Evidence for Man Made Climate Change

[convert]

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.

 

Are the one published by the Grad student, the self fulfillling prophecy one.

 

Nope Sorry, don't buy that one, the methods they used to select the scientists weren't scientific at all.

 

I'll bet if I went to St Peters square and sampled 1372 visitors, I'd get a skewed result as to how many believe in God.

 

A new analysis of 1372 climate scientists who have participated in major climate science reviews or have signed statements in support or opposition to their main conclusions confirms what many researchers have said for years: Those who believe in anthropogenic climate change rank much higher on the scientific pecking order than do those who take issue with the idea.

 

The paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement" on climate change, says climate science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. "Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist--mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."

 

But the paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, faces criticism on three fronts: how it divides scientists into one of two groups, whether the scientists have been chosen properly, and whether the peer review process stacks the deck in favor of the consensus view. "This is a completely unconvincing analysis," says climate expert Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was included in neither group.

 

The co-authors, led by graduate student Bill Anderegg of Stanford University, tapped online lists of scientists who have signed statements (like this, this, or this) in support or opposition to the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely, that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" and then analyzed the groups for the number of papers they had published which included the word "climate" in a Google Scholar search. "Unconvinced" scientists comprised only 2% of the top 50 researchers ranked by number of climate publications and 3% of the top 100. Among scientists with 20 or more papers on climate, the so-called convinced group had an average of 172 citations for their top paper compared with 105 for the unconvinced.

 

The first critique of the paper is that the grouping of researchers into "unconvinced" and "convinced" fails to capture the nuances of scientific views on the subject. "By putting scientists into two categories which do not reflect the subtleties of the debate, ... this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate," says Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder. His father, Roger Pielke Sr., for example, was among the most prominent and cited of the "unconvinced." But in an e-mail to ScienceInsider, the elder Pielke says that although greenhouse gas emissions are important to consider, so are land-use changes, black carbon and aerosol pollution—a position perhaps more nuanced than the convinced/unconvinced dichotomy the paper postulates.

 

In addition, the paper defines as "unconvinced" someone who signed a paper "arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions." Pielke Jr. takes exception to that definition. "So you are a "climate skeptic" if you have a certain view on climate policy? Bizarre," he wrote in an e-mail.

 

"It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," says Jim Prall, a computer support professional at the University of Toronto in Canada who was one of the four authors on the paper. But Prall believes that the paper makes a valuable contribution by allowing the public to measure the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.

 

Another area of controversy is the authors' selection of scientists to study. The paper focuses on only scientists who have either participated in the IPCC or signed public statements on the state of the science. Are those the right 1372 scientists to analyze? Scientists who are "unconvinced," for example, may feel peer pressure not to publish public statements on that view, which might dilute the strength of that view over all. Its decision to include all IPCC contributing authors as "convinced" by that document's main conclusions is also debatable.

 

Finally, does peer review affect a scientist's ability to contribute to the field? John Christy of University of Alabama, Huntsville, another of the prominent "unconvinced" scientists analyzed in the study, blames the disparity between the two groups on "the tight interdependency between funding, reviewers, popularity. ... We are being "black‑listed," as best I can tell, by our colleagues."

 

Source http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

[Wildcat]

Response 1 seems to be that be about people that are put in the unconvinced camp that shouldn't be.... ie that the consensus is underestimated.

 

Response 2, seems odd to me those opposed to the consensus view are more likely to be making their views heard through research and signing petitions because they have a position to advocate. Those who's view form a part of the consensus are less likely to feel the need to identify themselves as supporters, in the same way that you don't find petitions of scientists in favour of evolution.

 

As Poptech has shown there are plenty of publications by sceptics. If there was a valid addition to the debate that was being prevented from being published then I am sure the full force of the sceptical websites would go on and on about it, but they don't just non-specific whinging. Indeed the main examples I can think of of censorship on climate change are in the form of people pro-global warming being censored like the Telegraph did when they prevented the story running of Monckton being exposed by Abraham's recently or in the form of Watt's getting youtube video's pulled or Monckton's threats of libel action and campaigns against Monckton. The only people being made to feel unable to speak out are the people representing legitimate science and analysis.

 

I therefore find the criticisms of the paper unconvincing and if anything they would indicate the conclusions are conservative and underestimate the consensus.

[Poptech]

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

I said it was conservative biased, just like the AP is liberal biased.

 

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

A sea of uncertainty (Nature)

"This issue was highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 assessment report. They concluded that 'understanding of these effects is too limited ... to provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise' in the twenty-first century. Excluding these effects, they projected a sea level rise of 0.26–0.59 metres [10-23 inches] by the 2090s for their highest-emissions scenario.

 

The available evidence still doesn't allow us to say with certainty whether sea level rise could exceed the IPCC's projections.

 

...Although increases of up to two metres this century can't be ruled out, this does not mean that they are inevitable or even likely."

So do you reject the conclusions of the journal Nature?

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

Of course it is alarmist. So do you support the IPCC's conclusions or do you support anything that is as alarmist as possible?

 

The WSJ at least published a response.

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

Full of BS.

 

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.

What I quote was from Steve McIntyre not Alex Jones and it is not nonsense but the reality of the situation you are denying.

 

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.

Again, this is nonsense. If the proxies do not correlate with temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century how do you know they correlate prior to this?

 

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

Nice spin but it is fraud to make the substitution.

 

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

No they will be convinced by the facts. I am after those who are intellectually honest (not you).

 

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.

Advocating the use of fraudulent results is something you are apparently ok with since your are concerned only with pushing your agenda not intellectual honesty.

