Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

May 15, 2013
Giant tabular icebergs surrounded by ice drift in Vincennes Bay in the Australian Antarctic Territory on January 11, 2008. A review of thousands of studies published over 21 years found "overwhelming" and growing consensus among scientists that humans are mostly to blame for global warming, its authors said Thursday.

A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.

The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.

The findings are in stark contrast to the public's position on global warming; a 2012 * revealed that more than half of Americans either disagree, or are unaware, that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is warming because of human activity.

John Cook said: "Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of , despite public perceptions to the contrary.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the . It's staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

"This is significant because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they're more likely to support policies that take action on it."

In March 2012, the researchers used the ISI Web of Science database to search for peer-reviewed academic articles published between 1991 and 2011 using two topic searches: "global warming" and "".

After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.

The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters.

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: "We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing ? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made."

Visitors to the skepticalscience.com website also raised the funds required to allow the study to be accessible to the public.

Daniel Kammen, editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental Research Letters, said: ""This paper demonstrates the power of the Environmental Research Letters open access model of operation in that authors working to advance our knowledge of and to engage in a public discourse can guarantee all interested parties have the opportunity to review the same data and findings."

Explore further: Specialized species critical for reefs

More information: * www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02… s-from-pew-research/

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce, 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024. iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Related Stories

Scientists' role in swaying public opinion studied

Nov 05, 2012

(Phys.org)—Whatever their political persuasion, people are more likely to believe that global warming is caused by humans if they find out that most climate change scientists believe this is the case.

The politics of climate change

Apr 29, 2013

U.S. residents who believe in the scientific consensus on global warming are more likely to support government action to curb emissions, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, according to a study led by a ...

Two-thirds of Americans now believe global warming is real

Mar 05, 2013

(Phys.org) —An increasing number of Americans indicate that there is evidence of global warming, with 67 percent now expressing a belief that the planet has warmed over the past four decades, according to a University of ...

Recommended for you

Specialized species critical for reefs

9 hours ago

One of Australia's leading coral reef ecologists fears that reef biodiversity may not provide the level of insurance for ecosystem survival that we once thought.

Projections for climate change in Vermont

16 hours ago

Here's your northern Vermont forecast for the rest of this century: Annual precipitation will increase by between a third and half an inch per decade, while average temperatures will rise some five degrees ...

User comments : 315

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.5 / 5 (43) May 15, 2013
What the lazy copy and paste news editors won't tell you;
Science only believes it is; "real and happening" and has never said in 28 years that it will happen, only might happen as not one single IPCC warning wasn't swimming in "maybe" and "could be" as in; "Help my planet is on fire maybe? Doesn't 28 years of maybe prove it won't be a real crisis?
"Climate change is real and is happening and could cause a climate crisis." - Science
Never have they ever said their comet hit of a crisis was as real and as "inevitable" as they like to say comet hits are. It's been a 28 year old "maybe" crisis. When will they say it is eventual and WILL happen? When it's too late?
So science didn't commit any hoax, it was believers, news editors and politicians that lied and said it WILL happen because science never did say it would, only could. Deny that.
lengould100
4.3 / 5 (34) May 15, 2013
Doesn't 28 years of maybe prove it won't be a real crisis?
Actually, no it doesn't.
inglenook_hampendick
1.6 / 5 (42) May 15, 2013
So now the number of papers in support of a theory is proof of the theory. Regardless that we are coming out of an ice age the brash statement that man is the prime cause of global warming is gospel. It's amazing what passes for science these days.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (40) May 15, 2013
This is a joke surely.

Exhibit 1:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Exhibit 2:

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary."
?????
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (33) May 15, 2013
In other words, other than the small cadre of bunker-dwelling conspiracists who continue to voice denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, the only people left who think there is nothing to worry about are those who do not read or know about the science.

Of course the bulk of those on this site, other than a tiny, insignificant, obviously obtuse minority, already knew that.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (24) May 16, 2013
From the article abstract.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

I wonder how many of them accept the TeaPublican Denailist view that the world is cooling?

Bahahahahahahah.... Morons.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
"This is a joke surely." - GregorTard

Nope. You are the joke, Gregor... Baby...

So what is it today GregorTard? Are you going to say the world is cooling or warming like Mars and Pluto?

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (16) May 16, 2013
"So now the number of papers in support of a theory is proof of the theory" - HumperDickless

Poor Dick. He don't know dick about science. If he did he would know that scientific theory is never proven. Even my dick knows that.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
"Science only believes it is; "real and happening" and has never said in 28 years that it will happen" - youyouyouTard

How would you know? You are only 8 years old?

Everything in science is an unproven theory. Including your existence.

Your intellectual age however, is not in dispute.
MaiioBihzon
2.9 / 5 (36) May 16, 2013
First there was denial that global climate change was even real. Oddly, these denials were issued by people who were being sponsored by energy corporations.

Now that the evidence is overwhelming that Earth is warming year by year, the denial has shifted to: "Okay, so maybe there's some warming, but humans have nothing to do with it."

I met a reasonably intelligent college student about a week ago who said the warming is a natural part of Earth's cycle. When I mentioned that interglacial warming can be natural, but that Earth's recent warming is happening much more quickly than in past intervals between Ice Ages, he smiled uncertainly and said, "So what does that mean?"

That means something new and different is going on than in past cycles. It means us.
xel3241
3.8 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
Are there ignoramuses that *still* need to be convinced?
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (36) May 16, 2013
The freak show continues as utterly no change in natural warming trend shows up in nearly every multiple century real thermometer and tide gauge record, uncontroversially. Phys.org fails the Millenial IQ Test.
Tomator
2.3 / 5 (22) May 16, 2013
When Kepler proposed that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, he was the only one... who was right.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (24) May 16, 2013
So now the number of papers in support of a theory is proof of the theory.

No it isn't. One correct paper outweighs trillions of false ones. It means as much as the popular poll.

BUT that is not the point of the article.

The point here is that the deniers keep saying that there is "no consensus" amongst scientists or that there are significant numbers of scientists which say otherwise (i.e. employing the exact same method what you are criticising)

In the end it doesn't matter what the public think. Policy should be based on INFORMED opinion - not on uninformed opinion.

When Kepler proposed that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, he was the only one... who was right.

Though one should never forget that JUST because there is one guy who thinks differently that therefore all others MUST be wrong. The numbers on either side don't matter one bit in science. It's the content of the papers (and the work/data behind it)
Egleton
3.2 / 5 (29) May 16, 2013
So half of you Yanks don't believe in AGW?
This tells me that Goebbels knew his stuff. Goebbels might be dead, but King Coal has his lecture notes.
Sean_W
1.6 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: "We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made."


32.6% yes + 66.4% no comment = 97% yes?

No amount of calling people "tard" will make that sane.
Mayday
3.5 / 5 (19) May 16, 2013
With this consensus in hand, why isn't the scientific community mounting a movement to get the people and governments of the world to prepare for the consequences of AGW? Even though it is real, do they just see it as not that big of a problem? IMO, we should be hearing stronger voices of knowledge and authority motivating us to move into the preparation stage. And I don't mean underground bunkers filled with spaghetti-oes and cheap whiskey!!
Sean_W
1.6 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com


The site dedicated to attacking critics of catastrophic global warming theory rounded up some volunteers to rate these abstracts. Isn't that brilliant? This just proves that warmists are unable to see bad science if it tells them what they want to hear. Non-zealots can easily see and critic foolish arguments for conclusions they accept as true. Sensible people resent seeing dishonesty being used to buttress their own positions because it discredits them. This never seems to be the reaction of warmists.
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (36) May 16, 2013
Of the approximately 48000 articles published during the time frame, they chose approximately 12000 for their study (25 %).

They then selected about 4000 (33%) which they say shows a 97% support for AGW.

1/3 of 1/4 of 97% = 8.1%. That is the most that their crowd-sourced so called study can claim.

The number may be (and probably is) greater, but their arbitrary rejection of articles leaves only 8.1% which they can claim.

Note also that science is not a democracy -- it is not even a republic. Consensus means nothing.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (20) May 16, 2013
With this consensus in hand, why isn't the scientific community mounting a movement to get the people and governments of the world to prepare for the consequences of AGW?

Because 'movements' appeal to emotions. Scientists think people are rational and will therefore just act based on the facts (which are, after all, there for all to see).
Scientists (or smart people in general) severely overestimate the rational capabilities of dumb people (politicians and the public at large).

Anonym
1.9 / 5 (30) May 16, 2013
Historically, the scientific "consensus" has always proven to be wrong. Aristotle was wrong, Newton was wrong, Maxwell was wrong. As for "skepticalscience.com" it is misnamed --- it is neither skeptical nor scientific; the website seems predicated on the notion that anyone who is skeptical about the "consensus" is an idiot. Which is itself idiotic. An open mind and profound skepticism of orthodoxy are fundamental qualities of a good scientist.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
Historically, the scientific "consensus" has always proven to be wrong.

That has nothing to do with whether it's a consensus or not. (Newton, Aristotle et. al. weren't any more correct before they became a consensus opinion).

Science is (and must be) always wrong. It can never get it EXACTLY right. But that's not what science is for. Science is trying to find stuff that is USEFUL. (And the works of Aristotle, Newton et. al. were certainly useful).

Getting it exactly right would be akin to a 'search for truth'. But such a search is an abstract (and unattainable) philosophical excercise.

We always have limited data. And with limited data you can fit an infinite of laws - and you can never decide which ones are right - only which ones are wrong - when you get more data.

At the very least you always remain with the "it could just all be chance"-law as an undisprovable alternative.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (21) May 16, 2013
32.6% yes + 66.4% no comment = 97% yes?
No amount of calling people "tard" will make that sane.

From the study…
"Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts."

Cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (20) May 16, 2013
Cont

"Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to re-position global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008)."
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
Group think of the lemmings gone wild.
RichTheEngineer
1.8 / 5 (34) May 16, 2013
Wait a minute. Just because out of some 12,000 scientific papers, less than 1/3 of them "endorsed" AGW makes AGW a scientific fact? What a load of crap. "Science" has in no way decided anything. "Political correctness" has.

Now, how many of these "scientific studies" are funded by AGW advocates?

The ones living in denial are the AGW believers. There is nothing in the science that PROVES AGW, yet they keep claiming that there is a consensus among scientists.

Prove AGW beyond the shadow of a doubt or STFU. I am not changing my life around just to please some timid, fearful sissies who think the sky is falling.
RichTheEngineer
1.6 / 5 (26) May 16, 2013
So half of you Yanks don't believe in AGW?
This tells me that Goebbels knew his stuff. Goebbels might be dead, but King Coal has his lecture notes.


I don't use coal. You Brits do, though.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (31) May 16, 2013
The AGW proponents are very plainly taking advantage of the public's failure to understand the role of modeling in science. It plays into the notion that scientific theories are discovered instead of constructed. And it follows from the way in which we teach science: through lectures, problem set recipes and numbered-instruction "inquiry" labs -- which, generally speaking, rely upon rote memorization rather than meaningful learning. What's come to be clear is that the ways in which we tend to teach science today do not even activate the same brain regions that scientists must actually rely upon when creating models, for the simple reason that the students are not replicating the scientists' cognitive processes. And to prove the point, large-scale studies of modeling-based instruction have demonstrated about double the conceptual comprehension compared with conventional science instruction.

The way to fight AGW claims is to fix science education.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community


Could this have anything to do with AGW advocates being in control of the peer-review process, as revealed in Climategate?

Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations


This is a real stretch. Getting a square peg to fit into a round hole. Hammer away, but you can't change 32.6% into a consensus.

Science by consensus is absurd, not science. Instead of posting these surveys, try to concentrate on making a solid case for AGW, something that hasn't been done so far.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (19) May 16, 2013
"And I don't mean underground bunkers filled with spaghetti-oes and cheap whiskey!!" Darned right. A proper bunker would have a connecting wine cellar.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (31) May 16, 2013
You've nailed it, Claudius. It's fantastic to see people actually thinking out there.

There is a sort of cult of specialization going on today with regards to science. The problem is that the narrow focus of the specialist naturally leaves us with a philosophical problem of unconceived alternatives. Our culture rewards the specialist who focuses exclusively upon depth, to the detriment of breadth, of knowledge. But, science is not just an assortment of disciplines; it's a very complex system which interacts in numerous ways with human psychology, sociology, philosophy, the medium over which we communicate, and very importantly, how we educate our scientists (etc). Focus questions in science stem from all of these things, but in particular, the scientist's worldview. The models are generated for the simple purpose of figuring out if the hypothesis can be made to work. If somebody wants to claim that the models are real, then they need to generate LOTS of them to compare against.
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (24) May 16, 2013
This is a joke surely.

Exhibit 1:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Exhibit 2:

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary."
?????

The papers with no position don't address the 'controversy' because it's not in the scope of their paper or the authors see no real controversy. You might as well claim that ignoring most hem length predictions proves belief in the Yeti is reasonable, for all the relevance the ignored papers have to whether AGW is real.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (26) May 16, 2013
So now the number of papers in support of a theory is proof of the theory. Regardless that we are coming out of an ice age the brash statement that man is the prime cause of global warming is gospel. It's amazing what passes for science these days.


It is support for the existence of scientific consensus; the theory depends on observation and evidence that can be used to make testable predictions that match more observations and predictions. It was never claimed that the number of papers in agreement validated climate theories.

Anyway, thanks for that amazing display of inserting your words into an author's metaphorical mouth, Professor of the History of Science Dr. inglenook_hampendick, Chair of the Department of Applied Obfuscation Studies at Wankenpost University.

HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (28) May 16, 2013
... And not only that, but the modelers must also be willing to explore differing worldviews. After all, it is surely the case that some worldviews simply favor particular models for particular phenomena. When climate modelers suggest that some percentage of scientists supports a particular model, critical thinking demands that we examine both the assumptions associated with that worldview, as well as any politics which might be embedded into how we are training those scientists. Is it possible that we simply train all scientists to have a particular worldview, and that given that worldview, a particular model seems best? That would pretty accurately define what is happening within the sciences today. The decision was made with the discovery of the CMB to exclusively focus upon the Big Bang cosmology. That has led to the dominance of a mechanistic worldview in the sciences, and the mechanistic worldview tends to cast the Earth as largely isolated -- which suggests stable temps.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (28) May 16, 2013
the theory depends on observation and evidence that can be used to make testable predictions


OK, what exactly is the theory of AGW? I haven't seen one example of a theory here. All I have seen are conclusions which are not supported by the evidence. But the scientific method has not been used in AGW yet. Collection of data and modelling do not a theory make.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (29) May 16, 2013
It was never claimed that the number of papers in agreement validated climate theories.


No, but it was implied very strongly. The fact that these surveys are being repeatedly pushed into the media by AGW proponents demonstrates that they find the idea of a consensus to be compelling. Even when the survey does not find that there is a consensus, there "ought" to be a consensus, so 32.6% becomes a consensus, for propaganda purposes.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
Could this have anything to do with AGW advocates being in control of the peer-review process, as revealed in Climategate?

And
Science by consensus is absurd, not science.


The way I imagine a consensus view to form is for the majority of researching scientists to come to the same conclusion. The peer-reviewers, necessarily of the same profession, are bound to take a view of the science via their own studies. The process will become self-perpetuating in the sense of the majority view. There is no need to bring conspiracies into it. The same thing will happen in other fields of science. No one, for instance can get published anything contradicting Einstein. Why shouldn't he ( eventually ) be proved wrong. Relativity does not fit with QT. They both work in their own bits of the Universe we know of – but not together. Something is missing.

Cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
Cont

And a review of "climate-gate" accusations ….

"On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication."

http://www.cce-re...PORT.pdf
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (30) May 16, 2013
And a review of "climate-gate" accusations ….

"On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.


Fox guarding henhouse. Whitewash extraordinaire.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

-Phil Jones 8 July 2004

Compare Einstein to climate science? There is no comparison. Can you even imagine Einstein trying to manipulate the peer-review process to keep competing theories from being published? Unthinkable. "Hide the decline" indeed.
VENDItardE
1.1 / 5 (23) May 16, 2013
NO, it doesn't.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (25) May 16, 2013
the theory depends on observation and evidence that can be used to make testable predictions


OK, what exactly is the theory of AGW? I haven't seen one example of a theory here. All I have seen are conclusions which are not supported by the evidence. But the scientific method has not been used in AGW yet. Collection of data and modelling do not a theory make.


