Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media sceptics

Mar 05, 2014 by James Painter
Of some things there is no doubt. Credit: Danny Lawson/PA

It is difficult to make a conclusive link between human-caused climate change and the record drought in California, record freezes in parts of Canada and the US, Britain's wettest-ever winter and Australia's hottest summer.

But there's no doubt that they have pushed climate change back up the agenda, and will add pressure to the need for a deal at the Paris climate talks next year.

Directly experiencing such can make a (small) difference to public sentiment too. Researchers at Cardiff University found that those affected by flooding in Wales in 2012 were more likely to believe climate change is happening now than those who hadn't (74% versus 65%).

There is similar recent research in the US, which reveals that for every degree the temperature rises above the 12-month average, there is a 7% increase in belief in climate change, especially amongst those without strong convictions. Cold snaps can have the opposite effect.

But an aspect of this weird weather that gets less discussion is how the widespread uncertainties around the nature of such extreme weather, and of climate science itself, hand golden opportunities to those sceptical of to spread doubt.

Who's nobody, and what do they know?

A classic example is the recent debate on the BBC Today Programme between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins of Imperial College. Lawson managed to use the phrase "nobody knows" three times in the first minute, and criticised mainstream climate scientists for "pretending they know when they don't".

Lawson himself was widely criticised for misunderstanding the science and misrepresenting the scientists. But the general public often misunderstand uncertainty, interpreting it as a complete rather than relative lack of knowledge.

Some scientists have found it helpful to make the distinction between what might be called "school science" (as popularised by the likes of Brian Cox), which is a source of solid facts and reliable understanding, and "research science" where uncertainty is ingrained and is often what drives the direction of further investigation.

So when sceptics stress the "nobody knows" narrative, they are misrepresenting the existence of any uncertainty at all as meaning that, for example, no action to reduce carbon emissions is necessary. It's the nature of that there are lots of uncertainties, but this doesn't mean scientists know nothing, or are simply speculating. But it can be difficult to do this in a sound bite.

Some uncertainty is standard

Rather, they try to assess what degree of certainty they have about different aspects of the science. For example, authors of the IPCC reports spend a lot of time trying to assess the degree of uncertainty and level of confidence they have in each of their statements. These are difficult concepts to get across to the general public and to legislators.

Take for example the headline finding of the last IPCC report in September that the authors are now "95% certain that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951". On the day the report was published, one IPCC author was asked by a BBC presenter: "so what do the other 5% of scientists believe?" In other words, there was a confusion between what the authors of the IPCC report collectively had concluded was true with a very high degree of certainty, and what percentage of scientists were in agreement with the statement.

For scientists, 95% certainty is taken as a gold standard, likened to the degree of confidence scientists have in decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer. So the same degree of confidence holds for something like melting of Arctic sea ice or the amount the world has warmed, but there is less confidence in for example explaining the lack of increase in global surface temperatures since 1998.

Scientists and journalists need to get better at explaining the way these uncertainties work. They don't know everything but they know enough to be able to assess the risks of not acting.

A matter of risk

During the Today programme the presenter also implicitly introduced the concept of risk management, comparing 95% scientific certainty to a 95% chance, or risk. With high odds of 95% – or even equal odds of 50% – it would seem to make sense to take action to lower the risk.

Framing the climate challenge as risk assessment has been gaining considerable traction among some politicians. Lawson's response to the question was to argue that even if there is a problem of global warming, it will have only marginal effects.

It is worth asking how he can be so certain of this low likelihood, what his level of confidence is and on what science it is based. This is what would be required by any risk assessment: he would have to show how he had come to this risk evaluation and why he was so confident in it, when so many other scientists are saying the impact could be huge. In any case, merely saying "nobody knows" doesn't make his case.

Explore further: Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Finding innovative solutions for reducing CO2 emissions

1 hour ago

Today, the company Gaznat SA and EPFL signed an agreement for the creation of two new research chairs. The first one will study ways to seize carbon dioxide (CO2) at its production source and increase its value ...

Rolling lab tracks methane to its source

2 hours ago

McHenry Township, Lycoming County. Equipped with a gray box, a map and an SUV, Thomas Lauvaux and a team from Penn State's Department of Meteorology has been at it for hours, taking measurements and racking ...

What we've learned from the Boxing Day tsunami

2 hours ago

Much has been learned from the devastating experience of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, and it's had lasting benefits for disaster management plans in Australia, according to forensic staff from the University of Adelaide.

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

19 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

19 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

User comments : 394

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2014
It is worth asking how he can be so certain of this low likelihood, what his level of confidence is and on what science it is based. This is what would be required by any risk assessment: he would have to show how he had come to this risk evaluation and why he was so confident in it, when so many other scientists are saying the impact could be huge
A question with a high likelihood (about 95%) of being answered by "Because I believe it to be so"!

Lol this will provoke denialists like Shootists, verkles, yeps, Ghosts and ryggs and the other denialists on this site into a frenzy of denial and conspiracist rants! This should be fun and interesting!
MR166
2.3 / 5 (28) Mar 05, 2014
They must have been working overtime in the Ministry of Truth this weekend. What a bunch of pseudoscientific drivel! Absolutely NONE of today's weather patterns are abnormal or unheard of in the recent past. This is the sky is falling science at it's very best.

Even the IPCC doubts their own claims.

While people are unemployed, homeless and starving they are asking us to spend Trillions of dollars to prevent something that they cannot scientifically prove is actually happening. In fact the early claims of no ice, no winter and no snow are dismal failures.

thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2014
MR166: Can you please give us a reference for the claim that: "Even the IPCC doubts their own claims. " Of the hundreds of scientists working on the IPCC report I have seen no more than 4 who had any problems with the results. You are claiming that the IPCC has come out doubting the results. Please point us at the reference that shows any official IPCC doubt. I am always interested in learning new things like this...
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (25) Mar 05, 2014
They must have been working overtime in the Ministry of Truth this weekend.
LOL!! And so it begins!!!!!

this will provoke denialists like Shootists, verkles, yeps, Ghosts and ryggs and the other denialists on this site into a frenzy of denial and conspiracist rants!
Dang sorry I missed you Mr, although to be honest, your babble is of such little consequence, I don't actually think of you as - um - no, I don't actually think of you, period.
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 05, 2014
So often, among the most important facets of a discussion get left by the wayside.
In this case, the issue of people in Wales undergoing harsh experiences from erratic weather believing more in climate change than those who aren't.
In fact, this seems to apply to many, many, involving issues from the fact that September 11 was fabricated to foreign anger against the U.S. for clandestine criminal actions by the U.S. against them to acceptance of homosexuality as normal and not a mental disease to trust of vaccines and embracing of recreational marijuana use. All controlled by a corrupt system of "government", "science", the "news" and "religious" organizations downplaying or refusing to acknowledge the truth. Along with an initiative to dull the population with imbecilic "educational" systems and dull witted diversions like "reality television" and video games.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2014
"when so many other scientists are saying the impact could be huge"
Of course some speculative science, if true, could have a large impact.
Now climate 'science' is really risk assessment, not science.
That's been the AGWite excuse from the beginning, the risk, IF, IF we are correct is significant.
What about the risks and costs IF you are NOT correct?
That risk assessment has not been accomplished, but people are suffering through it with higher costs and govt corruption.
NameIsNotNick
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
"Now climate 'science' is really risk assessment, not science."
No, climate science is actually science. The subsequent risk assessment phase uses the knowledge gained through science to evaluate the risks. Since you are seem to be interested the subject, read up on the Scientific Method which I think you don't understand. You'll find it interesting and will almost certainly alter your perspective.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2014
You'll find it interesting and will almost certainly alter your perspective.
Oh no he won't, he'll claim its a socialist plot (or rather, he'll post quotes of various people talking about socialism and blah blah) then misrepresent your point, post more quotes, and try to bait you into responding to him.

He's just an anti-everything troll. He gets off on it.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2014
It is very funny how some bad weather immediately becomes man induced climate change and AGW is so passe now that the snows have come. Historical records of past harsh weather are never mentioned. Today's weather is always "Unprecedented" since "History" for human induced climate change purposes starts about 1979.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2014
I do understand the scientific method. But which one do you want to use with climate science, Popper or Kuhn?
Popperian method of falsification has not been applied to AGW because theory has BEEN falisified, many times.
If Kuhn's method is used, then the theory keeps being 'adjusted' when it fails and the research only seeks out data to support the theory and anything that reject the AGW paradigm is ignored.
If anyone is anit-science, I submit is the AGWite faithful.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2014
Blah blah balh ... If anyone is anit-science...blah


Lol see? More to come......
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2014
I do understand the scientific method. But which one do you want to use with climate science, Popper or Kuhn?...
If anyone is anit-science, I submit is the AGWite faithful.

Well, why worry about the facts & knowledge when you can attack the methodology, right Rygg?
WizzKid
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
Just a few things to consider :

1. Global warming caused by human activities cannot be proven...only by removing the said cause (humans) can one investigate the effect of the cause.

2. Even with that said, drastic climate change has happened before, many times, and evidence proves that it is happening right now. So this is just be another normal earthly cycle with drastic consequences for us....but we can't do anything to change it, and if we can, no one is going to lift a finger, until it's too late.

So, what's the problem guys?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2014
After spending 100s of Millions of dollars the climate models are nothing more than a few linear equations describing CO2 and methane concentrations. They do not include the effects of ocean oscillations otherwise they would not be so erroneous when predicting today's weather. They do not include the effects of changes in cloud cover and assume that CO2 concentrations have a linear effect (not a logarithmic) on temperatures.

Every feedback loop is assumed to be positive and the negative ones are unknown or disregarded.

I just read the latest bit of science released today, we must repent and change our ways or the Statue of Liberty will be totally under water in 4000 years. Is this science or political science?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2014
Well, why worry about the facts & knowledge when you can attack the methodology, right Rygg?


Hahaha great one, snorted coffee and everything!! :) Right dead on the mark Proto!
freethinking
2.4 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
For those that believe in AGW, what would it take for you to no longer believe in AGW.

For those that don't believe in AGW, what would it take for you to believe in AGW.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
"Well, why worry about the facts & knowledge when you can attack the methodology, right Rygg?"

When facts and knowledge cannot be supported by critical scientific methods they become conjecture and opinion.
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2014
Deny this!
FORMER climate blame "believers" are the real progressives for they know that one can't find (prove us wrong) a single IPCC warning that "believes" beyond; "could be", but they "believe" evolution and smoking causing cancer and comet hits WILL happen? But their own comet hit of an earthly emergency just "could" happen? Their 32 year old "maybe" crisis is dead and if you are a real planet lover then be happy a crisis was thankfully a tragic exaggeration.

And get up to date;

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians.

*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
WizzKid
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2014
For those that believe in AGW, what would it take for you to no longer believe in AGW.

For those that don't believe in AGW, what would it take for you to believe in AGW.