 

It is clear you reject the IPCC when it does not support your alarmist position as you are disregarding evidence that the IPCC has overestimated warming or the impact of it.

[Poptech]

I therefore find the criticisms of the paper unconvincing and if anything they would indicate the conclusions are conservative and underestimate the consensus.

That is because I was not done with my complete destruction of that worthless paper,

 

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

 

A recent paper published in the PNAS, "Expert credibility in climate change" is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.

 

PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar.

 

 

Cherry Picking:

 

It is clear the authors cherry picked away skeptics using subjective criteria,

we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher.

So if a scientist published only 19 or less papers on the climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted,

researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group.

Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth nor does it denote expertise. It cannot be ignored that skeptics extensively publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts". An objective criteria for determining if an author has done climate research would be if an author has or has not published a paper on the climate. Expertise is simply an opinion and who is considered an expert will change based on who you talk to.

 

 

Climate Patents:

 

By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?

 

 

Verification:

 

An attempt to reproduce the results using their methods was unsuccessful,

we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate")

Using their search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate" I searched Google Scholar for the infamous CRU director Phil Jones,

 

author: P-Jones climate

 

Results: 6,580

 

The first result listed is "Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas" by author Peter G. Jones of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia.

 

The third result listed is "Organizational climate: A review of theory and research by author Allan P. Jones of the Department of Psychology, University of Houston.

 

The seventh result listed is "Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions by author Allan P. Jones of the Department of Psychology, University of Houston.

 

Clearly these were not papers by Phil Jones of the CRU on climate change.

 

Looking on Prall's list of IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 Authors referenced from their Supplemental Information you see Phil Jones listed with 724 climate publications not the 6,580 that I found using their search method. A link is provided under "GS queries" for Phil Jones labeled "CLIM", clicking on this link brings a surprising revelation, the search term is changed to "author: PD-Jones climate". When their paper explicitly said "author:fi-lastname climate" and no mention is made of including the middle initial. It appears Prall added the middle initial arbitrarily to the authors on the list further undermining the consistency of their results. Using this search term I again searched Google Scholar,

 

author: PD-Jones climate

 

Results: 5,370

 

The fifth result down is "Climate since A. D. 1500", a 1992 book by Phil Jones not a peer-reviewed paper.

 

Chapter 13 from the same book is found later in the same results as a separate listing, "13 Climatic variations in the longest instrumental records", thus counting the same book twice.

 

The book's introduction is also found later in the same results "Climate since AD 1500: Introduction", now counting the same book three times but it gets worse,

 

Citations for this book are counted over 20 times in Google Scholar, author:PD-Jones "Climate since AD 1500" further inflating the erroneous results. No mention of turning off citations is in their paper as this feature is on by default in Google Scholar and in the "CLIM" link from Prall's page.

 

The climate total number of 724 for Phil Jones on Prall's list is unverifiable using the methods outlined in their paper and appears to be made up.

 

It is clear they used the total number of climate publications because this is explicitly stated in their paper,

We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored.

However no verification of these results was done by the authors as they only mention,

We verified, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.

It appears they only verified the top four results for their "citation analysis" not for the total amount of results using the search word "climate" for each of the 1372 authors. As documented here, without complete verification it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions that include erroneous results.

 

Conclusion: the study is worthless due to Google Scholar illiteracy and Cherry Picking.

[Wildcat]

I said it was conservative biased, just like the AP is liberal biased.

 

And I have shown the AP is liberal biassed only if you are so rightwing that it appears that way relative to your own position.

 

Where it obviously is biassed is pro-israeli and pro-US Govt.

 

A sea of uncertainty (Nature)

 

So do you reject the conclusions of the journal Nature?

 

No the article supports what I have bee saying and not your position.

 

Of course it is alarmist. So do you support the IPCC's conclusions or do you support anything that is as alarmist as possible?

 

Of course estimates above IPCC projections are possible, it is not alarmist to say so it is denialist to say so.

 

Full of BS.

 

 

What I quote was from Steve McIntyre not Alex Jones and it is not nonsense but the reality of the situation you are denying.

 

 

Again, this is nonsense. If the proxies do not correlate with temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century how do you know they correlate prior to this?

 

 

Nice spin but it is fraud to make the substitution.

 

The research indicates tree ring proxies correspond before not recently probably to do with the manmade changes to the environment.

 

It would be fraud to use proxy data you know to be wrong. Which is what McIntyre and others are suggesting.

 

No they will be convinced by the facts. I am after those who are intellectually honest (not you).

 

Advocating the use of fraudulent results is something you are apparently ok with since your are concerned only with pushing your agenda not intellectual honesty.

 

It is clear you reject the IPCC when it does not support your alarmist position as you are disregarding evidence that the IPCC has overestimated warming or the impact of it.

 

It is clear you have an agenda and that you will label research you don't like based on its conclusions rather than its scientific method to the extent that you call it a fraud to use actual temperature readings instead of proxy results outside the range in which they are proxies.

[Wildcat]

That is because I was not done with my complete destruction of that worthless paper,

 

 

I have already responded to some of those points and showing bias is in favour of sceptics.

 

There is a more full response here:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/

 

Perhaps rather than just trying to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the results you could say what error margins you think the criticisms introduce?

[Poptech]

I have already responded to those points showing the only bias is in favour of sceptics.

 

There is a more full response here:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/expert-credibility-in-climate-change-responses-to-comments/

That does not address anything I have presented.

[Wildcat]

That does not address anything I have presented.

 

Have you raised your points on the real climate coments pages?

[Worjackie]

It is clear you have an agenda and that you will label research you don't like based on its conclusions rather than its scientific method.

 

"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle.

 

:hihi:

[retep]

Are they at it again?

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced