show us where NASA said there has been a "pause in global warming". Let me help - here is the NASA website - it says: Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ So come on liar - show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming". We are waiting - from you liar - and your liar mate Longweekend. Simple cut and paste. easy as that. Show us where NASA says there has been a "pause in global warming". I have just shown you where their website says the exact opposite. What have you got? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:10am rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 2:03am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:25am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:10am:
You are not seriously pretending that everyone who opposes Anthropogenic Climate Change is a paid shill? Are you that paranoid? It hasn't yet occurred to you that this is a divisive topic filled with intelligent educated people with strong opinions on either side? Good people make superb and powerful arguments that oppose your position. Maybe if you listened to them occasionally it would help. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 11:11am mariacostel wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 8:25am:
I think you and gizmo fall into the irresponsible (albiet criminally irresponsible) class of people whose gullibility and ideology make them particularly suseptible to well funded propoganda. As to Lee and Ajax I believe they're dispicable socks. I have yet to see an argument prepared and cut and pasted here by the minions of AGW denialist lobby that is even remotely logical or credible. There only purpose is to misinform, confuse and delay action to protect the only accessible environment in the universe that is capable of supporting human life . |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:20pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 1:48am:
And yet that is the component that the IPCC promotes. 'The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.' source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate Source: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png Or are you thinking of the tropical tropospheric hotspot that was apparently found by Matthew England, of UNSW, lost and alone in the Tasman Sea? If it is not surface temperatures that are so alarming, please show those temperatures that are gunna cause us to fry? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:25pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 11:11am:
I'm sooo disappointed that you can't see that I quote from IPCC reports, quote Trenberth etc. These are not "denalists". It is a pity comprehension is not one of your strong suits. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:41pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 11:11am:
And it is that kind of statement which discredits you more than anything else you could have said. To claim that nothing from the other side has ever been credible or logical indicates you have no understanding of the topic or any topic for that matter. Nothing is ever that clear-cut. And that is why you fall for the 97% consensus con - because it suits your non-thinking ideology. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by rabbitoh08 on Aug 28th, 2015 at 5:41pm lee wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:20pm:
Huh?!?! WTF is that supposed to mean. Here is the link to the IPCCs AR5 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml Have you ever actually read any of it? It addresses a hell of a lot more than just surface temperatures. lee wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:20pm:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Aug 28th, 2015 at 5:45pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 5:41pm:
Let us postulate this: Imagine that the IPCC said that sea levels around the world had risen 5 metres in the last 6 months. Would there be any way of proving to you that they hadn't? I submit that you possess zero independant thought and you could live on the seafront and happily swallow that IPCC statement. Am I correct? What do others think? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 28th, 2015 at 6:05pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 5:41pm:
Where do you think box 9.2 comes from? Broad Hint- lee wrote on Aug 11th, 2015 at 6:24pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 28th, 2015 at 6:22pm
Let's try wiki-
'Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects.' - So it is average temperature of the Earth and its related effects. That is changes caused by the increased temperature. 'Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.[2][3] Although the increase of near-surface atmospheric temperature is the measure of global warming often reported in the popular press, most of the additional energy stored in the climate system since 1970 has gone into ocean warming. '- Although Argo etc can't find this missing heat. 0.023 C/decade is not a massive amount. It is supposition to attribute this to AGW. The Earth has been warming since the LIA; but it has been postulated by the IPCC that CO2 didn't affect temperatures until mid-20th century. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming It is only wiki but that's what you trip out on. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Aug 29th, 2015 at 10:34am
There's 3 types of people on this Earth,
1. The Sheep, believe and do what the experts tell them. 2. The Dogs, question everything the experts tell them and research, argue and deny the experts when its appropriate to do so. 3. The Wolves, they are the experts. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 29th, 2015 at 11:00am lee wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
Global warming: "... These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations..." These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations...These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations...These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations...These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations...These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations...These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations... From the source cited by lee: Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:12pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 11:00am:
Those same academies believed the earth was flat, that smoking was good for you and heavier than air flight was impossible. They also believe the smallest object was an atom and that uranium had no use. Consensus is worthless. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:18pm mariacostel wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:12pm:
They must have had a membership was over-represented by the ancestors of denizens lee and Maria Costel, the ultimate deniers and leading unprofessional stooges. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:20pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 11:00am:
You do note that they don't say that global warming is understood? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:22pm lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:20pm:
True. They are not getting through to the unprofessional stooge deniers. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:27pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
So their "understanding is increasing", and it's someone else's fault that it is not understood by them? Bizarre world you inhabit. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:29pm lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:27pm:
The "them" who refuses to understand is lee. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:52pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:29pm:
So sad that you do not understand "scientific understanding" comes from scientists. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Aug 29th, 2015 at 4:03pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 2:22pm:
It is people like you, who imagine that they can calibrate the climate and set at some optimum, are the real climate change deniers. You deny that the climate changes due to forces much, much bigger than any human influence. You think you can control global climate - you are the real climate change deniers. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 29th, 2015 at 5:03pm Soren wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
It is very fortunate that human influence is so small that we are only talking about a few degrees change, otherwise humanity would already be extinct by its own greed. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:17pm mariacostel wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:41pm:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I intended to convey was that I have yet to see an argument prepared and cut and pasted here by the minions of AGW denialist lobby that is even remotely logical or credible. Their only purpose is to misinform, confuse and delay action to protect the only accessible environment in the universe that is capable of supporting human life . |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:28pm Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 10:34am:
You forgot (4) The socks who sellout humanity to spread propaganda for their wealthy organ grinders in exchange for a few paltry pennies. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:31pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:28pm:
You forgot trolls like you, in the pay of the green left. After all they spend the most money on climate change. What is the budget of Grrenpiss these days? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:44pm lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:31pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:50pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:44pm:
Probably the same as you. However I have learned to read and comprehend. Something which appears beyond your ken. Do you really believe that these "socks" exist or is it that it makes a wonderful,non-provable assumption? Answer the question. I'll make it easy for you, I receive no payment for my views. Why don't you answer those things in the IPCC reports, that others insist do not exist? You are a FRAUD. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 29th, 2015 at 9:09pm lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 8:50pm:
I didn't ask you if you received money for your view. That was clearly an evasive answer. The real question is whether you accept money for attending sites like this and posting the garbage you cut and paste from AGW denialist sites but of course there's no way you will honestly answer that question. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Aug 29th, 2015 at 10:13pm mariacostel wrote on Aug 28th, 2015 at 12:41pm:
The problem with ideological extremists like you is that you genuinely believe you are a critical thinker. Yet the minute you encounter anything that might challenge your extreme ideology, critical thinking goes out the window. To think that all those scientists that validate AGW have not considered the other natural options is the sign of an arrogant ideologist that is truly ignorant of the subject matter. To think those scientists would not have investigated the work of other scientists that dispute AGW to see if they have a credible cause for the current state of the planet is another example of that arrogant ignorance. If those disputing AGW had another credible cause, why haven't climate scientist after climate scientist after climate scientist backed them up. They haven't because nobody has come up with a credible alternative to AGW that explains what's happening globally. Any ideological extremist can cherry pick or mine any scientific report to cobble together support for their stance. We see it all the time with creationists and racial supremacists. Critical thinkers however,don't just look at a report, they check out its references and comparisons with alternative explanations, to see if that report's conclusions have merit. You wear your ignorance like a badge of honour as you insult thousands of scientists around the world that have contributed in one way or another to our growing knowledge of AGW and its impacts. Its clear that like your fellow ideological extremists you are so ecologically challenged that you lack the intelligence to comprehend a climate change scientific report, let alone critically assess it. Yet here you are arrogantly dismissing the combined evidence from the cryosphere, the oceans and the climate itself. That arrogance is what makes you a fundamental ideological extremist as dangerous as any follower of ISIS. Whilst they are prepared to erase other civilisations past and present, you are among the many that see mass extinctions as just more externalities to ignore and the degradation of science itself as nothing more than collateral damage. Before you accuse others of non-thinking, take a look in the mirror. What you are looking at is a perfect example of a waste of an education. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 29th, 2015 at 10:17pm
You really are hilarious. The only money I receive is super and old age pension.
So you rely on experts? LikeTom Karl? The one who put out the Karl et al (2015) paper? The one that had a self-admitted statistical significance of 0.1? I'll put it here again. 'Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. An asterisk notes that the trend is significant at the 0.10 level based on the uncertainty in the trend estimate using the IPCC methodology only. ' http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.DC1/Karl-SM.pdf You will notice this from from the published source Science Mag. A peer-reviewed magazine and the paper is also peer-reviewed. Notes on statistical significance or p value- ' A small p-value (typically ≤ 0.05) indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, so you reject the null hypothesis. A large p-value (> 0.05) indicates weak evidence against the null hypothesis, so you fail to reject the null hypothesis. p-values very close to the cutoff (0.05) are considered to be marginal (could go either way). Always report the p-value so your readers can draw their own conclusions.' http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-a-pvalue-tells-you-about-statistical-data.html or perhaps something more your speed - 'To determine whether a result is statistically significant, a researcher would have to calculate a p-value, which is the probability of observing an effect given that the null hypothesis is true.[7] The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than the significance or α level. The α level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true (type I error) and is most often set at 0.05 (5%). If the α level is 0.05, then the conditional probability of a type I error, given that the null hypothesis is true, is 5%.[22] Then a statistically significant result is one in which the observed p-value is less than 5%, which is formally written as p < 0.05.[22]' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance 0.1 is twice the size of 0.05 Now Tom Karl is supposed to be a climate scientist, however he is no expert on statistics. The Karl et al paper is now being used to adjust once again both NOOA and NASA temperatures. This is one of the experts on which you rely. As I said- I have the ability to read and comprehend. Do you comprehend what I have written? What is your view of the Karl et al (2015) paper? Don't hold back now. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 29th, 2015 at 11:23pm lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
You have no qualifications in the field, you have not compiled or even studied any of the data that has led the experts to conclude that AGW is happening and even if you did you couldn't understand it. All you have is what you cut and paste from sites set up and paid for by people with a powerful motive to discredit the scientists. So that leaves you with two choices (1)Your a sock; deliberately stabbing your species in the back for a few pennies ; (2) Your so stupid and criminally irresponsible that despite the consequences that the scientists have said we face, you're prepared to take the risk and back your judgment over the 97% of the experts who have devoted their working life to the study of climate science. Either way IMO your a contemptible "little" old man. What do you think. Which are you (1) or (2)? my Money's still on (1). |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 11:21am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 11:23pm:
Wow I quote the paper the climate scientist wrote, with the reference. I show the very poor understanding of statistics he uses, with references; and yet you do not study the evidence. You merely engage in name calling. Your is a belief system. Your climate scientists can never be wrong; they must be trusted implicitly. No skin of my nose. It seems your intellect is impaired and you have no cognitive function. I guess I was right; you are a fraud. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:02pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 11:21am:
Mr. lee you are a blatant liar with no skin left on your nose. From your own reference the statistics are that the NOAA temperature is significant at the 0.1 confidence level. Following is preamble to table S1 of lee's reference page 6. The 90% confidence interval (derived from ݏ௧ 169 ) is 170 calculated using the IPCC methodology. In parentheses is a 90% confidence interval (derived from ݏ௧௧ 171 ) which accounts for the uncertainty of trend estimation as well as additional error due 172 to the uncertainty of the underlying annual values in NOAA’s global temperature time series. 173 Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. An asterisk notes that 174 the trend is significant at the 0.10 level based on the uncertainty in the trend estimate using the 175 IPCC methodology only. lee is using blatant deceit as a debating tactic. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:10pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:02pm:
Do you understand the difference between "confidence level" and "significance level"? ' |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:24pm
From a reference cited in lee's own reference; each year was warmer (analysis dated 2013 covering years up to 2012) than the vast majority of all other years since 1880:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/abstract Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:00pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29th, 2015 at 5:03pm:
How could humanity possibly limit climate change to 2 degrees when its influence on the climate is vanishingly small. Climate changes regardless of human influence. Those who isnists that humanity can control the degree of climate change are the climate change deniers. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by The_Barnacle on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:16pm Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:00pm:
If you are going to keep claiming that human influence is too small to affect the climate you have to actually present something that supports you claim. We have 7 billion people pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric measurements confirm that CO2 is increasing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it is a molecule that contains more than 2 atoms. The trend of global temperatures is warming. I think the evidence is pretty clear |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:20pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:02pm:
Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:24pm:
You have shown you do not understand the difference between "confidence levels" and "significance levels". If a 95% confidence level is good, how good is a 0.1confidence level? As you are confused I will give you a link. Other research, by you, is indicated. 'Confidence intervals are frequently misunderstood, and published studies have shown that even professional scientists often misinterpret them.[7][8][9][10] A 95% confidence interval does not mean that for a given realised interval calculated from sample data there is a 95% probability the population parameter lies within the interval, nor that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the population parameter.[11] Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not, it is no longer a matter of probability. The 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval.[12] Neyman himself (the original proponent of confidence intervals) made this point in his original paper:[3] "It will be noticed that in the above description, the probability statements refer to the problems of estimation with which the statistician will be concerned in the future. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the frequency of correct results will tend to α. Consider now the case when a sample is already drawn and the calculations have given [particular limits]. Can we say that in this particular case the probability of the true value [falling between these limits] is equal to α? The answer is obviously in the negative. The parameter is an unknown constant and no probability statement concerning its value may be made..." ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:23pm The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
Where is the evidence, not supposition, not climate models but evidence? Seeing that water vapour is the major component of the atmosphere, why do you think that CO2 is the main driver of AGW/Climate Change? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:20pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 12:02pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:27pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:20pm:
Another one who doesn't know the difference between levels of confidence and statistical significance. The Stupidity, it burns. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:29pm Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:00pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:34pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:27pm:
lee's stupidity cannot be cured, it is induced by greed for it's master's money. lee posts nonsense as fact and does not even analyze the information from it's sources and then announces his denial of global warming. lees purpose is to obfuscate and confound arguments that humans are a major cause of global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:36pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:27pm:
You have no credibility because you haven't the common sense to be wary of the self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from and prefer your limited understanding of the subject over what 97% of the experts are saying. Answer the question. Are you a sock as I believe you are or just an irresponsible stupid bastard. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:42pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:36pm:
Let's see; I quoted Science Mag, IPCC, Statistics for Dummies,Wiki (more as collaboration than anything else), so if I am quoting " self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from", they are from the warmist side of the argument. I guess that makes you, with your limited intellect, the "stupid bastard". |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 30th, 2015 at 4:24pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
You forgot to quote your main sources, Alfred E Neuman and Mad Magazine. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Aug 30th, 2015 at 4:31pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 4:24pm:
They seem to be yours, but please feel free to link where I have cited them. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 30th, 2015 at 4:36pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 4:31pm:
You appear to be getting despondent about being denounced as a purveyor of obfuscation. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Aug 30th, 2015 at 11:17pm
We are not influencing the climate sufficiently to be able to claim a controlling influence.