Belief is a very touchy subject for some people :P

The evidence for global warming is there, in heaps and stacks, but the cause for it is unclear. "Weather" ;) we humans can change the outcome of global warming or not...that takes a certain amount of belief...I don't believe we can. I mean do you think all the 1bil Indian are just going to stop driving tuk tuks just because of some theory? Or all the polluting factories in the world are just going to stop dead in their tracks?

Nope, because there is no profit in that. Our world is driven by profit, and it will be our doom in the end.

Sorry for the classic doomsayer qoute.

And for going a bit off topic. ;)
jakack
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2014
Are there any skeptics who deny climate change? I don't think there are. This article seems to build up a stance that doesn't exist and then confuses the situation by omitting the true stance of a skeptic which is that of being skeptical about the influence of man-made CO2 being a primary driver of climate change.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2014
Woot woot! Look at them all! Even got mememine69 to chime in! Hahahaha this is great!!

Frenzied indeed!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
I don't deny climate is changing.
It has been changing for thousands of years.
I don't believe AGWism.
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2014
When facts and knowledge cannot be supported by critical scientific methods they become conjecture and opinion.

Ah, but you see the methods discern the facts. You and Rygg have some trouble understanding the methods. Knowledge is composed of explanations and characterizations (facts) which can be tested. More importantly, the explanations can be used to make predictions about future experiments. Please refer to the Wikipedia link to see the four methods outlined by Charles Sanders Pierce. Right now you and Rygg are using method #3 (method of a priori). The GOP is an awesome example of using methods #1 & #2 (methods of tenacity and authority, respectively). The folks in the scientific community, strangely enough, all use method #4, the scientific method. See: http://en.wikiped...c_method
verkle
1 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2014
Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media sceptics...


Yes, but enough scientific certainty does NOT exist to meanfully challenge other scientists.

MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2014
Every time an AGW "Fact or Prediction" is proven false there is yet another explanation given as proof. Snow and polar ice are now proof of warming. A few years ago the lack of snow and polar ice were proof of AGW. In short anything that happens is proof of AGW including lack of warming (the ocean ate it). This is not science it is nothing short of religion.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2014
Framing the climate challenge as risk assessment...
is a tactic of a propagandist. AGW is a fact and deniers are either ignorant or evil. Here is a really good argument on why deniers are the way they are; (Hint: "must be the money"). Surprisingly fact filled, truth laden speech from the USA Senate floor; 16mins but worth it.

https://www.youtu...HLr4hIUk

Deniers need to really watch it, because it gets good in the end.
nevermark
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2014
The anti-science "skeptics" are not looking for insight. Their gut feelings and beliefs are more important to them than the consensus of experts. They ridicule experts and conclusions they don't like instead of discussing or questioning published results intelligently and respectfully.

Even if today's climate change was somehow natural, an honest "skeptic" would acknowledge it is worth mitigating as the climate record shows past ecosystems often required millions of years to recover from sudden climate shifts.

A rational "skeptic" would also admit how odd it is that climate is immune to human impact, unlike the rest of land and sea.

Weekly coastal weather is driven by commute schedules, southern sunburn times vary with ozone depletion and recovery, fish populations collapse due to overfishing, deforestation triggers soil erosion, ... the list is endless. Land and water ecosystems are being disrupted faster than they can adapt.

These "skeptics" are neither rational nor honest.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
As the REAL WORLD continues to defy the AGW "science", the cult has descended into desperation. This is just more fodder for the Chicken Littles. Unfortunately for the rest of the ignoramuses, Magganus ate it all up.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2014
Global warming caused by human activities cannot be proven...only by removing the said cause (humans) can one investigate the effect of the cause.

Smoking tobacco cannot be proven to cause cancer...only by removing cancer can one investigate the effect of the cause. Is that your arguemnt? Really?
They do not include the effects of ocean oscillations otherwise they would not be so erroneous when predicting today's weather.

I'd like to introduce you to an old friend of mine (and ever scientist out there): statistics.
Learn it. Breathe it. Know what it can tell you and with what certainties. Then comment again.

It is frighteningly obvious that those raging against the climate model have no clue what the scientific method is or how it works. Arguing from a position of complete ignorance is not going to help you guys.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2014
freethinking offered, suggesting he doesn't understand Science
For those that believe in AGW, what would it take for you to no longer believe in AGW.
For those that don't believe in AGW, what would it take for you to believe in AGW.
Its not about belief as such, its about 'balance of probabilities' which centers around this core hypothesis of:-
"Is there more heat in the system?"

When you observe these facts:-

1. CO2 has known thermal properties Eg. re-radiation
2. CO2 levels rising
3. We are burning ~ 230,000+ Liters Petrol/Sec,
adding 2x GH gases AND extra heat,

In conjunction with:-

4. Properties of water, eg Ice, melting Ice - latent heat of fusion etc
5. Specific heat

When you consider we DONT have a mechanism to otherwise remove heat from the system:-

THEN based upon balance of probabilities you MUST as intelligent Educated people err on the side of caution to not propound the issues !

For Anti-AGW's please, where is heat escaping rather more than before ?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2014
For Anti-AGW's please, where is heat escaping rather more than before ?

I'd add that the Anti-AGW types don't understand what buffer systems are, that buffer systems aren't limitless, and that when buffer systems reach a limit that things start to change FAST. So even a stance of: "it's changing so slowly there doesn't seem a cause for immediate action" is exceedingly naive and ignorant of how reality works.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2014
"Is there more heat in the system?"

When you observe these facts:-

1. CO2 has known thermal properties Eg. re-radiation
2. CO2 levels rising
3. We are burning ~ 230,000+ Liters Petrol/Sec,
adding 2x GH gases AND extra heat,

In conjunction with:-

4. Properties of water, eg Ice, melting Ice - latent heat of fusion etc
5. Specific heat

But what is the theory and where is the data to support AGW?
Climate models don't describe every process, because not every process is known. Data is noisy and what is 'normal'?
Correlation does not guarantee causation and doesn't justify destroying world economies on that basis.
What IS certain is that an asteroid impact would be very challenging and it HAS occurred and WILL occur.
There is NO guaranteed plan to stop such an impact. Why not?
Divert the money wasted on AGWism and IPCC and create a system to save the earth from asteroid impacts. That makes sense.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2014
ryggesogn2 still doesnt get it with this question as if he has forgotten &/or not read any of the Science
But what is the theory and where is the data to support AGW?
This is from ryggesogn2 who previously claimed he has a degree in Physics but CANNOT interpret, read or understand physics !

Facts have ALREADY been stated, yet you ask as if you have read/absorbed/understood nothing.

Theory is:- CO2 trap some of the heat, more CO2 traps more heat.
By 'trap' read increases resistance to heat escaping etc
Climate is like a closed room which radiates heat at known rates, more CO2 means less radiation, as input and/or generation continue - obviously temp rises !

Given the simplicity re CO2 & temperatures, the probabilistic issue is they are causative
& confirmed experimentally

Nonlinear complications re oceans dynamic & vast heat sink

Nobody is 'destroying economies', making products which increase energy efficiency & reduce CO2 emissions !

ryggesogn2 what's with your cognition ?
freethinking
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
Simple question I had and the AGW believers didn't answer. What would it take for you not to believe in AGW.

the word take is ambiguous, it could be scientific evidence to proof that someones making money, etc.

The answers given by the AGW crowd shows that AGW believers have a religious belief/faith in AGW that no amount of evidence can shake.

Ravi Zacharious has a statement that goes something like this, giving truth to one who does not love it, gives only multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.

AGW believers can you at least be open to seeking out and loving truth?

(Those that don't believe in AGW constantly ask for proof that AGW is in fact happening, so they are by definition looking for truth.)
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2014
FACT: No Global Warming for 17 years 6 months.

Emperical data from the RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2014
Lol most of them have come out now! Still missing a couple though.

Same old same old! Zombie arguments, misrepresentations, quote mining, whack-a-mole gaming, claims of conspiracy.

I can't wait to see more lol!
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
freethinking
Simple question I had and the AGW believers didn't answer...
Not about belief, its balance of probabilities. Physics does not lie,
ie; CO2, re-radiation, extra heat, heat capacity, rising temps, melt water "latent heat of fusion".

..amount of evidence can shake.
The evidence IS physics proven many times re thermal properties of CO2, properties of water etc.

AGW believers can you at least be open to seeking out and loving truth?
Its called confirmed properties of materials - experimental evidence !

Those that don't believe in AGW constantly ask for proof..
Because they haven't learned physics (or probability & statistics), nor been in a lab nor been able to read a CRC guide or able to follow up journals or able to do calculus etc.

ie. Uni level physics & maths which is the SAME foundation for all technology -> works.

Most anti-AGW = Woefully Uneducated !

To properly understand climate complexity you NEED training in Uni level physics & math !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
Physics does not lie

IFF you KNOW the physics.
Netwonion physics 'lies' when velocities become too large.
thermal properties of CO2, properties of water etc.

Mix all that into an emergent, chaotic system and try to deterministically predict what all the molecules and photons will do for 100 years.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
Nobody is 'destroying economies',

Look around the world lately?
Govts wasting plundered wealth on windmills and solar must be paid for somehow. TANSTAAFL.
Fascist regulations stopping coal mining and coal burning has a negative economic impact.
And then, when the AGWism falls apart, people freeze to death because statists killed off industries that keep people warm a lower costs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
Climate is like a closed room which radiates heat at known rates,

NO, the earth is NOT closed room. There are HUGE infrared windows in the atmosphere.

"The first type of device would consist of a "hot" plate at the temperature of the Earth and air, with a "cold" plate on top of it. The cold plate, facing upward, would be made of a highly emissive material that cools by very efficiently radiating heat to the sky."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

How could this cold plate get cold if all the heat is trapped?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
blah blah blah Fascist regulations stopping coal mining and coal burning blah blah

blah blah Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp blah blah blah


Lol! Still more to come.........
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
Ever hear of opportunity costs?
"he European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomel"
http://online.wsj...50205490
TechnoCreed
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
@Mike_Massen
Because they haven't learned physics (or probability & statistics), nor been in a lab nor been able to read a CRC guide or able to follow up journals or able to do calculus etc.

ie. Uni level physics & maths which is the SAME foundation for all technology -> works.

Most anti-AGW = Woefully Uneducated !

To properly understand climate complexity you NEED training in Uni level physics & math !

For many climate-skeptics, it seems to me that the problem is not so much understanding of basic physics but the relative importance they give it in comparison with other issues. Anyway you look at this; there will always be people, from both sides, that are going to join the debate without any basic notions. From my experience, when you feel that you are wasting your time with some individuals, it might be that they are only here for political advocacy. But one should avoid insulting the intelligence of others; the focus should be to patiently raise awareness.

Keep up the good work... TC
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
But one should avoid insulting the intelligence of others; the focus should be to patiently raise awareness.


