Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

You cited this earlier and I said I would come back to it.

 

And....

 

I made this intial observation:

 

In relation the the second link there is much in that that I am doubtful of, for the moment because of time I can however only say the source is not impartial:

http://www.desmogblog.com/h-sterling-burnett

 

I will return to that link this evening.

 

This section in particular interested me:

 

The most telling piece of evidence for Gore is a study in the journal Science by Naomi Oreskes, professor at University of California at San Diego. Oreskes searched the Institute for Scientific Information database for 1993 to 2003 studies dealing with global climate change. She analyzed 928 abstracts, 25 percent of which did not mention human influence. According to Oreskes, 100 percent of the studies that addressed human influence on current climate trends either explicitly or implicitly endorse the view that humans are to blame for the current warming.

 

Researchers who tried to replicate Oreskes findings came up with quite different results. Searching the same database using the same keywords, Benny Peiser, of John Moores University, found 1,117 peer reviewed publications with abstracts. In contrast to Oreskes, he found that:

 

•Nearly three times as many studies (3 percent) either rejected or doubted that humans are a cause of the current warming as those that explicitly endorsed the “consensus view” that humans are causing warming (1 percent).

•Another 29 percent implicitly accepted the consensus view, but most focused on the projected impacts of climate change rather than its causes.

•Two-thirds of all of the studies either made no mention of human influence or dealt with methodological issues, possible responses to climate change or natural factors that contribute to it.

 

Now I know it is lazy but I have looked it up on Wikipedia, it says in relation to that study:

 

Peiser identified an error in this paper in that keywords used in the ISI database search were in fact 'global climate change' and not 'climate change' as originally stated which resulted in a correction being published by Science.[13]

 

Noticing that the original research had limited itself to articles in peer-reviewed publications Peiser then performed a similar survey that included non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications and wrote to Science claiming that only 29% of such papers agreed with the consensus viewpoint, while 3% explicitly disagreed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser#Objections_to_Oreskes_essay

 

Ohh dear mr H. Sterling Burnett has completely misrepresented Benny Peiser's claims and the figures he gives are not from "Searching the same database using the same keywords" but it is "a similar survey that included non-scientific, non-peer reviewed publications".

 

Ohh dear what a liar.

 

It is no wonder the website doesn't allow comments on the page.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

The important and obvious point is they are a very small minority.

So were the Jews in Germany during WW2.

[Wildcat]

So were the Jews in Germany during WW2.

 

There were several million Jews in Nazi Germany... rather more than the 40 "scientists" that don't agree with the consensus on climate change.

 

What are you trying to imply?

[barny_100]

You are thinking of the Working Group 1 report which reports on the Science of Climate Change.

 

Report 2 about impacts, adaptions and vulnerabilities, is more of a social science sort of thing, I don't believe that section of the report requires them to source their material so rigorously. So taking info from WWF, sourced from New Scientist does not seem such a huge mistake to make.

 

Clearly since it is publically making the change there is no head in the sand is there?

 

Massive inaccuracies and shoddy source materials from lobby groups are OK as long as they are in a "social science setting"?

 

Good to know that some Oil company funded research that's also in the "social science" section of IPCC work will be OK by you then!

[Wildcat]

Massive inaccuracies and shoddy source materials from lobby groups are OK as long as they are in a "social science setting"?

 

Good to know that some Oil company funded research that's also in the "social science" section of IPCC work will be OK by you then!

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Wildcat]

Therefore they are wrong? C'mon wildcat, you know science does not work like that. How many people believe something makes it no more likely to be true, especially when their jobs depend on global warming existing.

 

A consensus amongst experts on a subject is normally a good indication for the layman of what to believe.

 

Their jobs depend on there being a climate, something no one is disputing. There is no self interest argument for them unlike the deniers like Tim Ball, who get paid to say what they do.

[convert]

Ok thanks there convert, it is commonly accepted that the side that godwins first loses the argument, so i suppose we have to now concede to wildcat.

 

Thanks.

 

I was merely sniping re his analogy that skeptics were deniers, his attempt to lump them in with Holocaust deniers. A common tactic user by the true believers on many occasions. Perhaps I should have had a smiley on the end.

[Wildcat]

So now scientists changing their minds mean they are wrong?

 

Again wildcat, that would mean that every single pro-GW is wrong, because they must at some point changed from not believing it to believing it (virtually no scientist in the world believed it originally, so when you take the last two points of yours (the one quoted here and the one quoted above) it means global warming cannot exist, by your own words). Or does your criticism only apply when we are talking about anti-GW proponents?

 

My criticism applies to this individual because he went from talking about cooling to warming back to cooling again within the space of a few months. That creates a doubt about what he believes.

 

As can be seen from the rest of my post about Tim Ball, the guy is also a fantasist that has lied about his credentials as the first climatoligist in Canada with 28 years experience as a Professor in Canada, and 50+ published papers. When in fact he was a professor of geography for 6 years, published 4 papers (that were historical reviews not scientific). He came more than 30 years after the first Canadian climatalogist and numerous intervening ones and it is dubious he could be counted as a climatalogist anyway. He is also very stupid because the reason we know all this is he tried to defend his history by sueing a newspaper that printed a letter from a professor in Canada that disputed his credentials after reading an article by him attacking his colleagues.

 

They are all reasons to be sceptical about his views.

[Wildcat]

I was merely sniping re his analogy that skeptics were deniers, his attempt to lump them in with Holocaust deniers. A common tactic user by the true believers on many occasions. Perhaps I should have had a smiley on the end.

 

There is an analogy, in that they utilise the same sort of debating tactics and flawed logic because their arguments are so weak.

[GordonBennet]

A consensus amongst experts on a subject is normally a good indication for the layman of what to believe.

 

Their jobs depend on there being a climate, something no one is disputing. There is no self interest argument for them unlike the deniers like Tim Ball, who get paid to say what they do.

 

Why do you keep using the disparaging term "deniers" as if it's something to be ashamed of? If it's proved that something that was previously thought to be true turns out to be false (such as global warming) then of course it's right to deny it!

 

It's been proved that for the last ten years the planet has been cooling down, not getting warmer, so it must be plain to all that, as per the title of this thread, there is no evidence for global warming!

 

How much longer are you going to stick your head in the sand?