Refute it, bozos.i |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Aug 31st, 2015 at 1:06am Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 11:17pm:
Every influence that causes a significant deviation to planetary temperature is a controlling influence in the absence of significant changes in other influential factors. Mankind is causing climate change which could cause human extinction in due course. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Aug 31st, 2015 at 9:07am Soren wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 11:17pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 1st, 2015 at 10:27pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 31st, 2015 at 9:07am:
I can see you are upset but I have missed the bit where you refuted the fact that we are not influencing the climate sufficiently to be able to claim a controlling influence. It is utter bollocks and stark raving climate change denial to insist that humanity can calibrate climate change to stay within any range. It's no use pissing your pants, pal, or bleat about the herd view. You are invited to refute the claim. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by The_Barnacle on Sep 1st, 2015 at 10:38pm lee wrote on Aug 30th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
Because water vapour can fall out as rain. Its all part of the H2O cycle which I'm sure you learned about at school. There is a CO2 cycle as well. The problem is that all that extra CO2 that humans are emitting is accumulating in the atmosphere and that is what is causing the observed warming. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 1st, 2015 at 11:13pm The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 1st, 2015 at 10:38pm:
And that is the supposition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 1st, 2015 at 11:31pm The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 1st, 2015 at 10:38pm:
You do know, don't you, that "extra" CO2 amounts to an atmospheric CO2 increase from 0.035% to 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases. And so you are saying, as if you actually understood, that an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.035% to 0.04% ID DRIVING the observed warming (which is what? 0.02 degrees? 0.04 degrees? Over what period?) You are allowed to think, you know. You are a grown up, it's ok. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 1st, 2015 at 11:56pm Soren wrote on Sep 1st, 2015 at 11:31pm:
Soren neglected to offer the usual bonehead disclaimer; "I am not a scientist but...". Soren's zero IQ would not qualify as a scientist's butt. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 9:41am Soren wrote on Sep 1st, 2015 at 10:27pm:
Now just because a no account nobody like you can't understand it doesn't matter. If you want to understand it, study and learn about the subject but in the meantime your brain fart that we couldn't influence the climate for no other reason except that you don't like the conclusion, is as worthless as a 14th century peasant insisting that the world must be flat or we would all fall off. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 10:52am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 9:41am:
And Tom Karl is one of those supposed 97%? Hilarious. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 12:52pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 9:41am:
This is simply not true. Are you lying or are you repeating a lie. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 1:39pm lee wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 10:52am:
The 97% consensus nonsense has been repudiated multiple times. it is the kind of figure only a blind fool could accept without questioning it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 3:00pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 1:39pm:
It's a kinda North Korean or Cuban consensus. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 12:52pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 10:36am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 7:33am:
Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of warmerism! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 4:08pm
As usual, Soren and it's ilk has nothing but nonsensical blather in this debate. Meanwhile back in the scientific community there is very strong and irrefutable evidence of 97% consensus that global warming is caused by mankind.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 4:13pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 4:08pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:05pm
[quote author=Unforgiven link=1437466191/254#254 date=1441260489]As usual, Soren and it's ilk has nothing but nonsensical blather in this debate. Meanwhile back in the scientific community there is very strong and irrefutable evidence of 97% consensus that global warming is caused by mankind.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [quote]Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES [highlight]Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." [/highlight](2009)2 AAAS emblem American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 AGU American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 AMA American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 AMS American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 APS American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 GSA The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 SCIENCE ACADEMIES International academies: Joint statement INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13 “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.” *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence. OTHER RESOURCES List of worldwide scientific organizations The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action While it is clearly impossible to prove anything to you at all due to the rather obvious lack of a functioning brain, the 97% claim has been thoroughly debunked by real research. Not that consensus means anything anyhow. 200 years ago, non-whites were considered by a majority to be sub-human. Consensus means very little since ignorance usually forms in packs. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:48pm
People that continually bring up the 97% of scientists agree consensus mythology really don't know what the ferk is going on.
It has been debunked many a time.....!!!!!!! Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:54pm Ajax wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:48pm:
You've got to be kidding "http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/" Hockeyschtick blog spot is your reference? You could have improved your credibility by citing Koch brothers writings or Mad Magazine. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 6:29pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:54pm:
Actually, it was the Wall Street Journal. Do you want to try again? This time for 'credibility'? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 6:50pm
The supposed antropogenic CO2 in the atmosphe brings CO2 increase from 0.035% to 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases. And so you an increase from 0.035% to 0.04% IS DRIVING the observed warming (which is what? 0.02 degrees? 0.04 degrees? Over what period?)
0.005% of atmospheric gases DRIVES the entire climate and if only we could CONTROL 0.005% of atmospheric gases, climate change would stop and it will always, always be just like it was when we were children. Nursie, another hot chocolate, if you please, and bring these bedwetters their hobby horse. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 6:55pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 6:29pm:
So you contend the Wall Street Journal publishes on hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 7:23pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 5:05pm:
You claim that consensus amongst experts is of no value is so assanine that it's hard to escape the conclusion that you're lying and that your only interest in this subject is motivated by ideology rather then science. What's also interesting is that your stupid contentions about consensus are not also the same as Longy's but also expressed in the same ludicrous terms. The fact that you so shamelessly like about who you are speaks volumes about your lack of trustworthiness. And to pretend that someone with such little understanding of the scientific method could possibly conduct a post graduate course in physics is an absolute and utter joke. If you are not trying to decieve us for ideological reasons, you are definitely an incompetent fool. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 8:31pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 7:23pm:
The experts agree on 0.005% of atmospheric gases DRIVING the entire climate??? Really?? And if only we could CONTROL 0.005% of atmospheric gases, climate change would stop and it will always, always be just like it was when we were children? There is a 97% consensus on THAT? Well, it must be a 9+7% consensus of donkeys, not experts because no scientist would ever go along with such a ludicrous thing. That you do simply shows that you understand nothing and speak with the simplistic vehemence of unchecked ignorance. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 9:01pm Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 8:31pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 9:33pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 9:01pm:
I do notice, you know, that you are taking pains to avoid addressing the point, namely: And if only we could CONTROL 0.005% of atmospheric gases, climate change would stop and it will always, always be just like it was when we were children? There is a 97% consensus on THAT? Address the numbers, why don't you??? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 11:23pm Soren wrote on Sep 2nd, 2015 at 3:00pm:
You left out Iran, or are you waiting for Greg Hunt to announce that conservationists are waging a jihad! 97% cannot compete with the unanimity of the cult of the infallible denialists. There hasn't been such a co-ordinated assault on science since the creationists came out with their inane pseudo-science of intelligent design. So its no co-incidence that the denial cult came out with similarly inane pseudo-science that has been thoroughly debunked too. Unlike the creationists, the cult of the infallible denialists has dozens of theories as to the current state of the climate. The debunking however, has not stopped them recycling the same old theories again and again and again and again. They wait a year or three, then they regurgitate their bs. Just like the regurgitation of a year old article here. So how many of you muppets are being paid? The Wall Street Journal is nothing but a Murdoch rag. salon com /2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/ |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 4th, 2015 at 8:28am Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 9:33pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 4th, 2015 at 11:04am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 3rd, 2015 at 7:23pm:
You think consensus is part of the scientific method?? Experiment and trial is about BREAKING the consensus via new discoveries. My degrees may not have been in the sciences but my husband's are. Consensus is the argument of fools and charlatans. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 4th, 2015 at 11:17am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 4th, 2015 at 8:28am:
I would suggest that you wont debate the science because you don't even understand the meaning of the term. You get all excited by consensus and pretend that means anything and yet, it doesn't. You are just being quite silly and demonstrating hysteria and hype over rational fact-based discussion. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 4th, 2015 at 6:04pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 4th, 2015 at 8:28am:
You, the great champion of direct democracy, socialism and people getting involved in governing themselves, immediately run to blind obedience and abject submission to authority the moment you are called upon to think for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 12:34am Soren wrote on Sep 4th, 2015 at 6:04pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 5th, 2015 at 9:46am
Since man-made Global Warming is becoming increasingly unknowable and avoids being accurately measured, progressive scientists are working hard on new arguments to convince the masses in the necessity to believe in it. In lieu of objective criteria it boils down to a simple matter of faith: Global Warming is, or It is not. But to which side shall the progressive masses incline? In a stunning breakthrough, researchers at Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed a revolutionary concept of the People's Cube Global Warming Wager which proves that believing in Global Warming is more advantageous than not believing. It's similar to the Pascal's Wager argument, only it's more progressive.
We can argue that it is always a better "bet" to believe in Global Warming, because the expected value to be gained from believing in Global Warming is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of Global Warming, but rather one for the belief in It. This argument is specifically aimed at the ignorant masses who are not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of Global Warming. In short, Man-Made Global Warming Wager can be described as follows: Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Global Warming is. If you gain, you gain all (prevent climate change and kill capitalism); if you lose, you lose nothing - but kill capitalism anyway. Wager, then, without hesitation that Global Warming is! http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/pascal-s-global-warming-wager-amen-and-hallelujah-t1140.html#sthash.K85HWWFd.dpuf |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 10:21am Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 9:46am:
This post says it all. It's not about science for the denialists. It's about ideology. Soren is as bad as any fanatical muslim. He would much rather see the earth and everything on it destroyed then have his capitalist religion rejected. Capitalism is destroying the world and our communities like a malignant cancer. We need to get control of it before it destroys us completely. The fact that Soren would rather see that destruction then have the capitalist excesses addressed is evidence of its destructive force. Quite frankly, its religious madness. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 5th, 2015 at 10:59am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 10:21am:
It is about ideology on BOTH SIDES of the AGW argument. This is not about science - who could believe that controlling 0.005% of atmospheric gases (human generated CO2 - we could control the climate? Nobody. You have never once brought up any scientific points and refuse to engage with basic numbers. AGW is a the new clash of ideologies about the economy, international relations, wealth generation and distribution and the like. It is politics. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 5th, 2015 at 11:07am Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 10:59am:
Another bout of insane and inane babble and blather from Soren who is totally without reason in his diatribes. Soren's paymaster is demanding Soren improve his performance so Soren launches bitter, sniping, baseless attacks because he has no arguments. The evidence of global warming consensus is clear. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 5th, 2015 at 11:40am |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 5th, 2015 at 12:10pm Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 11:40am:
Soren is out of scripts or his pay cheque didn't arrive. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 12:37pm Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 10:59am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 5th, 2015 at 6:00pm Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 11:40am:
I have read some of it and it is startling. REAL scientists - including nobel laureates - are lining up to skewer Mann and the infamous Hockey Stick as fraudulent. Even Phil Jones of Climategate 'fame' calls Mann a pest. You should all read it - 100 of the worlds top scientists from the Left and the Right, pro-AGW and anti - and they all say the Hockey stick is garbage. And you all fell for it! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 5th, 2015 at 6:41pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 12:37pm:
But that is the single thing you will never, ever, EVER discuss. It is not about science to YOU. You do not understand science. You only understand submission to authority and group-thing. You are a socialist. You crave to be told what to think. To you, thinking independently is heresy, evil, ignorance, screwball. It is the only thing you will not tolerate - dissent. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 7:07pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 6:00pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 7:20pm Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 6:41pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 7:38pm
Taylors' Wines are wonderful Australian winemakers from the Clare Valley. This is the link to their website
http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-way-we-produce-wine-/ I think they make some excellent wines and I just happened on their website today and found the following article (I only produced the first half here, follow the link for the rest) in which they speak, not as advocates of Climate Change but from first hand experience of climate change, which of course is vitally important to their industry. You see, although despicable charlatans like Soren and longy have sought to obfuscate and misinform for their fanatical ideological purposes, there are the honest people who in their daily lives see climate change first hand and speak of it, not as conjecture but as the reality that they have to contend with if their industry is to survive. What follows is the first part of their blog (highlights mine) "Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? Mon, 16 March 2015 Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone. Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier. The impact of global warming on grape growing Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did. How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 5th, 2015 at 8:14pm
Marching on, trala, trala.
