Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 It has nothing to do with not liking the result, it has to do with not accepting propaganda. Unlike you I know how that bull**** number was obtained and can irrefutably prove it was bull****. But you haven't. It just so happens to be the largest survey of climate scientists conducted. The only reason you are dismissing it is you don't like the results. I am not discussing quantum theory. Discussion of the greenhouse effect includes papers from over 100 years ago. Your definition of today means you do not accept any currently published papers since they were all published before today, this is idiotic. My definition of today is is current thinking. Where you include papers by people that have retracted their views, like Eigil Friis-Christensen has done you are misrepresenting any claims you think you are making about a consensus today. You have not repeated a quote from Svensmark. Again, give me a quote from Svensmark where he actually states his original paper was wrong. You have failed to provide evidence for your lie. I am talking about Eigil Friis-Christensen, you know that is why I have been providing quotes from him? He is main author on a couple of reports but also only author of: Solar activity variations and global temperature (Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1273-1284, December 1993) - Eigil Friis-Christensen Wrong, there are over 70 papers supporting the Cosmic Ray theory including 25 papers from 2007-2010. And since solar activity is in decline their views are about as fruitcake as it is possible to find in the world of science, something Eigil Friis-Christensen has come to realise even if Svenson hasn't. Not when it comes to computer modeling, none of us are employed as cartoonists but all hold science or engineering positions. Which makes you about as qualified to have an opinion as the economists you have listed. None support your position and none support AGW alarm, their position is that it is likely man is having some small effect on the climate but it is minor and will not override natural climate change. None support government action. Actually they do support the position I am taking. Not as strongly as as seems sensible but I refer you to the thread title and the topic being discussed again which is man made climate change.... something they do support. Dr. Spencer's credentials are impeccable and I support evolution theory. That is a lie as Dr. Singer has never stated that cigarettes are good for you. So why is the consensus opposed to ID good enough for you, but not when we are talking about global warming? Fred Singer has received plenty of money lobbying for the cigarette companies. They don't give him money to talk about the dangers. That is not what I asked, show me where the IPCC supports Dr. Loehle's position that the MWP was warmer than today. Your link doesn't show anything. Cr Loehle's paper only takes data up to 1992. The IPCC report makes no claims about 1992 that I am aware of. The thread title is still irrelevant to the contents of the list. The thread title does not give you the ability to change what is in the list or why it is there. I am not on your website. I am criticising it in relation to the way it was raised and the topic being discussed. It is not just skeptical of carbon trading but all government action. So in what way do economists like Indur M. Goklany suggest addressing world poverty which they think is the key issue, rather than climate change, if not Govt action? He seems to have a point, but not one that I see conflicting with dealing with climate change.. in fact any actions to address climate change should also be about addressing poverty, if we look at one issue without the other then neither will be solved. His is just one of the many economics papers that add and say nothing about the science of climate change or whether man is responsible or not for the current warming trend. Indeed implicit in his work is that the trend will happen since he uses IPCC temperature projections. I am not responding to the nonsense from the cartoonist's website. Which just shows how open minded you are. To show that the issue of the MWP is considered relevant and they only downplayed it because Mann's work has been discredited thanks to McIntyre. Odd you should say that when Mann's result have been confirmed by later results. It is right in the Summary for Policymakers (still cannot post link). It is as prominent as you can get it. Here is the summary for policy makers. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/ I have run a search on medieval and MWP and nothing comes up. Doesn't seem very prominent to me. None of the papers were withdrawn by their authors and all the papers make the claims I say they do. Eigil Friis-Christensen It is right in the report, 13.2.4.1 Climate trends (still cannot post link). Report 3 doesn't mention it: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/ Report 4 doesn't go up to 13: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html Besides which even if a claim about frogs is in there, disagreement with that detail does not mean they oppose the consensus, their research is on a specific detail not on the general implications. This is a lie as shown above. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about. There is no consensus position. 97% of climate scientists in the largest poll of them says otherwise. Of course you don't after it has been irrefutably proven that he said what I claimed. I was wondering what the point of your list was for. You made clear it was because Kerry said that there were no Anti-Global warming papers a few years ago. He was wrong. I am over it. What is more important is what we do about what the damage scientists are telling us we are doing to the planet. Getting bogged down in refuting what Kerry has said seems a bit of an aside to the issue that should be being discussed. Lie, all the papers were published in journals with standard peer-review. Your repeated nonsens that they were not peer-review or it was not robust is a lie. Including the one you deleted when I pointed out it looked like a magazine article and explicitly endorsed the consensus view? This doesn't even make any sense, why would I include your propaganda? Killimanjaro, sea-level rise and coral reefs are all used to promote global warming alarmism, thus debunking this alarmism debunks global warming alarmism. Not when the papers don't make any claim to do so, instead saying they are about specific circumstances in that region.... black soot in the himalayas and depositation from coral reefs dying because of global warming on the other. The research that came out on those topics endorsed global warming. Dr. Svensmark does not support Kristjansson's statements and you have failed to prove otherwise. I have never mentioned Svensmark. He is away with the fairies talking about global cooling, despite all your quoted scientists the Fred Singers etc accepting it is warming...