Clear proof that if you try hard enough not to look, you won't find anything.
VENDItardE
1.7 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
a study of the alarmists, by the alarmists and for the alarmists shall still be absurd........just like the alarmists. go home boys, the party is over.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (30) May 16, 2013


Clear proof that if you try hard enough not to look, you won't find anything.


I have looked. I have even challenged AGW supporters here to provide a theory, or a coherent argument that CO2 is causing a climate crisis. Not one answer was substantial. After repeated attempts.

Why don't you give it a go. Elaborate on a theory of AGW, prove that rising CO2 levels are driving warming. Many have tried.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (29) May 16, 2013
More on climategate, since it was brought into question.

"I have accepted text that you wrote that I have disagreement with, in order to present a broad view in the report. I expect the same courtesy in return. Disagreements on peer reviewed publications should be aired in subsequent peer reviewed papers, not by arbitrarily excluding them from our report."

Roger Pielke to Michael Mann, 6 July 2004
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
Emperor Claudius moves the goal posts, responding to counter argument only by quoting out of context and changing the subject. Note how he states that there is no climate theory here, in a story that is about a survey of research papers and perceptions of consensus, not climate theory itself. A non response to an observation about distortions.

If you like your herring red...
sstritt
1.9 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
Can anyone reconcile their warmist views with the fact that CO2's green house effect is logarithmic, and at 400ppm, 95% of its potential warming power has already been achieved.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
Compare Einstein to climate science? There is no comparison. Can you even imagine Einstein trying to manipulate the peer-review process to keep competing theories from being published? Unthinkable. "Hide the decline" indeed.


Claudius: That is NOT what I meant.

I wasn't comparing Einstein to anybody, or of saying he would manipulate the peer-review process. And there you go to, just as all peer-reviewers do - elevating Einstein to God status.
My point IS *something* is wrong and it *may* be Einstein's relativity. BUT peer-review NOW prevents any publication of "science" that does not start from the BASIS of Einsteinian principles.
IE the Peer-review process is BIASED to the accepted science. A natural consequence of people coming to a *consensus".

Oh, and your conspiracy based criticisms are becoming tiresome.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (28) May 16, 2013
Emperor Claudius moves the goal posts, responding to counter argument only by quoting out of context and changing the subject. Note how he states that there is no climate theory here, in a story that is about a survey of research papers and perceptions of consensus, not climate theory itself. A non response to an observation about distortions.


In response to your statement: "It is support for the existence of scientific consensus; the theory depends on observation and evidence that can be used to make testable predictions that match more observations and predictions."

I asked the question as to whether there actually is a theory of AGW. Since you are so certain that it exists, I think it is not unjustified to ask you to elucidate and defend the theory. Something you do not seem to want or be able to do.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (16) May 16, 2013
Can anyone reconcile their warmist views with the fact that CO2's green house effect is logarithmic, and at 400ppm, 95% of its potential warming power has already been achieved.


Yes...
" if we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, we should expect to see atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate rapidly enough to more than offset the logarithmic relationship with temperature, and cause the surface temperature warming to accelerate as well. Monckton's claim of a "straight line" increase in global temperature ignores that in his preferred 'business as usual' scenario, we are currently on pace to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration (390 to 780 ppmv) within the next 60 to 80 years, and we have not yet even come close to doubling the pre-industrial concentration (280 ppmv) in the past 150 years. Thus the exponential increase in CO2 will outpace its logarithmic relationship with surface temperature, causing global warming to accelerate"
http://www.skepti...ing.html
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (29) May 16, 2013

IE the Peer-review process is BIASED to the accepted science. A natural consequence of people coming to a *consensus".


Are you suggesting that if someone wanted to publish a paper contradicting an aspect of Einstein's theory, it would be rejected, no matter how valid? I do not think so. Science does not work if new ideas are excluded just because they differ from consensus. Theories must be constantly revisited, and revised if necessary, and the idea that science is determined by consensus is antithetical to science itself. Dogmatism and science are like oil and water.
Claudius
2 / 5 (30) May 16, 2013
we are currently on pace to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration (390 to 780 ppmv) within the next 60 to 80 years...


If you are trying to prove that we are having a CO2 crisis, I will not argue with you. But I can't see why an increase in CO2 deserves to be called a crisis.

So this statement: "Thus the exponential increase in CO2 will outpace its logarithmic relationship with surface temperature, causing global warming to accelerate" is not scientifically supported.

The increase in global temperature that has been seen as a danger sign has significantly tapered off in the last 16 years or so, to the point that it is being called a "plateau." And during that same 16 year period, CO2 levels have dramatically increased. So it will be necessary to explain why temperature has not continued to increase if CO2 is driving warming.
runrig
4 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
I asked the question as to whether there actually is a theory of AGW. Since you are so certain that it exists, I think it is not unjustified to ask you to elucidate and defend the theory. Something you do not seem to want or be able to do.


If you are not aware of the "Theory of AGW" I ( would ) suggest you Google and find out what it is. But of course that is not the answer - as you do not want to know/accept it. As have the studies that constitute the consensus, highlighted in this study, do.

To say there is no theory of AGW is beyond belief.
Until you realise that your belief is just that, and of course the worlds climate scientists have got it wrong - or are deliberately misleading the world. I try always to defend the "theory" ( because of my meteorological knowledge ) - God knows why, with the deniers so entrenched in their denial. I just refuse to let the idiots take over the asylum. To twist Newton... I do not wish to stand on the shoulders of pygmies.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (29) May 16, 2013
To say there is no theory of AGW is beyond belief.


You can remedy the situation. Relieve me of my ignorance. Produce the theory. If you were to ask me to state Newton's theory of motion, I would have no problem doing so. Somehow, when I ask for a theory of AGW, it is just too much effort.

And when I have been given "answers," firstly they do not take the form of a theory, rather assertions that CO2 is increasing, temperature has been increasing, and then the "belief" that CO2 is causing it. And Google is no better at it. What is beyond belief is that, in the absence of a testable theory, assertions and protestations are filling the void. But that is not science.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (23) May 16, 2013
Clearly state your criteria for acceptance of the evidence for the validity of basic global warming theory. Otherwise, your challenge is meaningless, another exercise in goalpost moving and burden-of-proof shifting. I seriously doubt you can, or would if you could, as that would make it harder to change. If your criteria are unreasonable, the truth will be clear. If those are testable, reasonable and met, you'll have to eat crow or pretend it didn't happen. Or just resort to special pleading again.

Claiming your own ignorance as evidence of something (explicitly or implicitly) is a tactic of the sophist, not a scientist.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
Clearly state your criteria for acceptance of the evidence for the validity of basic global warming theory. Otherwise, your challenge is meaningless, another exercise in goalpost moving and burden-of-proof shifting. I seriously doubt you can, or would if you could, as that would make it harder to change. If your criteria are unreasonable, the truth will be clear. If those are testable, reasonable and met, you'll have to eat crow or pretend it didn't happen. Or just resort to special pleading again.

Claiming your own ignorance as evidence of something (explicitly or implicitly) is a tactic of the sophist, not a scientist.


"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed""
-Wikipedia

The burden of proof is on AGW alarmists who are asserting the claim. Shifting the burden of proof to critics is a logical fallacy.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (31) May 16, 2013
What the lazy copy and paste news editors won't tell you;
Science only believes it is; "real and happening" and has never said in 28 years that it will happen, only might happen as not one single IPCC warning wasn't swimming in "maybe" and "could be" as in; "Help my planet is on fire maybe? Doesn't 28 years of maybe prove it won't be a real crisis?
"Climate change is real and is happening and could cause a climate crisis." - Science
Never have they ever said their comet hit of a crisis was as real and as "inevitable" as they like to say comet hits are. It's been a 28 year old "maybe" crisis. When will they say it is eventual and WILL happen? When it's too late?
So science didn't commit any hoax, it was believers, news editors and politicians that lied and said it WILL happen because science never did say it would, only could. Deny that.

Why do yo persist in copying/pasting this mindless crap?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
So now the number of papers in support of a theory is proof of the theory.

That's not what either the study nor the article says.

It's amazing what passes for science these days.

What is more amazing is what passes for knowledge, understanding and critical thinking on the part of yourself and your ilk.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
This is a joke surely.

Exhibit 1:

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Exhibit 2:

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary."
?????

The real joke is your failure to understand that those papers which stated no position do not count.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
The freak show continues as utterly no change in natural warming trend shows up in nearly every multiple century real thermometer and tide gauge record, uncontroversially.

Is it the case that you are lacking for current data or comprehension?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (34) May 16, 2013
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.


32.6% yes + 66.4% no comment = 97% yes?

No amount of calling people "tard" will make that sane.

Papers that took "no position" don't count. Of those which did take a position, 97% endorsed AGW.
deepsand
3 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com


The site dedicated to attacking critics of catastrophic global warming theory rounded up some volunteers to rate these abstracts. Isn't that brilliant? This just proves that warmists are unable to see bad science if it tells them what they want to hear. Non-zealots can easily see and critic foolish arguments for conclusions they accept as true. Sensible people resent seeing dishonesty being used to buttress their own positions because it discredits them. This never seems to be the reaction of warmists.

Had you read with an open mind you would have learned that it was volunteer SKEPTICS who decided what, if any, position a given paper took.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (28) May 16, 2013


"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed""
-Wikipedia

The burden of proof is on AGW alarmists who are asserting the claim. Shifting the burden of proof to critics is a logical fallacy.

---
Ah, the good ol' "no, you are" technique. You allege group-think, cover up and bad science against all the reputable scientific organizations, then claim it is not you that has the burden of proof for your extraordinary claims. While conveniently not saying what would convince you, no less. The hypocrisy is palpable.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
Of the approximately 48000 articles published during the time frame, they chose approximately 12000 for their study (25 %).

It's called "sampling." And, a sample that represents 25% of the set being evaluated is an extraordinarily large one, one whose confidence level is outstanding.

They then selected about 4000 (33%) which they say shows a 97% support for AGW.

Having a problem with reading comprehension?

Volunteer SKEPTICS evaluated all 12K papers, and determined what, if any, position each paper took.

1/3 of 1/4 of 97% = 8.1%. That is the most that their crowd-sourced so called study can claim.

Wrong again. 97% of those papers which DID TAKE A POSITION - those that took no position don't count - endorsed AGW.

The number may be (and probably is) greater, but their arbitrary rejection of articles leaves only 8.1% which they can claim.

What "arbitrary rejection?"

Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
The number may be (and probably is) greater, but their arbitrary rejection of articles leaves only 8.1% which they can claim.

What "arbitrary rejection?"
---

@deepsand, that would be the arbitrary rejection in their imagination, and the arbitrary rejection they want readers to have in theirs.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (34) May 16, 2013
Historically, the scientific "consensus" has always proven to be wrong. Aristotle was wrong, Newton was wrong, Maxwell was wrong.

Really? So, all that we observe to be empirical fact is naught but falsehoods?

As for "skepticalscience.com" it is misnamed --- it is neither skeptical nor scientific; the website seems predicated on the notion that anyone who is skeptical about the "consensus" is an idiot. Which is itself idiotic.

The only thing idiotic is your projecting your idiocy onto those with an open mind.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013

32.6% yes + 66.4% no comment = 97% yes?

No amount of calling people "tard" will make that sane.

What AGW computer model did they use to arrive at that bit of arithmetic?
It would explain why all their computer models are such jokes.
Signs of desperation from the AGW Zealots.
deepsand
3 / 5 (34) May 16, 2013
Group think of the lemmings gone wild.

Not simply the unsubstantiated opinion of closed mind, but of one contradicted by empirical facts.

You cannot learn what you do not want to know.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
Just because out of some 12,000 scientific papers, less than 1/3 of them "endorsed" AGW makes AGW a scientific fact?
.
97% of those which TOOK A POSITION endorsed AGW.

Now, how many of these "scientific studies" are funded by AGW advocates?

How many were funded by Big Energy?

There is nothing in the science that PROVES AGW,

The uninformed opinion of one with a closed mind.

Prove AGW beyond the shadow of a doubt or STFU.

Asked and answered, so just STFU.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (31) May 16, 2013
So half of you Yanks don't believe in AGW?
This tells me that Goebbels knew his stuff. Goebbels might be dead, but King Coal has his lecture notes.

I don't use coal. You Brits do, though.

So, none of the energy, pharmaceuticals, or other hydrocarbon based products that you use owe their existence to the mining of coal?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
The AGW proponents are very plainly taking advantage of the public's failure to understand the role of modeling in science.

The problem here is that you fail to understand that models seek to mimic empirical facts, not the other way around.

The way to fight AGW claims is to fix science education.

A good education in Science might open your mind and cure you of your head-in-the sand proclivities.

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
A good education in Science might open your mind and cure you of your head-in-the sand proclivities.

A little bit of arithmetic and you will realize less than 1/3 of the 29 083 scientist agree on AGW.
Now that's what the AGW Cult calls CONSENSUS.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
Could this have anything to do with AGW advocates being in control of the peer-review process, as revealed in Climategate?

Climategate proved to be much ado about nothing.

This is a real stretch. Getting a square peg to fit into a round hole. Hammer away, but you can't change 32.6% into a consensus.

You obviously understand nothing about statistical sampling. 97% of those papers which took a position endorsed AGW.

Science by consensus is absurd, not science.

Of course, were you denialists in the majority you'd be singing a different tune.

Instead of posting these surveys, try to concentrate on making a solid case for AGW, something that hasn't been done so far.

Asked and answered. Your problem is that you simply refuse to accept that you were wrong.
deepsand
3 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
You've nailed it, Claudius. It's fantastic to see people actually thinking out there.

When are you and Claudius going to join those who are engaged in critical thinking?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
And not only that, but the modelers must also be willing to explore differing worldviews

Balderdash. Clearly you understand nothing of modelling.

The purpose of a model is to mimic empirical facts, not opinions.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
OK, what exactly is the theory of AGW? I haven't seen one example of a theory here. All I have seen are conclusions which are not supported by the evidence. But the scientific method has not been used in AGW yet. Collection of data and modelling do not a theory make.

Asked and answered countless times.

If you don't understand the basics of radiative forcing by now you've not done your homework, and are wholly unqualified for expounding on the subject of GW.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
It was never claimed that the number of papers in agreement validated climate theories.

No, but it was implied very strongly.

No; what is implied is that there is increasingly little reason to believe that CO2 is not presently the primary driving force behind global warming.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (33) May 16, 2013
And a review of "climate-gate" accusations ….

"On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.


Fox guarding henhouse. Whitewash extraordinaire.

Nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion, one intended to divert attention from the known empirical facts.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013


Clear proof that if you try hard enough not to look, you won't find anything.


I have looked. I have even challenged AGW supporters here to provide a theory, or a coherent argument that CO2 is causing a climate crisis. Not one answer was substantial. After repeated attempts.

Why don't you give it a go. Elaborate on a theory of AGW, prove that rising CO2 levels are driving warming. Many have tried.

And many have succeeded. Your blindness is one of your own making.

Unless and until you learn the underlying Physics of radiative forcing yours is a voice of ignorance.

deepsand
2.9 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
Even when the survey does not find that there is a consensus, there "ought" to be a consensus, so 32.6% becomes a consensus, for propaganda purposes.

The simple fact is that the 66.4% who took no stand do not count.

So, when that 32.6% represents 97% of those who took a position it is indeed a true consensus.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
Can anyone reconcile their warmist views with the fact that CO2's green house effect is logarithmic, ...

No, it's not logarithmic, but inversely geometric. That's a distinction with an important difference, because, as concentration approaches infinity, the response curve becomes increasingly linear.

... and at 400ppm, 95% of its potential warming power has already been achieved.

What proof have you of this claim? And, why do you exclude the possibility that the remaining 5% will be of no substantial consequence?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (32) May 16, 2013
I asked the question as to whether there actually is a theory of AGW. Since you are so certain that it exists, I think it is not unjustified to ask you to elucidate and defend the theory. Something you do not seem to want or be able to do.

Your failure to understand does not confer onto you the right to demand that which has repeatedly been amply provided.

deepsand
2.9 / 5 (30) May 16, 2013
The increase in global temperature that has been seen as a danger sign has significantly tapered off in the last 16 years or so, to the point that it is being called a "plateau." And during that same 16 year period, CO2 levels have dramatically increased. So it will be necessary to explain why temperature has not continued to increase if CO2 is driving warming.