Tomorrow belongs to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 5th, 2015 at 8:18pm Soren wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 8:14pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:17am Quote:
Could we have a wannabee organ grinder here, on training wheels of course? Degrees suggest a very good understanding of English. Suggests use of words for which the meaning is known, words like consensus and charlatan for instance. Charlatan - a person claiming expertise he / she does not have. Quote:
Why should ImSpartacus2 debate the science. His honest response that he does not have the expertise to answer scientific questions about climate change demonstrates he is not a charlatan. What is your climate science expertise Maria? Are you claiming expertise on the back of your husband's degrees? By your own measure if you lack climate science expertise yet wish to debate climate science then that makes you a charlatan. What is the climate science expertise of the infallible denialists posting on this thread? You would have to concur by your own measure that they too are all charlatans if they have no climate science expertise. You scorn and mock climate scientists whilst freely admitting you lack their scientific knowledge. This is what makes extreme ideological fundamentalists like you so dangerous. ImSpartacus2 defers to the experts in the field. Scientists that you know, because you state that you understand the meaning of the term science, will consider the natural influences on our climate. Climate scientists have been analysing the data for decades and the more data they gather the more it reinforces AGW. These scientists have been out in the field observing and collecting data. Some have died doing so. They have been harassed and vilified by people like you. Charlatans like you that willingly assault the scientific foundation of our civilisation because, like the creationists, it threatens your extremist world view. The know nothing grubs of the cult of infallible denialists have repeatedly shown a refusal to accept data that demonstrates the validity of the work of these scientists. There is no better example than the rejection of BEST. The Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST) received denialist funding and the endorsement of Anthony Watt. BEST was to analyze weather station data. The denialists had long complained the positioning of weather stations led to false readings of surface temperature and the world was not as warm as the readings indicated. The BEST project validated the warming and went on in further studies to conclude that almost the entire cause of the warming was Anthropogenic. Despite stating "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong," Watt and his fellow infallible denialists refused to accept BEST's findings. The only ones demonstrating hysteria and hype are charlatans like you that refuse to accept the science on the grounds that you know better than BEST. There are two basic forms of consensus. One is where parties with opposing views come together to settle on a compromised view that is acceptable to all parties. This is a consensus reached through negotiation. The other is where there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular view and it is this evidence that leads to a consensus forming around this view. It is this evidence based consensus that determines what becomes the prevailing view in scientific circles. Quote:
The consensus was that all climate change occurred naturally. AGW science broke that consensus. The fact that denialists wish to hold onto the old consensus is further proof that like creationists, they reject any breakthrough science that threatens their world view. The AGW consensus was the judgement arrived at by climate scientists practising climate science. That means that at the forefront of that practical science would have been the natural causes of climate change. The evidence from that science supported AGW ahead of natural causes. That is why the AGW consensus superceded the natural occurrence consensus in the same way that the evolution consensus superceded the biblical consensus. This assault on consensus by denialists is further evidence of their extremist ideology and a total disregard for science. Quote:
This is scientific drivel. The scientific method is not about breaking consensus views. New discoveries can reinforce existing consensus views. Quote:
Consensus on evolution means very little!!! The only ignorant form here is a multiple degree extremist that is a perfect example of a total waste of an education. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:54am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 7:07pm:
Having actually read it (unlike you) it is not even written by Styne. it is a compilation of 100 actual real scientists giving their highly-educated opinion on Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick fraud. And he has 200 more to come. The comments are by and large scathing of him and his pseudoscience. Now before you get all righteous and huffy, the scientists range from right-wing conservatives to hard-care left-wing marxists. it includes pro-warmists and anti-warmists. It even includes Prof Phil Jones of the CRU (Climategate) who despite his association with Mann describes him in most unflattering terms. One of the original co-authors of the Hockey Stick (Briffa) describes it as junk science. These are your heroes. 1454.jpg (117 KB | 47
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:13am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 5th, 2015 at 7:38pm:
Saltram wines in the Barossa are ripping out vines on the valley floor and replanting with more heat tolerant varieties like fiano. The harvest season is more compressed these days, less time between ripening of different varieties and between different regions like Barossa Valley floor, Hills Face and Eden Valley. Apparently more vignerons are planting vineyards in Tasmania and French vignerons are planting vineyards in Britain, all driven by the effects of climate change. AGW is here and now and hitting the man on the land. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:32am
The Hockey stick graph is supported by eminent authority and has been verified by "... more than two dozen reconstructions suing various statistical methods..."
So Maria Costel reference a book that is paid for by polluters and people who profit from pollution and includes entries by people who have been paid to be critical. Maria Costel is just one of many stooges who have used abuse and lies to torment Michael Mann. Maria Costel has the appearance of a paid unprofessional stooge. Mann has sued his principal critics for defamation and instead of defending their defamatory claims the defendants have tried to have the law suit dismissed which they have so far failed to do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Radical on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:59am Unforgiven wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:32am:
I think they ought to demand their money back. Its an amateurish attempt to spruik a professional denial miner. I'm not allowed to post links , yet. Have a good read of this unforgiven. It's hilarious how these denialists rehash each others manipulation of the facts. Put in a direct link if you agree. tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath /2015/08/16/as-the-world-burns-epidose-ii-curry-the-quote-miner |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 12:45pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:32am:
You are not telling the truth. The hockey stick reconstructions have been based on the same data and the same methods. It is therefore not surprising that the results were the same. However, reconstructions NOT based on the same data and using more reliable methods have found very different results including a Medieval Warm Period that is 1-3 degrees WARMER than currently. Also, you have fallen for the con that the MBH report is endorsed by a lot of bodies. IN fact, when you read the details of their various reports you find that these bodies actually reject the ultimate findings. And if you want further proof, the IPCC itself has dumped the hockey stcik and you will find it nowhere in any of their reports. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 12:47pm Radical wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:59am:
Did you know that the original Hockey stick 'reconstructed' the entire temperature record from 1000- 1421 from JUST ONE TREE? And in the process eliminated the Medieval warm period which is proven historically and in fact, other reconstructions confirmed. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:14pm
The Clime Syndicate
clime_syndicate.JPG (41 KB | 36
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm
Empire of the stick
empireofthestick.JPG (65 KB | 36
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:22pm
More blather and schtick from Maria Costel whose arguments are empty of reason and fact.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:22pm
Lord of the Tree Rings
lord_of_the_tree_rings.JPG (50 KB | 43
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:23pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:22pm:
300 eminent scientists disagree with you. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 1:29pm
The Fall of the Stick
MICHAEL E MANN is the bristlecone pine of scientists. Just as removing the bristlecones makes his hockey stick collapse, so removing Mann from the climate conversation would make a lot of the drama and hysteria and sheer unpleasantness disappear. For example, why do we have leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet. He started that countdown in 2009, by the way. The 96 months is up in July 2017. On the other hand, it gives us an extra 18 months on January 2016, which is the official final storewide-clearance date for Al Gore’s 2006 prediction of the end of the world. This sort of thing was once reserved for amiable lunatics with sandwich boards passing out leaflets in the street. What made it suddenly respectable for princes and presidents? Answer: The declaration by the IPCC that this is the hottest year of the hottest decade of the hottest century since hotness began. And who provided the underlying “science” for that? Mann. Another question: Why is Big Climate so weirdly defensive? To the point where an entire sub-discipline of junk science has sprung up in which supposed “academics” publish papers purporting to show that 99.99999 per cent of all scientists agree with them338, and producing “studies” to prove that anyone minded to disagree is a conspiracy theorist who believes the moon landings were faked. 339 (In fact, two of the very few men who’ve set foot on the moon are, in Mann terms, climate deniers: Buzz Aldrin and Harrison Schmitt.) Why are they doing this? Answer: They’re playing by Mann rules. Don’t address the argument, destroy the guy making it - he’s a “denier”, he’s in the pay of the Koch brothers. Clearly this Buzz Aldrin kook is just some wackjob who believes the moon landings were filmed in Nevada. Those who think that the very real disputes within climate science should nevertheless be debated within civilized norms have argued that, in Dr Richard Betts’ words, “the whole climate conversation would be better off with the word ‘denier’ being dropped completely.” But no climatologist promotes this witless slur as zealously as Mann: He lends a gang insult the imprimatur of science, and his thuggish acolytes have enthusiastically embraced it. Because what they’re defending - the hockey stick - is indefensible, their best defense is a good offensiveness, remorseless and virulent. Much has flowed from the decision to stick with the stick. You’ll recall Professor Richard Tol’s words a few pages ago: Who does most damage to the climate movement? Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, Peter Gleick, Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri (not necessarily in that order). James Hansen was the most influential climate-change promoter pre-Mann. In June 1988 his dramatic testimony to the US Senate was reported by the following day’s New York Times under the headline “Global Warming Has Begun”. Certainly, the global-warming movement had begun. Hansen pushed the boundaries between scientist and propagandist, but, unlike Mann, he did not push the science itself into outright propaganda. Peter Gleick is a climatologist who stole the identity of a director of the (skeptic) Heartland Institute and released several confidential documents plus a “strategy” paper that he forged outright. He remains a respected figure in his field, and he and Mann are mutual admirers, with Mann comparing Gleick favorably to whoever “hacked” into the CRU. In reality, the Climategate emails were almost certainly leaked by a disgusted CRU employee - and are not forged. But put Hansen and Gleick aside. Everyone else on Professor Tol’s list of those who do “most damage to the climate movement” is a Mann promoter: Rajendra Pachauri was the head of the organization that made the hockey stick the most famous “science” graph of the 21st century; Al Gore is the climate crusader who made the stick the star of his Oscar-winning movie and the lodestar of a new school of cartoon science force-fed to a generation of western schoolchildren; Phil Jones is the older, respected scientist who put a distinguished institution in the service of hockey-stick science, colluded with Mann in obstructing legitimate requests for data, and would have been criminally prosecuted for breach of the Freedom of Information Act were it not for the statute of limitations. In other words, take away Mann and the hockey stick, and a lot of the other bad stuff goes away, too. Embracing the stick corrupted the heart of climate science, from Nature to peer review to the CRU to the IPCC to government policy around the world. If scientists of integrity are not willing to, in Jonathan Jones’ phrase, “publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel”, they do need, in the interests of a fresh start for a very damaged brand, to acknowledge the damage it did. They owe it to their own integrity to repudiate the stick. In this section are some of the scientists who spoke up, without fear, very early. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" . Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. fall_of_the_stick.JPG (55 KB | 45
) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 2:15pm
And AGW is here and now, why try to deny it? Ideology? Christianity, only Gawd can change the climate? Fear of change?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 6th, 2015 at 2:39pm
Schtick doesn't defeat stick.
The deniers offer nothing but abject denial, defamation and derision of global warming proponents. The words of the deniers are devoid of reason and fact. Maria Costel has no opinion and only posts what she is instructed to. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 5:25pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 2:15pm:
The MVP was 1-3 degrees WARMER than today and for that we have 750 papers by 450 scientists from 40 countries. How can the current warming of just 0.6 degrees be anthropogenic in any meaningful way? Especially now that the warming has stopped. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 5:30pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 2:39pm:
Actually unhinged, this commentary on the hockey stick comes from WARMISTS ie - your side of the debate. Do be a good fellow and try and keep up, will you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 5:36pm
Warming hasn’t stopped, ice is still melting as fast as ever from glaciers, icesheets and the Arctic oceans.
People on the land have noticed traditional crops aren’t cutting it anymore and are moving to plant more heat tolerant varieties. That stuff about the MWP is just crap made up by deniers, trying to falsify science to suit the interests of fossil fuel businesses. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 5:57pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 5:36pm:
It is part of history and been there for 800 years. It is also confirmed by 450 scientists. It is not like the MVP is news to anyone connected with science or history or any other branch of science. It is an established fact which on its own demolishes the fraudulent Hockey Stick. Why don't you read the free sample of the book on Amazon and do what few others on this topic do: get informed. it is entirely written by eminent scientists in the field. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:10pm
I meant the deniers pretending the MWP was warmer than thought. Just lies, clumsy lies.