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 But you haven't. It just so happens to be the largest survey of climate scientists conducted. The only reason you are dismissing it is you don't like the results. My definition of today is is current thinking. Where you include papers by people that have retracted their views, like Eigil Friis-Christensen has done you are misrepresenting any claims you think you are making about a consensus today. I am talking about Eigil Friis-Christensen, you know that is why I have been providing quotes from him? He is main author on a couple of reports but also only author of: Solar activity variations and global temperature (Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1273-1284, December 1993) - Eigil Friis-Christensen And since solar activity is in decline their views are about as fruitcake as it is possible to find in the world of science, something Eigil Friis-Christensen has come to realise even if Svenson hasn't. COMPLEX ERUPTION ON THE SUN: http://spaceweather.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 COMPLEX ERUPTION ON THE SUN: http://spaceweather.com/ Interesting though that is, it does not say anything against what I have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Interesting though that is, it does not say anything against what I have said. Didn't think it would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 But you haven't. It just so happens to be the largest survey of climate scientists conducted. The only reason you are dismissing it is you don't like the results. Now I can, The study that is used to spread the propaganda number of 97% of scientists is, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, - Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009) - Roland Granqvist In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public. However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is. - Further Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009) - John Helsdon The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases. - 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey. - 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change. - Only 157 surveyed stated they are climate scientists. - The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively determined "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation. That is right, the 97% is 75 scientists. My definition of today is is current thinking. Where you include papers by people that have retracted their views, like Eigil Friis-Christensen has done you are misrepresenting any claims you think you are making about a consensus today. Current thinking by whom? Friis-Chritensen has not retracted his views. I asked you again, provide a quote where he states that his paper is wrong. There is no consensus today. I am talking about Eigil Friis-Christensen, you know that is why I have been providing quotes from him? You have not provided a single quote from him! You have Eigil Friis-Christensen confused with Jón Egill Kristjánsson. Which makes you about as qualified to have an opinion as the economists you have listed. It makes me fully qualified to have an opinion on the climate models and the economists are qualified to have an opinion on the socio-economic impacts, which they do. Actually they do support the position I am taking. Not as strongly as as seems sensible but I refer you to the thread title and the topic being discussed again which is man made climate change.... something they do support. Really? You support Dr. Christy's position, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." - Dr. John Christy. So why is the consensus opposed to ID good enough for you, but not when we are talking about global warming? Strawman, I never said anything about consensus, it has to do with the actual science. The science to support evolution is very strong, the science to support ID is religious based much like most of AGW alarm. Fred Singer has received plenty of money lobbying for the cigarette companies. They don't give him money to talk about the dangers. You are the one who stated a lie, now show me the quote where Dr. Singer says cigarettes are good for you. Dr. Loehle's paper only takes data up to 1992. The IPCC report makes no claims about 1992 that I am aware of. He specifically explains this, A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - Craig Loehle - Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008) - Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch The corrected estimates are very similar to the original results, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ... While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values I am not on your website. I am criticising it in relation to the way it was raised and the topic being discussed. I don't care how it was brought up, I am correcting your misinformation about it. So in what way do economists like Indur M. Goklany suggest addressing world poverty which they think is the key issue, rather than climate change, if not Govt action? Free-markets. He seems to have a point, but not one that I see conflicting with dealing with climate change.. in fact any actions to address climate change should also be about addressing poverty, if we look at one issue without the other then neither will be solved. He discusses this here, Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds? (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007) - Indur M. Goklany His is just one of the many economics papers that add and say nothing about the science of climate change or whether man is responsible or not for the current warming trend. Indeed implicit in his work is that the trend will happen since he uses IPCC temperature projections. Strawman, I never stated they did. That is why his papers are under the socio-economic section. Which just shows how open minded you are. Everything on his website has been refuted, John Cook: Skeptical Science (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) Odd you should say that when Mann's result have been confirmed by later results. They never have, the one paper that claimed to was force to report their verification R2 statistic and it actually proved Mann's results to be worthless. Here is the summary for policy makers. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/ That is not the summary for policy makers. The IPCC TAR Summary For Policy Makers shows Mann's graph in Figure 1. It is as prominent as you can get. Eigil Friis-Christensen Lie. Report 3 doesn't mention it: I gave you the section number, 13.2.4 Climate change will increase the actual extinction rate, ...Among the species to disappear are Costa Rica’s golden toad (Bufo periglenes) and harlequin frog (Atelopus spp.) (Shatwell, 2006). Besides which even if a claim about frogs is in there, disagreement with that detail does not mean they oppose the consensus, their research is on a specific detail not on the general implications. It means they disagree that frogs are going extinct due to climate change. Extinctions are a big propaganda point for pushing AGW alarm and the only mention in the report of extinctions was for frogs. There is no consensus. 