That's what I keep trying to do.
It is very disappointing how so many who claim to support science and are data driven completely ignore the abysmal record of central planning and state controlled institutions, like IPCC.
But few can afford to do science as a hobby so they need to have a funding source. Historically that has been the state.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
That's what I keep trying to do.
This from the guy who claims to be anti-socialist and then unknowingly posts quotes from the Social Division of Labour! Hahaha!

Now watch the quote mining!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
If you recall Maggy I did define and explain how and why capitalism and the division of labor it promotes creates wealth.
But, there are so many who post here that, while claiming to be big supporters of science, won't discuss the science and prefer to attack those they disagree with.
This is right out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
So apparently, since the AGWites can't use science to convince (because it is so weak), they must attempt intimidation, just like there fellow travelers, the socialists.
With the new media, internet, cable news, etc., the socialists can no longer control the message and brow beat their opponents.
For example, how many really believe the Crimean's are so eager to be under Russian rule again they were secretly preparing to vote in two weeks?
A compliant media just reports and won't question credulity of such a plan and weak leaders won't challenge the absurdity of the sham.
freethinking
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
Still no answer from AGW believers in what it would take for them not to believe in AGW.... fanatical closed minded religion anyone? If you ask me what it would take for me not to believe in something, I can easily give an answer.

It's like asking an Obama supporter, what would it take for you to no longer support Obama? If you had proof he was a Communist, Homosexual, American Hating, President who lies, cheats, threatens his administration senior peoples lives if they speak out on what they know about the administration, uses the IRS, DOE, DHS, actively against those that don't support him, incites racial hatreds, would you still support him..... An answer from Progressive Obama supporters would be, Obama is the best president ever, heil Obama.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2014
Smoking tobacco cannot be proven to cause cancer...only by removing cancer can one investigate the effect of the cause. Is that your arguemnt? Really?... I'd like to introduce you to an old friend of mine (and ever scientist out there): statistics.
Learn it. Breathe it. Know what it can tell you and with what certainties. Then comment again
Well you know there are plenty of statistics enough on smokers, non-smokers, and former smokers alike to understand how smoking causes cancer. But we only have one planet with humans on it, and we have nothing to compare that to statistically.

So exactly WTF do you think you are you talking about?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
So exactly WTF do you think you are you talking about?
Nothing this one says can be trusted. He is not here to discuss the science, he is here to start arguments.

See here for his real personality: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2014
he is here to start arguments
-And you arent?
This should be fun and interesting!... your babble is of such little consequence, I don't actually think of you as - um - no, I don't actually think of you, period... He's just an anti-everything troll. He gets off on it... Lol see? More to come......Hahaha great one, snorted coffee and everything!! :) Right dead on the mark Proto!... Woot woot! Look at them all! Even got mememine69 to chime in! Hahahaha this is great!!... I can't wait to see more lol!... Lol most of them have come out now!... Lol! Still more to come......... Now watch the quote mining!!
-Nothing BUT slime. Youre just like the little kid outside the circle, egging on the bullies. What scum.
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2014
Yah smells pretty bad even to a dog. Ack.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
I am not surprised by the childish antics of AGWites.
After all, one of high priests, Michael Mann, is suing because some people called him names.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2014
Physics does not lie

Nope. Just the AGW "scientists" lie through their teeth.
See CLIMATEGATE
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2014
Physics does not lie, depending upon the physics, but physicists do. How else could any member of the APS accept a statement that any aspect of physics is 'indisputable'?
Physicists still conduct experiments to check up on Einstein.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2014
All of the predictions of 10 years ago have proven to be false except for increasing CO2 levels. Since then they have spent all of their time making excuses for the dismal failure of their science.

Today's weather is a better predictor of tomorrow's climate science than yesterday's climate science is a predictor of tomorrows climate.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2014
Simple question I had and the AGW believers didn't answer. What would it take for you not to believe in AGW

@free
I just saw your attempt so I will answer for MYSELF

I see the empirical data that supports global warming and therefore I know it to be true

I would need empirical data that has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal that shows all the statistics and is proven not to be cherry-picked or manipulated for the sake of a personal belief system as well as the experiments proving validity of the conclusions in order to "believe" otherwise, as that is what is provided that makes me "believe" in global warming (other than the observations that I personally make as well)

give your lack of ability to produce this data with all the constraints that actual peer-reviewed studies/publications also have, I would suggest dropping it
@Agomemnon
you must be Uba's new sock puppet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2014
"The reason this case is so important is because it very nearly didn't happen. Though environmental activists like Michael Mann, James Hansen and Al Gore often like to claim that their enemies are in the pay of Big Oil, the truth is the exact opposite. "
"Few corporate entities pump quite so much money into environmental causes as the Big Oil companies - Shell sponsored the Guardian's environment pages; BP invested heavily in renewables as part of its Beyond Petroleum rebranding under the card-carrying greenie CEO Lord Browne - because for years they have been running scared of the green movement, "
"What none of them seems to have learned is that when you pay Danegeld to your natural enemy it only makes him greedy for more of the same.

This is why we should all be applauding the decision by Chevron's CEO John S Watson (no relation of Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson, it seems likely) to fight this case. "
http://www.breitb...finally-
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
What media skeptics?
"Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC's lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.
- See more at: http://cnsnews.co...1W.dpuf"
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2014
@ryggesogn
Where are the links to "thousand of peer-reviewed studies that disagree"?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2014
Lol Rygg still quote mining, Ghost with his childish taunts and sock-puppetry, freethinking and MR166 all accusing scientists of conspiratoring in some socialist plot, antigoracle spouting some other conspiracy nonsense, yep this article is pulling out all the wachos lol!

There's a couple of more out there yet, shouldn't be too long now!
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
I figured it would shut him up or send him scrambling for non-existent links.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
Here is ryggesogn2 obfuscating and pretending to be of low capacity to understand analogies with
NO, the earth is NOT closed room. There are HUGE infrared windows in the atmosphere.
Why did you NOT interpret correctly when I said "like" & followed immediately with:-
"..which radiates heat at known rates" ?

Ok, then call the room a glass one where all the 'window's radiate & at known rates - happy now ?

When the 'windows' are affected by a gas which re-radiates then 'window's obviously don't radiate as much or take longer to do so, which LOGICALLY means the heat is not escaping as much or as fast as before THEREFORE it gets hotter - PHYSICS !

What about this ryggesogn2 do you fail to see ?

Good example of ryggesogn2 obfuscating/exaggerating yet again with
How could this cold plate get cold if all the heat is trapped?
Where the f..k did anyone say "all" - eh ryggesogn2 ?

Making things up, like claiming you have a physics degree in other posts - proves you are false !
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
freethinking STILL can't understand or is lying through propaganda
Still no answer from AGW believers in what it would take for them not to believe in AGW.... fanatical closed minded religion anyone? If you ask me what it would take for me not to believe in something
Have you EVER had ANY physics training ?

Have you EVER understood mathematics ?

Do you believe the experimental results re CO2 are faked & millions of uni students are feeble minded & accept without question ?

If you were really "freethinking" then you would be free of arbitrary belief & focus on fundamentals & evidence as millions of university physics students already do,

Should we call you instead "fakethinker" or "fallaciousthinker", it seems TechnoCreed is absolutely correct about you !

You the so called "freethinking" cannot discuss Science, you are focusing on belief, not the integrity of a Scientific method...!

That makes you disingenuous, a liar and a cheat, get an education, focus on the physics PLEASE
orti
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
"Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media skeptics"

But skeptics are being rigorously excluded from the media.

"COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days", Sean Long, 20140306, cnsnews.com
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
When the 'windows' are affected by a gas which re-radiates then 'window's obviously don't radiate as much or take longer to do so, which LOGICALLY means the heat is not escaping as much or as fast as before THEREFORE it gets hotter - PHYSICS !


As a black body rises in temperature, the peak energy it radiates shifts to shorter wavelengths. From 8-12 um there are wide open widows into space. That's why that plate gets cold at night in the desert (previous physorg reference) and why water will freeze overnight on a clear night when the ambient temperature does not get to freezing.
The peak temperature at 10 um is 290K = ~17C. As ambient temperatures increase, from any source, more energy shifts to shorter wavelengths radiating into space.
What AGWites don't like to talk much about is about the most potent heat absorbing gas, water. There are significant IR absorption bands from 6-15 um, but the AGWites can't model it well, and therefore use a modeling fudge factor to fit data.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
"Enough scientific certainty exists on climate change to challenge media skeptics"

But skeptics are being rigorously excluded from the media.

"COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days", Sean Long, 20140306, cnsnews.com
About time! Those 5 people don't deserve to receive the fawning attention they crave anymore than Sibrel, Leider or Hoagland do. The misconception that "balanced" reporting needs to somehow give equal weight to the nonsense spouted by the bulk of denialists (not skeptics, denialists) is finally being shown for what it is.

Balance means showing what most scientists (and frankly, most reasonable people) already accept as true versus the fringe, pseudo-scientific posturings of a small handful of denialist "skeptics".

Thanks for pointing that out verkle.
Maggnus
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
I figured it would shut him up or send him scrambling for non-existent links.
Wait for it! Wait......for......it.............
Maggnus
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Thanks for pointing that out verkle.
Oops, sorry that was orti. Them denialists all look the same to me.......
jakack
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
Dear AGWites. Could you please explain why the global mean temperatures are currently going downward/leveling at best while CO2 continues to climb?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
ryggesogn2 "might" be able to handle a wee bit of physics but
From 8-12 um there are wide open widows into space.
Evidence please, the term "wide open windows" is not scientific, especially for a claimed physics graduate - ever heard of attenuation ?

Instead of dumb claims you have a Physics degree, where is the EVIDENCE they are WIDE open & not just of varying attenuation - graphs ?

ryggesogn2 only went part of the way with
As ambient temperatures increase, from any source, more energy shifts to shorter wavelengths radiating into space.
Your wording is obtuse & incomplete, not the quality of a Physics graduate as you claim. Shouldn't you as a claimed graduate speak of spectra - do you know what that is & how to rephrase the observation ?

Now, having done all that, factor in the DIFFERENTIAL of CO2 & its particular thermal property re-radiation.

ie. INCREASE in thermal resistance "to space" which MUST result in temperature rise !

Can't you see it ryggesogn2, blinkers ?
jakack
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Hadley and MSU vs. CO2

http://www.appins...e017.gif
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Dear AGWites. Could you please explain why the global mean temperatures are currently going downward/leveling at best while CO2 continues to climb?

I would add, what is the normal temperature of the planet?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
jakack asked
Could you please explain why the global mean temperatures are currently going downward/leveling at best while CO2 continues to climb?
There are several combinatorial issues which require a good educate to fully appreciate, some of the most important are:-

- Heat is not homogeneously distributed
- Properties of water prove an increase in heat doesnt have to result in an increase in temperature
- Many aspects of climate forces are chaotic & integration (mathematics) is essential.

