Australian Politics Forum - Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #45 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:15am

Rider wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

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

Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says Quote:

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:23am by # »

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #46 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 10:47am

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

Rider wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 12:52pm:

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

Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says Quote:

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

If you want the truth about global warming then these two sites are some of the best......

What's Up With That (WUWT)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

AND

Jonova
http://joannenova.com.au/

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #47 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:01am

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

...
If you want the truth about global warming then these two sites are some of the best......

What's Up With That (WUWT)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
...

Of Anthony Watts, Sourcewatch says Quote:

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

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

...
AND

Jonova
http://joannenova.com.au/

Of Jo Nova, Sourcewatch says Quote:

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

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Reply #48 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:18am Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:10pm: Quote: Which paper are you talking about? Did I mention a paper? Read the OP dude...?? Nobody provided a link to the paper, so I can't say anything about it.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #49 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:20am

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

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

Quote:

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

Read the OP dude...??

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

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

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #50 - Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:55pm

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

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

In the OP, Jo Nova quotes a letter from Richard Tol. Of Richard Tol, sourcewatch says Quote:

... according to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small". He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming".

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #51 - Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:14am

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

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

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

Quote:

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

Read the OP dude...??

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

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

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%

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

Muso and #, I imagine you'll be combing through all your misinformation today deleting all references to 'consensus' .... nah, didn't think so Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #52 - Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:41am

As I said, consensus of opinion is irrelevant. I'll have to see what John Cook's survey was about, but if I had received something asking my opinion, I'd probably say "Why are you asking this? What's the point of asking opinions? Do a literature search instead. In fact, I doubt if I would have taken it seriously.

Ah. I just checked it, and that's what he did:

Quote:

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

People don't use emotive terms in scientific papers. It would be laughed out of the peer review process. "Dangerous" is by implication only, and it would be outside the scope of most of those abstracts to make that conclusion.

Quote:

Write briefly and to the point. Say what you mean clearly and avoid embellishment with unnecessary words or phrases.

(from the style guidelines.)

Dr David Legates is funded by the Heartland Institute (no surprise there)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:18pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #53 - Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:50pm

muso wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

As I said, consensus of opinion is irrelevant. I'll have to see what John Cook's survey was about, but if I had received something asking my opinion, I'd probably say "Why are you asking this? What's the point of asking opinions? Do a literature search instead. In fact, I doubt if I would have taken it seriously.

Ah. I just checked it, and that's what he did:

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

People don't use emotive terms in scientific papers. It would be laughed out of the peer review process. "Dangerous" is by implication only, and it would be outside the scope of most of those abstracts to make that conclusion.

Quote:

Write briefly and to the point. Say what you mean clearly and avoid embellishment with unnecessary words or phrases.

(from the style guidelines.)

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #54 - Sep 4^th, 2013 at 2:20pm

Rider wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Quote:

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

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

Was that an attack? It's always best to check what motivation anyone would have for being so petty and disingenuous.

What did I say in the earlier part of the post? That was the main point.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #55 - Sep 4^th, 2013 at 2:37pm

For example, here is an abstract of a scientific paper. It would be facile to suggest that this does not include the word dangerous and it therefore did not support the IPCC conclusion. It's pretty obvious that it does.

Quote:

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

Wallace S. Broecker

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

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #56 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 6:26pm

Rider wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

muso wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

As I said, consensus of opinion is irrelevant. I'll have to see what John Cook's survey was about, but if I had received something asking my opinion, I'd probably say "Why are you asking this? What's the point of asking opinions? Do a literature search instead. In fact, I doubt if I would have taken it seriously.

Ah. I just checked it, and that's what he did:

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

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

generally that is the case with most scientific papers.

You will however see highly charged language and emotive terms used in many scientific papers, even is the hard sciences such as physics.

for example, "Catastrophic effects" rather than instabilities or collapse. "Lethal" rather than toxic etc

plenty of examples to illustrate this point.

Don't be afraid of words

But as we all know there are many corporate players that stand to lose market share and suffer reduced profit margins as a result of communities demanding action to mitigate the

CATASTROPHIC

and

DISASTROUS

effects of AGW

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ?? Reply #57 - Sep 5^th, 2013 at 6:57pm Yes. I'm not saying that the word "dangerous" is never used. It's just more common to be more specific. The example I posted was understated. This is fairly typical. It will be "bad news". It's only from the context that it amounts to much more than say a speeding fine in the mail.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #58 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:30am

Just goes to show that John Cook and his blog Skeptical Science are only concerned about one thing and that is pushing the athropogenic global warming religion.

So a few wealthy individuals receive benefits by taxing us all on the air we breath.

These wealthy individuals are playing on the conscience of these so called greenies to do the right thing by the Earth.

Skeptical science blog is anything but sceptical.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: How can you trust John Cook & skeptical science ??
Reply #59 - Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:06pm

This might ease your concerns: Quote:

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

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

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

Cook is trained as a solar physicist ...

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

Back to top

IP Logged