97% of climate scientists in the largest poll of them says otherwise. You mean 75? LMAO! I was wondering what the point of your list was for. You made clear it was because Kerry said that there were no Anti-Global warming papers a few years ago. He was wrong. I am over it. The point of my list is stated, "To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs." He did not say it a few years ago but November 2009. Including the one you deleted when I pointed out it looked like a magazine article and explicitly endorsed the consensus view? Wrong, it was listed as a reference but not counted and it had nothing to do with it supporting anything, it had to do with it not being peer-reviewed. There is no consensus. Not when the papers don't make any claim to do so, instead saying they are about specific circumstances in that region.... black soot in the himalayas and depositation from coral reefs dying because of global warming on the other. The research that came out on those topics endorsed global warming. The papers you point out do not support AGW alarm as they argue against the negative effects of AGW and thus make the case against government action. I have never mentioned Svensmark Yes you did! "I repeat again the quote.. Svensmark's work convinced Kristjansson his paper and theories about cosmic rays were wrong and based on flawed figures...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 (now that I can post links) The articles span 30 years, so they count papers prior to there being any claim of a consensus [...] What relevance do papers published 30 years ago have to say about a consensus 20 yrs ago or today? [...] ...including papers from 30 years ago before there was a consensus Claims of consensus are over 29 years old: U.S. STUDY WARNS OF EXTENSIVE PROBLEMS FROM CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION (The New York Times, January 14, 1981) ...there has been a growing scientific consensus that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating "greenhouse effect" Thus the papers are relevant to your consensus argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worjackie Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Now I can, The study that is used to spread the propaganda number of 97% of scientists is, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, - Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009) - Roland Granqvist - Further Comment on “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009) - John Helsdon - 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey. - 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change. - Only 157 surveyed stated they are climate scientists. - The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively determined "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation. That is right, the 97% is 75 scientists. Current thinking by whom? Friis-Chritensen has not retracted his views. I asked you again, provide a quote where he states that his paper is wrong. There is no consensus today. You have not provided a single quote from him! You have Eigil Friis-Christensen confused with Jón Egill Kristjánsson. It makes me fully qualified to have an opinion on the climate models and the economists are qualified to have an opinion on the socio-economic impacts, which they do. Really? You support Dr. Christy's position, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see." - Dr. John Christy. Strawman, I never said anything about consensus, it has to do with the actual science. The science to support evolution is very strong, the science to support ID is religious based much like most of AGW alarm. You are the one who stated a lie, now show me the quote where Dr. Singer says cigarettes are good for you. He specifically explains this, A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007) - Craig Loehle - Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008) - Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch I don't care how it was brought up, I am correcting your misinformation about it. Free-markets. He discusses this here, Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds? (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007) - Indur M. Goklany Strawman, I never stated they did. That is why his papers are under the socio-economic section. Everything on his website has been refuted, John Cook: Skeptical Science (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) They never have, the one paper that claimed to was force to report their verification R2 statistic and it actually proved Mann's results to be worthless. That is not the summary for policy makers. The IPCC TAR Summary For Policy Makers shows Mann's graph in Figure 1. It is as prominent as you can get. Lie. I gave you the section number, 13.2.4 It means they disagree that frogs are going extinct due to climate change. Extinctions are a big propaganda point for pushing AGW alarm and the only mention in the report of extinctions was for frogs. There is no consensus. You mean 75? LMAO! The point of my list is stated, "To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs." He did not say it a few years ago but November 2009. Wrong, it was listed as a reference but not counted and it had nothing to do with it supporting anything, it had to do with it not being peer-reviewed. There is no consensus. The papers you point out do not support AGW alarm as they argue against the negative effects of AGW and thus make the case against government action. Yes you did! "I repeat again the quote.. Svensmark's work convinced Kristjansson his paper and theories about cosmic rays were wrong and based on flawed figures...." Thanks for some illuminating points there, Poptech, and for exposing Wildcat's selective reports for the misinformation they clearly are. I too had read the soundbite saying that 97% of scientists believe in manmade climate change, so it's fascinating to find that in reality it's only 2.4%. Just goes to show you can prove anything with statistics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Thanks for some illuminating points there, Poptech, and for exposing Wildcat's selective reports for the misinformation they clearly are. I too had read the soundbite saying that 97% of scientists believe in manmade climate change, so it's fascinating to find that in reality it's only 2.4%. Just goes to show you can prove anything with statistics! You do realise the post you are citing as proof of this point is based entirely on an alternative set of statistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 You do realise the post you are citing as proof of this point is based entirely on an alternative set of statistics? So give us the actual number of scientists who do support the consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worjackie Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 You do realise the post you are citing as proof of this point is based entirely on an alternative set of statistics? Of course, but at least Poptech's are credible rather than agenda-based as Wildcat's clearly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.