Why do you persist in pretending that climate is not a multivariate function, such that inputs other than that of CO2 may at times serve to offset the effect of CO2, so that, in the absence of such offsetting inputs temperature would be/will be even higher?
Martin_Shaw
1.6 / 5 (26) May 16, 2013
So only 32.6% endorsed AGW which is hardly a concensus that GW is man-made. Phys.Org is promoting mainstream science rather than actual scientific opinion. Pathetic.
Martin_Shaw
1.7 / 5 (27) May 16, 2013
The concensus was that Saddam had WMD after the American public were duped into believing it but that doesn't mean it was the case. Same thing with AGW. Spare us the BS.
Howhot
4 / 5 (16) May 16, 2013
The way to fight AGW claims is to fix science education.
Wow, that sounds really smart; if the science doesn't support your political agenda, just change science! How many times have we seen that attempted through the ages. Starting with the persecution of Galileo by the Vatican when he saw the moons of Jupiter moving in orbit over a period of time.

Actually the way to fix the AGW claims is to shut up, listen, rethink your evil heart, and finally work to remove the source of AGW (ie, the burning of fossil fuels).
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2013
From the article
The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)

97% doens't jive with your 32.6% figure. @Martin asks "Spare us the BS.". As a physicist that understands AGW, may I request that *YOU* spare us the BS! Please!
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (24) May 17, 2013
A good education in Science might open your mind and cure you of your head-in-the sand proclivities.

A little bit of arithmetic and you will realize less than 1/3 of the 29 083 scientist agree on AGW.
Now that's what the AGW Cult calls CONSENSUS.

Proving that a little bit of arithmetic proceeding from a flawed premise still gives one errors even if the math itself is superficially correct.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (25) May 17, 2013
So only 32.6% endorsed AGW which is hardly a concensus that GW is man-made. Phys.Org is promoting mainstream science rather than actual scientific opinion. Pathetic.


Either you cannot understand what you attempt to read (which is at a grade school level) or are deliberately distorting the article's meaning.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (23) May 17, 2013
The concensus was that Saddam had WMD after the American public were duped into believing it but that doesn't mean it was the case. Same thing with AGW. Spare us the BS.


Comparing disparate fruit, eh?
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (15) May 17, 2013
Comparing disparate fruit, eh?
Lol. Good one. I wonder if *they* will even understand.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (23) May 17, 2013
Of the approximately 48000 articles published during the time frame, they chose approximately 12000 for their study (25 %).

They then selected about 4000 (33%) which they say shows a 97% support for AGW.

1/3 of 1/4 of 97% = 8.1%. That is the most that their crowd-sourced so called study can claim.

The number may be (and probably is) greater, but their arbitrary rejection of articles leaves only 8.1% which they can claim.

Note also that science is not a democracy -- it is not even a republic. Consensus means nothing.

Cherry picking numbers and carefully omitting anything that doesn't suit your position leads to conclusions that mean nothing.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) May 17, 2013
Comparing disparate fruit, eh?
Lol. Good one. I wonder if *they* will even understand.


1, Saddam really did have WMD at one point, even used them, and made attempts to obtain more.
2. Science worldwide isn't dependent on or promoted by Bush/Cheney
3. AGW science has developed over decades, not in a short time after a traumatizing event like 9/11
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (23) May 17, 2013

32.6% yes + 66.4% no comment = 97% yes?

No amount of calling people "tard" will make that sane.

What AGW computer model did they use to arrive at that bit of arithmetic?
It would explain why all their computer models are such jokes.
Signs of desperation from the AGW Zealots.


@antigoracle, we appreciate your efforts to motivate the administrators to enable ratings lower than one.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (30) May 17, 2013
So only 32.6% endorsed AGW which is hardly a concensus that GW is man-made.

The 66.4% who took no stand do not count.

The 32.6% represents 97% of those who took a position and is therefore a true consensus.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 17, 2013
The concensus was that Saddam had WMD after the American public were duped into believing it but that doesn't mean it was the case. Same thing with AGW. Spare us the BS.

Yes, please do spare us the BS, as, not only was it never the case that there was any consensus that Saddam had WMDs, but it's of no material relevance to the subject at hand..
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (27) May 17, 2013
Oh the AGW Cult, first they made the MWP disappear and now they redefine the meaning of CONSENSUS. It's obvious that along with that Kool-Aid, stupid pills were served to the AGW zealots.
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) May 17, 2013
Claudius: "Produce the theory."

OK - I have a minute - I will bite. The earth's climate has experienced cycles over the millennia. Periods of cooling, and warming. Climate science is the attempt to understand these complex cycles. Scientists have spent many millions of hours identifying the drivers of these cycles - Milankovich cycles, solar radiation, atmospheric content, vulcanism, carbon cycle, radiation balance etc. The system is highly complex - with feed back loops including ocean currents, air currents, ice sheet formation, atmospheric content etc. The climate is currently experiencing warming (at an anomously high rate) - shown by glacial melting, ice sheet melting, temperature (land, ocean, atmosphere) increasing, sea level rise, etc. The big question being 'what is the current driver of this warming period?' After looking at all of the drivers so far identified - scientists have concluded a very high degree of likelihood that the current driver is - cont.
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) May 17, 2013
the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The radiative mechanism that causes these gasses to trap heat is well understood. None of the other drivers account for this increase. Scientists have therefore reached a consensus regarding the driver of this current warming trend.

Now - based on your assertion - If you disagree with this theory - it becomes your responsibility to provide an alternative explanation for the current warming trend - with the research and data to support your alternative hypothesis.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (28) May 17, 2013
Scientists have therefore reached a consensus...

More than 2/3 of these scientists do not support your AGW lie.
So, call this what it truly is - a CULTsensus.
djr
4.3 / 5 (17) May 17, 2013
Antigoracle - it seems very clear to me that the cult behavior is on the part of folks like yourself. Science is not a cult - it is how we have evolved the technology and knowledge that we have today. If you don't like science - that is your privilege - spamming a science web site with anti science nonsense is interesting behavior - in my view - either cult like - or very delusional. If you were interested in the opinion of scientists on the current climate warming you would read this article. I suspect that if you do read it - you will just have a quick comeback - explain why you disagree with thousands of Phd's across the world. You wouldn't want to take a stab at an alternative hypothesis for the current warming would you? We are still waiting for Claudius.

http://en.wikiped...e_change
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (28) May 17, 2013
Dir: You are so funny.
So those who don't agree with the AGW LIE, don't believe in science.
There are twice as many Phds who disagree with the AGW lie, so I guess they don't do science and, as concluded by this study, they don't count.
Climate Gate certainly revealed what lengths the Cult would go to destroy those who dare to disagree with their AGW lie.
djr
4.3 / 5 (17) May 17, 2013
So those who don't agree with the AGW LIE, don't believe in science.

I never said that - what I think is that those who don't believe in science - don't believe in science. Science is telling us that our globe is warming, and the most likely driver of that warming is green house gases. If you read the wiki article I referenced - you will see how united the science community is on this topic. So you don't get to come along and say - well I disagree - just because. Stop throwing out red herrings like climategate - it just reinforces my view of you as the cult member. Do you have an alternative explanation for the current documented warming?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (19) May 17, 2013
Dir: You are so funny.
So those who don't agree with the AGW LIE, don't believe in science.
There are twice as many Phds who disagree with the AGW lie, so I guess they don't do science and, as concluded by this study, they don't count.
Climate Gate certainly revealed what lengths the Cult would go to destroy those who dare to disagree with their AGW lie.


Typical of the quality of the few left who dispute AGW. A misrepresentation of what djr said, a completely looney-tune rant about PhD's, and a reference to a conspiracy that isn't. The best thing about againstseeing still posting his tripe is how easily seen through and ignorable it is.

We also have Claudius, yet again playing the foolish "it can't see it so it can't be true" card. He ignores the fact that it is not that he CAN'T see it, it is that he WON'T see it! Another of those who have decided what they will believe and there is NOTHING that will convince them to question or reevaluate that belief.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (18) May 17, 2013
Oh the AGW Cult, first they made the MWP disappear and now they redefine the meaning of CONSENSUS. It's obvious that along with that Kool-Aid, stupid pills were served to the AGW zealots.


And yet another completely off base and idiotic statement. How, pray tell, do you think the word 'consensus" has been redefined? Clearly, the minuscule proportions of contrarians notwithstanding, consensus absolutely exists in the scientific community as it relates to both the occurrence and cause of global climate change.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (18) May 17, 2013

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed""
-Wikipedia

The burden of proof is on AGW alarmists who are asserting the claim. Shifting the burden of proof to critics is a logical fallacy.


Back to this tedious argument I see. You, Claudius, have come to a science site to make the claim that AGW is not occurring. You, you incredibly dense sophist, are the person arguing the case. You are the one committing the fallacy, as has been pointed out to you before.
djr
4.3 / 5 (16) May 17, 2013
Maggnus: "consensus absolutely exists in the scientific community as it relates to both the occurrence and cause of global climate change."

Anti - are you paying attention. Have you noticed that a challenge was laid down to actually present the theory of AGW. That challenge was accepted - and the response to that challenge represents the accepted position of the science community at this point (always up for reevaluation with new evidence and thinking). The results - your rants about an AGW cult - and total silence from Claudius - NOTHING in terms of an honest evaluation of the evidence (science is an evidence based approach to discovery). Who is behaving like cult members?
Jimee
3.7 / 5 (16) May 17, 2013
Arguing with the insane merely lets them carry on. The proof is before our eyes, and global warming is very nearly a fact, not a theory.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (28) May 17, 2013
Oh the AGW Cult, first they made the MWP disappear ...

How many times must you be told that the MWP was not a global event, but a series of disparate events occurring at different places at different times, and that the conditions during said period and those of the present are quite different, such that the MWP is of NO MATERIAL RELEVANCE to today's global warming?

and now they redefine the meaning of CONSENSUS. It's obvious that along with that Kool-Aid, stupid pills were served to the AGW zealots.

What is truly obvious and stupid is your self-imposed inability to understand what a consensus is, that those without an opinion do not count.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (29) May 17, 2013
Scientists have therefore reached a consensus...

More than 2/3 of these scientists do not support your AGW lie.

FALSE.

Approx. two-thirds of the papers surveyed expressed NO OPINION. The distinction between "do not support" and "express no opinion" is one of an important difference. You cannot assume that those which express no opinion take a stand that supports your desired conclusion.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (29) May 17, 2013
Dir: You are so funny.
So those who don't agree with the AGW ..., don't believe in science.

Those who reject AGW either do not possess adequate knowledge and understanding of the Science involved, or chose to ignore such Science for personal reasons.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (33) May 17, 2013
Unmentioned by the article here is the second step in the cited study.

From http://www.slate....:content we read:

"They contacted 8500 authors of the papers in question and asked them to self-rate those papers. They got responses from 1200 authors (a nice fraction), and, using the same criteria as the study, it turns out 97.2 percent of the authors endorse the consensus.

That's a remarkable agreement! And it's no surprise. There have been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that it's so robust.

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming. There is essentially no controversy among actual climate scientists about this."
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (24) May 18, 2013
Those who reject AGW either do not possess adequate knowledge and understanding of the Science involved, or chose to ignore such Science for personal reasons.


Well, who can argue with reasoning like that? I think you have hit upon the best attempt to pronounce a theory of AGW that I have seen. It is so much better than "we looked at different factors that might influence climate change and since we couldn't come up with any proof, chose CO2, even though it is a very weak greenhouse gas."

No, much better just to say "I'm right; you're unscientific because you don't agree with me."

And it is interesting to note that AGW proponents here have in the past said they don't understand the science, but since "the authorities" believe in it, it must be true. Or can't even give an accurate definition of what science is, such as "science is the collection and analysis of data."
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (29) May 18, 2013

That's a remarkable agreement! And it's no surprise. There have been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that it's so robust.

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming."

http://iopscience...data.pdf
Just like the hockey sticks, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Of all papers considered, over 80% did not endorse AGW.
As the desperation of the AGW cult grows so to does their need to fabricate these LIES.
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) May 18, 2013
antigoracle - you have been asked by two of us now to provide evidence of your claim that the earth is cooling. You ignore this kind of request for evidence - but continue with your childish rants about AGW cult. So while accusing others of lying - you refuse to support your own lies. Sickening.
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) May 18, 2013
Claudius - you asked for a presentation of AGW theory. I gave it to you - with a challenge that if you disagreed with it (as you have stipulated) - then the onus was now on you to present the evidence to support an alternative explanation for the current warming that all the evidence supports. You conveniently ignore such requests. Sickening.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (31) May 18, 2013
Those who reject AGW either do not possess adequate knowledge and understanding of the Science involved, or chose to ignore such Science for personal reasons.


Well, who can argue with reasoning like that? I think you have hit upon the best attempt to pronounce a theory of AGW that I have seen. It is so much better than "we looked at different factors that might influence climate change and since we couldn't come up with any proof, chose CO2, even though it is a very weak greenhouse gas."

No, much better just to say "I'm right; you're unscientific because you don't agree with me."

And it is interesting to note that AGW proponents here have in the past said they don't understand the science, but since "the authorities" believe in it, it must be true. Or can't even give an accurate definition of what science is, such as "science is the collection and analysis of data."

This is naught but evasion by misdirection filled with misrepresentations and factual falsehoods.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (29) May 18, 2013

That's a remarkable agreement! And it's no surprise. There have been several studies showing almost exactly the same thing. This new one is interesting due to the methodology, and the fact that it's so robust.

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming."

http://iopscience...data.pdf
Just like the hockey sticks, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Of all papers considered, over 80% did not endorse AGW.

Ignoring the fact that the majority did not express a position counter to AGW is an act of intellectual dishonesty. You are a charlatan.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) May 18, 2013
Just like the hockey sticks, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
Of all papers considered, over 80% did not endorse AGW.
As the desperation of the AGW cult grows so to does their need to fabricate these LIES.


Jolly "hockeys sticks" again is it - what a novelty - I'll bat it back this time.......
Even your skeptic driven BEST study confirms it...
http://www.wunder...ynum=209

There comes a point when there is no longer doubt amongst studying scientists. This study shows that to be the case - the papers expressing no view merely taking AGW for granted. However human nature being what it is - there are always naysayers. We teach people to study specialisms, thereby giving them expertise we do not have. In the world I want to live in then action is required to fix a problem that is agreed upon by the knowledgeable. Selfish reasons should cut no ice, which is of course all they can be given ignorance of the science.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (31) May 18, 2013

Ignoring the fact that the majority did not express a position counter to AGW is an act of intellectual dishonesty. You are a charlatan.


So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming."

Do you even read the rubbish/lies you write before hitting submit (rhetorical)
The vast majority of scientists included in this study DID NOT SAY humans are the cause of global warming. In fact a mere 20% of the papers did. Ignorant liar.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (31) May 18, 2013
Wherein AO demonstrates his inability to grasp simple logic and/or accept facts that fail to support his desired conclusion.

In this case he employs confirmation bias by claiming that those who did not expressly state, in the papers in question, an endorsement of AGW are to be counted as taking a contrary stand.

He refuses to accept the fact that the purpose of said study was to seek out those papers which did expressly state a conclusion on a specific matter.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (31) May 18, 2013

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming."

You are truly a hard headed AGW ignoramus, and so I repeat your statement above.
From this study 80% of the papers did NOT make a conclusion on AGW i.e. DID NOT SUPPORT AGW. So I ask, based on your above comment, did this 80%:
Not conduct climatological research.
Not publish their results in professional journals.
Not say humans are the cause of global warming.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) May 18, 2013
And so Antigoracle continues the argument - but does not of course respond to the request for supporting data. It is easier to call people ignoramus - than it is to support a position that one has taken - who needs support? who needs evidence?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (30) May 18, 2013

So, the bottom line: The vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals say humans are the cause of global warming."

You are truly a hard headed AGW ignoramus, and so I repeat your statement above.
From this study 80% of the papers did NOT make a conclusion on AGW .

Which is PRECISELY why they do NOT count.

Not only are you clueless re. Physics, you're not up to speed on Logic and Statistics either.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (14) May 18, 2013
"The vast majority of scientists included in this study DID NOT SAY humans are the cause of global warming." - Anti Gore Tard

They don't seem to agree with your claim that the world is cooling.

