Evidence for Man Made Climate Change

[Wildcat]

So would you include the http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=527350&highlight=evidence+global+warming (No evidence for man made global warming) thread as one of those that only attract a handful (29,657 is a handful!) of views?

 

In fact, shouldn't this thread be a part of that one?

 

How do you know that the readers of that thread have no influence, I'd say the exact opposite; I'd say that everyone has some influence, even if the scope of said influence is only the decisions they make during their everyday lives.

 

Edited to Add that the number of views of that thread have gone up to 29,799 - an increase of 142; almost double the number of 'scientists' who endorse the consensus.

 

I have probably been responsible for more than 5000 views, as have you ....

[SourceWatch]

Ah yes the worthless sourcewatch,

 

Dear Poptech:

 

Your statements about our site, SourceWatch, are not accurate, and your sources about our organizations are demonstrably unreliable, namely the hysterical right-winger, David Horowitz and his spin machine.

 

I am the Executive Director of the SourceWatch project, which, unlike this forum or Horowitz' dross, requires strict referencing so that readers can make their own assessments of the weight to accord to the statements made.

 

Our organization, the Center for Media and Democracy, was founded by an environmental activist, John Stauber, whose first book "Toxic Sludge Is Good for You," documents the PR campaigns of companies like Monsanto and the sludge industry to mislead people about the adverse health consequences of their products. John retired from CMD in mid-2009. Sheldon no longer works for CMD. And, CMD has long been much more than a two-person shop. We have over a dozen staffers or consultants who support our research projects on a variety of issues. We are non-partisan, are not "far left" and criticize politicians across the political spectrum in the U.S., although it is true we have highlighted a great deal of right-wing spin, as with the absurd claims that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or the extrapolation on extrapolation regarding claims they were developing nuclear weapons.

 

Over the years, CMD has engaged in ground-breaking investigative reporting, including the 2003 book "Weapons of Mass Deception" about the Bush Administration's propaganda about WMD as a rationale for its pre-9/11 desire to invade Iraq, propaganda the UK government gave cover to in your PM's partnership with W. One would think your UK readers deserve better information on this site about an organization, our organization, that was a leader in highlighting US-UK claims that many Americans and Brits rightly suspected were false and were proven, by us and others, to be deliberately misleading.

 

Your readers deserve better than more tripe from Horowitz and company on climate change and other issues.

 

Lisa Graves

[convert]

These ones

 

 

 

Worjackie quoted the post in which these statistics were contained to argue that that Wildcat's arguments were mislweading because they were based on statistics. I was pointing out that this post he was citing to prove his point was also based on statistics

 

Thanks for clearing that up

 

So do you accept that the consensus of 97% relates to only 75 scientists?

[convert]

I have probably been responsible for more than 5000 views, as have you ....

 

On that point, probably for the first time, I have to agree with you

[Wildcat]

Thanks for clearing that up

 

So do you accept that the consensus of 97% relates to only 75 scientists?

 

You are talking about Doran 2009. In Anderegg 2010 the 97% comes from a survey of 1,372 climate scientists. Or 1,338 pro-AGW and 34 opposed.

[Poptech]

Are you sure that is the right link? ohh and btw Fox News isn't a legitimate news outlet.

I did not say the AP was not a legitimate news source only that it is liberal biased. Fox News is certainly a legitimate news source only that is conservative biased.

 

It isn't hysterical to point out the IPCC report has underestimated climate change in a number of areas.

You have failed to point this out as the journal Nature does not agree that the IPCC has underestimated sea-level rise either. So you do not support the conclusions of the IPCC?

 

Your definition shows that you are not interested in the science or in debate except as a propoganda device.

Oh I am interested in the science and the debate, especially when it comes to correcting the propaganda you use to try and spread alarm.

 

Read what I said and grow up, you are making a point about my use of language not about any point I was making.

Your statement was inaccurate and propaganda as stated. If you want to make a point state is correctly.

 

You referenced Alex Jones's website, about as credible as referencing David Icke's website.

The article is accurate despite your dislike of the source. I also referenced the Wall Street Journal and the Atlantic.