AGW is NOW forcing the man on the land to change crops or buy land in cooler areas. That is happening NOW! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:14pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:10pm:
Firstly, it isnt 'deniers' as you so limply claim. It is scientist and historians of ALL ILKS that claim the MVP was warmer than now. In fact, most scientific bodies say the same thing. NONE say the MVP didnt exist and the best you will get is thet the MVP is the same temp as now. Either way, it shows that current warming is not unprecedented and also largely NOT anthropogenic. And quoting a few farmers changing crops is not evidence of 'farmers moving to cooler climates' coz none of them are. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:22pm
http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/ Read some actual info from actual scientists about the MVP - warmer than today. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:16pm
Actual scientists publish in Nature, New Scientist and the like. Keep reading crank sites tho, real science is obviously too hard for you.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:18pm
There is also much more CO2 in the air now compared to then put there by our burning fossil fuels so very obviously the warming now IS anthropogenic. This isn’t hard to work out.
This denier crap about the MWP is just a slightly more sophisticated version of “climate has always changed.” |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:22pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:16pm:
You do know that there are other publications and even so, the people referred to DO publish there? You are rather desperate to avoid having to face facts, dont you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:22pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:18pm:
Human contribution of atmospheric CO2 is 0.005% of total atmospheric gases. That is not a controlling influence. Not even remotely. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:31pm
You and Longy obviously don’t live on the land. Your denialism is only sustainable if you stay in your a/c houses and drive in your a/c cars to your a/c workplace.
It is warming to the extent agricultural practices/crops have to be changed. AGW has weakened the jetstream to such an extent frigid Arctic air can escape to cause blizzards in England and the NE of the US and even further away. This winter Antarctic air escaped south and snow fell as far north as Qld. Will we have blizzards in the eastern states next year? There is a huge El Nino building in the Pacific while the Indian Ocean is way hotter than normal. Maybe stockpile bottled water and iron rations. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:31pm
The next link is for the ignorant (ie johnsmith jovialmonk and a few others) that claim the hiatus in warming is not supported by science
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525 NATURE magazine. And its first line is.... "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." There is more, but how many times do you have to have the same thing shoved down your throats? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:32pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:31pm:
So you are a science denier? I show you proof positive and you just ignore it? You are a denier! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:34pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:31pm:
You are going to have to do better than make an unsubstantiated claim like that. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:35pm
You show crank sites.
If you live in Melbourne within a winter or two blizzards might be a regular part of Melbourne winters. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:37pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:35pm:
Nature.com is a crank site?? Wasnt that precisely the site you demanded support from? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:41pm
“Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”
DR MADHAV KHANDEKAR, PHD Meteorologist and climatologist. Research Scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years. Editorial board member of The Journal of Natural Hazards, and former editor of Climate Research. Member of the American Geophysical Union, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the American Meteorological Society. Former World Meteorological Organization lecturer in meteorology. MSc in Statistics from Pune University, PhD in Meteorology from Florida State University. Before the hockey stick, climate science was a complicated business: a vast Amazonian river (as Professor Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University characterized it25) with many tributaries - from aerosols and volcanoes to solar variations and land surface modifications. What if all that complexity could be simplified? Really simplified - into “a nice tidy story” (in Professor Keith Briffa’s words) about “unprecedented warming in a thousand years” 26. In 2009 Dr Khandekar was interviewed by Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Asked whether Michael E Mann’s hockey stick was “a smoking gun that proves the alarmists right”, he replied27: The hockey stick was a graph constructed by some scientists about ten years ago. What it was meant to show was that the earth’s temperature from about 1080 till about 1850 remained essentially constant and then it started to shoot up. Lots of problems have been found out in the graph. The most glaring error in the hockey stick was that it did not show the Little Ice Age, which was significant. It did not show the Medieval Warm Period from the 8th to 12th century, which was also significant. There were errors in the use of the tree-ring data and also other errors. So today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick. They do not consider the hockey stick graph to be a correct representation of the global mean temperature. Can that really be true - that most scientists “dismiss” the hockey stick? As we shall see in the pages that follow, many scientists from around the world disagree with Mann’s science, and sometimes very forcefully - and they include not only “deniers” but full-scale “alarmists” and all points on the spectrum in between. These people reject not only his science but his style - the peculiarly vicious yet self-defeating “climate war” mentality so unsuited to a great grey blur of contradictory uncertainties. You can believe in anthropogenic global warming, an impending ice age, solar heating, natural variability or no big deal whatever happens, and still regret the appalling damage done to climate science by Mann’s total war in service of a piece of cartoon climatology by a one-stick pony. Yet the real question is not whether “most scientists” dismiss the hockey stock today, but why more scientists didn’t denounce it back then. Too many people who should have known better sat idly by as an obscure researcher, with the ink barely dry on his PhD, overturned the accumulated scientific wisdom of centuries - because it was convenient to the political goals of activists, bureaucrats, politicians - and above all an ambitious new transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 396-423). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. Now debunk the Author of this - A Princeton Professor of Physics and US Government advisor |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:46pm
Why do I have to debunk anything? AGW is here and now! You have lost the argument!
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:50pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:46pm:
Wow. In a forum full of truly amateurish or infantile arguments you have topped them all. Scientists the world over tell you otherwise, but you know better? They provide not opinion , but fact and still you insist on your own belief. You have the mind of a child and not a particularly bright one. YOU are the denier. A denier of fact, a denier of science and a denier of the value of an education. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm
I got an education, I think you envy those that did, Longy.
There is no longer an argument about the existence of AGW, it is here and hitting the man on the land. We had a very cold winter this year courtesy of Antarctic air that escaped north, easy to extrapolate that Eastern States winters are going to get much colder. The huge El Nino forming in the Pacific will likely write finis to all the denialist crap around. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:58pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm:
And yet scientists from both sides of that debate DISAGREE with you. I guess you still believe the Hockey Stick is great science, right? And you forget the 450 scientists much brighter than you who confirm that the MVP was much warmer than today? Why dont you produce some sources for your drivelling nonsense? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:03pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm:
There is a very significant argument about the degree of human involvement in the minimal warming we have had. Have you not followed the scientific press? Or do you just read Climate Clown websites and their worthless opinions? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:16pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:31pm:
You say you've got an education yet you cannot think for yourself. Looks like you've got yourself an indoctrination. Human contribution of atmospheric CO2 is 0.005% of total atmospheric gases. Explain how that determines the climate. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:21pm
Mate, I went to the Saltram Winery Open Day, as a Club 1 member. We were told what was happening, with fiano replacing riesling/Cab Sauv etc on the valley floor. We were told how the ripening times for different grape varieties/locations are compressing.
You should watch Landline like I do. You will see how farmers/graziers are already having to adapt to the increasing heat and how that affects crops. Lastly you should bring yourself up to speed with what is happening in the Antarctic—not good! This is happening NOW! Now, Longy, not at some distant time in the future or in lands far away. Why are wineries planting vineyards in Tassie you think? Or why French wineries are planting vineyards in England? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:25pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
From Maria Costel's own reference a statement that debunks her contention: Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:25pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:54pm:
There has never been any argument about GW, but AGW is a very different thing. And most of the multi-generational farmers around here would laugh in your face, if you told them that human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:29pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:25pm:
Gizmo's expert scientific evidence "...the multi-generational farmers around here...". Gizmo forgot it's usual disclaimer: "I am not a scientist but." Gizmo's intellect would not compete with a scientist's butt. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:31pm
Unforgiven is not even a wit. He struggles to be half so.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:32pm
Then why was that farmer on LandLine saying he had to change the variety of wheat that he grew and that he could see that in 20 years time wheat would no longer be viable?
Why are vineyards being planted in Tassie and England? Why is spring arriving earlier? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:41pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:32pm:
Because the world is returning, naturally, to the temperatures that existed before the Little Ice Age period (from around 1500 to around 1850). The Romans had vineyards in Northern England too, remember?? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:47pm
No, I think temperatures are way beyond anything in the MWP. Due to the amount of CO2 in the air.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:11pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:47pm:
Unlikely Monk, perhaps close to the MWP but not above it, and not close to the Roman Warm Period. And none of those were as warm as either of the 2 Holocene Climate Optimums that happened between the last glacial maximum, and the Minoan Warm Period. Co2 is at best a very minor positive feedback in the climate cycle, and even then, the human contribution is only a fraction of the total Co2 input per year. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:33pm
Well above it, gizmo. You tried to bullshit me about the MWP once before and I tracked down your reference and showed it did not say what you said it did.
CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than in the MWP, that is forcing the higher temperatures. Seems the MWP is the new rallying point for deniers, like I said earlier, a more sophisticated version of the old BS argument “the climate is always changing.” Yet AGW is here and now. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:50pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 6:14pm:
But what is most surprising is that you happily cut and paste and regurgitate the same slop from these denialist sites without the slightest concern that they might be compromised by their connections to the fossil fuel industry. Any rational human being would be concerned about that and yet it doesn't bother you at all. And what's even more surprising is that you didnt even bother replying to the first hand accounts of those reputable businesses involved in the wine industry who make it there business to know about the climate that the climate is warming and effecting their crops. Those people you can simply dismiss and yet continue cutting and pasting this garbage from those compromised sites. There's nothing honest about your approach. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:55pm Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 7:22pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:04pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:25pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:10pm Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Bojack Horseman on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:14pm
May have been ok.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:15pm Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:10pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:25pm
Spartacus this is for you dear friend...... 8-)
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:30pm
Looks like the MWP is going to be the denialists last stand. Don’t they know, the war is over and they lost. They are just looking silly and desperate now.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:43pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:30pm:
When the majority of people realise they are being taken for a ride. You my dear cobber and guys like Spartacus will have sore behinds. I hope they wear steel capped boots...... :P |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:50pm
I think people are going to be pee’d off at those who tried to pretend AGW wasn’t happening either because they were afraid of change or because they were happy, even paid, to front for fossil fuel interests.
I fear you will be copping more than boots. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:14pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:04pm:
No, I wouldn't disagree with them. And it depends on whether you mean Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that the Global temperatures are rising. The first I'm skeptical of, or at least skeptical of the AMOUNT caused by human action. The second, I consider to be a perfectly natural, and undeniable fact. After all, the River Thames no longer freezes hard enough to hold Frost Fairs, and there isn't mass starvation due to cold summers and short growing seasons anymore. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:41pm
The Thames freezing was due to volcanic action.