This is to be expected, since you are a congenital liar.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (29) May 18, 2013
After 5 unusually cold winters and nearly a trillion dollars wasted on alternative energy schemes, it appears the mainstream media in Germany is finally catching on to the scam. There's a great knock down of this paper in the formally staunchly warmest Der Spiegal on line his morning. It's translated here
http://notrickszo...-models/
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 18, 2013
After 5 unusually cold winters and nearly a trillion dollars wasted on alternative energy schemes, it appears the mainstream media in Germany is finally catching on to the scam. There's a great knock down of this paper in the formally staunchly warmest Der Spiegal on line his morning. It's translated here
http://notrickszo...-models/

A article which evidences the same flawed thinking as that evidenced by the denialists posting here.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (26) May 18, 2013
What I'd like to see is a study done of what percentage of published climate scientists predicted the present hiatus in warming. Some seem to be doing it post hoc but that doesn't count.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (28) May 19, 2013
What I'd like to see is a study done of what percentage of published climate scientists predicted the present hiatus in warming. Some seem to be doing it post hoc but that doesn't count.

I'd like to see you predict when the incandescent bulb in a car's taillight assembly will fail. Given that you cannot do so does not preclude you from predicting that it inevitably will fail.

The simple salient fact here is that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 MUST increase radiative forcing, resulting in Earth experiencing increased thermal energy.
MandoZink
4.1 / 5 (17) May 19, 2013
What I'd like to see is a study done of what percentage of published climate scientists predicted the present hiatus in warming. Some seem to be doing it post hoc but that doesn't count.

Evidently you are young or perhaps were not paying attention during the 70's and 80's. I often heard reports and read descriptions of the possible causes and effects of a global warming. These things have been occurring, without a doubt, very much as predicted with only minor variations. No one then hoped this would become the reality, but it seemed probable. The idea that it's now a conspiracy since the predictions have borne out seem both ludicrous and bizarre
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (27) May 19, 2013
You haven't been keeping up with the research have you deepsand? Co2 is just one of many forcings and it's appearing to be less important by the day. Without the sun co2 does nothing at all and the anthropogenic component of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4%. The fact that solar activity was the highest it's been in roughly 10,000 years during the warming period of the late 20th century leading to a decrease in cloud cover and therefore a reduction in cloud albedo is enough to explain all the warming we've seen.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (28) May 19, 2013
I definitely was around in the 70's and I clearly remember the hysteria regarding the inevitable anthropogenic ice age that we had 5 years to act on or face certain doom. I was so caught up in it that I became an activist myself. The fact that doomsday didn't eventuate is one reason I am wary of accepting academic hubris and appeals to authority like this paper now. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy and a poor substitute for real evidence I'm afraid.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
gregor1 "Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy and a poor substitute for real evidence I'm afraid."

Well - I disagree with you that appeals to authority are a logical fallacy - which is why I go to the doctor when I am sick, I watch the local weather channel to see what the temperature is likely to be tomorrow, etc.

That said - I notice that your posts were devoid of any data references. You said " solar activity was the highest it's been in roughly 10,000 years during the warming period of the late 20th century" Did you measure that yourself, or did you defer to authority? Could you provide us with some reference to support your claim - it contradicts everything I could find with a quick google search. Here for example - http://en.wikiped...ears.svg
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
gregor1 "I definitely was around in the 70's and I clearly remember the hysteria regarding the inevitable anthropogenic ice age that we had 5 years to act on or face certain doom."

I was in my teens and early 20's at that time. I don't remember any hysteria of that nature. I think there were some articles in the media - but definitely not any hysteria. Do you wonder if you may have a mental condition that predisposes you to listen to the radical fringe?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (28) May 19, 2013
The AGW Alarmist Cult did a survey asking their members the question - Are you very stupid?
102 were stupid enough to say yes, 402 did not respond because they were too stupid to comprehend the question and the remaining 2 replied no.
From this the AGW Cult concluded that 97% of their members were very stupid. Consensus.
http://iopscience...data.pdf
I'm without doubt the parallels between the two will be lost on the Cult.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
I'm without doubt the parallels between the two will be lost on the Cult

But stupid people don't use logic, reason, and data to support their arguments - so I guess i do not belong to the AGW cult. You on the other hand make false statements "the earth is cooling" - and then refuse to provide any support for your lies. As Vendi says - you are a congenital liar.
freeiam
1.3 / 5 (19) May 19, 2013
...To twist Newton... I do not wish to stand on the shoulders of pygmies.


You do know that Newton actually meant what you said?
freeiam
1.5 / 5 (24) May 19, 2013
The simple salient fact here is that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 MUST increase radiative forcing, resulting in Earth experiencing increased thermal energy.

It must, it must, so it is true. This kind of childish simplistic thinking is exactly what I am afraid of. It reminds me of the pseudo science economics.
freeiam
1.8 / 5 (23) May 19, 2013
Claudius - you asked for a presentation of AGW theory. I gave it to you - with a challenge that if you disagreed with it (as you have stipulated) - then the onus was now on you to present the evidence to support an alternative explanation for the current warming that all the evidence supports. You conveniently ignore such requests. Sickening.

If I may respond to that question....
A large body of evidence exists for an alternative explanation of almost half of the 0.6-0.7 C measured warming until now: black carbon. It's done by climate scientists and is therefore (by definition it seems) correct.
freeiam
1.4 / 5 (19) May 19, 2013
Claudius: "Produce the theory."

OK - I have a minute - I will bite. The earth's climate has experienced cycles over the millennia. Periods of cooling, and warming. Climate science is the attempt to understand these complex cycles. ... - cont.


Nice summary by the way.
jdbertron
1.4 / 5 (20) May 19, 2013
Wow, this garbage is even behind a paywall. So, considering that science is now apparently a popularity contest, now my tax dollars pay for this ridiculous and politically sponsored study.
First, let me say global warming is a fact. Second, let me say that 99% of all scientists before Einstein's also agreed that Newton's theory of gravitation was correct.
Please, someone find something better for these 'scientists' to do, like for instance finding why bees are dying unexplicably.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) May 19, 2013
...To twist Newton... I do not wish to stand on the shoulders of pygmies.


You do know that Newton actually meant what you said?


It could be taken as an implied sarcastic insult to Robert Hooke, yes but it is not known for sure.
"Hooke and Newton had exchanged many letters in tones of mutual regard, and Hooke was not of particularly short stature, although he was of slight build and had been afflicted from his youth with a severe kyphosis. However, at some point, when Robert Hooke criticized some of Newton's ideas regarding optics, Newton was so offended that he withdrew from public debate. The two men remained enemies until Hooke's death."
http://en.wikiped...f_giants
djr
4.2 / 5 (15) May 19, 2013
freeiam - could you please give some references to the work you are referring to on black carbon.

" It's done by climate scientists and is therefore (by definition it seems) correct."

That is disingenuous - no one is saying that if a scientist is doing something it must be correct. We are saying that there is a process of science - that helps us establish what is the best explanation of a situation - given current knowledge. Of course science changes. jdbertron referenced Newton and gravity - so how did we update our understanding of gravity? Einstein said that gravity is distortions in the space time continuum. Is that the final truth, or will it some day be updated? If so - how will we evolved our knowledge? Through the process of science of course.

jb - I thought there was a great deal of research being done into colony collapse syndrome - it is seen as very serious problem. Should all scientists focus on only one area?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) May 19, 2013
Wow, this garbage is even behind a paywall. So, considering that science is now apparently a popularity contest, now my tax dollars pay for this ridiculous and politically sponsored study.
First, let me say global warming is a fact. Second, let me say that 99% of all scientists before Einstein's also agreed that Newton's theory of gravitation was correct. ....


How can a consensus among experts about the cause of a problem, be a popularity contest? Unless of course you use the term pejoritively. Would you have doubted CFC's role in destroying 03 if it involved any of your "tax dollars"? And were that the case would the world have tackled the problem? Selfishness in an ugly trait.
Newton and Einstein were leaders of new insights into the working of the Universe. And Newtons mathematics are 99% correct - they work perfectly well for spacecraft in the Solar System. Climate Science is built upon empirical science that has been known about for up to 150 years and not in doubt.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) May 19, 2013
You haven't been keeping up with the research have you deepsand? Co2 is just one of many forcings and it's appearing to be less important by the day. Without the sun co2 does nothing at all and the anthropogenic component of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4%. ...


The fact that CO2 is only 4% of the atmosphere is irrelevant. Scientists know its radiative properties and what that proportion means in terms of extra W/m2 impinging the ground. CO2 was in balance with sources and sinks and humans have tipped the balance, such that the sinks are becoming polluted - increasing acidity of oceans. Pre-industrial CO2 concentration was 280ppm - now 400ppm, a 40% increase. Down to humans. It is that knock off balance that is the problem. Processes on Earth are in delicate balance and altering it can have dire consequences, especially when positive feed-backs kick in.
freeiam
1.6 / 5 (25) May 19, 2013
freeiam - could you please give some references to the work you are referring to on black carbon.

" It's done by climate scientists and is therefore (by definition it seems) correct."

That is disingenuous -

True, I am sorry, couldn't resist.
If you search for black carbon it's al over the place.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (27) May 19, 2013
You on the other hand make false statements "the earth is cooling" - and then refuse to provide any support for your lies. As Vendi says - you are a congenital liar.

http://notrickszo...by-2070/
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) May 19, 2013
You on the other hand make false statements "the earth is cooling" - and then refuse to provide any support for your lies. As Vendi says - you are a congenital liar.

http://notrickszo...by-2070/


http://www.skepti...tsv3.gif
djr
4.5 / 5 (16) May 19, 2013
antigoracle - talk about cherry picking your data. Anyone can make the line go up or down - just depends on what start date you pick - look - for the past 5 years the temperatures have been going up - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

and for the past 20 years they have definitely bee going up - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

I wonder why your blog chose to use hadcrut3 - maybe more cherrypicking.

Why not look at the past 100 years - that is the more honest way of looking at things.

http://www.woodfo...13/trend

As has been pointed out to you many times - the surface temperatures are only one measure of the global system - all the other measures continue their march forward - ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, oceans are warming, ocean levels are rising..
VENDItardE
1.5 / 5 (26) May 19, 2013
runrig/djr/maggnus/whatever else you want to call yourself.....you not only are wrong, you know you are wrong and continue with your absurdities. give it a rest and get a life.
MandoZink
3.8 / 5 (16) May 19, 2013
I clearly remember the hysteria regarding the inevitable anthropogenic ice age that we had 5 years to act on or face certain doom.... Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy and a poor substitute for real evidence …

That was certainly no appeal to authority. That was simply the research I recall listening to when I first learned about ice ages and glacial periods occurring in cycles.

At first I was troubled by the cyclic eventuality, but there never any hysteria or talk of "doom". I heard only discussion of what facts and evidence were so far accumulated. What I found interesting was the additional discussion that we have possibly been altering our environment in ways that will delay the onset of an ice age by anthropogenic warming. That would have been comforting news, but they considered the consequences of that trend to be more immediate and troubling.

Oddly, decades of climate evidence have spawned a cult of science conspiracy buffs who merit their own serious study.
djr
4.7 / 5 (13) May 19, 2013
VENDItardE - I have only handle - that is djr - so your assertion is wrong. I believe that I am correct in accepting the current consensus on the climate - but happy to be proved wrong. Cherrypicking data to prove your point does not make antigoracle right - it makes antigoracle a liar. I put a very thoughtful explanation of AGW on this thread. Freeiam put a very interesting response out - that I will be researching. I have a life - and I am not going anywhere - why don't you shut yourself up instead of trying to shut others up.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (24) May 19, 2013
The danger of an imprecise "characterization" and an unwise "interpretation".
It is declared that "scientists" are in overwhelming consensus that "climate change is man made".
The problem lies in how it is man made!
Even the article or the "reports" listed don't mention what human machination gives rise to climate change!
Like trained liars, they leave it to the "pigeons" to take the last step and swindle themselves into thinking the means of climate change is "fossil fuels" and such.
Meanwhile, the "scientists" don't specific target "fossil fuels". They offer it, tangentially, as a possibility, but, in the end, merely say that humans caused climate change. Neither this article nor the "abstracts" referred to finger "fossil fuels", they only blame humans.
The fact is, climate change is artificially induced, but as a result of chemtrailing, the government project to infuse the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) May 19, 2013
The fact is, climate change is artificially induced, but as a result of chemtrailing, the government project to infuse the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets.


Would you like to explain further?

Why on God's Earth would there be a "government project" to increase global temperatures?
I can see why it would be done for the opposite effect mind you.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (25) May 19, 2013
antigoracle - talk about cherry picking your data. ..temperatures have been going up - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

As has been pointed out to you many times - the surface temperatures are only one measure of the global system - all the other measures continue their march forward - ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, oceans are warming, ocean levels are rising..

The programming of you in the AGW Cult has become so predictable with the same words repeated time and time again: cherry picking, you don't know statistics, you don't believe in science.
Yes, ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, oceans are warming, ocean levels are rising as they have been doing long before oil. Why just go back 100 years and not back to the MWP when it was much warmer with less CO2, oh no I forgot, the MWP never existed.
http://www.youtub...j00BoItw
http://notrickszo...g/page/4
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
antigoracle "with the same words repeated time and time again'

Well - when you repeat the same lies over and over - we respond back with the truth. Yes it is repetitive - but the alternative is to let you spam the internet with your lies - and not present a rebuttal.

"Yes, ice sheets are melting, glaciers are melting, oceans are warming, ocean levels are rising as they have been doing long before oil."

But you just said the earth is cooling - do you see your blatant contradiction? "oh what tangled web we weave"

No one is saying the earth's climate has not been warmer than it is today - that is fully understood - you are lying again if you suggest that climate scientists are not fully aware that there have been periods when the climate was much warmer. What is the driver of today's warming? That is the question you have to answer (and liars like you will not be able to).

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (25) May 19, 2013
But you just said the earth is cooling

So this professor from Princeton University is lying to congress.
http://www.youtub...E1b8zBzM
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (24) May 19, 2013
runrig "counters" my statement that chemtrails is a government program responsible for climate change by saying, "why would there be a 'government project to increase global temperatures?"
Since when is it taken for granted that government works for the welfare of the public?
Why don't they do anything to prevent the massive decrease of living standards and quality of life?
Because government exists only to make the rich richer, and that's all. The slaves are intended to work incessantly in conditions planned to keep them docile, while the rich luxuriate in their special enclaves.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
antigoracle: "So this professor from Princeton University is lying to congress."

I don't know - maybe you should ask Dr Ben Santer - one of the world's most respected climate scientists who disagrees with professor Happer - and has also testified to congress on multiple occasions. http://www.youtub...7P2qbKCs

But hey - you contradicted yourself - you stated that the earth was cooling - and then you acknowledged that the earth was warming. So you then respond to being called on said lie - by throwing out a red herring of a scientist testifying before congress. Not actually acknowledging that professor Happer was one of 4 scientists testifying - and the only dissenting voice. So - you not only ignore the reality of being caught in a lie - but also continue to cherry pick data to serve your own agenda - idiot.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (22) May 19, 2013
dir your inability to use google astounds my as does your blind faith in the medical profession.
Luckily The Hockey Schtick has compiled a selection of papers on solar forcing
http://hockeyscht...te=false
You really should try to keep up.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (23) May 19, 2013
MandoZink Why am I not surprised that you missed the Coming Ice Age of the 1970's. Here's a brief rundownhttp://www.climat...laims-2/
Dir you and your friends like accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist with no evidence to support that assertion. Julienprond is a real one.
The strange thing about the consensus debate is it is the so called Liberal Left that endorse it. The left are the conservatives in this regard. There is something a little Orwellian in all this...
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) May 19, 2013
gregor1 - "dir your inability to use google astounds my as does your blind faith in the medical profession."

Obviously you are easily astounded. Yes I have faith in the medical profession. Do you not go to the doctor? Life expectancy in the past 100 years has gone from around 40, to around 80. One of the biggest factors in this increase is the development of antibiotics. We have significantly reduced the mortality from many infectious diseases such as TB. It is your privilege to not have faith in the medical profession - I have no idea why any one would be astounded at respecting the advances of modern medicine.

I am pretty proficient at using google. Here is one article I found - http://stephensch...2004.pdf

One problem with google - is that you can support any position that you want if you look hard enough. Being able to reference biased blogs does not make you a google ninja by the way.
djr
5 / 5 (13) May 19, 2013
Dir you and your friends like accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist with no evidence to support that assertion.

Please show where I have called you a conspiracy theorist! I do believe that you are bias - and that your bias is anti science. Consistently referencing bloggs that have a specific anti science agenda may have something to do with that.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
You haven't been keeping up with the research have you deepsand? Co2 is just one of many forcings and it's appearing to be less important by the day. Without the sun co2 does nothing at all and the anthropogenic component of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4%. The fact that solar activity was the highest it's been in roughly 10,000 years during the warming period of the late 20th century leading to a decrease in cloud cover and therefore a reduction in cloud albedo is enough to explain all the warming we've seen.