There are those educated in preferentially university level Physics & Mathematics who also have the understanding of the conjunction of circumstances which, although apparently strange to some, are well within the physics of the properties of materials ie Ocean's massive heat sink.

Eg For the nonschooled, look please at water in respect of "Latent heat of Fusion"
& correlate this with observations of decreased ocean salinity & across wide regions increases in melt water.

Thats a start.
jakack
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Mike - So with all that said, are you admitting that CO2 is not a primary driver of global temperatures?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
ryggesogn2 PROVES again & without a doubt he has NO claimed degree in Physics with
I would add, what is the normal temperature of the planet?


ryggesogn2 try try to understand that is a very STUPID question for ANYONE who claims to be a Physics graduate from University, look at Physics in relation to astronomical variance & probability & statistics PLEASE, then you wont find the need to LIE about your qualifications and might actually have the patience and freedom from propaganda to get an Education PLEASE !

Learn please ryggesogn2, ok, study PLEASE ryggesogn2, formal education with some completeness not just picking superficially at edges where you DONT understand the depth...!
jakack
2.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
I thought it was a good question. What is the normal temperature of the planet? It's kind of a rhetorical one, but one to prove a point. Who is to say that the earth hasn't seen the current levels of CO2 and temperatures before and that we are currently experiencing some kind of anomaly in the whole of earth's history?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
jakack asked
Mike - So with all that said, are you admitting that CO2 is not a primary driver of global temperatures?
The question is not that simple, for the simple one could say no but, you must understand:-
- Insolation
- Gas properties
- Equilibria
- Physics of CO2 thermal properties.

Look at the FACT atmospheric H2O vapour has easy means to return to Earth as you cannot exceed 100% humidity under the issues of temperature changes.

Whereas CO2 has NO upper limit bound by H2O's humidity function, therefore & in comparison with CH4 is the key driver of retaining heat by its KNOWN thermal properties of re-radiation and as a consequence in relation to ancient fuels dumping large amounts of heat now then, logically it follows that CO2 is a, if not the, major factor in respect of global warming (integrated over the whole planet).

Thats it for me this week, please get an education, start with CO2 thermal properties & especially:-

http://en.wikiped...of_water
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
jakack observed
Who is to say that the earth hasn't seen the current levels of CO2 and temperatures before and that we are currently experiencing some kind of anomaly in the whole of earth's history?
Its a fair question for those not claiming a Physics degree.

The climate has of course had wide variations over many millenia, that is of interest but, we have a local equilibria changing, in archeological terms, very quickly indeed.

ryggesogn2 SHOULD know as a claimed physics uni graduate there is no 'normal', there is instead relative equilibria with a TIME factor.

We now have the means to measure global temperatures AND heat, ice cores & other historical records can generally only show temperature not necessarily global heat with any accuracy.

As far as I know, there is NO evidence the planet previously showed a very fast change in CO2 & consequent rising of climatic heat WITHOUT some catastrophic global event such as an Asteroid impact.

CO2 comes out on top unfortunately !
jakack
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
please get an education


Mike, Thanks for the suggestion.

You may be correct in all that you state, but you have just proven that CO2, by itself is not a primary driver of global temperatures.

I know the system is complex, and understand that there is a multitude of interactions, I am just trying to point out that the simplistic theory of CO2 = GW has no legs to stand on.

Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
Mike (and other AGWites)...
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
how did you determine this?
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?

Please provide your reasons
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
Mike, Thanks for the suggestion...snip..but you have just proven that CO2, by itself is not a primary driver of global temperatures...snip..the system is complex, and ..snip..there is a multitude of interactions, I am just trying to point out that the simplistic theory of CO2 = GW has no legs to stand on.
First jakack, forgive Mike, we get a lot of loonies with political axes to grind pretending to do science, so sometimes even otherwise reasonable comments can get caught in the flack.

I am not sure that any scientist has ever said that CO2 is a primary driver of climate, nor global temperatures. The "PRIMARY" driver is, of course, the Sun. What is simplistic is to look at all of the evidence suggesting that co2 can influence global temperatures and then declare that GW has no legs to stand on.

It is the same as making a simplistic declaration that all global cooling is the result of cosmic rays. There have been a number of studies suggesting a combination of events.
jakack
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
It is the same as making a simplistic declaration that all global cooling is the result of cosmic rays. There have been a number of studies suggesting a combination of events.


Agreed.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
Mike (and other AGWites)...
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
how did you determine this?
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?

Please provide your reasons
Why, so that you can ignore them in your next post? Typical denialist drivel......
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
As far as I know, there is NO evidence the planet previously showed a very fast change in CO2 & consequent rising of climatic heat WITHOUT some catastrophic global event such as an Asteroid impact.

Yet those who claim to want to save the planet demand resources be plundered for carbon taxes or to subsidize wind and not create device to deflect asteroids.
Catastrophic events are documented and know to created undesirable consequences very quickly. CO2, not so much, yet that is the where the political capital and energy are spent.
Why?
Because it fits into the 'progressive' agenda and Paul Ehrlich and his minions fantasies. It's no coincidence that AGWism and the Limits to Growth mantra began at the same time.
Too bad so many scientists were suckered into it or joined the parade.
Agomemnon
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
Mike (and other AGWites)...
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
how did you determine this?
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?

Please provide your reasons
Why, so that you can ignore them in your next post? Typical denialist drivel......


I want a scientific discussion focused on the truth.
jakack
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
First jakack, forgive Mike, we get a lot of loonies with political axes to grind...

I admit, that I too have a political axe to grind. Because under penalty of law I am forced to pay reparations to the earth in hopes of curbing man's CO2 output by creating a market that isn't scientifically sound and likely to collapse. Not only that but by the effects of what the US secretary of state has said, I could potentially be charged with aiding in terroristic activities just because I tend to write to the contrary of his and popular belief.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Mike (and other AGWites)...
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
how did you determine this?
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?

Please provide your reasons

hopefully the deafening silence is simply the effect of collecting and compiling all their proofs.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Mike (and other AGWites)...
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
how did you determine this?
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?

Please provide your reasons

hopefully the deafening silence is simply the effect of collecting and compiling all their proofs.
No actually, its the sound of people ignoring a trolling denialist. You should be used to it.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
First jakack, forgive Mike, we get a lot of loonies with political axes to grind...

I admit, that I too have a political axe to grind. Because under penalty of law I am forced to pay reparations to the earth in hopes of curbing man's CO2 output by creating a market that isn't scientifically sound and likely to collapse. Not only that but by the effects of what the US secretary of state has said, I could potentially be charged with aiding in terroristic activities just because I tend to write to the contrary of his and popular belief.
Then why are you on a science site? Why not post to some political blog, or some place where you might find people who actually care what your country's political figures do? If you are here to push yet another politically driven agenda, then do us all a favour and take it elsewhere.

You really want to make a difference? Go find a candidate to support and spend your time there. Whining here is pointless.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Why have AGWites resorted to politics to push their 'science'?
IPCC is a political body created to advise politicians.
hiranyu
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
I think it pretty silly do suggest humans aren't effecting our environment, even the global temperature...

but I also find the suggested solutions to be poorly thought out, dehumanizing and sometimes psychotic.

-world wide economic controls
-increased energy poverty
-alternative energy generation by wind/tidal/solar etc (most or all of which have an even larger carbon footprint)[zero math skills but a whole lot of passion]

The only solution to resolve the "global" warming problem is "global" government!? How many history classes to you have to flunk out of to come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?

The hysterics of the GW alarmists does nothing but destroy support. Spend your energy finding a solution that works for human beings instead of alienating those that could help!
jakack
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
Then why are you on a science site?


My exact thought about this very article! Why is it on a science site?

If you are here to push yet another politically driven agenda, then do us all a favour and take it elsewhere.


I hope you will be consistent and write to the editors/aggregators at phys.org to do the same.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Then why are you on a science site?


My exact thought about this very article! Why is it on a science site?

If you are here to push yet another politically driven agenda, then do us all a favour and take it elsewhere.


I hope you will be consistent and write to the editors/aggregators at phys.org to do the same.
Why, they are not discussing US political concepts. In fact, I would argue they are not pushing any concepts at all, they are reporting on a news story that relates to science.

You have a political axe to grind. Your whole world view appears to be poisoned by that axe. You see politics where there aren't any, and no doubt argue that your particular brand should somehow apply, to and be accepted by, the rest of the world, misunderstanding the fact that 90% of the people on this planet do not give a flying f*ch what US politicians from ANY political stripe do. Go grind it somewhere else!
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Why have AGWites resorted to politics to push their 'science'?
IPCC is a political body created to advise politicians.
No stupid, it is a scientific body created to review science and give their best estimates of what the SCIENCE says might be expected under various scenarios and what steps might be taken to avoid those scenarios. Politicians can then take their findings and do what they suggest, or not do what they suggest, or take alternate steps, or shove it up their asses if they so desire. IPCC has no power or authority to do anything you stupid political hack!
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
The only solution to resolve the "global" warming problem is "global" government!? How many history classes to you have to flunk out of to come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?
What stupidly partisan web blog did you pick this garbage up from? Only someone from the US could makes such an asininely STUPID statement!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
My exact thought about this very article! Why is it on a science site?

@jakack
as you are well aware, just from this thread alone, there are many who cannot differentiate between climate and weather and cannot understand how the warming affects things like the jet stream which then also produces cold snaps: ( http://qz.com/163...n-worse/ )
therefore, there will be articles on how they address this on the site. Also, as the site is multi-discipline in nature, it has people from all over reading it, including the uneducated trying to learn

BTW – you are posting on a public forum with no right to privacy. If you were that concerned with the gov, you would have TOR and you would hit unlisted sites, or something similar
|
coming here to argue politics is like going to 4-chan and asking them to talk you out of suicide: its pointless and a waste of everyone's time
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. "

http://www.ipcc.c...UixCmXhI
Doesn't sound like a scientific body to me.
"Assess impacts and formulate response strategies": sounds like politics and economics.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
"The result of the IPCC process is a report that carries the weight of formal approval by the world's governments..."
https://www2.ucar...not-scie
No politics here, now move along?
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
admit, that I too have a political axe to grind. Because under penalty of law I am forced to pay reparations to the earth
By the way jakack, if it is that bad where you are, why don't you move? Honduras is close, I'm sure they would love your brand of politics down there.