You see, the study of climate is kinda dependent on observations of weather and the weather record is very noisy. El Ninos increase global temperatures in the short term, volcanoes decrease it. La Nina periods are cooler than El Nino periods. AGW acts on weather systems and eventually major currents like the Gulf Stream will be destroyed by increasing amounts of fresh water from ice sheets melting. Glaciers are, apart from a few fortuitously located ones, melting and retreating. This is important when we consider the Himalayan Glaciers. These feed 7 of the biggest rivers in the world and water half the population. Some of the rivers: the Ganges, the Yellow and Mekong rivers. Why do you think India and China are moving to renewable energy? It is to protect those Himalayan glaciers, to protect those rivers. And the national embarrassment is trying to boost coal. Coal! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:01am gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:14pm:
So let me get this right. You believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming but its the amount caused by humans that you take issue with and yet you agree with farmers laughing in people's face for suggesting that "human-caused climate change had anything to do with the current weather/climate or growing conditions". I mean, given how much you do accept I would have thought that any genuine skeptic would consider our positions to be at least plausible enough not to be laughable. But you, who is not a climate scientists and despite the views of most climate scientists and most of the world's respected scientific bodies, have narrowed it all down so finely that you know that AGW is real but it is laughable that it could actually have anything to do with the current climate or growing conditions. Personally I don't know anyone who is not expert in a field (let alone a field as complex as climate science) who would reason as stupidly as you just have here. Come follow me says the ignorant man. Hopeless!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:13am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
Coal and ALL fossil fuels are solar energy, captured and stored by plants. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:17am Soren wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:13am:
No, they are carbon fixed by plants using solar energy. Tens of millions of years worth of stored carbon that we are burning in decades. If you think this can happen without any affect on the atmosphere then you are a typical Liberal voter! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:34am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:21pm:
Very good - but it is in no way an explanation of how 0.005% of atmospheric gases (the human-generated CO2) causes any of this or how the removal of 0.005% of atmospheric CO2 to would halt or reverse any of it. It's a fantasy. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:54am
A “fantasy” that is rising temperatures and creating wilder weather. We might as well just call it reality, eh?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:33am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:54am:
Very tellingly, you continue to be unable to explain how 0.005% of atmospheric gases determine the entire global climate. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:43am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 8:21pm:
What increasing heat? The grand total of increased temperatures is 0.6 degrees and no vine could even detect that. And better still, there has been NO warming now for 17 years. Climate alters as part of natural variability and never more so in Australia. But the word is NATURAL. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:45am
Warming is still going on.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:45am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:33pm:
Why must you insist on ignoring all the historical and scientific evidence that PROVES that the MWP was warmer than today? It might be inconvenient for you to accept it but it remains true regardless. WARMER. WARMER. WARMER in the MWP. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:48am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:50pm:
Denialist slop? Coming from hundreds of the brightest minds of our generation? But now your idea of a climate expert is a wine grower??? That's all you can come up with? Why dont you read the book and expose yourself to the actual comments by 100 actual scientists. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:49am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 10:50pm:
More likely in 20 years time you will be telling everyone how you didnt fall for the climate con and you saw right through it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:50am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
Nothing but a lie. You made it up. So what was causing all the rivers to freeze over in the Americas at the same time? And volcanic activity affecting it for a hundred years? You need to try harder than that! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:52am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:45am:
No it isn't. You seem to be totally fixed in your opinions - basically a fool. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:52am
I have said that the weakened Jet Stream is allowing frigid Arctic air to flood south until blocked by a large system, bringing freezing temperatures and blizzards. It seems this is spreading with the cold air reaching further south.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:53am mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:43am:
Oh here we go. Say anything Longy. What do you know about vines and what they can detect. NOTHING!!!! Absolutely nothing but that doesnt stop you making up stuff to suite your argument. Here this is what the iconic winemaker Taylors' says about the effect climate warming is having on their grapes at http://www.taylorswines.com.au/blog/2015/03/16/will-climate-change-affect-the-wa... "Will Climate Change Affect the Way we Produce Wine? (Mon, 16 March 2015) Vintage 2015 is in full swing across Australia. At Taylors, our winemakers hailed the beginning of vintage in the first week of February, when the grape parameters were all in balance – the sugars, acidity, tannins and flavour compounds. And this season’s fruit is once again a beautiful expression of our Clare Valley terroir, and of seasonal variations. The date of harvest changes every year, but we haven’t had a traditional autumn harvest on the estate since 2009. And we’re not alone. Across Australia winters are warming, growing seasons are earlier, and vintages are coming forward. This is more than an observation. Viticulturist Professor Snow Barlow says research over the past 50 years shows coastal wine regions have warmed between 0.7 and one degree, and inland regions as much as two degrees. Vines are temperature-driven, so when the mercury rises, fruit ripening is accelerated and harvest dates are earlier. The impact of global warming on grape growing Professor Barlow has been at the forefront of research on grape growing and the impact of climate change since the Kyoto negotiations in the 1990s, but as Max Allen points out in The Future Makers: Australian Wines for the 21st Century, it wasn’t until 2007 that many winemakers heeded the science. The drought was taking hold, squeezing life out of sunburnt vines, and in turn shrivelling hopes for the wine industry’s long-term future, as climate experts predicted that by 2050 warmer growing regions would be out of production. The advice was to prepare for global warming, use less water, fewer chemicals, and plant more trees. And many did. How the wine industry is adapting to rising temperatures Some have moved to higher ground or further south to grow their cool climate Chardonnay, Riesling, Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir. Others have planted vineyards east-to-west and manipulated the canopy to protect berries from the scorching afternoon sun. And we’re seen new technologies and innovations in grape growing and winemaking that are helping producers prepare for climate variations and extreme heat." |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:58am
And a .7°C rise in temperatures means the hottest temperatures are more than .7°C.
Saltrams are planting heat tolerant Fiano grapes on the Barossa Valley floor because the existing varieties were giving just fruit but no finesse to the wines made from them. The difference in ripening time between the valley floor and the Eden Valley up in the hills is narrowing. AGW is powering along. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 11:26am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:01am:
I believe that the current warming is natural and has nothing to do with Co2, but I accept the possibility that there may be some small human influence on climate change. Once there is some definitive proof either way, then the subject will be settled. However, since the temperature rises are still within historic range and nothing unique has happened, there's no reason to 100% assign the recent (last 50 to 100 years) warming to human action, over natural variation. And anyone from a field like climate science would/should reason in a similar way that I just did. It's about accepting evidence over theory and being able to adapt to new findings. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you got it wrong is more about ideology than science. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:09pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 11:26am:
Gizmo always expresses his beliefs as facts. Gizmo never has evidence to support his opinions. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:29pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:53am:
Wow, how impressive. Australia's climate is changing and yet in the last 200 years it has never done that before? The whole nature of climate is that it changes. But it remains true that there has been no warming for the past 16 years and even Nature Magazine says so. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:30pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:58am:
Do you realise that that sentence makes zero sense? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:33pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 11:26am:
Well said. Very few climate scientist state that the majority of warming is due to human effects. Most say they simply dont know but expect it to be a fairly small percentage. JovialMonk might think the MVP is of no importance, but the fact that it was warmer then now 800 years ago is pretty good evidence that the current warming is almost entirely natural variation. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:38pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:41pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:30pm:
Maria Costel lies and obfuscates again. Jovial Monk is correct, 0.7C is a worldwide average there will regions and localities which will experience much higher rises. See headline for February 2015 for WA http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/weather-records-set-to-tumble-with-temperatures-in-wa-tipped-to-hit-50c/story-e6frflp0-1227194120324 Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 11:26am:
Your attempt at dodging the issue doesn't work. You know nothing about the subject, you accept AGW and yet you can be 100% sure that recent climate changes have nothing to do with AGW, notwithstanding that these climate changes are consistent with what the climate experts and the most respected science bodies in the world have said would happen. The only explanation of what your saying is sheer stupidity or Bull Sh!tting!!!! A year ago Longy explained in a detailed thread why he does not accept AGW. It came down to this. He said he does not agree with it ideologically (I'll dig it out if he denies it). That's OK, he was only saying what all deniers (who are not sock puppets) are doing. For the moment I'm thinking you, Gizmo, are nor a sock puppet. But your crappy reasoning is such that the only reasonable explanation is that your position is driven by ideology and a wish to prevent any action for as long as possible, notwithstanding the harm that will do to humanity and the planet. You should do a search on the net. People are starting to call for your punishment. And the call will get louder. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:57pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
I would say that if you could take your eyes of wine for just a moment and consider the rest of the debate you might do better. You have produced ZERO facts, you ignore all facts given to you and then make spurious and silly claims. So I have one question for you: do you still support the Hockey Stick graph? It's a simple question. See if you can answer it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:59pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
You proferred not a single fact, gave not a single reasoned argument and simply blathered. 17 years now and the temperature as not increased. It is time for you to face some facts. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:01pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:33pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:06pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 12:59pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:14pm
Spartacus, the results of the peer-reviewed survey on scientists attitudes to climate change confirmed that very few felt it was largely human-driven (3%) while the big majority said they didn't know and it was way too early to tell.
Now these are actual facts, not the moth-eaten opinions and rants you throw about on here. So let me ask yet again: do you believe in the Hockey Stick still? go on. Be a man and actually state your opinion. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:16pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:06pm:
You don't debate, period. You rant, rave and abuse, but you never actually debate. I am not a science major but I can debate you under the table. You run away and hide because I can use facts and figures and make and argument while all you can do is run and hide. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:29pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:16pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:54pm
Runaway glaciers Antarctica. From NASA:
https://youtu.be/YQMtb1Pd07E Temperature rise rate in Alaska greatly exceeds USA mainland rate. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/alaska.html Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 5:27pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:29pm:
Your refusal to debate with facts and figures is what exposes you as an ideologue. I've heard your type all my life. Loud mouths, big egos and very small minds to match. When someone takes them on and demands facts and figures and logic they do exactly as you have just done: blather about how awful the other person is while describing exactly their own behaviour. You are an intellectual minnow, unwilling to take on the bigger and more informed minds. Your words are as good as a surrender. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 7th, 2015 at 5:38pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 5:27pm:
Maria Costel is the persona with no evidence who just makes sweeping unsupported statements which are contrary to the evidence. Maria Costel, big on insults and short on facts. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 5:53pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 5:38pm:
Can you come up with anything other than insults, Unhinged? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:13pm
With AGW here and now it takes a special brand of “intelligence” to still be arguing against AGW. :)
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:22pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:13pm:
You might make a bit of headway with me if you even bothered to try a few facts, but it is very clear you are a person with little interest in or exposure to, facts. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:54pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 1:54pm:
Wow. You have retreated from GLOBAL warming to Regional warming, again. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:03pm lee wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:54pm:
Unhinged doesnt make a lot of sense even at the best of times. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:04pm lee wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:54pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:06pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
I quoted facts about AGW hitting real men on the land. No counterargument was offered. I wonder why Alaska is warming faster than mainland USA? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:06pm
Wow, It's I'mafairy2, with nothing to add to the debate.
He can't even recognise I post from warmist sites. How sad is that? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:09pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:06pm:
You quoted facts (presumably), about Climate Change not AGW. The climate changes, now show AGW. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:12pm
Sophistry, meh!
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:23pm lee wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:09pm:
You will confuse him with such a distinction. And Imafairy2 (great name!) has refused to answer if he still believes in the Hockey Stick - that worst example of fraudulent science in 100 years. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:33pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:12pm:
So you can't even follow your own argument. You can claim AGW as your argument. Climate change is distinctly different. The two are not comparable. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:35pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:12pm:
So still no facts? So why don't YOU tell us if you still believe in the fraudulent Hockey Stick? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:00pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 7:23pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:17pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:00pm:
;D Well, you are an ignorant loser, then. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 7th, 2015 at 10:22pm Soren wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:17pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:18am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 7th, 2015 at 8:00pm:
almost no one in climate science believes in that fraud any more. IPCC has dumped it and the book that was linked to earlier shows comments from 100 eminent climate scientists from both sides of the debate stating that it is at best bad science and a lot say it is utter fraud. AND THEY ARE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:19am
Why dont you read the book and see just how bad the Hockey Stick is and how real scientists from all sides of the debate think it is rubbish - even the IPCC.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 3:12pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:18am:
For anyone who wants to know the true state of the Hockey Stick contention (which is as strongly influential in real scientific circles as ever)you can start with this Wikipedia article (and no fossil fuel $$$ was taken in preparing this true account of the current state of play on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 4:37pm
Wow, wikipedia? Once controlled and now aided and abetted by William M.Connolley? The one's who continually edit any posts that are negative? You have never heard of the Climate Wars, have you?
Absolutely hilarious, if it didn't show your ignorance. From your link- 'This page was last modified on 5 September 2015, at 16:07.' That's how much the science is settled. ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:16pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 3:12pm:
So the words of 100 eminent scientists from both sides of the debate don't count, but wikipedia does? No wonder you believe in the Climate Change Fairytale. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:18pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 3:12pm:
You might have more success with your claims of 'lie' if you actually produced any evidence. The IPCC no longer uses the graph at all in any of in any of its reports or materials. And you dont know why? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:38pm
“Competent scientists do not doubt the hockey stick because it does not have enough publications… They doubt it because it has been shown to be based on incorrect math and inadequate data.”
DR DONALD RAPP, PHD Former research professor at the University of Southern California’s Viterbi School of Engineering and former Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering at the University of Texas. Former Senior Research Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and Senior Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory. Contributor to The Encyclopedia of Snow, Ice And Glaciers. Mann’s cheerleaders among the climate activists continue to insist that his hockey stick has been replicated in dozens of “independent” studies. On page 136 of his book Assessing Climate Change: Temperature, Solar Radiation and Heat Balance, Dr Rapp considered their claims216: To support their position, they mention: “nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions… by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context”. However, the other publications typically utilized PCA with the mean chosen only for the calibration period, leading inevitably to some form of hockey stick if some of the proxies had an upward trend in the 20th century. It is not the number of papers that counts here. In other words, if you use Mann’s methods, it leads to Mann’s madness. Aside from any statistical bias, they’re mostly reprocessing the same very limited proxy data. As Professor North’s report for the National Academy of Sciences concluded217: Because the data are so limited, different large-scale reconstructions are sometimes based on the same datasets and thus cannot be considered as completely independent. Dr Rapp continued: As Bob Foster emphasized, truth in science is not a matter of voting. The issue here is whether the reconstruction is correct, independently of whether the reconstruction was done in two, 20 or 200 papers… Competent scientists do not doubt the hockey stick because it does not have enough publications to back it up. They doubt it because it has been shown to be based on incorrect math and inadequate data. The above-mentioned Bob Foster is the late Australian geologist, who in a paper for Energy & Environment put it very bluntly218: This infamous ‘hockey-stick’ graph is anathema to palaeo-climatologists like me. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 2626-2651). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:39pm
“At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work.”