You haven't been paying attention to the fact that the only input to radiative forcing which is steadily increasing is the atmospheric level of CO2.

As for solar activity and cloud albedo, your claims are naught but pure speculation.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
I definitely was around in the 70's and I clearly remember the hysteria regarding the inevitable anthropogenic ice age that we had 5 years to act on or face certain doom.

Must have been an isolated localized event, as no such general hysteria arose here in the US.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
The simple salient fact here is that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 MUST increase radiative forcing, resulting in Earth experiencing increased thermal energy.

It must, it must, so it is true. This kind of childish simplistic thinking is exactly what I am afraid of. It reminds me of the pseudo science economics.

Yes, it must be true. Unless, that is, you can demonstrate that the Physical Laws of Nature as we know them are completely wrong.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Claudius - you asked for a presentation of AGW theory. I gave it to you - with a challenge that if you disagreed with it (as you have stipulated) - then the onus was now on you to present the evidence to support an alternative explanation for the current warming that all the evidence supports. You conveniently ignore such requests. Sickening.

If I may respond to that question....
A large body of evidence exists for an alternative explanation of almost half of the 0.6-0.7 C measured warming until now: black carbon. It's done by climate scientists and is therefore (by definition it seems) correct.

Black carbon is and INDEPENDENT variable in a multivariate function, and thus is IMMATERIAL to the effect of another independent variable such as CO2.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (29) May 20, 2013
dir. So - you not only ignore the reality of being caught in a lie....

OK. Listen up moron. My claim was that the globe has been cooling for at least the last decade and I provided this link - http://notrickszo...by-2070/
So, in which way of form is my statement a lie. Moron.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
You on the other hand make false statements "the earth is cooling" - and then refuse to provide any support for your lies. As Vendi says - you are a congenital liar.

http://notrickszo...by-2070/

Have you nothing to offer but carefully selected cherry-picked data?
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
runrig/djr/maggnus/whatever else you want to call yourself.....you not only are wrong, you know you are wrong and continue with your absurdities. give it a rest and get a life.

Your naked assertions are of no value.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
The fact is, climate change is artificially induced, but as a result of chemtrailing, the government project to infuse the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets.

So, even though the US military recognizes that global warming poses a severe security threat, another secret arm of the US government is plotting to cause such warming?

Yeah; that makes sense. :rolleyes:
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
So this professor from Princeton University is lying to congress.
He is not lying but he simply is expressing his opinion. His facts are right, but his opinion is wrong. There has been a substantial warming in the past two hundred years, and extreme warming in the past decade globally, both in on land and in the seas. We all have opinions, and it's my opinion that in the near future 40-100 years you will see the beginning of a major extinction event from man made global warming. We are just dumping to much carbon into the air too quickly for the earth to catch up.

Your professor from Princeton sounds like we are all going to be sucking on lolly-pops why we watch the unicorns frolic! You can say, burn-baby-burn, drill-baby-drill, but it's your own toxic soup that you're creating and will have to live with as you force others to share in it.

So who cares if the temps are 4C higher in the future. I got my Ford F150 to haul mountain top coal to the church.

deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
The programming of you in the AGW Cult has become so predictable with the same words repeated time and time again: cherry picking, you don't know statistics, you don't believe in science.

If you truly understood Science and Statistical Mathematics you would recognize that you do indeed repeatedly engage in cherry-picking.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
But you just said the earth is cooling

So this professor from Princeton University is lying to congress.
http://www.youtub...E1b8zBzM

Did you even listen to the entire transcript?

Said professor did NOT say that Earth is cooling.

In fact, he states that WARMING WILL CONTINUE to occur, that increased atmospheric CO2 contributes to such, and that the burning of fossil fuels leads to such CO2 increases.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
Dir Please explain to me how bloggs that aggregate peer reviewed science from respected journals are anti-science. Using unsubstantiated smear tactics is anti-science as is the inability to accept new, real world data as it arises. Your head is buried so deep in ideological sand you are missing out. There's a huge amount of really interesting work being done and most of it is suggesting there is little to worry about. Believing religiously that changes in CO2 are the only thing effecting climate is incredibly simplistic. The climate system is so complex and chaotic we probably only understand <10% of the forcings that act on it. There's no way it's going to fit in the tiny box you're trying desperately to squish it into.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
runrig "counters" my statement that chemtrails is a government program responsible for climate change by saying, "why would there be a 'government project to increase global temperatures?"
Since when is it taken for granted that government works for the welfare of the public?
Why don't they do anything to prevent the massive decrease of living standards and quality of life?
Because government exists only to make the rich richer, and that's all. The slaves are intended to work incessantly in conditions planned to keep them docile, while the rich luxuriate in their special enclaves.

Evades the question as to why the US government should want to deliberately induce an increase in temperature.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
dir your inability to use google astounds my as does your blind faith in the medical profession.
Luckily The Hockey Schtick has compiled a selection of papers on solar forcing
http://hockeyscht...te=false
You really should try to keep up.

Searching for something there that refutes AGW ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ... searching ...
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
MandoZink Why am I not surprised that you missed the Coming Ice Age of the 1970's. Here's a brief rundownhttp://www.climat...laims-2/
Dir you and your friends like accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist with no evidence to support that assertion. Julienprond is a real one.
The strange thing about the consensus debate is it is the so called Liberal Left that endorse it. The left are the conservatives in this regard. There is something a little Orwellian in all this...

No evidence there of the claimed "hysteria."
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
dir. So - you not only ignore the reality of being caught in a lie....

OK. Listen up moron. My claim was that the globe has been cooling for at least the last decade and I provided this link - http://notrickszo...by-2070/
So, in which way of form is my statement a lie. Moron.

That same graph shows that it has WARMED over the past 4 years!
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
The amazing Anti says
OK. Listen up moron. My claim was that the globe has been cooling for at least the last decade and I provided this link - http://imadick
So, in which way of form is my statement a lie. Moron.

Are you still off on that wack hockeystick is a lie thing? It's been proven over and over and over and over to you deniers, the hockeystick is a great mathematical model of current global warming showing how CO2 levels have risen exponentially (that's a upward sharp spike of CO2ppm globally (parts/per/million per volume). CO2 a heat trapping greenhouse gas will trap more heat and raise temperatures globally and it will be by a lot as we have seen already in the past 10 years. Maybe your one of those dim-bulbs that doesn't see that or maybe you live in your mom's basement, who knows. If you just got out once in a while you might see all of the environmental changes taking place as a consequence of global warming. If you don't see-em then maybe your just naive.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Believing religiously that changes in CO2 are the only thing effecting climate is incredibly simplistic.

No one here claimed that CO2 is the only variable involved, but only that it is an independent variable, that it is one which drives radiative forcing, and that it is the ONLY ONE WHOSE VALUE HAS BEEN STEADILY AND SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING for a considerable period of time.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
Believing religiously that changes in CO2 are the only thing effecting climate is incredibly simplistic


Oh shut up @greg. You don't know crap on CO2, solar forcing or anything. A coal loving shill will always support dumping their foul soup onto others and making the Innocent pay to cleanup their mess.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (23) May 20, 2013
Are you still off on that wack hockeystick is a lie thing?

It's not only a lie but a blatant lie as confirmed by an investigation from the US congress, none the less.
http://www.youtub...4mFZr-gE
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2013
The only correct person in the room with a purple bow tie Anti says;
It's not only a lie but a blatant lie as confirmed by an investigation from the US congress, none the less.

Here is a hockeystick; CO2 was 280ppm for the past 3 million years. FLAT, linear and smooth more or less/ About 200 year ago it's starts creeping up and now it's 400ppm. On that scale, it's hockeystick no matter how you slice it! You can't get much simpler than that. Proving your youtube reference worthless.

gregor1
1.3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Resorting to abuse when the latest research pulls the rug out from under you howhot? How scientific. Shooting the messenger like deepsand and the Hockey Schtick blog perhaps? The fake hockey stick is dead and buried I'm afraid. Tree rings from bristle cone pines are not a proxy for temperature so just deal with it. No matter how hard you smear people and scream abuse science has moved on.
Co2 is one of many forcings on climate. We don't know all the forcings but we do know that some are positive and some are negative. We do know that the ocean is a massive heat sink that moderates the whole thing. Co2 has gone way up in the last 10 years but the temperature of the troposphere hasn't and we don't know why. We do know that climate sensitivity to CO2 is not what we once thought. Being wrong means we have to be big boys, and admit to it, and move on . Sorry if it hurts too much.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
The greg flake says
Resorting to abuse when the latest research pulls the rug out from under you howhot? How scientific.

Yeah, that was kind of childish of me wasn't it? It's amazing though how I'm on the right side so many times and your on the wrong!

Yeah, granted that radiation forcing is extremely complex but all your wishful thinking still doesn't explain the very simple fact that average temps across the globe are increasing in prediction with CO2 level rise. I've seen the computer models! Show me yours!

deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Are you still off on that wack hockeystick is a lie thing?

It's not only a lie but a blatant lie as confirmed by an investigation from the US congress, none the less.
http://www.youtub...4mFZr-gE

BALDERDASH.

Not only is Congress not a body of Scientists, it never even attempted to prove what you claim.

As for the cited video, it's about a book authored by a Professor of ECONOMICS and a Professor of APPLIED MATHEMATICS, neither of which are qualified to speak on the subject of radiative forcing.

You really should take the time to thoroughly review your videos before making silly claims.

deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Resorting to abuse when the latest research pulls the rug out from under you howhot? How scientific. Shooting the messenger like deepsand and the Hockey Schtick blog perhaps? The fake hockey stick is dead and buried I'm afraid. Tree rings from bristle cone pines are not a proxy for temperature so just deal with it.

Patently false on the face. Deal with it.

Co2 is one of many forcings on climate. We don't know all the forcings but we do know that some are positive and some are negative. We do know that the ocean is a massive heat sink that moderates the whole thing. Co2 has gone way up in the last 10 years but the temperature of the troposphere hasn't and we don't know why. We do know that climate sensitivity to CO2 is not what we once thought.

Not only do we know more than you believe, but your reasoning itself is naught but argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Being wrong means we have to be big boys, and admit to it, and move on.

Yes, do admit your error and move on.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
Are you still off on that wack hockeystick is a lie thing?

It's not only a lie but a blatant lie as confirmed by an investigation from the US congress, none the less.
http://www.youtub...4mFZr-gE

BALDERDASH.

Not only is Congress not a body of Scientists, it never even attempted to prove what you claim.

As for the cited video, it's about a book authored by a Professor of ECONOMICS and a Professor of APPLIED MATHEMATICS, neither of which are qualified to speak on the subject of radiative forcing.

You really should take the time to thoroughly review your videos before making silly claims.


Are you a child or just plain stupid?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
Obviously, neither, as I took the time to review the videos that you cited and those who contributed to them before commenting, something that you obviously didn't do.

Did you really think that you could get away with making silly claims that said videos would not support?
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Science and consensus do not ever see each other in real true science. Their is no such thing as settled science or consensus in science.

Their are however things that are "set in stone" that can never change and have support groups who will violently defend their "settled facts". It's called religion.

Science is about data gathering and following that data, making no rash or permanent statements. Religion is about defending a stance even if data changes, which it has.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (28) May 20, 2013
http://www.youtub...4mFZr-gE
BALDERDASH.

Not only is Congress not a body of Scientists, it never even attempted to prove what you claim.

As for the cited video, it's about a book authored by a Professor of ECONOMICS and a Professor of APPLIED MATHEMATICS, neither of which are qualified to speak on the subject of radiative forcing.

You really should take the time to thoroughly review your videos before making silly claims.


deepsandTurd the blatant liar or just stupid.

Congressional hearings:
http://www.gpo.go...1362.htm
http://www.uoguel...port.pdf

In the video, Professor Ross McKitrick, explains how they proved the LIE that was Mann's hockey stick and the fact that it led to the IPCC completely erasing it from their subsequent report.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
The current regime lies about the deaths of 4 US citizens in Libya to retain power, lies about using the IRS to attack those who support the US Constitution, and to retain power, why wouldn't it lie about AGW to impose more socialist policies and pay off campaign donors?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
In the video, Professor Ross McKitrick, explains how they proved the LIE that was Mann's hockey stick ...........


All I see is a talking head.
"The results presented here show no evidence for removing the Mann/Bradley/Hughes NH
temperature reconstruction from the list of important climate reconstructions of the past six
centuries, on the basis of alleged "flaws" in its use of proxy data or underlying methodology.
Indeed, our analyses act as an overall indication of the robustness of the MBH reconstruction
to a variety of issues raised concerning its methods of assimilating proxy data, and also
to two significant simplifications of the MBH method that we have introduced. The shape
of a single-bladed "hockey stick"-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over
the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework...."

From: http://www.cgd.uc...2007.pdf

Like all the other "sticks" oh, and BEST's
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (22) May 20, 2013
I definitely was around in the 70's and I clearly remember the hysteria regarding the inevitable anthropogenic ice age that we had 5 years to act on or face certain doom. I was so caught up in it that I became an activist myself. The fact that doomsday didn't eventuate is one reason I am wary of accepting academic hubris and appeals to authority like this paper now. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy and a poor substitute for real evidence I'm afraid.


You remember a widespread hysteria that didn't exist, outside of a few speculative suggestions. It's been retroactively built by deniers such as yourself to sow doubt.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (22) May 20, 2013
runrig/djr/maggnus/whatever else you want to call yourself.....you not only are wrong, you know you are wrong and continue with your absurdities. give it a rest and get a life.


Ah, the conspiracist tendency to see the One thing behind everything they don't like. It's so much easier than admitting to yourself that multiple people see through the nonsense you spout.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (24) May 20, 2013

All I see is a talking head.
"The results presented here show no evidence for removing the Mann/Bradley/Hughes NH
temperature reconstruction....
Indeed, our analyses act as an overall indication of the robustness of the MBH reconstruction
.... The shape of a single-bladed "hockey stick"-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework...."

From: http://www.cgd.uc...2007.pdf

There you go quoting fabrications from your scriptures as if they are gospel.
Here are the lies and deceit that underpins what you quoted.
http://bishophill...ntPage=3
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) May 20, 2013
anyigoracle:OK. Listen up moron. My claim was that the globe has been cooling for at least the last decade and I provided this link - http://notrickszo...by-2070/
So, in which way of form is my statement a lie. Moron.

Wow - what a baby. So - I am listening up baby. And your claim that the earth has been cooling for 10 years is a lie - and already addressed several times. Yes - there is a plateau of surface temperatures - and if you cherry pick the data - by picking a warm year to start - and a cool year to end - you can use woodfortrees and make the line go down. So you are a cherry picker - another word for that is liar. Now - all of the other indicators of warming (sea temps, sea levels, ice sheets, glaciers etc) continue to show the system is warming. So yes - your assertion that the earth is cooling is a lie. You are a liar - and your childish temper tantrum does nothing to alter the facts.
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) May 20, 2013
Rygg: "The current regime lies about the deaths of 4 US citizens in Libya to retain power, lies about using the IRS to attack those who support the US Constitution, and to retain power, why wouldn't it lie about AGW to impose more socialist policies and pay off campaign donors?"

Because the U.S. Democrats control the whole world. Every scientific association out there is controlled by the Democrats - if the scientists don't say what the President of the U.S. tells them to - they will be assasinated - and they know it - so they have to lie to the world in order to stay alive.

Wonder if Rygg has any idea how bat shit crazy this all sounds.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
There you go quoting fabrications from your scriptures as if they are gospel.
Here are the lies and deceit that underpins what you quoted.
http://bishophill...ntPage=3


Err Isn't that just what you are doing?

But I do not substantiate my position with quotes/links from Blogs of bigoted commentators.

Re your link.....

"Bishop Hill is the website of Andrew Montford - author, pamphleteer, and one of the UK's best-known critics of the so-called global warming consensus. He has appeared many times on radio and TV and has written for publications as diverse as the National Post and the Times Higher Educational Supplement."

I revered Climate scientist I see.

Can I ask whether all the other "hockey sticks" are similarly tainted. Even BEST's? As I see them you couldn't put a fag-paper between from the start of the industrial era.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
Science and consensus do not ever see each other in real true science. Their is no such thing as settled science or consensus in science.

That is one of the most absurd claims to come down the pike.

What you are claiming is that all knowledge is purely subjective, that no empirical reality exists.

Were that the case, I'd like to know what led me to conjure up the existence of those such as yourself who are so utterly irrational.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
In the video, Professor Ross McKitrick, explains how they proved the LIE that was Mann's hockey stick and the fact that it led to the IPCC completely erasing it from their subsequent report.