I wouldn't go north though. We think your kind is only good for shovelling bitumen.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
"
http://www.ipcc.c...UixCmXhI
Doesn't sound like a scientific body to me.
"Assess impacts and formulate response strategies": sounds like politics and economics.
That's because you are stupid and your world view is dominated by your intense desire that anything you think is wrong is "socialism", and the fact that you do not understand written English!
jakack
1.9 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2014
We "skeptics" continue to post, because we continue to get feedback from others on our points of view. Some feedback is rather crass, but enjoyable nonetheless. You shouldn't be offended by the diversity of thoughts and ideas here if your knowledge of the subject is truly sound.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
We "skeptics" continue to post, because we continue to get feedback from others on our points of view. Some feedback is rather crass, but enjoyable nonetheless. You shouldn't be offended by the diversity of thoughts and ideas here if your knowledge of the subject is truly sound.
A "skeptic" is welcome; a denialist conspiracist with a political agenda to push is not. Ask yourself, which of these is more applicable to you?
jakack
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Why does the IPCC differ from what seems to be a scientific consensus in regards to the residence time of atmospheric CO2?

http://www.appins...e022.jpg
http://www.appins...e020.jpg
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Why does the IPCC differ from what seems to be a scientific consensus in regards to the residence time of atmospheric CO2?

http://www.appins...e022.jpg
I have seen that chart before. I'll get back to you on that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
anything you think is wrong is "socialism"

Socialism is govt control of property, which is wrong.
Many other things are wrong, too, like 'consensus science'.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
@ryggesogn We're still waiting for the the links to "thousnds of peer-reviewed papers that disagree".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
And I am still waiting for the normal temperature of the Earth.
Algore said the planet has a fever implying there is a normal.
arter57
4.3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
It is a fact that that various regions of the world are experiencing severe weather conditions. It is a fact that these conditions are having huge impact on life. It is good that there is so much research being done studying the problem and trying to mitigate the impact of humans but it is debateable that even that most drastic human efforts will return the weather back to the way it has been. It is time to stop having this argument as to who is right or wrong on global warming/climate change and work on the problem of disaster management and adapting to a changing environment
jakack
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Hi Arter. What disasters and changes in environment are you predicting that we need to start managing and adapting to?

For instance, do people living in low lying coastal land need to build levies to react to the prediction of the oceans rising?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
We "skeptics" continue to post, because we continue to get feedback from others on our points of view
A "skeptic" is welcome; a denialist conspiracist with a political agenda to push is not. Ask yourself, which of these is more applicable to you?
Ahaahaaaa hey magnus moderator is it ok if I call you an asshole*? Assholes are certainly not welcome, I think we can all agree on THAT. Ask yourself, is this applicable to you or no?

By the way how many posts is it today? 45? 50? It looks like one every 10 minutes, far as I can tell. But I guess lying flooding bullshit* is ok for moderators like yourself. Hey stump are you a moderator as well?

By the way:
About time! Those 5 people don't deserve to receive the fawning attention they crave anymore than Sibrel, Leider or Hoagland do
-What 5 people are you talking about? The article didnt mention any skeptic names at all. Or are you referring to any 5 people whose opinions you dont happen to like?
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
@ryggesogn Deflection much? You made a statement you have no way to back up. Why don't you just admit to lying?
WizzKid
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
Global warming caused by human activities cannot be proven...only by removing the said cause (humans) can one investigate the effect of the cause.

Smoking tobacco cannot be proven to cause cancer...only by removing cancer can one investigate the effect of the cause. Is that your arguemnt? Really?

By comparing global warming to cancer, you have totally made the worse possible comparison. Cancer is a disease, global warming has not reached a state of "disease" yet, theories/data/statistics only predict that it might end up being a "diseased state". The cause could highly likely be humans, but it cannot be proven, because humans are not the only thing emitting CO2 on this planet.

And you got your "conjecture" the the wrong way around, it should go like this ---> smoking tobacco causes cancer, but only by removing tobacco can one investigate whether it is a cause. (to investigate if it has an effect on the lungs in its absence)

jakack
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2014
Vietvet. Here is a link to a few peer-reviewed papers.
http://z4.invisio...pic=3935
jakack
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Vietvet. Here contains a list of 30,000 reputable peers just from the US who dispute the AGW alarmism.
http://www.petiti...ndex.php
jakack
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Here is a single peer-reviewed paper with an additional 132 references within disputing AGW alarmism.
http://www.petiti...M600.pdf
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Vietvet. Here is a link to a few peer-reviewed papers.
http://z4.invisio...pic=3935


And how, exactly, do you think that abiogenic hydrocarbons relates to the discussion here; to wit, human produced co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm? Or did we start a new conversation somewhere along the way? If you are trying to make a strawman argument that natural co2 outgassing is not considered by science, you're wasting your time.

Do you understand what the Earth's carbon cycle is? This is actually going to lead me back to that chart you linked; I am still looking for it, and I think I know where it is, but I want to be sure before I speak to it directly.
jakack
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Do you understand what the Earth's carbon cycle is? This is actually going to lead me back to that chart you linked; I am still looking for it, and I think I know where it is, but I want to be sure before I speak to it directly.


Is this what you might be referring to: http://www.skepti...time.htm
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Vietvet. Here contains a list of 30,000 reputable peers just from the US who dispute the AGW alarmism.
http://www.petiti...ndex.php


You are spouting zombie arguments. This is an example of biased sampling, and an appeal to popularity. My grandmother is on that list; does that mean her opinion is more authoritative then yours?
jakack
2.1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
And how, exactly, do you think that abiogenic hydrocarbons relates to the discussion here; to wit, human produced co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm?Or did we start a new conversation somewhere along the way?


RE: http://z4.invisio...pic=3935 - To be honest I was just peer-review bombing the discussion and trusted the link of the source to be relevant to the discussion. I was partially wrong.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
@ryggesogn Deflection much? You made a statement you have no way to back up. Why don't you just admit to lying?
That he is wrong or exaggerating is not necessarily an indication he is lying. Believe me, Rygg will state many lies you can point to, so don't exaggerate yourself :)
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
To be honest I was just peer-review bombing the discussion and trusted the link of the source to be relevant to the discussion. I was partially wrong.
It is a familiar tactic, and you are not the first person who has come here disguising political motives as innocent questioning. You were completely wrong, and the fact you were responding to something you felt was also wrong does not make it partially right.

At least you were honest about it. I'll not mention it again.
WizzKid
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
I screwed up my last post :( , only the first 2 paragraphs were meant to be quoted. Sorry.
jakack
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014


Vietvet. Here contains a list of 30,000 reputable peers just from the US who dispute the AGW alarmism.
http://www.petiti...ndex.php

This is an example of biased sampling, and an appeal to popularity.


Yes, It is biased being that it's a petition. It's not a survey. It is an appeal and attempt to give clout to lawmakers in deciding against the wave of AGW alarmism.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Here is a single peer-reviewed paper with an additional 132 references within disputing AGW alarmism.
First of all, your use of the term "alarmism" denotes an immediate sense of bias on your part. Secondly, it does not dispute "alarmism" it is a paper by 2 biochemists and a doctor that was published in a medical journal (in other words, NOT peer reviewed) and offering challenges to the findings of almost all climate scientists in particular, and several thousand other researchers over all. That alone should twig your critical thinking cap.

This is not the forum to discuss this paper, not the least because of the low character count allowed. I give you this in response:
http://rienstracl...-change/
http://www.climat...007R.pdf

Suffice it to say, your argument using this particular paper leaves you vulnerable to criticism. Certainly, it offers you no support.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Yes, It is biased being that it's a petition. It's not a survey. It is an appeal and attempt to give clout to lawmakers in deciding against the wave of AGW alarmism.
It is a petition of deniers, along with a good number publicity whores and well meaning dupes. It has no place in a discussion of the sciene.

Another reference to alarmism. Your bias is becoming loud enough to over-ride your claim you were here to discuss the science. It is becoming clear your real purpose is to push on us your US based political views. Is Clinton still your president? I liked him; I've used the "a blow-job is not really sex" thing many times!
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Do you understand what the Earth's carbon cycle is? This is actually going to lead me back to that chart you linked; I am still looking for it, and I think I know where it is, but I want to be sure before I speak to it directly.


Is this what you might be referring to: http://www.skepti...time.htm


Well, that is a reasoned discussion of the carbon cycle. I'm looking for the site where the misleading chart was first introduced.
jakack
1.8 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2014
To address the Residence Time from a particular AGW standpoint go here: http://www.skepti...time.htm

In regards to the last 2 paragraphs in this article, when do the tops of the oceans get full reaching the "bottleneck" point of CO2 absorption? Since the CO2 levels are steadily rising, would one expect a sudden rate change in atmospheric CO2 levels once the bottleneck is reached?
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
AH right Lawrence Solomon! I knew I remembered that chart from somewhere! (And, alas, there is his name right on the Skeptical Science site you referenced! ) So you know about his clear misrepresentation! And you reference him anyway?

So you are clearly a politics only person. Tell me, who do you think heads the conspiracy? You know, the one involving all of the scientists whose research identifies global warming?
orti
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Maggnus, you demonstrate all the reasoned thought of a mob. But mobs do have consensus.
Jim Lovelock (Gaia) and Patrick Moore (Greenpeace) no less have pointed out that CAGW has become religious fanaticism to environmentalists. I see their point.
jakack
2.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Another reference to alarmism. Your bias is becoming loud enough to over-ride your claim you were here to discuss the science.


Yes, I do have a biased point of view. I can admit that. I refer to it as alarmism because it is synonymous with activism, in that it's backers are encouraging govt action predicated on fear. How about you, do you have a biased point of view? Some just call it diversity...
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
To address the Residence Time from a particular AGW standpoint go here: http://www.skepti...time.htm

In regards to the last 2 paragraphs in this article, when do the tops of the oceans get full reaching the "bottleneck" point of CO2 absorption? Since the CO2 levels are steadily rising, would one expect a sudden rate change in atmospheric CO2 levels once the bottleneck is reached?
Your link 404'd.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
Maggnus, you demonstrate all the reasoned thought of a mob. But mobs do have consensus.
Jim Lovelock (Gaia) and Patrick Moore (Greenpeace) no less have pointed out that CAGW has become religious fanaticism to environmentalists. I see their point.
You would. Or at least, you would pretend to.
jakack
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
To address the Residence Time from a particular AGW standpoint go here: http://www.skepti...time.htm

In regards to the last 2 paragraphs in this article, when do the tops of the oceans get full reaching the "bottleneck" point of CO2 absorption? Since the CO2 levels are steadily rising, would one expect a sudden rate change in atmospheric CO2 levels once the bottleneck is reached?
Your link 404'd.

Sorry, its the same link from further above: http://www.skepti...time.htm
orti
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Maggnus, Well, yes. I do know that the warming we've seen is considerably less than the models predictions. I also know that some skeptics have explanations of what's wrong with the models. I'm reading Roy Spencer's book and articles. He shows me his data and his analysis of it. He goes to great pains to make it understandable. I'm comparing to other sources. I'm putting in the effort anyway.
jakack
2.2 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
Here is another list of skeptic sided peer-reviewed articles to address Vietvet's concern that there aren't any.
http://www.popula...ing.html
Vietvet
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
@jakack I never said there weren't any, but I know there aren't thousands. Your link (thanks, I've got a lot to read) is a mixed bag. I quickly found articles that weren't peer-reviewed, weren't on topic, some acknowledged the reality of AGW but disputed the consequences, and others behind pay walls. Thanks again for the link, and as time allows I'll go deeper into it.
Vietvet
3.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
@maggnus You are right for calling me out on accusing ryg of lying. I regret it, just as I'm sure he is for making such a rash statement.
elephants_are_soft_and_squishy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
jakack: They may be "skeptic-sided" by they're certainly not all peer-reviewed. Or articles. Or relevant.