 

They are nonsense links. You can argue as hard as you like you won't convince anyone that replacing an indirect measure of temperature with a more direct measure of temperature is anything but honest science.

No they are not nonsense. You did not address any of my points again,

 

What they are arguing about is cutting off the inconvenient "decline" of the proxy record and then merging it with the instrument record to produce a fraudulent graph. If the proxy record is so inaccurate how can anything prior to what was cut off count? Why was it cut off exactly where it started to decline in 1960 and not at the beginning of the instrument record in 1880?

 

There is nothing to argue as I have successfully been able to convince anyone who is intellectually honest about this issue and they can read the links for themselves.

 

It really demonstrates the absurdity of their arguments that they are arguing the opposite.

This comment just demonstrated you have no idea what they are arguing about and confirms that you should not comment on an issue you do not understand.

[Poptech]

Your statements about our site, SourceWatch, are not accurate,

Your smear site has been exposed for the propaganda machine that it is. Have no fear as I will continue to inform everyone of the lies your site peddles.

[Poptech]

In Anderegg 2010 the 97% comes from a survey of 1,372 climate scientists. Or 1,338 pro-AGW and 34 opposed.

Lie, what is the number of skeptics they started with.

[Wildcat]

I did not say the AP was not a legitimate news source only that it is liberal biased. Fox News is certainly a legitimate news source only that is conservative biased.

 

Which is nonsense it is right wing biased and pro-Israeli.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0722-21.htm

 

You have failed to point this out as the journal Nature does not agree that the IPCC has underestimated sea-level rise either. So you do not support the conclusions of the IPCC?

 

It lists the IPCC projection at the lowest end of current projections:

 

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/04/sea_level_rise_defence_and_dev.html

 

Oh I am interested in the science and the debate, especially when it comes to correcting the propaganda you use to try and spread alarm.

 

By labeling anything above IPCC projections as alarmist you aren't taking a scientific view you are selectively quoting to make rhetorical points.

 

Your statement was inaccurate and propaganda as stated. If you want to make a point state is correctly.

 

I said climate change instead anthropomorphic climate change. It was clear what I meant from the context, and what I said made just as much sense either way.

 

The article is accurate despite your dislike of the source. I also referenced the Wall Street Journal and the Atlantic.

 

The WSJ at least published a response.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365721429818714.html?KEYWORDS=Patrick+J+Michaels

 

As for the article on the Alex Jones website..... it repeats the same nonsense you are... and wasn't written by Steve McIntyre at all.... it merely quoted him making a point that is bizarre even by his own low standards.

 

No they are not nonsense. You did not address any of my points again,

 

What they are arguing about is cutting off the inconvenient "decline" of the proxy record and then merging it with the instrument record to produce a fraudulent graph. If the proxy record is so inaccurate how can anything prior to what was cut off count? Why was it cut off exactly where it started to decline in 1960 and not at the beginning of the instrument record in 1880?

 

They used temperature readings instead of proxy readings for two reasons. A) research has shown tree ring proxies don't correlate with temperatures in the latter half of the 2oth Century and B) they have direct temperature readings that will give a more direct record of temperature.

 

To not make the substitution would have been dishonest and fraud.

 

There is nothing to argue as I have successfully been able to convince anyone who is intellectually honest about this issue and they can read the links for themselves.

 

Yes I am sure they will be convinced with your conspiracy websites and right wing free marketeers.

 

This comment just demonstrated you have no idea what they are arguing about and confirms that you should not comment on an issue you do not understand.

 

Yes because advocating the use of data you know to be inaccurate is such a good way of doing science isn't it?

 

Disregarding evidence that shows the IPCC to have underestimated warming or the impact of it as alarmist is really an open minded search for truth.

[Wildcat]

Your smear site has been exposed for the propaganda machine that it is. Have no fear as I will continue to inform everyone of the lies your site peddles.

 

I must have missed that do you mean this?

 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupprofile.asp?grpid=7352

 

 

The article is utterly bizarre everything it claims SourceWatch is doing is quite simply legitimate journalism raising issues of concern to people left and right.

 

All the article does is make the author look like a nutjob with no grasp on reality.