Changes neither the fact that Congress proved nothing nor the fact that neither author of the book in question are qualified to speak on the subject.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
There you go quoting fabrications from your scriptures as if they are gospel.
Here are the lies and deceit that underpins what you quoted.
http://bishophill...ntPage=3

You're citing a blog post by a chemist turned accountant as an authoritative source? :rolleyes:
Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (22) May 20, 2013
The current regime lies about the deaths of 4 US citizens in Libya to retain power, lies about using the IRS to attack those who support the US Constitution, and to retain power, why wouldn't it lie about AGW to impose more socialist policies and pay off campaign donors?


Apparently the 'current regime' also has time travel ability that allows it to go back and twist science from the 19th century on. Who knew? ;)
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) May 20, 2013
The fact is, climate change is artificially induced, but as a result of chemtrailing, the government project to infuse the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets.


Would you like to explain further?

Why on God's Earth would there be a "government project" to increase global temperatures?
I can see why it would be done for the opposite effect mind you.


I suspect a state of mind has been artificially induced.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (19) May 20, 2013
runrig/djr/maggnus/whatever else you want to call yourself.....you not only are wrong, you know you are wrong and continue with your absurdities. give it a rest and get a life.

Your naked assertions are of no value.


Au contraire, deepsand. I derived considerable amusement from the contemplation of unrepentant intellectual mendacity.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (28) May 20, 2013
But I do not substantiate my position with quotes/links from Blogs of bigoted commentators.

Nope, you do that with your dogma of fabrications and deceit, created by your "scientists/priests" whom, according to the cult, no one is qualified to question their lies. So, it's either accept your lies or be burnt a heretic. Yet, you have the audacity to profess you do not belong to a cult.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (26) May 20, 2013
Blogs are the forbidden books of the AGW. If you can't fault the science smear the messenger. Oh hang on smearing people.. isn't that's what bigotted people do? Climateer space cadets couldn't be bigoted could they?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
But I do not substantiate my position with quotes/links from Blogs of bigoted commentators.

Nope, you do that with your dogma of fabrications and deceit, created by your "scientists/priests" whom, according to the cult, no one is qualified to question their lies. So, it's either accept your lies or be burnt a heretic. Yet, you have the audacity to profess you do not belong to a cult.

Pales in comparison to your patently false claims at having some knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
Blogs are the forbidden books of the AGW. If you can't fault the science smear the messenger. Oh hang on smearing people.. isn't that's what bigotted people do? Climateer space cadets couldn't be bigoted could they?

Deliberate misrepresentation.

The problem with the crap presented by you and your ilk is not the forum in which it is presented, but that it is junk pretending to be Science.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
Junk from many of the most respected journals in the Earth Sciences... Who's the conspiracy theorist now Deepsand? Not you I suppose? Who'd have thunk it? You really need to get out more.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (27) May 20, 2013
Junk from many of the most respected journals in the Earth Sciences... Who's the conspiracy theorist now Deepsand? Not you I suppose? Who'd have thunk it? You really need to get out more.

Just when did Andrew Montford, Ross McKitrick, or Christopher Essex become the author of a paper published in a "respected journal of the Earth Sciences?"
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) May 20, 2013
Junk from many of the most respected journals in the Earth Sciences... Who's the conspiracy theorist now Deepsand? Not you I suppose? Who'd have thunk it? You really need to get out more.

Just when did Andrew Montford, Ross McKitrick, or Christopher Essex become the author of a paper published in a "respected journal of the Earth Sciences?"


Lol. Christopher Essex is famous for the quote: ""The world is not going to end because of climate change, at least not in the near future". Oh man, a sane man has to roll his eyes back on that statement. What an impressive group of flakes. I wonder if they have any computer models?
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (25) May 20, 2013
I was referring to my favorite blog The Hockey Schtick which one of you was bagging out though perhaps on another thread. If I have gotten my threads mixed up I apologize for that. It's an aggregator blog that posts t abstracts from the literature. Today's little gem from the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds the Arctic summer sea ice anomaly of 2007 was primarily due to a decrease in cloud cover that increased solar [shortwave] radiation at the surface.
http://hockeyscht...ice.html
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 21, 2013
Today's little gem from the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds the Arctic summer sea ice anomaly of 2007 was primarily due to a decrease in cloud cover that increased solar [shortwave] radiation at the surface.

The author of that abstract is confused, concluding by saying "In summary, the observations show that while cloud variability influences absorbed shortwave radiation variability, there is NO summer CLOUD TREND AFFECTING summer ABSORBED SHORTWAVE RADIATION." This after having claimed precisely the OPPOSITE.

Short wavelengths are reflected by snow and white ice, not absorbed. Decreased cloud cover will, though, allow more of the Solar influx in the visible and IR bands to reach the snow. ice, and surrounding waters, thus raising their temperatures and leading to more melting.

Furthermore, none of this is of material import to CO2's role in radiative forcing.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (24) May 21, 2013
"By way of comparison, the alleged longwave forcing from CO2 increase since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 is only about 0.8 Wm-2*, or 25 times less than the forcing from these cloud reductions noted during 2007."
"There is NO summer CLOUD TREND AFFECTING summer ABSORBED SHORTWAVE RADIATION." This is because there were no clouds.
Decline in cloud cover is a way bigger forcing than CO2. Sorry
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (27) May 21, 2013
"By way of comparison, the alleged longwave forcing from CO2 increase since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 is only about 0.8 Wm-2*, or 25 times less than the forcing from these cloud reductions noted during 2007."
"There is NO summer CLOUD TREND AFFECTING summer ABSORBED SHORTWAVE RADIATION." This is because there were no clouds.
Decline in cloud cover is a way bigger forcing than CO2.

There is no long term trend showing an increase in cloud cover.

More importantly, with respect to Arctic ice coverage, you've ignored the facts re. short wavelengths being REFLECTED by snow and white ice rather than being absorbed.

You've also ignored the fact that said paper dealt with albedo, which is a measure relating to AREA only.

And, you've ignore the contradictions in the abstract as written.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
I was referring to my favorite blog The Hockey Schtick which one of you was bagging out though perhaps on another thread. If I have gotten my threads mixed up I apologize for that. It's an aggregator blog that posts t abstracts from the literature. Today's little gem from the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds the Arctic summer sea ice anomaly of 2007 was primarily due to a decrease in cloud cover that increased solar [shortwave] radiation at the surface.
http://hockeyscht...ice.html


GG: So, 2007 was cloud cover. 2012 was "the storm."

Here is how things look in 2013 so far:

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Are you trying to say that 2007 was something special? How about 2012?

Are you saying you don't think that the ice in the arctic is melting? Please be clear about why you think the cloud remark is important?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
But I do not substantiate my position with quotes/links from Blogs of bigoted commentators.

Nope, you do that with your dogma of fabrications and deceit, created by your "scientists/priests" whom, according to the cult, no one is qualified to question their lies. So, it's either accept your lies or be burnt a heretic. Yet, you have the audacity to profess you do not belong to a cult.


Leaving aside irrational claims of cult following - I say again from my previous post .........

"Can I ask whether all the other "hockey sticks" are similarly tainted. Even BEST's? As I see them you couldn't put a fag-paper between from the start of the industrial era."
djr
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
gregor1 "I was referring to my favorite blog The Hockey Schtick"

So I just spent some time reading your 'favorite blog' This blog is clearly singular in it's focus - to aggregate articles that disprove AGW. Do you see how this takes a pre-determined position - and then attempts to filter information to support this position? When I search the internet - I do an identical thing - I dismiss information that contradicts the position I want to take in order to support my argument. Science in general does not do this. When scientists engage in such bias behavior (example the tobacco research) they are called out by the process. The system for the most part counters the bias of individuals. I am afraid it is a losing battle to try to point out this difference to the anti science gang. I do not advocate listening to me - I am aware of my bias - I advocate letting the process of science sort things out.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (23) May 21, 2013
to aggregate articles that disprove AGW. Do you see how this takes a pre-determined position

Sounds like Nature and most other journals. Except they have take a predetermined position believing in AGW.
djr
5 / 5 (9) May 21, 2013
Rygg: " Sounds like Nature and most other journals. Except they have take a predetermined position believing in AGW"

I don't read Nature - so I could not comment on that. Neither have I used Nature as a source for my comments - so I wonder why Rygg needs to bring it up. gregor1 did say that Hockey Schtick is his/her 'favorite blog', and does use that blatantly bias information source in comments.

I did take a quick look at the Nature web site - http://www.nature...dex.html

If any one wants to compare the breadth and depth of information presented by this source with that of Hockey Schtick http://hockeyscht...pot.com/ - it was a very informative few minutes for me - it reinforces my understanding of Rygg as someone who is not capable of understanding complex information - just wants to spam the internet with childish taunts at boogey men like the socialists, the liberals, and of course Obama.
MaiioBihzon
2.6 / 5 (20) May 21, 2013
"the contemplation of unrepentant intellectual mendacity"

That's a keeper. :-)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (26) May 21, 2013
"Yet this, too, presents a problem. Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop."
http://www.nature...5#auth-1
" In the U.S., there are quite sensible high-level senior policies on data archiving, but these are flouted in paleoclimate by the relevant NSF division. The AGU has sensible policies, but these are ignored by editors and journalists. In the past, as evidenced in Climategate emails, members of the climate "community" have sneered at my efforts to ask AGU editors to enforce these policies, confident in the solidarity of the editor, and such efforts have proved fruitless."
http://climateaud...itorial/
Why hide data?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) May 21, 2013
"Your Editorial (Nature 462, 545; 2009) castigates "denialists" for making "endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts". But you do not mention the reason — that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has systematically tried to avoid revealing data and code.

Science relies upon open analysis of data and methods, and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has a clear data-sharing policy that expects scientists "to cooperate in validating and publishing [data] in their entirety". The university's leaked e-mails imply a concerted effort to avoid data sharing, which both violates the best practice defined in NERC policy and prevents verification of the results obtained by the unit. Asking for scientific data and code should not lead to anyone being branded as part of the "climate-change denialist fringe".

David R. Bell
Molecular Toxicology,
School of Biology,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham"
FastEddy
1.5 / 5 (23) May 21, 2013
What the lazy copy and paste news editors won't tell you;
Science only believes it is; "real and happening" and has never said in 28 years that it will happen ...


And that's why they get the big bucks. Anything the reaffirms what the WDC bo-hunks want to peddle as a revenue enhancement tool ... the tools.

Never in the history of mankind has increasing taxes changed the weather.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2013
Rygg:

You quote one scientists opinion ( non-climatologist ). Fair enough, but if he is alone in that opinion, or even one of a minority then is the process broken? I say he is and no. That is life. People will never be in full agreement – because of psychological differences, there will always be "outsiders". That is where the majority come in. You know - like happens in democracy. The worst way of doing things apart from all the others. Because in the end the majority must be the arbiters. Being contrarian is no proof of being right my friend. In fact logic says the opposite. - we are not looking at the "Emperors clothes" here - there is no blindingly obvious truth that the "denialist" world has seen to the exclusion of "warmists. We are merely following the "consensus" science driven by the world's experts in the field. Like those that voted for the other guy but got Obama - you'll have to just lump it until you get the chance to cast your vote again. That's the way it works.
FastEddy
1.4 / 5 (20) May 21, 2013
The real fun is watching these fools and duplicitous, antagonistic, global worms dance on the heads of multiple contradictory pins ... all the while ignoring the real, real issue(s) = Does the fact that we are having a worldwide, ten year cooling trend mean that mankind is burning too much stuff, creating too much CO2, and that that CO2 creation is meaningful ... which is in and of itself a non-sequitor.

If yes: then make the Chinese, the Indians and the Africans put out all those camp fires. If no, then make the Chinese build more than the 120 new Chinese nuke power plants in the pipeline.
FastEddy
1.4 / 5 (22) May 21, 2013
Rygg: You quote one scientists opinion ( non-climatologist ). ... You know - like happens in democracy. The worst way of doing things apart from all the others. ... there is no blindingly obvious truth that the "denialist" world has seen to the exclusion of "warmists. We are merely following the "consensus" science driven by the world's experts in the field. Like those that voted for the other guy but got Obama - you'll have to just lump it until you get the chance to cast your vote again. That's the way it works.


LOL ... So, the vote is in? The global worming, warm-mongers will get more g'ment research grants? ... LOL, Fine: its better than spending future treasury debt notes on the military. Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we just plant more trees to cover those killed to put this hyperbolic C.R.A.P. into print (Carbon, Radiation and Particulates)?

BUT, Never in the history of mankind has raising taxes ever changed the weather ... and that's an absolute fact, Jac
djr
4.9 / 5 (12) May 21, 2013
FastEddy: "Does the fact that we are having a worldwide, ten year cooling trend"

If it were a fact - it might be of interest - but it is not. There is a plateau of surface temps - but that does not a cooling trend make. Yes you can play with the start dates and end dates on woodfortrees - and make the line slope down - still does not equal a cooling trend. FastEddy probably missed this article - http://phys.org/n...ion.html

Here is a quote from the article for FastEddy to contemplate - "From 1982 to 2011, near-surface temperatures increased by an average of 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit every year. "This is six times faster than the global average," McGrath said.

Keep dancing Eddy.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) May 21, 2013
Rygg:

You quote one scientists opinion ( non-climatologist ).

The point is AGWites (among others) refused to release their data for review in spite of many journals' policies, including Nature's policy.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) May 21, 2013
... we are having a worldwide, ten year cooling trend ... .

ROTFLMAO.

The cherry-picked HADCRUT data that you rely on for making that specious claim shows a WARMING TREND from 2008-2012.

Missed that, didn't you. :rolleyes:

deepsand
3 / 5 (29) May 21, 2013
to aggregate articles that disprove AGW. Do you see how this takes a pre-determined position

Sounds like Nature and most other journals. Except they have take a predetermined position believing in AGW.

You mistake effect for cause. They've arrived at their position owing to the facts.

The denialists, on the other hand, begin with a desired conclusion and work backward from there to find carefully selected factoids which seem to support there foregone conclusions. And, in doing so, like all inveterate liars, they eventually contradict themselves; and, when caught, evade by misdirection.
FastEddy
1.6 / 5 (22) May 21, 2013
FastEddy: "Does the fact that we are having a worldwide, ten year cooling trend" ... There is a plateau of surface temps - but that does not a cooling trend make. Yes you can play with the start dates and end dates ... Here is a quote from the article for FastEddy to contemplate - "From 1982 to 2011, near-surface temperatures increased by an average of 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit every year. "This is six times faster than the global average" ...


Thanks for the prompt reply. Love to have this debate and use your time lines, if you would allow me mine: 100,000 years

"The real, real issue" is do modest CO2 increases (which there is some evidence of and which I will readily admit to) have anything to do with the questions of "degrading" weather trends (which I will not fully admit to as yet, without more proof) ... AND whether there actually is anything to be concerned about, regarding weather trends ... and what has the greater affect: Sun spots? CME? Flares?

PS: gave you 4 / 5
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
LOL ... So, the vote is in? The global worming, warm-mongers will get more g'ment research grants? ... LOL, Fine: its better than spending future treasury debt notes on the military. Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we just plant more trees to cover those killed to put this hyperbolic C.R.A.P. into print (Carbon, Radiation and Particulates)?

BUT, Never in the history of mankind has raising taxes ever changed the weather ... and that's an absolute fact


Some people only have to open their mouths..... Sorry if your pocket is picked. Great shame. Some things need the ultimate sacrifice.
Oh, and the *weather* never needed changing before. Now it does - and we can develop the technology needed to do it but it's going to need a few of your precious "tax dollars". Just like my "tax pounds". Ah didums - someone making a decision on your behalf you don't like?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
Rygg:

You quote one scientists opinion ( non-climatologist ).

The point is AGWites (among others) refused to release their data for review in spite of many journals' policies, including Nature's policy.


The data question was settled when the Koch sponsored BEST climate paper was done. It was the same as all the others. Data which is available from multiple sources. The East Anglia unit is run by two men and a dog (like all things in the UK) and good on em for saying (metaphorically) piss-off to disruptive requests for data that was available elsewhere. Thereby allowing to get on with their job.
Now please give it a rest.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) May 21, 2013
FastEddy: "Does the fact that we are having a worldwide, ten year cooling trend" ... There is a plateau of surface temps - but that does not a cooling trend make. Yes you can play with the start dates and end dates ... Here is a quote from the article for FastEddy to contemplate - "From 1982 to 2011, near-surface temperatures increased by an average of 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit every year. "This is six times faster than the global average"

Love to have this debate and use your time lines, if you would allow me mine: 100,000 years.