Why waste time with denialist lawyering when you'd be better off reading the IPCC report. It's full of actual science by published scientists. http://www.ipcc.ch/
freethinking
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
So when asked what would make a AGW believer not believe....... the only answer summed up as, if those that made him believe no longer said there was AGW.

Fanaticism anyone?

An open mind would have said something like, temperature not fitting the models, no correlation between CO2 and temperature, corruption by AGW scientists, etc...

OK so for you AGW believers my question to you is, Why would get rich from AGW, Al Gore et al, ever say that AGW doesn't exist? If he did he wouldn't have money to buy Ocean side, energy inefficient monster mansions, his private jets, fleet (yes fleet) of monster cars, and feasting with his cohorts on endangered animals. Even his traveling to exotic locations would have to be curtailed....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
published scientists.

When the American Physical Society states that humans caused global warming is indisputable, how does affect the 'peers'?
"The study's investigators tried for more than a year to publish their paper, which showed that there was no relationship between the genetic responses of mice and those of humans. They submitted it to the publications Science and Nature, hoping to reach a wide audience. It was rejected from both. "
"Still, Dr. Davis said, reviewers did not point out scientific errors. Instead, he said, "the most common response was, 'It has to be wrong. I don't know why it is wrong, but it has to be wrong.' " "
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=2
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2014
@jakck On further reading it's even worse than I originally thought. Blog posts, opinion pieces from the Cato Institute and other right wing organizations. So far I'm wasting my time except for amusement.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
@maggnus You are right for calling me out on accusing ryg of lying. I regret it, just as I'm sure he is for making such a rash statement.
Lol let's not get carried away, in most instances you would have been right, just happened this was a one off! To suggest he is capable of being humble or reasonable in any way is most assuredly not what I meant.

More than that, too, I was accused of lying over an opinion by a childish brute, and maybe I'm a bit sensitive. I meant no disrespect :)
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Maggnus, Well, yes. I do know that the warming we've seen is considerably less than the models predictions. I also know that some skeptics have explanations of what's wrong with the models. I'm reading Roy Spencer's book and articles. He shows me his data and his analysis of it. He goes to great pains to make it understandable. I'm comparing to other sources. I'm putting in the effort anyway.
I commend your effort. I hope you don't trust in Spencer alone (he is somewhat biased after all) and I'd invite you to look at Skeptical Science as a counter point. http://www.skepti...nce.com/ You can look at everything on that site without registering and certainly without paying.

I would prefer that you make up your own mind, but I hope you look thoroughly at both sides before you do that.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2014
Here is another list of skeptic sided peer-reviewed articles to address Vietvet's concern that there aren't any.
http://www.popula...ing.html
Well, that is an interesting collection! I've just done a sampling, and so far I'm not convinced the bulk of the papers I saw say what this guy thinks. Great reference though, and I see where a lot of the sun-driven stuff you've mentioned comes from. I'm impressed enough that I've bookmarked the site so I can browse through at my leisure.

I have to say I sure hope that this is not the entirety of the skeptic's arsenal of published work (note that many are not peer reviewed). If so, their closet is bare indeed.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2014
In regards to the last 2 paragraphs in this article, when do the tops of the oceans get full reaching the "bottleneck" point of CO2 absorption? Since the CO2 levels are steadily rising, would one expect a sudden rate change in atmospheric CO2 levels once the bottleneck is reached?
I don't know. It seems to me that the "bottleneck" would be very dependant on ocean circulation and surface water transfer to the deep ocean.

I've seen a recent study that suggests a great deal of turnover has resulted from recent higher than expected Pacific ocean westerly's, which has also contributed to ocean surface temperature transfer to the deep ocean. I expect the same process would likely move co2 saturated surface water to the deep ocean at the same time.

Speculation on my part, but it seems a reasonable assumption.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2014
@Free
the only answer summed up as, if those that made him believe no longer said there was AGW

invalid conjecture based upon incorrect summation
which comment reference is summarized?
Why would get rich from AGW, Al Gore et al, ever say that AGW doesn't exist

irrelevant argument meant to distract and obfuscate
If he did he wouldn't have money to buy Ocean side, energy inefficient monster mansions, his private jets, fleet (yes fleet) of monster cars, and feasting with his cohorts on endangered animals. Even his traveling to exotic locations would have to be curtailed.

conjecture based upon straw man and obfuscation
Given same argument as above: state why anti-warming organizations must hide funding if there is legitimate science being done?

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

jakack
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
I would encourage you to step outside the realm of peer-review vs. not. If for nothing else, use it to hone your own arguments against a skeptic. I acknowledge there are loads of peer reviewed papers out there to support AGW. Though they do explain a lot, there are yet some unknowns and contradictions large enough in my mind to put a hole in the entire theory. The largest and most obvious being that the observations do not line up with the models. As for peer reviews regarding the role of CO2, trust has been lost. It is going to take some work to get it back.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
I would encourage you to step outside the realm of peer-review vs. not

@jakack
I'm not sure how that makes sense, even with your following reasons: it also allows the introduction of irrelevant data or completely unsubstantiated data.
This is how people receive the wrong information
IMHO-peer review might have issues, but it really is the best system we have as it allows others with knowledge to look at your conclusions and either support or reject them based upon the same evidence
yes, there have been problems (all systems have them) but overall it is very effective
abandoning the system now would allow uncorroborated claims every bit as much authority as any other – Empirical data and the scientific method are how it SHOULD be determined

Your scepticism appears to mostly be due to past issues with specific people

the model issue... it is a very complex problem, and it is something that is continually refined to meet observations like any good scientific model (IIRC)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
As for peer reviews regarding the role of CO2,

@jakack

see if these links help:

http://www.pnas.o...06.short

http://www.nature...122.html

if there is a SPECIFIC study that you are concerned about regarding the validity of the conclusions, you can address it directly, or find another study that refutes it

Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
"Is there more heat in the system?"

When you observe these facts:-

1. CO2 has known thermal properties Eg. re-radiation
2. CO2 levels rising
3. We are burning ~ 230,000+ Liters Petrol/Sec,
adding 2x GH gases AND extra heat,

In conjunction with:-

4. Properties of water, eg Ice, melting Ice - latent heat of fusion etc
5. Specific heat

But what is the theory and where is the data to support AGW?
Climate models don't describe every process, because not every process is known. Data is noisy and what is 'normal'?
Correlation does not guarantee causation and doesn't justify destroying world economies on that basis.
What IS certain is that an asteroid impact would be very challenging and it HAS occurred and WILL occur.
There is NO guaranteed plan to stop such an impact. Why not?
Divert the money wasted on AGWism and IPCC and create a system to save the earth from asteroid impacts. That makes sense.


But isn't that typical of your arguments. To answer with a question?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
Agomemnon asked simple question
what is the correct concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
No 'correct' !
Its a dynamic over long time scales, problem arises for life is the RATE of rise of CO2 increasing resistance of heat escaping, thus higher temps.

Higher CO2 affects some plants & shift their equilibrium to producing cyanogens (HCN, Cyanide) to protect from being eaten. Already increased last 50 years re Cassava, same issue arises from Clover & others !

A better question to ask is:-
"What would a safe median level of CO2 be ?"

Answer based, on the exercise of calculus:-
"A value/range immediately prior to smallest tangent of CO2 emission by correlated human activity" as a good start.

Agomemnon
how did you determine this?
Historical evidence - 100+ or so years.

Agomemnon
what are the benefits for this concentration? Why?
Less heat retained, less climate divergent chaos from less system energy, less cyanogens.
Please provide your reasons
Done.
WizzKid
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
"Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are no less than those of the past.Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by by Earth's position in the galaxy, the Sun, wobbles in the Earth's orbit, ocean currents,and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than that of present but did not drive climate change. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher that it was today. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during excessively high carbon dioxide." - Heaven and Earth, Global warming the missing science by Ian Plimer.

This book has over 2300 references to peer reviewed scientific literature.

One the best reads I've had on the subject. If you haven't read it, I suggest to give it a go. It opened my eyes, and I was a serious supporter for global warming. Now I believe that natural cycles like these aren't as extraordinary and life endangering as most activists propose it to be.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
jakack had a really bad idea
I would encourage you to step outside the realm of peer-review vs. not. If for nothing else, use it to hone your own arguments against a skeptic.
NO !

Uneducated skeptics can't appreciate scientific method discipline.

Educated skeptic (in physics & maths) at uni level has to wrestle with:-

1. Known thermal properties of CO2
2. Rising CO2

To be able to:-

Explain why combinatorial relation of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere should NOT retain ANY heat, this has never been done.

Although it has been attempted, logic has fallen over, even when skeptics resort to ice core samples which ONLY show temperature & not global heat quanta integrated.

So jakack, lets say you find a uni educated skeptic that passed physics & maths, in order to extrapolate their trained logic they would have to offer a hypothesis as to WHY CO2 has NO effect on heat or even reduces it re 1&2 above, whilst ALSO accepting the physics which is proven.

No-one has achieved that !
PopTech
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@ Vietvet Please don't misrepresent the list and read the rebuttals to criticism section,

http://www.popula...ebuttals

Criticism: Papers on the list are not peer-reviewed.

Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so. If a paper is shown to be listed in error it will be removed. The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
PopTech
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@ Vietvet Please don't misrepresent the list and read the rebuttals to criticism section,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@ Vietvet Please don't misrepresent the list and read the rebuttals to criticism section,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is hidden behind a paywall.

Rebuttal: Whether a full copy of a paper is made freely available is at the discretion of the journal's publisher. Any similar list would have the same limitations since archiving a paper without a publisher's permission would violate copyright law. Where a full copy of a paper was found online, a (PDF) link was added after a paper's name.
PopTech
2 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@Vietvet "On further reading it's even worse than I originally thought. Blog posts, opinion pieces from the Cato Institute and other right wing organizations. So far I'm wasting my time except for amusement."

WTF are you talking about? There is not a single "opinion piece" or "Blog post" in the list. The Cato Journal (2 papers on the list) is a peer-reviewed journal. Check the Journal Notes following the list,

http://www.popula...ml#Notes

The Cato Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0273-3072)
- Scopus lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists The Cato Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- "All papers are refereed" - The Cato Journal

The Cato Institute is not "right-wing" either, it is a libertarian organization that supports things like repealing the Patriot Act and cutting defense spending. There is not a single "right-wing" affiliated journal on the list.
PopTech
2 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2014
@Maggnus, please read preface to the list carefully as it explicitly says,

Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)].