PROFESSOR TOM WIGLEY, PHD DORA Fellow in Ecology and Environmental Science at the University of Adelaide. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Former Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Senior Scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. IPCC contributing author. Professor Wigley was hired by Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climatic Research Unit, to be his successor. One would like to think he had some misgivings at the way the CRU were co-opted by Mann to trash Dr Lamb’s legacy. He certainly had concerns about treemometers and other proxy data. In Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 1781-1787). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:44pm
“The ‘hockey stick’ concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”
PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America and past president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division. Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, member of the Commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, and US representative to UNESCO International Geological Correlation Project. Associate Editor of Geomorphology and The Geological Society of America Bulletin. In his book Evidence-Based Climate Science, Professor Easterbrook put it very bluntly340: The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers… one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree-ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong… The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC. Surely many scientists thought as much all those years ago. And yet it took an extraordinary amount of time for them to speak up against a whole-hearted assault on the scientific method. One by one, disinterested parties who took the time to look at McIntyre & McKitrick’s work came away feeling the two Canadian outsiders had the better case than Mann and his acolytes. In February 2005, Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, IPCC expert reviewer, and editor-in-chief of National Weather Digest, was one of the first American climate scientists to contact the stick-slayers directly341: I will confess that I was not aware of the details of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s critique of the “hockey stick” but after a cursory reading of the enclosed materials it seems that the critics have valid points. I’ve been skeptical of the “hockey stick” for a long time simply on the grounds that there is too much evidence that climate has been more changeable than the “hockey stick” would indicate… Also, having taken part in the IPCC review process for the 2nd and 3rd assessments, I was continually frustrated with drafts that had: [will include text later] [will insert figure here] riddled throughout them. Thus, I’m not surprised that some may have made errors in their science and then, for whatever reason fail to provide their methods. Again, I’m not an expert in tree ring studies, but Steve and Ross’s work to me makes good points. I’m happy to see work like theirs get published. His was a comparatively lonely voice in 2005. Not now. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3902-3928). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:44pm:
Mark Steyn? Really? You've got to be kidding. He's certainly not a scientist and is just a media hack after starting life as a disc jockey. Not a scientist; not a mathematician; not a climatologist! Mark Steyn is a schtickologist. Mark Steyn's the leader of the AGW skeptics idolized by Ozpolitic denizens Maria Costel and lee. ;D ;D ;D ;D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:22pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm:
The person who wrote it UNHINGED is PROFESSOR DON J EASTERBROOK, PHD Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Now criticise him instead. I dare you. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:28pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:22pm:
Does he use the alias Mark Steyn? ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:35pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:28pm:
Try reading the article or get someone to do it for you. Steyns book is a collection of essays by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS. Clearly this concept eludes you. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 7:35pm:
Scientists like Mark Steyn? ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:24pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 6:18pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:27pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm:
Mark Steyn is being sued by Michael Mann. One of Mann's favourite tricks to force people not to try to discredit him. Steyn has counter-sued Mann, which means Mann cannot just drop the case, another favourite ploy, he is being sued for millions. Mark Steyn has never claimed to be a scientist, unlike M Mann, who doesn't use the scientific method. He has also not falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner like M Mann. And yet you prefer M Mann? That truly shows your lack of knowledge. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:28pm
...
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:24pm:
You do know wiki is able to be edited by anybody, even you. Don't you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm:
Tell us why it doesn't bother you that every argument you have posted here and most everything you cut and paste originates from sites sponsored and contributed to by the fossil fuel industry esp the Koch brothers. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:28pm:
Which once again shows your lack of knowledge. The first climate scientists were earth scientists, geologists, before climate science had their own 'degree'. Michael Mann's qualifications? 'A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998)[1]' According to wiki, which according to you is gold standard. 'Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.' http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45 |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:39pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm:
You want me to justify IPCC, Kevin Trenberth. You still don't get it do you? They are warmists that I'm quoting. So you admit IPCC writings are crap? Welcome to the real world. ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:50pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:39pm:
Yes you quote the warmists like you quoted my last post because your a deceitful sock. Now I have reproduced my full quote (the blue bits are what you left out. So hows about you answer the question Sock!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:58pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:50pm:
The question involves an allegation which is untrue. How can I answer something that is not true? I'm sure you have an answer, not meaningful, but an answer anyway. Did you enjoy Michael Mann's Climate Science qualifications? A geologist, fancy a geologist claiming to be a climate scientist. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:08pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:15pm
ImSpartacus2 wrote at 8.28pm
lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm:
You may have deleted your own ignorant post, but it is there for posterity. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:21pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:15pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:24pm
All right, I admit, IPCC chapter 9 is from a bodgy site.
it can be found here - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:35pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:24pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:57pm
Did that. This like fighting a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. Bye
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 8th, 2015 at 10:08pm lee wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 9:57pm:
Yep. That was no surprise. Your a sock!!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:38am
Incredible that some still argue against AGW when it is here and now.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:47am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 8th, 2015 at 8:24pm:
So you want to ignore the views of 100 eminent scientists (including Phil Jones of the CRU) who say the Hockey stick is crap? You are just a DENIER. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:50am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:38am:
Incredible that some argue FOR AGW when there has been no warming now for 18 years. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 9th, 2015 at 9:25am mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:50am:
This appears very conclusive evidence of AGW. Please consider. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 9:47am Unforgiven wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 9:25am:
Ironically it is the proof of the opposite. If you want to prove or disprove the claim of a pause in warming then produce a year-by-year graph of the last 18 years. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:31am
The year 2014 was Earth’s warmest in 134 years of records, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by NASA scientists. In a separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
What follows is the first part of a Guardian article on recent scientific studies (not the self serving fossil fuel industry hoax BS) that disprove the "myth" of the so called pause. "The Guardian, Karl Mathiesen, Friday 5 June 2015 Global Warming 'Pause' Didn't Happen, Study Finds Reassessment of historical data and methodology by US research body debunks ‘hiatus’ hypothesis used by sceptics to undermine climate science Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government research that undermines one of the key arguments used by sceptics to question climate science. The new study reassessed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) temperature record to account for changing methods of measuring the global surface temperature over the past century. The adjustments to the data were slight, but removed a flattening of the graph this century that has led climate sceptics to claim the rise in global temperatures had stopped. “There is no slowdown in warming, there is no hiatus,” said lead author Dr Tom Karl, who is the director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Centre. Dr Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said: “The fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not merely underlines how fragile a concept it was in the first place.” The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, showed the rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.116C per decade) was almost exactly the same, in fact slightly higher, as the past five decades (0.113C per decade). In 2013, the UN’s most comprehensive report on climate science made a tentative observation that the years since 1998 had seen a “much smaller increasing trend” than the preceding half century. The results highlighted the inadequacy of using the global mean surface temperature as the primary yardstick for climate change. Karl said: “There’s been a lot of work done trying to understand the so-called hiatus and understand where is this missing heat.” A series of studies have since identified a number of factors, including heat transferred into deep oceans and small volcanic eruptions, that affected the temperature at the surface of the Earth. “Those studies are all quite valid and what they suggest is had those factors not occurred the warming rate would even be greater than what we report,” said Karl. Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK’s Met Office, said NOAA’s research was “robust” and mirrored an analysis the British team is conducting on its own surface temperature record. “Their work is consistent with independent work that we’ve done. It’s within our uncertainties. Part of the robustness and reliability of these records is that there are different groups around the world doing this work,” he said. But Stott argued that the term slowdown remained valid because the past 15 years might have been still hotter were it not for natural variations. In the coming years the world is expected to move out of a period in which the gradient of warming has not slowed even though the temperature has been moderated. This means “we could have 10 or 15 years of very rapid rates of warming,” he said. “Even though the observed estimate is increased, over and above that there is plenty of evidence that the rate of warming is still being depressed,” he said. “The caution is around saying that that is our underlying warming rate, because the climate models are predicting substantially higher rates than that.” NOAA’s historical observations were thrown out by unaccounted-for differences between the measurements taken by ships using buckets and ships using thermometers in their engine in-takes, the increased use of ocean buoys and a large increase in the number of land-based monitoring stations. “Science can only progress based on as much information as we have and what you see today is the most comprehensive assessment we can do based on all the information that’s been collected,” said Karl. Schmidt called the new observations “state of the art” and said NASA had been in discussions with NOAA about how to incorporate the findings into their own global temperature record. Prof Michael Mann, whose analysis of the global temperature in the 1990s revolutionised the field, said the work underlined the conclusions of his own recent research. “They’ve sort of just confirmed what we already knew, there is no true ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming,” he said. “To the extent that the study further drives home the fact ... that global warming continues unabated as we continue to burn fossil fuels and warm the planet, it is nonetheless a useful contribution to the literature.” Bob Ward, policy and communications director at London’s Grantham Research Institute, said the news that warming had been greater than previously thought should cause governments currently meeting in Bonn to act with renewed urgency and lay foundations for a strong agreement at the pivotal climate conference in Paris this December. (To be continued) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:33am
“The myth of the global warming pause has been heavily promoted by climate change sceptics seeking to undermine the case for strong and urgent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ward.
Since scientists began to report a slower than expected rate of warming during the last decade, climate sceptics have latched on to the apparent dip in order to question the validity of climate models. Last February, US Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told CNN: “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.” Cruz’s rival for the Republican nomination, Jeb Bush, was using the pause to argue for inaction as early as 2009. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK thinktank set up by Nigel Lawson to lobby against action on climate change and which hosts a flat-lining temperature graph on the masthead of its website, was dismissive of the study. Dr David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and science editor for the GWPF, said: “This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals.” He claimed the temperature graph was at odds with those of the Met Office and NASA, despite both organisations saying the new study’s results were consistent with their data. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:44am
Yes indeed. What most of us have suspected for a long time now is true.