Request denied. We're not living, or dealing with the conditions of, 100,00 years ago.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) May 21, 2013
Rygg:

You quote one scientists opinion ( non-climatologist ).

The point is AGWites (among others) refused to release their data for review in spite of many journals' policies, including Nature's policy.


RG: You say that those involved in producing "hockey sticks" and other predictors of AGW refuse to release their data.

Go here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Get all of the data you want.

Oh, wait, maybe you want that super-secret HADCRUT4 data:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data/

Eat data to your hearts content. Your argument is specious.
MaiioBihzon
3 / 5 (20) May 21, 2013
Whatever side you take on the global climate change issue (come at me, puppets), changes in weather patterns have made nations all over the planet anxious. Sea-walls are going up, new drainage systems are being planned, canals, etc. One result -- some worry about taxes, as if that's the largest and most serious concern -- is likely to be geoengineering:

http://www.guardi...ineering

The Anthropocene will continue. We will continue remaking our environment. This is not even a choice; it is our nature. As a technological species, we will continue to transform the landscape, the oceans, the sky, and the life of the biosphere. It may be asking a lot of our communities and our leaders for the decisions about the modification of our world to be responsible, but I hope that they will be.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (23) May 21, 2013

"Can I ask whether all the other "hockey sticks" are similarly tainted. Even BEST's?

If you call BEST's graph a hockey stick, then you don't know what hockey is.

However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.

That study far from proves AGW as stated by it's own team member.
Try again runrig.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) May 21, 2013
As a technological species, we will continue to transform the landscape, the oceans, the sky, and the life of the biosphere. It may be asking a lot of our communities and our leaders for the decisions about the modification of our world to be responsible, but I hope that they will be.


Humans have been adapting to changing climates for hundreds of thousands of years .
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (22) May 21, 2013
@Dir The bias re The Hockey Schtick is there for a reason - the scientific method. This requires that you make an hypothesis- in this case "That humans are causing catastrophic warming " which you the try to disprove. Papers in favor don't count. This is why consensus is not science buy definition but is politics. It's not about a show of hands and papers like the one above are profoundly anti-science. As Einstein famously said it only takes one paper to disprove a theory. The Hockey Schtick has maybe 100.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (21) May 21, 2013
With regard to hockey sticks There's a great one showing an increase in Solar activity at the end of the twentieth century here
http://hockeyscht...-of.html
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (21) May 21, 2013
Looks like this paper may have to be withdrawn. It seams it categorizes papers Idso, Scafetta and Shaviv as endorsing AGW when they did nothing of the sort. Must be something seriously wrong with the methodology.
http://www.popula...sts.html
djr
4.6 / 5 (12) May 22, 2013
@gregor1 - what you don't understand is the difference between a blog, and scientific research. If you notice - physorg does not generate hypothesese - that they then try to disprove. Neither does Nature - or any other aggregating publication. So you see - hockey Schtick is not participating in scientific research. There are also different kinds of research - and no - not all research generates a hypothesis - that then attacked. Meta research simply looks at all of the research on a particular issue. Some research is simply done to try to replicate other experiments to validate their data. Again - a blogg is not a research sight - and if you spend some time looking at the link I supplied of Nature - you can see the difference between a blatantly bias - single issue blogg - and a science magazine. I doubt you will take the time to do that - too busy spamming the internet with anti science.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 22, 2013
As a technological species, we will continue to transform the landscape, the oceans, the sky, and the life of the biosphere. It may be asking a lot of our communities and our leaders for the decisions about the modification of our world to be responsible, but I hope that they will be.


Humans have been adapting to changing climates for hundreds of thousands of years .

Adapting only very, very slowly and incrementally.

Seems that evolution is not your strong suit either.
djr
5 / 5 (13) May 22, 2013
MaiioBhizon "The Anthropocene will continue. We will continue remaking our environment. This is not even a choice; it is our nature. As a technological species, we will continue to transform the landscape, the oceans, the sky, and the life of the biosphere."

Nice to see someone else with some vision posting - the future is exciting - despite the headwinds of ignorance. Thanks - keep commenting.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (27) May 22, 2013
@Dir The bias re The Hockey Schtick is there for a reason - the scientific method. This requires that you make an hypothesis- in this case "That humans are causing catastrophic warming " which you the try to disprove. Papers in favor don't count.

Falsifiability is a test applicable to inductive reasoning, not that which is deductive. And, in this case, that anthropomorphic CO2 must increase radiative forcing can be deduced from the known Physical Laws of Nature.

As for "papers," the burden of proof lies with those who take a position prior to that which is deduced from empirical fact. That there are now so few dissenters serves to demonstrate that they are unable to carry their burden of proof.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (26) May 22, 2013
With regard to hockey sticks There's a great one showing an increase in Solar activity at the end of the twentieth century here
http://hockeyscht...-of.html

So what? Just because your favorite blogger claims that cosmic rays and solar activity are substantial driving forces behind GW doesn't make it so.

And, even if true, doesn't negate the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing, and that it is the only input which has been steadily and substantially increasing for an extended period of recent time.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (25) May 22, 2013
Dir Did I say Hockey Schtick was involved in research? It's a blog that presents research by people that are. This is from scientists who's work hasn't been spin doctored by media departments so that it resembles propaganda rather that science. Physorg relies on this stuff which it publishes without applying a basic bs detector. The mainstream media does this too and, I believe this is a major part of the problem these days with all science.
I'm amazed that you are apparently an hypothesis denier. Why would hockey schtick have to create an hypothesis? Isn't that implied? Perhaps confusion about the actual hypothesis is also adding to confusion? You seem a little confused? The research you mentioned is applied after the fact. It isn't the science per se.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (26) May 22, 2013
Dir Did I say Hockey Schtick was involved in research? It's a blog that presents research by people that are. This is from scientists who's work hasn't been spin doctored by media departments so that it resembles propaganda rather that science.

The statements "The paper adds to several others demonstrating that an increase in solar activity and concomitant decrease in cloudiness during the latter 20th century are more than sufficient to explain observed global warming." and "How the IPCC fools everyone that CO2 drives climate instead of the Sun" are those of your blogger. I.e., its his SPIN.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) May 22, 2013
Looks like this paper may have to be withdrawn. It seams it categorizes papers Idso, Scafetta and Shaviv as endorsing AGW when they did nothing of the sort. Must be something seriously wrong with the methodology.
http://www.popula...sts.html

I see unsubstantiated allegations, along with obfuscatory excerpts of responses attributed to three researchers, nothing more. As the papers in question, which is what the reviewers examined, are behind paywalls, we've no way of judging for ourselves what they actually say.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (24) May 22, 2013
You will only ever see what you want to see Deepsand. I agree the second statement you quoted is spin but it doesn't pretend to be anything else. The first statement is a simple statement of fact as you will see if you click the link with it. It is true that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing and thus temperature but we don't know by how much because clouds have been decreasing as Co2 rose and, applying Occam's razor, this is enough to explain the warming. The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record.Deepsand, you're in quicksand I'm afraid. Your pet theory sinks a tiny bit more every day the planet refuses to warm up.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 22, 2013

"Can I ask whether all the other "hockey sticks" are similarly tainted. Even BEST's?

If you call BEST's graph a hockey stick, then you don't know what hockey is.
Try again runrig.


I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick". A rather bent/twisted one but the marked rise at on set of the industrial era is there. And as I said, cant put a fag-paper ( cigarette) between them....

http://berkeleyea...summary/
http://www.mother...e-change

Now, just to get this straight.
What is it about the BEST data that is in ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY different to its peers.

Really I await to be enlightened.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 22, 2013
You will only ever see what you want to see ...

Aint that the truth
It is true that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing and thus temperature

Well done.
but we don't know by how much because clouds have been decreasing as Co2 rose
- applying Occam's razor, this is enough to explain the warming

Occams razor is not a scientific method and anyway by applying it your above statement is the one that holds, ie "increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing and thus temperature" - as that is the one scientifically proven ( plus an increasing forcing as ppm rise ).
The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record

No, it is strongly correlated ...
http://www.ncdc.n...ure-cha/
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) May 22, 2013
gregor1: " I agree the second statement you quoted is spin but it doesn't pretend to be anything else. "

Here is the heart of the issue. By your admission - the hockey schtick is a spin site. Of course it is a spin site if it only publishes articles on one topic, and with one bias (to disprove AGW). Now take the time to look over the Nature site. Look at the breadth and depth of the articles. Do you see the difference between reading the hockey schtick, and reading a board like physorg? When you quote articles from a bias blog site - you demonstrate your own bias - your own ignorance. I of course have my own bias. Science also has a bias - towards truth. Individual scientists sometimes have bias - but the process weeds them out. I have a friend who is a microbiologist - he is politically on the left - but his research into staphloccocus(sp) is objective - follows very strict protocol. He get published regularly. The process is what keeps it real.
djr
5 / 5 (12) May 22, 2013
gregor1: "The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record."

Were you aware of this data when you made that statement?

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (23) May 22, 2013
The process is what keeps it real.

Except when the process is co-opted for an agenda.
It's no different than Dan Rather's 'fake but real' documents.
Journals are gatekeepers and THEY decide what is published and if they will follow their policies of providing source data for others to review.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) May 22, 2013
gregor1: "The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record."

Were you aware of this data when you made that statement?

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

Which came first, CO2 or temperature? Resolution on the graph is quite poor. One may be able to resolve 5000 year increments.
Warming oceans can't retain CO2 as well as colder oceans.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) May 22, 2013
gregor1: "The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record."

Were you aware of this data when you made that statement?

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

Which came first, CO2 or temperature? Resolution on the graph is quite poor. One may be able to resolve 5000 year increments.
Warming oceans can't retain CO2 as well as colder oceans.


Don't be obtuse - you know by now, as you've been told multiple times - that CO2 both follows and leads temperature. It is a GHG and as such responds to the Earth's outgoing IR. When the temp is rising as in post-glacial Milankovitch forcing, it follows - THE natural state of affairs. Pre the industrial era it followed but now it is leading - because of anthroprogenic CO2.

The graph proves beyond all reasonable doubt that CO2 is strongly correlated with temperature whether the CO2 leads or follows.
djr
4.6 / 5 (12) May 22, 2013
Rygg: "It's no different than Dan Rather's 'fake but real' documents."

Can Rygg really be that stupid? (rhetorical). Dan Rather was a news journalist - with a big ego. His ego got out in front - and he was pushing an agenda. But - guess what happened - Rather got busted for lying - and he got fired - and he no longer reads the evening news. So Rygg's analogy is not only a stupid analogy - because a news journalist is not the same as the peer review teams that vet the journals, but even if the analogy was a good one - it proves the point that the system takes care of the bad guys. What a rube Rygg is!!!!!
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (22) May 22, 2013
I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick"....
Really I await to be enlightened.

And what does this part, that you ignored, look like -
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (10) May 22, 2013
I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick"....
Really I await to be enlightened.

And what does this part, that you ignored, look like -
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.


I asked this first - which you ignored...

"What is it about the BEST data that is in ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY different to its peers."

So they disagree with the methodology - a disagreement a small minority does not invalidate the the agreement of the majority of scientists who do think the methodology is just fine - as is shown by the strong CO2 correlation with temperature shown on this thread.
MaiioBihzon
2.7 / 5 (19) May 22, 2013
"MaiioBhizon 'The Anthropocene will continue. We will continue remaking our environment. This is not even a choice; it is our nature. As a technological species, we will continue to transform the landscape, the oceans, the sky, and the life of the biosphere.'

Nice to see someone else with some vision posting - the future is exciting - despite the headwinds of ignorance. Thanks - keep commenting."

Djr --

Thanks. Postures on these issues very often are, by default, combative. And political. Some people want to cheer for Big Oil, possibly because such cheering is felt to be patriotic and a celebration of the triumph of European colonial civilization. Others, feeling outraged at perceived injustices and wrongdoing perpetrated by that civilization, want to call for a revolution, overthrowing the old paradigm in favor of one that is more responsible and inclusive.

Neither side is completely right, or completely wrong. It's not black versus white. A way forward must include both.
MaiioBihzon
2.8 / 5 (18) May 22, 2013
"Humans have been adapting to changing climates for hundreds of thousands of years ."

Ryggesohn2 --

That's true. And in response humans have developed technological capability as its primary means of adaptation. And now that technology has actually begun noticeably changing the climate.

We still must adapt to climatic change, just as before. But now we ourselves are the agent of climatic change. This is an impressively empowering moment in our evolution as a species. We can adapt to the circumstances of our environment at the same time that we possess the power to alter those circumstances. No other species has ever possessed this power.

So we ar confronted with the question, and the decision, of what to do with this power.

That is a fundamentally political question and decision. Thus all the controversy, bitterness and mostly pointless squabbling. There's a lot at stake, after all. Everything, actually.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) May 22, 2013
actually begun noticeably changing the climate.

If true, then why have the AGWites NOT proposed using technology, but instead promote using state power and taxes?
That is a fundamentally political question and decision.

No, its a market based, efficiency question to be decided by billions of individual daily decisions.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (23) May 22, 2013
@Dir. On second thoughts the second statement from Hockey Schtick is not spin because it is open and honest. To me spin is blatant dishonesty such as we see frequently in the press releases on Physorg. For example an article on CO2 , a colorless gas, may be accompanied by a photo of a power station belching water vapor or an article on one area of the ocean will be spun to make it seem to be about the entire ocean.
You link shows a correlation over huge time scales but over shorter time scales we get this
http://www.climat...omeC.gif
or this
http://img172.ima...267m.png
And there's this
http://www.geocra...e277.gif
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (26) May 22, 2013
You will only ever see what you want to see Deepsand. I agree the second statement you quoted is spin but it doesn't pretend to be anything else. The first statement is a simple statement of fact as you will see if you click the link with it.[/quote]
No, it's a conclusion based on facts not in evidence..

It is true that increased atmospheric CO2 increases radiative forcing and thus temperature but we don't know by how much because clouds have been decreasing as Co2 rose and, applying Occam's razor, this is enough to explain the warming.

Said razor does no such thing.

The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record.Deepsand.

To the contrary, there is a high degree of correlation over the recent past, with the past being immaterial.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (26) May 22, 2013
gregor1: "The correlation between rising CO2 and temperature is poor and there is very little correlation throughout the geological record."

Were you aware of this data when you made that statement?

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

Which came first, CO2 or temperature?

Asked and answered ad nausem. Stop pretending that all cases are equal, that that which is cause and that which is effect must always be the same.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 22, 2013
On second thoughts the second statement from Hockey Schtick is not spin because it is open and honest. To me spin is blatant dishonesty ...

In the case of Hockey Schtick, the spin is the result of simple ignorance at best; at worst, of intellectual dishonesty.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (14) May 22, 2013
My friend R2 asks;
If true, then why have the AGWites NOT proposed using technology, but instead promote using state power and taxes?

We are and have been for a long time. Let me mention a few; hybrid and electric cars and vehicles, solar and hydro energy of all sources and methods, high efficiency battery and technology, algea and biofuels, etc etc. You see R2, there is another one of your misconceptions about the AGWites. On technology, we are probably more progressive than you and the tea party types. As far as state power and taxes, when you deal with global issues where changes in a state laws (an/or tax/regulation) can have a much needed impact globally for mankind's (or better earthkind's) prosperity, it becomes beneficial to all to regulate, tax destructive activity, and supplement and support the good.

The tyranny of the minority can impact this, as is seen in the debate argued by the deniers; the anti-AGWites (a minority with too much power).
djr
4.7 / 5 (13) May 22, 2013
gregor1 - "You link shows a correlation over huge time scales"

But you said there was no correlation - so the simple fact is that you were wrong - the correlation between temperatures and C02 levels is well understood, and very much a part of the documented science of climate. Anyone who claims there is no corrleation - does not know what they are talking about - but you will keep talking wont you - just so full of yourself - despite not knowing the subject.
Howhot
4.7 / 5 (13) May 22, 2013
The @anti argues:
I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick"....
Really I await to be enlightened.

And what does this part, that you ignored, look like -
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.

You're looking at the wrong data Anti. It's not temperatures that have gone "hockey-stick" like, it's CO2 levels. From 280ppm for millions of years to 400ppm in less than 200y. With no decline in-site for CO2 for the next 50 years. That is just data. A measured fact.
What you imply is that temperatures have a hockeystick shape without considering that it's the CO2 (in this case) that will lead the temperature increase as the build up of the greenhouse gases concentrates and traps more heat from the sun than otherwise. Temps will eventually follow.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (21) May 22, 2013
Just to please you Dir. I stand corrected on your point so I'll change that to be conditional on time scales similar to the one we are concerned with today i.e. Warming over the last 150 years. You do, of course know that, on higher resolutions, your data shows a time lag of around 800 years which is thought to be the ocean releasing CO2 as it warms?
djr
5 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
"You do, of course know that, on higher resolutions, your data shows a time lag of around 800 years which is thought to be the ocean releasing CO2 as it warms?"

There is a huge body of science just looking into the C02 temp relationship - and yes the 800 - 1000 yr lag issue has been well documented. This does not mean that C02 cannot also be a driver of warming - and it is in fact seen as a feedback loop. Here is a discussion of it - from a bias pro AGW web site - http://www.skepti...lag.html

Too much to hope that after showing the world that you do not know the subject at hand - that you would sit back and let the science take it's course - right?
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
I'd miss you Dir. I love it when you talk dirty. Your insults and smears are very becoming.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (20) May 23, 2013
Oh and here's a little gift as a token of our friendship. It's a lecture by a chap called Murry Salby who's a professor of climatology from Australia. Australia's a total dump so he must be an idiot- right? You may not like what he says but perhaps you might like to write to him, smear him, and call him names. That would be something different for you.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?playnext=2&list=PLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z&v=ZVCps_SwD5w&feature=autoplay&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZVCps_SwD5w%26feature%3Dautoplay%26list%3DPLILd8YzszWVTp8s1bx2KTNHXCzp8YQR1z%26playnext%3D2
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (21) May 23, 2013
Broken Link try again
http://www.youtub...aynext=2
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) May 23, 2013
"Your insults and smears are very becoming." Testy aren't we? I was just hoping that after being shown to not know what you are talking about - you might want to stop making yourself look stupid, and also participating in the process of slowing down the evolution of human intelligence. Sadly I was right in expecting that would be too much to ask - you will continue to consider yourself smarter than all the thousands of scientists out there doing the hard work of science - running your mouth off, and making the world a lesser place as a result.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (28) May 23, 2013
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (24) May 23, 2013
I think you'll find that's the guy's at skeptical science you're talking about not me. After all they created a paper which showed that some of the world's best known skeptics are actually CAGW supporters which is no mean trick. Next I suggest that they start on 2+2=4. They're so smart they could make it =6 , oh hang on, there's a consensus. Science is done by a show of hands in your world, isn't it? But then these guys are really smart and if I point out an error you'll think I'm against all the World's scientist's not just them.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (27) May 23, 2013
I think you'll find that's the guy's at skeptical science you're talking about not me. After all they created a paper which showed that some of the world's best known skeptics are actually CAGW supporters which is no mean trick. Next I suggest that they start on 2+2=4. They're so smart they could make it =6 , oh hang on, there's a consensus. Science is done by a show of hands in your world, isn't it? But then these guys are really smart and if I point out an error you'll think I'm against all the World's scientist's not just them.

I take it that you either did not read the material that I cited or that you do not comprehend it.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (26) May 23, 2013
The @anti argues:
I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick"....
Really I await to be enlightened.

And what does this part, that you ignored, look like -
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.

You're looking at the wrong data Anti. It's not temperatures that have gone "hockey-stick" like, it's CO2 levels. .... That is just data. A measured fact.
What you imply is that temperatures have a hockeystick shape without considering that it's the CO2 (in this case) that will lead the temperature increase

Wow!! I have seen smarter carpets. Here we have a scientist, who worked on this study, very clearly stating that the conclusion is wrong. But, as usual the AGW Alarmist, it devoid of a response, spews its ignorant garbage instead.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) May 23, 2013
We are and have been for a long time. Let me mention a few; hybrid and electric cars and vehicles, solar and hydro energy of all sources and methods,


Even with the force of state taxes and subsidies they are still failing and cost taxpayers billions.
No matter how hard you wish, socialism still fails.
gregor1
1.2 / 5 (19) May 23, 2013
Dir while we're in the process of smearing, the author of the above paper and the blog you actually take seriously is John Cook, a cartoonist and not a scientist at all. Click the link and check out the links at the end.
http://www.popula...nce.html
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (10) May 23, 2013
A swing and a miss, Anti bellows:
But, as usual the AGW Alarmist, it devoid of a response, spews its ignorant garbage instead.


Which garbage oh mighty toad one? The CO2 garbage with the measure climb from 280ppm over the last 4 million years to 400ppm in just under 200 years (unlike the time frame in any other natural CO2 cycle I might add!). Or is it the *global* average temperature rise that has earth heating 1.4C in that same small 200 year time frame?

Anti, you and your denier friends are just full of it. Here; read this article my friend. It might enlighten you for a few moments.

http://www.mother...ther-hit

The bottom line take-away from it is that the foundations of your skepticism are crumbling as it becomes more and more obvious the linkage between CO2 and Global warming is real and dangerous to the survival of many ecosystems. Very much real indeed!

Howhot
5 / 5 (9) May 23, 2013
The anti-social R2 says
No matter how hard you wish, socialism still fails.
Ok, I bite. How does socialism fail? You imply there is something bad about it. What is the opposite then of socialism? It must be good but what is it?

Or is it that your talking through the side of your mouth and just don't know what you are talking about? I suspect the later.
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) May 24, 2013
The @anti argues
I tried again - and yep. Still looks like a "hockey-stick"....
Really I await to be enlightened.

And what does this part, that you ignored, look like
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.

You're looking at the wrong data Anti. It's not temperatures that have gone "hockey-stick" like, it's CO2 levels. That is just data. A measured fact.
What you imply is that temperatures have a hockeystick shape without considering that it's the CO2 (in this case) that will lead the temperature increase

Wow!! I have seen smarter carpets. Here we have a scientist, who worked on this study, very clearly stating that the conclusion is wrong. But, as usual the AGW Alarmist, it devoid of a response, spews its ignorant garbage

Argumentum garbagiam.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2013
No matter how hard you wish, socialism still fails.

There made visible – the real reason some on here are denialists – politics and a hatred of "Socialism".
Pathetic really.
Also to kill the bollocks about "hockey-sticks" ( it wont of course as the denialists are indeed just that ).
From Hownot's recent link ….

"In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) May 24, 2013
There made visible – the real reason some on here are denialists – politics and a hatred of "Socialism".
Pathetic really.


What is truly pathetic are those AGWites who have faith in AGW and in socialism in spite of the fact neither are falsifiable.
Popper was motivated by the socialists to develop falsifiability because the socialists claimed a basis in science for their faith, and kept making excuses for socialism when the model failed.
AGWites do the same. First is was global cooling, then global warming, now its climate change.
Climate has been changing for thousands of years, fortunately, or half the planet would be covered in ice. Who denies this?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 24, 2013
Ok, I bite. How does socialism fail?

That depends upon what you want socialism to accomplish.
If you want socialism to control humans and subjugate the individual to state control, it succeeds, until the state must murder most of their subjects to keep order.
If you want human individuals to prosper, to live with the liberty and opportunity to pursue what makes them 'happy', to be all they want to be (not what society or a state wants them to be) and not be a slave to a state or any other individual, then socialism fails.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 24, 2013
An example of how socialism is failing in Sweden. Those ungrateful immigrants are rioting because they are welfare 'slaves' to the state.
"Stockholm rioting continues for fifth night" http://www.guardi...osition8
Swedish socialism does not create an environment where the individual can be independent and earn.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) May 24, 2013
The results of socialism:
""In Sweden you've got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It's ridiculous and a bad excuse," Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth told RT."
"These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country's social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

"The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people," the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. "The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don't like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.""
http://rt.com/new...res-671/
Why should they integrate?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2013
The results of socialism:

"These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country's social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

"The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people," the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. "The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don't like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.""
http://rt.com/new...res-671/
Why should they integrate?


RG2: So, you are not only scientifically illiterate, you are also bigoted and prejudiced. Do you really lump all immigrants together as a homogenous source of trouble? There is clearly a problem, but blanket bigotry is not the solution. Likewise, anti-science is not a solution to AGW.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) May 24, 2013
you are also bigoted and prejudiced

Playing the race card. What a surprise, not.
Studies have shown that the apparent success of Scandinavian socialism is there homogeneity. A homogenous society doesn't necessarily mean race, but it does imply a common culture. If a western culture of individual rights, private property, discipline is invaded by a culture that does not respect such values, friction results and this is why socialism always fails. Some call them 'cheaters'.
Borders, language and culture define a nation. A nation that does not require its immigrants to follow the culture will soon dissolve.
In Yellowstone Park in WY, tourists used to feed the bears. But when the tourists ran out of food, the bears keep looking for more, attacking the tourist. Rangers had to post snipers to shoot bears that attacked tourists, and, of course, tourists were required to stop feeding the bears.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (22) May 24, 2013
anti-science is not a solution to AGW.

AGW IS anti-science. It is a religion.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) May 25, 2013
There made visible – the real reason some on here are denialists – politics and a hatred of "Socialism".
Pathetic really.


What is truly pathetic are those AGWites who have faith in AGW and in socialism in spite of the fact neither are falsifiable.

What is truly pathetic is 1) your reliance on opinion of policy to the exclusion of empirical facts and deductive reasoning; and, 2) your failure to understand that falsifiability is applicable to inductive reasoning.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) May 25, 2013
anti-science is not a solution to AGW.

AGW IS anti-science. It is a religion.

Only to those who are willfully ignorant of what constitutes Science.

Yours is the same fallacious argument advanced by Creationists.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (16) May 25, 2013
But I do not substantiate my position with quotes/links from Blogs of bigoted commentators.

Nope, you do that with your dogma of fabrications and deceit, created by your "scientists/priests" whom, according to the cult, no one is qualified to question their lies. So, it's either accept your lies or be burnt a heretic. Yet, you have the audacity to profess you do not belong to a cult.


Worth quite a few points on the crackpot index. Keep it up and you'll make the team for sure.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (17) May 25, 2013
The everything is a religion gambit is the last resort of argumentative ideologues who can't see past their own confirmation biases and ingrained prejudices to imagine that there are others who -- scary thought -- might be better able to understand and deal with reality. It's the cognitive equivalent of realizing that you have no chance of winning the game, and pretending the opposition is really just your practice squad with different uniforms, and a tie is really all you were interested in anyway....
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (18) May 25, 2013
anti-science is not a solution to AGW.

AGW IS anti-science. It is a religion.


Calling everything you disagree with a religion to achieve a false equivalence is a sign of desperation.
http://www.youtub...cWWVuG1o
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 25, 2013
"Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on faith, as opposed to hard evidence. And as with most religions, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance, and deceit.

Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith. "
"Global warming is harsh toward skeptics, heretics, and other "deniers." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of the heretics, the non-believers. For example, former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." Many climatologists have been intimidated into silence, or have had calls to punish them go out." American Thinker, 4/8/2013
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 25, 2013
I disagree with part of the premise that AGW is an earth worshiping religion. Gods are worshiped because they are considered more powerful than those who worship the god.
AGWites claim to be protecting the earth from humans. AGWites worship themselves, their hubris. They must cling to their belief climate change is human caused. If not, then humans can't 'fix' it.
The alternative is climate change is not human caused and therefore humans are powerless in the face of nature to 'fix' the planet.
Powerless humans in the face of nature is not much different than powerless humans under God.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (17) May 25, 2013
For me the contemporary global warming event is mostly of the cosmic origin (the acceleration of heating of Earth crust and marine water with neutrinos from dark matter cloud passing through Solar system) and it already passed its maximum. The anthropogenic global warming is superposed on it and it's still rising due the elevated concentration of CO2 - but it contributes by some 10 - 15% to the total warming only. The CO2 concentration is elevated because of cosmical warming, i.e. the causality arrow is reversed there.
Howhot
5 / 5 (9) May 26, 2013
My friend the one and only @R2 quotes this little ditty;
Man-made global warming is an earth-worshiping religion
I have to ask my dir friend, since AGW is a religion what the hell is science then? Is it some kind of scroll that only you can understand and follow? You are so FULL of BS it amazes the bulls. The bulls didn't know that one person could be that FULL of it.

You say
AGWites worship themselves, their hubris. They must cling to their belief climate change is human caused. If not, then humans can't 'fix' it.

Humans can't but you're going to fix it and have already done so in your mind. Right? You can't even tell anyone what socialism is. Look it up in a dictionary if you have to. As an AGWite (whatever that is) I can tell you,
The alternative is climate change is not human caused and therefore humans are powerless in the face of nature to 'fix' the planet.
is FALSE! R2, Not only is your statement FALSE. It's STUPID!
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (23) May 26, 2013
I have to ask my dir friend, since AGW is a religion what the hell is science then?

Science not only welcomes, but also withstands, the test of scrutiny. Climate science as propagated by the AGW Alarmist Cult could not be further from this.
http://www.iceage...tiny.htm
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) May 26, 2013
I have to ask my dir friend, since AGW is a religion what the hell is science then?

Science not only welcomes, but also withstands, the test of scrutiny. Climate science as propagated by the AGW Alarmist Cult could not be further from this.
http://www.iceage...tiny.htm

Another pathetic attempt at substituting unsubstantiated opinion for empirical facts.

In legal terms, your cited source draws a conclusion based on facts not in evidence.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (18) May 26, 2013
Science not only welcomes, but also withstands, the test of scrutiny.
Nothing is more distant from truth, like this. As Max Planck one said, "Science advances one funeral at a time. Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." This particularly applies to truths, which are threatening the occupation in given areas of physics.

Of course, the science evolves too, after all - even Holy Church admitted the Big Bang at the very end - but in just the speed, which the biological cycle enables.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (18) May 26, 2013
Do you think, that if science would really welcome the test of scrutiny, we would wait for confirmation of cold fusion effects for seventy years? The cosmic theories of global warming provide many interesting mechanisms, but no one of them was seriously tested during last twenty years.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 26, 2013
Humans can't but you're going to fix

I don't propose to 'fix' AGW like the AGWites do with their demands for taxes and tyrannical laws to restrict liberty and prosperity.
Humans will do what humans have done for millennia, adapt using tools and technology.
You can't even tell anyone what socialism is

Socialism is a tyranny of the collective. It is state control of private property and limits innovation. Innovation is needed to adapt to change.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) May 26, 2013
even Holy Church admitted the Big Bang at the very end

How could they not?
Genesis 1:3 "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 26, 2013
From a 1994 immigrant to Sweden:
"

"In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture," he said, gesturing towards the hooded youths milling around in Husby's pedestrianised shopping precinct.

"Also, in Sweden you cannot hit your children to discipline them, and this is a problem for foreign parents. The kids can feel they can cause whatever trouble they want, and the police don't even arrest any of them most of the time." "
http://www.telegr...oke.html
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) May 26, 2013
"This weekend, after six consecutive nights of rioting, Mr Mohammed was not the only one questioning the Swedish social model's preference for the carrot over the stick. Many Swedes were left asking why a country that prides itself on a generous welfare state, liberal social attitudes and a welcoming attitude towards immigrants should ever have race riots in the first place. "
http://www.telegr...oke.html
Sweden, and other Scandinavian states don't understand or appreciate their own culture and therefore don't teach it and expect that culture will somehow be absorbed by osmosis.
'Liberal' control of schools have stopped the teaching Western Civilization and why it succeeded so well. The results are apparent today as the sacrifice of Leonidas will be in vain.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) May 26, 2013
I am sure someone will play a race card soon. Note the critic is a Muslim immigrant to Sweden.
The culture of Sweden, like the culture of the US and the west can be taught and is based upon fundamental human traits: fairness, rule of law and property rights.
Redistributing wealth, rewarding those who don't earn it, is not fair.
Why is wealth any different than university grades? If you don't do the work, if you don't learn the subject, why should you get an 'A'?
Of course we the results of such grade distribution today with affirmative action.
This worms its way into AGW in many ways: group think is more important than facts and data; IPCC is political organizational promoting taxes and regulations (wealth redistribution) instead of wealth promoting alternatives.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (20) May 26, 2013
from the study:

... "From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."...
OK, now I'm reading this: co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said:
"We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made."
WTF?!? This is best piece of propaganda, I've ever read. Even Goebbels wouldn't do it any better.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (17) May 27, 2013
Gratuitous Nazi references do not boost your already minuscule credibility. Don't you have some more 'cold fusion' malarkey to spread?