The global warming debate is no longer a scientific debate (indeed that debate was won by the scientists against the anti-scientists a long time ago), Its a political debate, fueled by the $$$$ of the fossil fuel industry who have a lot to lose if the world turns away from burning fossil fuels. Indeed a year or so ago Longy (AKA Maria) admitted this at a time when he thought that it was actually a valid scientific argument to maintain that AGW cant be true because he did not believe in it ideologically. I will need to dig out the thread that he opened to make just this point. So that's what we're confronting; not a scientific debate but a political debate. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:45am Unforgiven wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 9:25am:
I don't see the 'A' for anthropogenic in that graph. Do you? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 11:02am Soren wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:45am:
Oh right. Well, this is what the ICPP said in its 5th report which should clear it up for you "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased" "The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification" "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750" "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system." There now, that's what the expert scientists are saying, which a rational human being would take as his best guide as to the truth or otherwise of AGW. Now if your a non scientists with no background in climate science and you prefer the arguments generated by sites sponsored and funded by the fossil fuel industry then its a more then 90% chance that your motivation is political rather then scientific. You need to sort this out about yourself and at the very least do some research into the denialist sites your quoting and cutting and pasting from (that's if you want to get to the truth of course rather then your preferred ideology) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 9th, 2015 at 11:40am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 11:02am:
It says influence. Not even the IPCC says what the degree of influence is (because it is unknown). Not even the IPCC says that humans cause global warming. It doesn't say what causes it because it is also not fully known. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from the pre-industrial 0.03% to 0.038%. In other words. human contribution has changed the composition of atmospheric gases by 0.008 to 0.01%. And you imagine that this change drives the changes to Earth's climate. Is it an influence? Sure. Is it significant? No. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:17pm
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
And in this link, Nature Magazine - the most prominent science publication for peer-reviewed articles discusses 'the warming hiatus'. NOAA's contrary claim is based on a disgraceful effort to literally rewrite the previous temperature record. In the meantime, the rest of the scientific world continues to accept the existence of the hiatus as was discussed at length in the ClimateGate emails. But I will give the climate con artists credit. It is breathtakingly audacious to simply redo all the past figures and then claim a new outcome. IN any other science they would be publicly chastened for it, but in this discipline all they have to do is convince the ignorant and the foolish. And apparently they have. Here in Australia, BOM have done the same thing and suspiciously refused to allow any external people to verify their changes saying 'only we have the expertise to do this'. The only truly interesting thing is how gullible so many of you are. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:21pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:44am:
It is actually YOU who wont debate the science. You are the one silly enough to believ ein the Hockey Stick Fraud. And why is it that none of you ever debate any of the statements made by eminent scientists that might disagree with you? Not ONCE have you even tried to do that. And most are on 'your side' of the debate and still you wont read what they say. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:24pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 11:02am:
Wow you are naive. That is NOT what 'scientists' are saying. It is what ONE scientist (the lead author) is saying and based on previous experience is probably a PhD student. The IPCC doesn't select the best scientist. It selects the one who will write what they want. Why do you think Nobel Laureates and world experts are not even invited to write for the IPCC? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:29pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 10:31am:
Yes, did you read the supplement? NASA - 38% certainty, NOOA 48% certainty of the hottest year EVAH. Or perhaps 62% and 52% certainty it wasn't the hottest year ever. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:38pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 9:25am:
Can you please explain the early 20th century warming, that has a similar rate of change (slope), to late 20th century warming? The IPCC says that CO2 did not measurably impact the climate until after 1950. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:51pm Soren wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 11:40am:
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report." Does that help? Probably not since your not really interested in the science only in the political implications for your ideology. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:59pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
What research have you done regarding the allegations that the denialist sites you take your arguments from and do your cutting and pasting from are not compromised by their receipt of funding from the fossil fuel industry. Any person who is not a sock and who is genuinely interested in the science instead of the idiological implications of AGW would comprehensively research that matter and share their research and conclusions with us. Are you going to answer the question. Yes or no sock??? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:24pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
The following is an article from the Wasington Post whoich demonstrates how desperate Denialists are to distort the science. But it also demonstrates what a complete sock and worm Lee is Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record By Chris Mooney January 23 Last week, in an announcement that not only drew massive media attention but was seized upon by President Obama in his State of the Union address, NASA and NOAA jointly declared that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded, based on temperature records that go back to the year 1880. The news came out on Friday morning. It was announced through press releases by the agencies, but also through more thorough discussions for the public and media, including this PowerPoint presentation and a media briefing discussing it. Why revisit all of this? Because since the announcement there has been a strong reaction, and a lot of climate “skeptics” have suggested that really, 2014 might not have been the hottest year after all. Consider, for instance, this article in the UK’s Daily Mail, whose first sentence reads, “The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.” Given the stakes here — this is the biggest news story about climate change in quite some time — I think it is important to examine this charge. For further discussion of the matter, by the way, you should also see this post by Andrew Revkin at the New York Times and this one by Andrew Freedman at Mashable. So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record? The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005. The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005. Here is the slide: According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available. The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted: “ Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.” Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record. In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be. If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know. A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record. (to be cont.) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:26pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
That is another obfuscation that the early 20th century temperature rate of change is similar to the late 20th century rate of change. It is evidently not by observation of the slope. There is no explanation offered. However it is s known fact that early in the 20th century many oil fields were exploited by venting methane into the atmosphere before most countries prohibited allowing oil production by venting or burning methane. It could have been related to huge Saudi oil fields which vented methane. Methane is a more potent gas than carbon dioxide in global warming effect. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:27pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:51pm:
Thank you for confirming my note at the bottom of "unforgiven"s graph/ |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:30pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
The 'hottest year ever' statements get old when you realise that are saying it is 0.05 degrees +/- 0.1 degrees. And it still remains the case that the MVP was 3 degrees hotter than at current. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:31pm
Cont from earlier post
"Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes: “ In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04ºC, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.02ºC. Given the uncertainties, we can estimated the likelihood that this means 2014 was in fact the planet’s warmest year since 1880. Intuitively, the highest ranked year will be the most likely individual year to be the record (in horse racing terms, that would be the favorite) and indeed, we estimated that 2014 is about 1.5 to ~3 times more likely than 2010 to have been the record. In absolute probability terms, NOAA calculated that 2014 was ~48% likely to be the record versus all other years, while for GISTEMP (because of the smaller margin), there is a higher change of uncertainties changing the ranking (~38%). (Contrary to some press reports, this was indeed fully discussed during the briefing).” So taking all of this into account, I can only conclude that once you dig into what NOAA’s and NASA’s scientists actually did, and why they did it, you realize that their conclusion is perfectly reasonable. 2014 was the hottest year on record. Not with absolute certainty — just with enough of it for an imperfect world." Of course there was no NASA supplement instead a desperate attempt by Anti science denialists to misrepresent anything that might advance their cause of delaying meaningful action to slowdown the burning of fossil fuel which effect the financial interests of Lee's string pullers. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:34pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:26pm:
So your lying eyes deceive you. Why am I not surprised? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:35pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:59pm:
How about YOU provide evidence that these 'denialist' sites you criticise are funded that way? Most of them are nothing more than people seeking actual truth rather than the pre-packaged announcements you like to deliver. And the vast majority of them are very experienced and well-regarded scientists. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:37pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:59pm:
And yet now you have found it. No thanks are needed for pointing you in the right direction. The rest is obfuscation by the warmers. But you know in your heart the truth. And their probability chart only goes back to 1998. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:37pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:24pm:
They forgot all about the MVP when it was 3 degrees WARMER than currently and the world didnt destroy itself. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:39pm
How about we try this:
If you still believe in the Hockey Stick then you are a fraud who believes in lies and your opinion on climate can be disregarded. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:41pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:30pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:45pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:41pm:
Apparently you dont understand even basic statistics. What that translates to is that temperature changed anywhere from 0.05 degrees LOWER to 0.15 degrees HIGHER. They chose the midpoint. The reason it is called statistically insignificant is that the range of change extends in BOTH directions. And the MVP is a killer to your 'warmest ever' rhetoric in that it is patently and provably FALSE. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:49pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:27pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:56pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:39pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 2:02pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:45pm:
You know what you sound like. That yobbo in the pub whose never done a day's science in his life but is convinced he's thought of something that disproves Einstein's theory of relativity. "Nah onestly govner, I gots me a second and on me watch and I watched me watch as I gunned that engin on me tractor and I didnt feel time slow not one smidgens" |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 2:11pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:37pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:04pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 2:11pm:
Ah, Now NOOA and NASA are in the pay of evil oil and deniaists. What a conspiracy theorist you are. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:14pm
Have they found the tropical tropospheric hotspot yet? You know the one that is a central tenet of AGW theory. Or has it slunk off into the sunset?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:24pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:04pm:
Everything you have claimed come from the ICPP and NASA etc have been distorted, misrepresented and/or cut and pasted in a distorted, misrepresented form from arguments and materials fed to you by suspect compromised anti science sites. Are you going to answer the question yes or no???? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:44pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:24pm:
I quoted NOAA, NASA and linked it. Where is the misrepresentation , other than your tiny brain. And quoting a newspaper article explaining a blog post, a fact you decry in sceptics, is really too much. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 4:16pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:04pm:
Yes that was a good catch! Spartacus absolutely refuses to budge one iota away from his preconceived beliefs. He is even silly enough to support the Hockey Stick when the rest of the word shuns it like Ebola. The irony is that the true DENIER is Spartacus - denier of fact, logic and observation. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 5:55pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 4:16pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:01pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 3:44pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:06pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 5:55pm:
Do you really want to maintain the Hockey Stick is still well accepted? I challenge you to find a major scientific publication or group that still supports the Stick in the last year. Go on. I will give you a clue: don't try the IPCC - they've dumped it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:11pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:01pm:
Please show the link where I claimed a retraction. I DID say lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:29pm:
Zip, nada, nothing about a retraction. Once again you show your comprehension skills are lacking. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:13pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
His science skills are lousy too. He is being bested by pretty much everyone who uses actual facts. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:26pm
Hey Spartacus since you know so much maybe you can fill me in why the IPCC replaced the top graph in their 1990 paper with Mann's hockey ssscchhtick in 2001...?????
Dishonest b@stards if you ask me......!!!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:29pm Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:26pm:
Lamb is legendary in meteorology while Mann has only just been granted his PhD. IPCC have an agenda in mind. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:29pm lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:35pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:29pm:
You mean fossil fuels don't have an agenda :D :D :D :D :D ?!?!?!?!?! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:36pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:29pm:
I agree they do, they want to tax you and me on the air we breath through a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market that will only increase the amount of CO2 that man sends up into the atmosphere. After all they are the right hand of the United Nations which in turn is owned by the world bank, who owns the world bank spartacus..??? do you know.....!!!! And why would bankers be so interested in saving the world..?? As far as I know the only thing that they care about is increasing their profit margin. Wake up knob...!!!...... ::) |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:35pm:
You're such a tool.....!!! Any oil and gas corporation that is owned by bankers and that would be the majority are now all on board wanting an ETS system or a carbon tax. So wake up TOOL......!!!!!!! European oil and gas majors call for global CO2 pricing system Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 4:16pm:
maria denies fossil fuels have an agenda :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:26pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:41pm Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm:
So you aren't denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas anymore!??! :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:42pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:48pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:41pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:50pm Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:42pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:51pm Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:42pm:
I dont class not being interested in what an ignorant untrained no body like you has to say about climate change as hiding my head in the sand. You have no credibility (i) because you have no training in the field (ii) you get your claims (and often cut and paste) from compromised sites and you give credit to a conspiracy theory ab9ut Banks making up AGW for profit and ignore the fact that the sites you source your arguments and materials from are sponsored, funded and often set up by the fossil fuel interests. Ajax I have absolutely no respect for your opinion because I do not believe it is bona fide and I put Lee in the same category. I have no respect for Longy's opinion either but that's because i think he's a stupid zealot. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:54pm
vested interests abound but they aint fossil fueled :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:o |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:57pm "Thanks for the spare rental dad, and all i have to do is say it's a conspiracy on internet forums?!?" |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:59pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:29pm:
lee wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 1:37pm:
This was originally released as a supplement, that's why when various news agencies found out about it they objected. But that is by-the-by. So you are now conceding that 2014 was not the hottest year ever? 'NCDC follows these conventions to categorize the confidence associated with assertions made with respect to ranks used in the report: Probability Descriptor > 99% "almost certain" 90% - 99% "very likely" 66.7% - 90% "likely" 50% - 66.7% "more likely than not" 33.3% - 50% "more unlikely than likely" 10% - 33.3% "unlikely" 1% - 10% "very unlikely" < 1% "almost certainly not" ' http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 So between 33.3% and 50% (where NOAA and NASA sit), the hottest year ever is more UNLIKELY than LIKELY. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Fast.Affordable.Sooner. on Sep 9th, 2015 at 7:15pm
Just what thesis is lee trying to prove again?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:32pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:40pm:
That is tantamount to admitting that you are fool who refuses to listen to anything at all except from one source - the IPCC. I am sure your criticise the Church and here you are making the Vatican look like a wide-thinking, super-tolerant, permissive group. You need to learn how to think because so far, you have shown no thinking whatsoever, just mindless parrotting of lies that most people already see. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 9th, 2015 at 8:33pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 6:50pm:
You pretty much DEFINE 'the closed mind'. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:52am
Spartacus appears to have gone running from the great tide of facts.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:15am mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:52am: He does that but reappears and starts again. I'm sure he has no memory retention. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:57am lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:15am:
He is really an extraordinarily poor debater. His approach to contrary evidence is to simply dismiss it using the usual idiotic claims such as 'it comes from a denialist site' or 'it was funded by the Koch brothers' or other foolishness. The irony is that the biggest denier on here is Spartacus himself. He continues to believe in the Hockey Stick long after even the warmists have dumped it a bad science. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:03pm
O Spartacus, where have you gone?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:53pm
Mean cumulative mass balance of all reported glaciers is declining at an accelerating rate.
http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/ Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:56pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:53pm:
Can you please quote the scientific report that says glaciers should be static? Melting glaciers have uncovered Roman mines and roads. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:01pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:53pm:
Glacial retreat and increase is all part of natural variability and have occurred multiple times in the past. That would explain why a few retreating glaciers are exposing former villages from over a thousand years ago. It has all happened before. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Soren on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:11pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6th, 2015 at 9:13am:
:D Kim Il-Jong is looking for a speech writer, Bozo. You ought to apply. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:22pm lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:56pm:
In Alaska? Or in lee's mind? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:51pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:22pm:
'Many glaciers in the Alps apparently retreated from about 300 BC to about 400 AD (Delibrias et al. 1975). At that time they probably were comparable in size or even less extensive as today, as is indicated by Roman gold mines established high up in the Alps in the Sonnblick area (Austria). ' 'It appears that after the collapse of the Roman Empire in AD 476 some of the mines were blocked by advancing glaciers, and therefore given up. The entrance to some of these mines are probably still covered by glacier ice while others have only recently come to light as the glacier retreated in the 20th century (Lamb 1977, 1995).' http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory%200-1000.htm I'm sorry your limited search skills failed to uncover these, Alaska? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 9:48am lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:51pm:
The retreat of glaciers and even polar ice is a constant attribute of natural variability. It would be funny if it weren't that serious that somehow, changes that have occurred all through history are now catastrophic and 'our fault'. There is zero logic in any of it. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:26pm
Spartacus is certainly refusing to re-engage the debate. No surprise really since his argument was clearly destroyed - such as it was.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:28pm
And yet AGW still goes on.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:32pm
I see the deniers are here. What measurement has been made of AGW?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:05pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:28pm:
Proof please. Of course you won't do that! You read it in a 15yos blog and what else do you need after that? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:19pm lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:32pm:
Well let's see. Over 50 years the temperature rose about 0.6 degrees and hasn't risen in nearly 20 years. IN addition to that the current temperature is slightly BELOW that of the average from the last millenium. So what exactly is everyone carrying on about when absolutely nothing is happening that is even remotely unusual? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:23pm
They get their information from NASA/NOOA.They don't realise that the historical data has been adjusted. Even more so now that NASA/NOOA are using the adjustments from the Tom Karl paper.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:41pm lee wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:23pm:
Frankly that is a scandal that could bring down a lot of people. The same with BoM. They are altering historical data and hiding how they do it. It all smells of the Hockey Stick methodology of lying, obsfucating and denial. But in the end, truth wins out. After all, the planet refuses to get warmer and fudged figures or not, eventually you can't hide that. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 11th, 2015 at 10:04pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:41pm:
Is that why 2015 is heading to be the hottest year on record? Maria Costel is psychotic. She only believes the voices in her head. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:42pm
The Arctic melting and reforming has been going on for a very long time.
September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40% May 1947 - arctic melting http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits= November 1922 - arctic melting http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:47pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:28pm:
In your imagination maybe....!!!!!!??????? Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:48pm Unforgiven wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 10:04pm:
I think you're the psychotic one Jake Sully.....LOL |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:25am
I notice that the usual suspects have disappeared from this thread after being roundly flogged.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:52am
...
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:52am Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:42pm:
I'm interested Ajax, did you trawl through the archives of the Argus etc and just happened to stumble onto these articles or did you get them from some other site. Could you give us the link of the other site you got this from. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:05am Unforgiven wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 10:04pm:
That is part of the reason why 2015 MAY be listed as the hottest year EVAH. NASA/NOOA have adjusted temperatures for years, Karl et al is only the reason for the latest round of adjustments. The other reason of course is the El Nino, which will probably raise temperatures, as in 1998. As you have already agreed that El Nino is a natural event, you can't use it as the excuse for the hottest year EVAH, |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:06am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:52am:
ImSpartacus2 again reveals he doesn't know how to use a search engine. If you try the National Library of Australia, that's the "nla" in the URL, you can have fun in there and get edumacated. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:15am Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:48pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:20am
Ah the conspiracy theorist in full flight.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:24am lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:06am:
You still havent answered my question about the compromised sites you get your arguments and cut and pastes from. You got lots to hide lee otherwise you would provide it readily. That's right lee. Accuse the scientists of inventing climate change for a few thousand dollars in research grants but totally ignore the tens of millions the fossil fuel industry gives to denialist sites to find fault with the AGW science. What was it Truman said about Macarthy. It applies equally well to you and Ajax. Oh that's right. He said "I wouldn't sleep in the same gutter with the man" |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:24am
.....
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:26am
Double posting your crap doesn't make it any more interesting, or relevant.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:29am lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:20am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:29am lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:20am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:31am lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:26am:
Are you going to answer the question or still hide??? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:31am lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:26am:
Are you going to answer the question or still hide??? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Ajax on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:39am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:52am:
You're so thick I'm not even going to try. Other intelligent folks can work out..!! |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:44am
.....
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:46am Ajax wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:39am:
So there you have it!!! Both the Ajax and Lee socks are refusing to disclose who sends then here to disseminate their BS!!!! Says everything about these 2 poor excuses for human beings. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:47am Ajax wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:39am:
So there you have it!!! Both the Ajax and Lee socks are refusing to disclose who sends then here to disseminate their BS!!!! Says everything about these 2 poor excuses for human beings. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:49am
Warning. Don't feed the trolls.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:18pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:20am:
It is something to behold. EVERY site is a denialist conspiracy site unless it supports his belief and agenda. He must be fuming that the IPCC has dropped the hockey stick as bad science then. Who now will he quote? When Mann was countersued for defamation, 19 groups - mainly environmental grouos - supported his OPPONENT while precisely no one supported Mann. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:19pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:29am:
Actually the community says it has no idea. And that is peer-reviewed unlike the hysterical garbage sites you post from. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:20pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:49am:
Spartacus is quite the troll, that is for sure. Never quotes science and only sprouts ideology. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:28pm
The most amusing feature-
You quote IPCC, NASA/NOOA and he wants to know what denialist site you got it from, not that the sites you quote is the truth as they see it. Somehow being reported on a sceptic site, somehow invalidates what IPCC, NASA/NOOA etc say. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 5:23pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:49am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:05pm
I've been quite open about my sources. Live with it.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:16pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:05pm:
As have I. But Lee, you are right about him rejecting even direct quotes from NASA, MET etc if they are inconvenient. He still beleives that there has been no hiatus is warming despite showing him a Nature Magazine link to that effect. it is amusing being called a denialist when actually it is people like him that are clearly deniers of any information not to his liking. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:40pm
......
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:40pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:05pm:
That's not true. Answer the questions I've asked instead of being evasive. There is only one explanation for your evasiveness and that's that you're a lying sock. Here, I'll give you yet another chance and make it easy for you by quoting below the question I asked you days ago and repeatedly asked you since and you have repeatedly refused to answer. Answer the question! ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 9th, 2015 at 12:59pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:49pm
.....
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:49pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:16pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:56pm
Hilarious. I invent facts that are listed on NOOA/NASA, IPCC etc websites.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:24pm
....
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:24pm lee wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 6:05pm:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by lee on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:34pm
Bye Bye Troll. You double poster you.
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 9:02am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:40pm:
1) we quote from multiple sources, many the actual warmist sites you love to quote 2) you need to prove that funding sources affect outcomes. What about government funding which very obviously comes with a pro-AGW bias? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 9:04am ImSpartacus2 wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 7:49pm:
Actually, they ALL do and I quoted you (verbatim) about 6 such eminent scientists including some on your side of the debate who reject the Hockey Stick. IPCC rejects it too. Your refusal to reject the hockey stick when all scientists have done the same is evidence of your ignorance and supreme bias. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 13th, 2015 at 10:26am mariacostel wrote on Sep 13th, 2015 at 9:02am:
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by ImSpartacus2 on Sep 13th, 2015 at 10:26am
...
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 12:40pm
“Claims based on the ‘Mann hockey-stick curve’ are by now totally discredited.”
PROFESSOR PETER STILBS, PHD Professor of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, member of the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society, and Docent of Physical Chemistry at Uppsala University and Åbo University. Member of the International Advisory Board for the RSC journal Chemistry World. In September 2006 Professor Stilbs and the Royal Institute of Technology hosted 120 participants from 11 countries representing a wide spectrum of views at a conference on “Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability”. At the conclusion of the meeting, he wrote342: By the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement that: 1) It is likely that there has been a climate trend towards global warming underway since 1850… 2) There are many uncertainties in climate modeling… 3) Natural variations in climate are considerable and well-documented… 4) There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last thousand years. Previous claims based on the “Mann hockey-stick curve” are by now totally discredited. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3929-3943). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 12:42pm
“Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”
DR MADHAV KHANDEKAR, PHD Meteorologist and climatologist. Research Scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years. Editorial board member of The Journal of Natural Hazards, and former editor of Climate Research. Member of the American Geophysical Union, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the American Meteorological Society. Former World Meteorological Organization lecturer in meteorology. MSc in Statistics from Pune University, PhD in Meteorology from Florida State University. Before the hockey stick, climate science was a complicated business: a vast Amazonian river (as Professor Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University characterized it25) with many tributaries - from aerosols and volcanoes to solar variations and land surface modifications. What if all that complexity could be simplified? Really simplified - into “a nice tidy story” (in Professor Keith Briffa’s words) about “unprecedented warming in a thousand years” 26. In 2009 Dr Khandekar was interviewed by Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Asked whether Michael E Mann’s hockey stick was “a smoking gun that proves the alarmists right”, he replied27: The hockey stick was a graph constructed by some scientists about ten years ago. What it was meant to show was that the earth’s temperature from about 1080 till about 1850 remained essentially constant and then it started to shoot up. Lots of problems have been found out in the graph. The most glaring error in the hockey stick was that it did not show the Little Ice Age, which was significant. It did not show the Medieval Warm Period from the 8th to 12th century, which was also significant. There were errors in the use of the tree-ring data and also other errors. So today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick. They do not consider the hockey stick graph to be a correct representation of the global mean temperature. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 396-423). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 12:43pm
“The work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies.”
DR DAVID DEMING, PHD Geologist, geophysicist and associate professor at the University of Oklahoma. Associate Editor of Petroleum Geoscience and Ground Water. Author of peer-reviewed papers published by Science and other journals, and of “Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear”, published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Medieval Warm Period - when Greenland got its name and was extensively farmed, and vineyards flourished in much of England - was a matter of uncontroversial historical record. But, once you’ve decided to “repeal” it, it’s amazing how easy it is. On December 6th 2006 Dr Deming testified before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works52: I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. 53” The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the Little Ice Age took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages. The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.” In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “hockey stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph. Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 746-768). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 12:44pm
How's it going Spartacus? Do these peer-reviewed, eminent scientists all work for big oil?
|
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 12:47pm
“Very few paleoclimatologists agreed to the shape of the (hockey stick) curve.”
PROFESSOR PER HOLMLUND, PHD Professor of Glaciology at Stockholm University. Member of the national committee of geophysics at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and if the International Meteorological Institute. Former Director of Tarfala Research Station, and member of many expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic. Swedish member of the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the International Arctic Science Committee, the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research, etc. Eventually, Mann was forced to issue corrections to the two MBH papers in successive months in June 2004 (in Geophysical Research Letters) and in July 2004 (in Nature). If the correction does “not contradict the original publication”, Nature’s policy is to publish it as an “addendum”. But, “if the scientific accuracy or reproducibility of the original paper is compromised”, only a “corrigendum” can be published. Both of the above were “corrigenda” - yet Mann refused to accept the plain meaning of that word. In 2005 Professor Marcel Leroux wrote319: After describing their errors, they still considered (2004) that “none of these errors affect our previously published results”! …The corrigenda issued by Mann et al are “a clear admission that the disclosure of data and methods… was materially inaccurate.” At the IPCC there would not be even a corrigendum. Many serious paleoclimatologists were astonished by Mann’s hockey stick, and then appalled at its adoption by the IPCC for the Third Assessment Report. For the Fourth Assessment Report, they attempted to restore some sanity. Reviewing the Second Order Draft, Professor Holmlund wrote320: This remark concerns the handling of the Mann “hockey stick”… When Mann et al presented their hockey stick six-to-seven years ago they formatted paleodata in such a way that climate modellers could use it. But very few paleo climatologists agreed to the shape of the curve and nowadays we have much better data to use. It is therefore natural to describe the Mann curve in a history of science perspective, but not as a valid data set. A good example of a good modern curve is the one presented by Moberg et al… It has at least the variation seen in almost all paleo climate records for the past millennia. In the present IPCC text the view described is that we have the hockey stick and then later some scientists have raised critical voices. The basic meaning is that the hockey stick is still the number one description of the past millenia. This is not flattering and it certainly mis-credit [sic] the report. I believe that it is rather easy to go through the five pages and update the spirit of the text and perhaps make some adjustments in the figure captions. But Mann’s Hockey Team were still running the show and any suggestion that the IPCC acknowledge valid criticisms of the stick met with rejection. Professor Holmlund received the following response: Rejected – the Mann et al curve is included for consistency and to maintain a historical context for the current state of the art. Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 3647-3648). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by The_Barnacle on Sep 13th, 2015 at 1:22pm
Strange.
I seem to remember an ex member who also had an obsession with the hockey stick graph. So you've managed to find 4 scientists, and even then 2 of the quotes don't actually say that the hockey stick graph is wrong. You'll have to try harder |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 6:03pm
Spartacus, spartacus! Wherefore art thou, Spartacus?
Perhaps he is on the phone to Al Gore? Maybe he is out screaming at the climate to hurry up and destroy us all. Other thoughts, anyone? |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 13th, 2015 at 6:06pm The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 13th, 2015 at 1:22pm:
I have 100 quotes and there are 200 more coming. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Lounge Fly on Sep 14th, 2015 at 9:26pm
Alright all you denialists of AGW, in AGW is AL GORE's WRONG. Come on he made up a graph and you can clearly see CO2 levels went up after temperature changes. That's a cr*p graph own it move on noone cares about quotes supporting it.
C02 might well increase temperature - because green fields which arise from more C02 (plants use that for photosynthesis) hold heat better overnight than more arid ground. That a trace gas in the atmosphere mysteriously reflects heat back down and not back up. Like clouds, or water vapour, reflects heat both ways. AGW as presented is a scam wake up has been wrong in its predictions every time. Anyone who tries to anticipate anything with a model of more than single digit variables, or a meteorologist, cannot predict years ahead. Deal with it, we don't know how much C02 affects envirmont other than our plants love it. At some point, 5000ppm it may be harmful. But plants will be sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere so fast I wonder if you really could kill off the atmosphere with C02 alone, evolution is smarter than you are. A disgrace to the proffesion - Mark Steyn. Read this book if you want to here the other side stop being ignorent. It's not just heartland institute scientists that are embarrassed by this fiasco. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by Unforgiven on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:01pm Lounge Fly wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 9:26pm:
Zipper yourself Lounge Fly. You are evidently a common dolt with zero intellect and not worth wasting words on. Please invest in your human capital and you might eventually graduate from primary school. |
|
Title: Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Post by mariacostel on Sep 15th, 2015 at 9:15am Unforgiven wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:01pm:
All you need to so is to read and understand and you will learn so much. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |