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Why are you falsely stating that many are not peer-reviewed? Name one. Please stop making false claims about the list.
PopTech
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@elephants_are_soft_and_squishy - "jakack: They may be "skeptic-sided" by they're certainly not all peer-reviewed. Or articles. Or relevant."

Why are you making things up? Name the counted paper that was not peer-reviewed? What do you mean they are not all "articles", are you not familiar with the various peer-reviewed document formats used in different scholarly journals such as Nature?

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not peer-reviewed because it is a "Letter".

Rebuttal: "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature. These original research articles should not be confused with "Letters to the Editor".
PopTech
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2014
@jakack "I acknowledge there are loads of peer reviewed papers out there to support AGW."

This is incorrect, only a small percentage of climate related papers even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
WizzKid saw part of the picture with
This book has over 2300 references to peer reviewed scientific literature.

One the best reads I've had on the subject. If you haven't read it, I suggest to give it a go. It opened my eyes, and I was a serious supporter for global warming. Now I believe that natural cycles like these aren't as extraordinary and life endangering as most activists propose it to be.
Damn right !
The natural cycles, which generally happen over geological time periods or lesser so over archeological time periods allow all sorts of adaptations without a transient drama.

The problem is our "Unnatural Cycle" which obviously have never seen before !

The main issue of which is the very rapid rise of CO2 & heat, in comparison with all other known climate change periods we have no equivalent where the source of heat is from the rapid combustion of previous stored energy,

ie. Currently ~ 230,000 Litres/sec - this is a large amount of heat with high CO2 emissions !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
scientific method discipline

Which one?
The one that Popper described where one makes all attempts to falsify the theory or the Kuhn described where one ignores everything that casts doubt on the theory and only pursues data that supports the theory?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
ryggesogn2 wouldn't ask this
The one that Popper described where one makes all attempts to falsify the theory or the Kuhn described where one ignores everything that casts doubt on the theory and only pursues data that supports the theory?
If his CLAIMED graduation in university physics were true !

ryggesogn2, SIMPLE example for non-university physics graduates, Gravity.

1. Observe object falls
2. Hypothesize force is related to it's mass
3. Measure, derive graphical relationship
4. Hypothesize force is related to height
5. Measure, derive further graphical relationship.
6. From data & a basic math, arrive at general form (re Earth)
7. Hypothesize further if formula applies to other masses also
8. Experiment
9. Measure, compare evaluate etc.

Wow, a formula for gravity

http://en.wikiped...vitation

Experiment verifiable/testable >>99%, theory becomes stable 'consensus Science'.

ryggesogn2, now prove u have YOUR physics degree !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
What is the formula for anthropogenic global warming?
How stable is that theory?

BTW, what IS gravity? Measuring and predicting effects does not explain the origin.
When one can create gravity, then one may know what gravity is.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2014
ryggesogn2, has never apologized LYING about his Physics degree
What is the formula for anthropogenic global warming?
There is obviously no singular formula at present, the deterministic times of Newton have had to give way to probabilistic times & had to include chaos theory - this is why maths (Eg Integration) is SO important, Physics graduates with a basic grounding in mathematics KNOW this !

How stable is that theory
Graduates know all theories are testable & often but, YOU should know about asymptotes, Eg Gravity

Your recent question implies all physics students are followers & do not apply Popper's approach of "..meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments".

It has been done for a long time at many levels & long before Popper articulated it.

Is there ONE experiment that even touches on CO2 providing a cooling effect & it's propensity to re-radiate being turned off - even by 1% ?

ryggesogn2 save time, Climate Change Science, not gravity.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
Mike, how does your 'physics' hold that there has been no warming for over 16 years while CO2 keeps increasing?
WizzKid
1 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2014
@Mike-Massen said..

The problem is our "Unnatural Cycle" which obviously have never seen before !

The main issue of which is the very rapid rise of CO2 & heat, in comparison with all other known climate change periods we have no equivalent where the source of heat is from the rapid combustion of previous stored energy,


To humbly disagree:
Even if global temp. has risen, it has risen in a straight line at 0.5degrees per century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder minimum. This is long before industrial revolution could have any influence.
Present temp is 7degrees C below most of the last 500 million years.
Even if today's warming was unprecendented, the Sun is the probable cause, it was more active in the past 70 years than the previous 11400 years.
Even if CO2 were to blame, no runaway greenhouse catastrophe occured in the Cambrian period at 500Ma when there was 20times more CO2, and it was 7degreesC warmer than today.

Just saying...
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
Why are you falsely stating that many are not peer-reviewed? Name one. Please stop making false claims about the list.
I took a closer look. My characterization was hasty and I withdraw the allegation that many are not peer reviewed.

I still say, however, that at least with regard to the ones I read to date, that they do not offer the degree of support you have assigned to them. I have, so far, not seen any that were published past 2001, although to be fair, I have not gone that far into it. Furthermore, it seems you have included ANY article that mentions global warming, regardless of the field the article is from. That's a pretty biased sampling, in my opinion.

1300 articles against versus 13,000 for. (http://www.skepti...ced.htm) So you're happy with 10/90 then?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
AGW 'science' predicts disaster in decades.
How do AGWites test that prediction?
Do they have a time machine?
As you say, climate is an emergent, chaotic system which is impossible to predict, and, based upon math, will always be impossible to predict.
Agomemnon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
prediction of minor warming is fine.
prediction of disaster and problems and crisis is anti-science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
For you AGWites who hang your hat on 'peer review', no comment about how Science and Nature refused to publish valid results, and refused to officially state why?
But unofficially, they didn't publish because they didn't believe it was correct.
No wonder paradigms don't change quickly.
Planck was correct:
"A 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."
Read more at http://www.brainy...m3f1G.99
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
Agomemnon offers messy language which muddyies the waters
Mike, how does your 'physics' hold that there has been no warming for over 16 years while CO2 keeps increasing?
Its not 'my' physics, please don't be disingenuous. Please read the link re Properties of Water.

Note: We have a massive dynamic heterogeneous heat sink covering 70% of the planet at varying temperatures, depths, melt water etc.

Given we have ~ same amount of heat adding to the system each yr for last 20 or so & a bit less leaving each year (comparatively) due to GHG, then the correct question to ask is "Where is this differential heat going when it doesn't appear as an average temp rise ?"

When you appreciate oceans are not homogeneous AND ice at 0 deg becomes water also at 0 deg by absorbing >75x the heat it does when liquid THEN you have a credible hypothesis as to where the heat is going, confirmed partly by decreased salinity AND lower ice mass.

Its called "Latent Heat of Fusion", please check it out !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
ryggesogn2 PROVES yet again he has not completed university Physics degree with
As you say, climate is an emergent, chaotic system which is impossible to predict, and, based upon math, will always be impossible to predict.
NO ryggesogn2, I never said that.

YOU f..king stupid idiot twisting words to get a POLITICAL point, how lame and childish you are, read my comment AGAIN !

YOU Liar claimed you have a uni physics degree, yet don't understand INTEGRATION as part of Calculus,

You are proving to be an idiot & a total waste of my time, someone else PLEASE interpret ryggesogn2's idiocy & get him meds or off this Science site, he instead fills it with propaganda.

Focus on the SCIENCE ryggesogn2, which MUST include mathematics, it MUST include CALCULUS you idiot ryggesogn2 which includes INTEGRATION !

Local chaos within the bounds does not mean inability to INTEGRATE.

You come across as really really STUPID, or you pretending or retarded in PHYSICS, where you LIE about a degree !
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
"Where is this differential heat going when it doesn't appear as an average temp rise ?"

Maybe, there is NO differential heat.
If you can't measure it, how do you know it is real?
BTW, where is the sensor network monitoring the ocean below 5000 meters?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
Agomemnon admitted
prediction of minor warming is fine.
prediction of disaster and problems and crisis is anti-science.
This is why you MUST have a good education in Physics & Mathematics and only listen to Scientists & understand Extrapolation and be careful accepting anything from anyone claiming to be a Scientist.

You Agomemnon seem very easily misled due to your lack of education:-

Media are not scientists,
alarmists are rarely if ever good scientists

LEARN please Agomemnon, so YOU can discriminate Media for time wasting wannabe's who pretend to be Scientists,

Do you understand you seem not to be able to tell spin, in respect of the provenance of truth,

Get an education in Physics & maths and save everyone's time, especially your own !
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
For the umpteeth time ryggesogn2 PROVES he never studied physics & mathematics and unlike his CLAIM cannot have a degree in Physics
If you can't measure it, how do you know it is real?
LIAR, I never said it can't be measured, remember Properties of water, Measured reduced salinity = more fresh water comes from ICE and you can measure where also & ice MASS !

Why do you ALWAYS go around in circles, Idiot !

Are you intentionally pretending to be a DICK & Stupid and Lie you have a physics degree - grow up !

BTW, where is the sensor network monitoring the ocean below 5000 meters?
You have wasted time before in not answering details of why 5000m is important to YOU, show the details & others will comment,

Not me anymore ryggesogn2 you ARE a waste of my time.

Get a formal education in Physics & Maths, you are the worst example along with ubavontuba as to why denialists should NOT be engaged you CANNOT learn you are a LIAR...

go away, no more from me, end.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
If you don't measure the heat in the ocean, how do you know it is there?
Heat is measured with a thermo-meter.
Oceans contain a lot of water and about half of that volume is below 5km and distributed over thousands of square km.
If you are not making any serious attempt to measure the 'missing heat' then maybe you need to reconsider that there is any heat missing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
"But in fact what's realized now is that unpredictability is very common, it's not just some special case. It's very common for dynamical system to exhibit extreme unpredictability, in the sense that you can perfectly definite equations, but the solutions can unpredictable to a degree that makes it quite unreasonable to use the forma; causality built into the equations as the basis for any intelligent philosophy of prediction."
"A Passion for Science", Wolpert & Richards, Oxford U. Press,1988 p.43.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
"He went on to Cornell University as a graduate student in 1947 and worked with Hans Bethe and Richard Feynman. His most useful contribution to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. Cornell University made him a professor without bothering about his lack of Ph.D. He subsequently worked on nuclear reactors, solid state physics, ferromagnetism, astrophysics and biology, looking for problems where elegant mathematics could be usefully applied. He has written a number of books about science for the general public"
http://www.sns.ias.edu/dyson
Some here seem to be very concerned about academic degrees. Dyson doesn't have a PhD so anything he did must be rejected, right Mikey?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2014
"Doiron is similarly sceptical of the computer models used by climate alarmists. He and his team argue that the 105 models currently used by the IPCC are seriously flawed because they don't agree with each other and don't agree with empirical data."
"Doiron says: "I believe in computer models. My whole career was about using computer models to make life or death decisions. In 1963 I had to use them to calculate whether, when the lunar module landed on a 12 degree slope it would fall over or not - and design the landing gear accordingly. But if you can't validate the models - and the IPCC can't - then don't use them to make critical decisions about the economy and the planet's future.""
http://www.breitb...the-moon
It's unfortunate that scientists have to wait until they retire to be truthful.
http://therightcl...uff.com/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2014
"The motto of the Mission Flight Controllers:
"Achievement through Excellence"
And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:
"In God we trust, all others bring data"
These were not words that guided us during Apollo, but more importantly, words that defined how we did our work. This is what made us proud to be called "Astronauts," and "Rocket Scientists." We will attempt to adhere to these attitudes in order to achieve the goals of this study group. "
http://therightcl...uff.com/
PopTech
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2014
@Maggnus, please read the rebuttals section,

http://www.popula...ebuttals

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] does not argue against AGW.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
PopTech
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2014
@Maggnus. "I have, so far, not seen any that were published past 2001, although to be fair, I have not gone that far into it."

If you simply looked at the Highlights section you would see this is not true,

http://www.popula...ghlights

But again from the rebuttals, there are over 1000 papers since 2000 on the list,

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is outdated.

Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.
PopTech
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2014
@Maggnus. "Furthermore, it seems you have included ANY article that mentions global warming, regardless of the field the article is from. That's a pretty biased sampling, in my opinion."

I included any peer-reviewed paper that supports a skeptic argument against Alarmism. This includes papers by social scientists and policy analysts, just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports.

"1300 articles against versus 13,000 for. (http://www.skepti...ced.htm) So you're happy with 10/90 then?"

That is a worthless study that counted papers written by skeptics as in support of AGW,

http://www.popula...sts.html
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2014
http://www.breitb...the-moon

You can add this paper to the list of skeptics.
freeiam
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2014
So it is official, climate 'science' is rhetoric now.
PopTech
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
MR166, that is a report not a peer-reviewed paper.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
do these peer-reviewed papers ever mention the 'correct' amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
PopTech
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2014
Agomemnon, it is widely debated that what is considered the "correct" amount is subjective.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Anyone else notice how it's always Maggy's knickers in a twist?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2014
If you don't measure the heat in the ocean, how do you know it is there?
Heat is measured with a thermo-meter.
Oceans contain a lot of water and about half of that volume is below 5km and distributed over thousands of square km.
If you are not making any serious attempt to measure the 'missing heat' then maybe you need to reconsider that there is any heat missing.


Rygg2: Yes, one way to measure the heat in a body of water is to lower a thermometer through it. However, recall that heat also causes seawater to expand. So, an indirect measure of the heat contained in the oceans is to measure their expansion (which is done throughout the world). Expansion is a measure of the energy added to the water. That is then backed out of the measurements of the variables in the ocean. The science is "physical oceanography" and they are constantly improving those measurements. Hence, the knowledge of change of heat in the oceans.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
What is Agomemnon's problem, did he intentionally mis-read my post by asking this question
do these peer-reviewed papers ever mention the 'correct' amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Surely Agomemnon, you must have read my post about this, why not follow details instead of just asking the same thing again but in a different way.

You need to get a grounding in historical probabilities re climate at the time "just" before the greatest change attributable to man's industrial emissions.

Although Poptech suggested its subjective, that is not entirely true, you can base an assessment on objective data. Being subjective means more reliance on feel & vague idea. To approach objectivity in terms of quantitative data then the stats of just when CO2 started to rise most within last 100+ years will be able to point to a range of useful ideals.

As such there cannot be a correct setting, thats clearly why its not arrived at in journals which mostly concern themselves with quantitative data.
FrankTrades
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
This natural scientist remains completely unconvinced of significant
man-made influence on climate change. The climate is warming for sure, but that
has been the case for 12,000 years since the last of 4 glacial periods, over
the past 3 to 4 million years, has ended. As a result sea level has risen and
continues to rise. The last 3 times this happened, the earth somehow snapped
back to cooling -- to cooling that resulted in an ANOTHER ICE AGE! Since this
has happened NATURALLY, there is no reason to believe that it won't happen
again.

Furthermore, I do not see the influence of man's activity in the data for
sea level increase. That would be the place to look because air temperature
data is 1) unreliably sampled and 2) extremely volatile. Indeed my experience with earth temperature data is that it is prone to extremes and a high "background noise".. So let's look at some unbiased data for seal level rise:

http://tidesandcu...=8518750
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
@Mike_Massen

Based on his statement, what is the "correct" amount will always be subjective since it is a matter of opinion no matter what objective data you use to arrive at an answer. Someone suicidal could believe the "correct" amount is 0. An assessment would simply be someone's opinion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
, an indirect measure of the heat contained in the oceans is to measure their expansion

From 5000 meters?
Does the entire mass of water expand uniformly?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
PopTech offered a likely tangential view re interpretation of measurement vs assessment linguistics with
Based on his statement, what is the "correct" amount will always be subjective since it is a matter of opinion no matter what objective data you use to arrive at an answer.
I don't agree "Subjective" is the appropriate term as it's "..feelings, beliefs & desires..".

In terms of approaching the Science estimating a 'correct' level, it would be useful (first) to have a metric which is not based upon an (arbitrary) feeling & thus it would be more appropriate to answer re quantitative (historical data) relating to qualitative - in that return to a more appropriate CO2 level for a definable quality objectively discovered re historical data.

ie. In contemporary society where Science & research management is not sought & feelings vs facts are the status quo then Objective <-> Subjective is acceptable

But in Science research, I hope Quantitative <-> Qualitative is preferable.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
ryggesogn2 MUST have some mental problem when he claimed he has a degree in physics and yet asks a question he SHOULD be able to determine the answer to
From 5000 meters?
Does the entire mass of water expand uniformly?
Not heard of force of gravity & water compressibility & density changes then, see this:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water

Here is a clue ryggesogn2, read the article THEN the references...

ryggesogn2, use YOUR physics & mathematics training to, at least, look through the various test data where this has already been determined long ago.

As a claimed university physics graduate you, SHOULD be able to find that easily from many physics tables from your uni days !

Here is your chance to PROVE your claim you are a university physics graduate ?

Or else, stopping wasting our time expecting to be spoon fed and asking sporadic questions just guessing picks without a base hypothesis !

Like shooting fish in a barrel - lol.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
FrankTrades
This natural scientist remains completely unconvinced of significant
man-made influence on climate change.
As a claimed Scientist what is the metric for "significant" ?

FrankTrades
The climate is warming for sure, but that
has been the case for 12,000 years since the last of 4 glacial periods, over
the past 3 to 4 million years, has ended.
Careful, ice core data shows various local temperatures, it does not indicate global heat level.

Besides as a claimed Scientist, you should KNOW we are experience a high rate of change, comparable only to catastrophic events consistent with asteroid impacts (as far as we know).

FrankTrades
The last 3 times this happened, the earth somehow snapped
back to cooling -- to cooling that resulted in an ANOTHER ICE AGE! Since this
has happened NATURALLY, there is no reason to believe that it won't happen
again.
Wrong !

Get it, we have UNNATURALLY rapid CO2 emission.

230,000Litres/sec of petrol = a lot of CO2 & Heat & Fast !
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
jakack said
You may be correct in all that you state, but you have just proven that CO2, by itself is not a primary driver of global temperatures.
Notice Insolation at the top:-
http://en.wikiped...solation

By a great margin Earth is totally dependent upon heat from the Sun.

jackack needs to under Differentials
.. understand that there is a multitude of interactions, I am just trying to point out that the simplistic theory of CO2 = GW has no legs to stand on.
Not correct.

We are experiencing rapid CO2 rise which correlates reasonably well with collections of local temperatures & so far, consider
http://en.wikiped...of_water

You can appreciate anomalies Earth can continue receiving Sun's heat whilst Oceans & melt water can absorb heat with breaks in temp rise.

It is observed then, CO2 as produced by humans is the primary driver increasing heat retention by the Earth's atmosphere = AGW.

CO2's property of re-radiation experimentally Proven !
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
Mike said:
You need to get a grounding in historical probabilities re climate at the time "just" before the greatest change attributable to man's industrial emissions.
. To approach objectivity in terms of quantitative data then the stats of just when CO2 started to rise most within last 100+ years will be able to point to a range of useful ideals.
As such there cannot be a correct setting, thats clearly why its not arrived at in journals which mostly concern themselves with quantitative data

Let's look at some facts in regard to CO2:
150 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. In fact, if it were this low life on Earth would die. The last ice age we got to 180 ppm…dangerously low.
Why would looking at CO2 concentrations prior to 100+ years be able to point to a useful ideal?
What makes it ideal?
PopTech
1.4 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
Mike_Massen, you continue to not understand the context of how Agomemnon used the word "correct" which was defined as, "right according to your opinion or judgment of a situation". This is the same problem with what is "more appropriate" which is also subjective. It can be argued that a "more appropriate" CO2 level has not been reached.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
Agomemnon might wish to examine tangents & relative rates of change when he asks this question

Why would looking at CO2 concentrations prior to 100+ years be able to point to a useful ideal?
What makes it ideal?
Around this time is beginning of the industrial age, allowing for CO2 lag & trims suggests the level at that time, being just prior to where it rose more steeply (tangent).

ie. Would you want to adopt a level long after beginning of industrial era ?
No, because various lag's may be more problematic, in that the critical mass of combinatorial changes leading UP TO that level had likely not been presented due to lags in distribution or secondary effects where higher CO2 could have been responsible for some form of positive feedback/runaway type condition...

It would be sensible to find a time when the first largest changes in CO2 were noticeably well correlated with the beginning of accelerated industrial emissions - so as to minimise potential for positive feedback.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
PopTech getting oddly picky with
Mike_Massen, you continue to not understand the context of how Agomemnon used the word "correct" which was defined as, "right according to your opinion or judgment of a situation". This is the same problem with what is "more appropriate" which is also subjective. It can be argued that a "more appropriate" CO2 level has not been reached.
Not a matter of "..continue.." - guh !

Its a matter of the more appropriate linguistics in a Science framework.

Quantitative/Qualitative seems more sensible, in that context than Objective/Subjective.

The issue is moot as the assumption on which the question is based is obtuse & ill informed from a Science perspective but, needs to be addressed from a Science perspective in all that it implies.

Perhaps "Optimum" should have been better than "correct", even so, from that perspective the words - Quantitative/Qualitative have more import, if at least to focus on Science rather than wanting an arbitrary opinion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
So Mikey,
"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"
So if a satellite measures a volume change in the ocean, what is the temperature change at 4000 meters to make that change?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
ryggesogn2 PROVES yet again his claim he has a physics degree is a LIE with
"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"
So if a satellite measures a volume change in the ocean, what is the temperature change at 4000 meters to make that change?
The question assumes a static construct.
The Ocean is not static.
The Ocean is replete with currents.
The Currents are at various temperatures.
The Temperatures are not static.
The Currents are also at various densities.
The Densities are not static.
The Level of the Ocean is also not static.

YOU ryggesogn2 CLAIM to have a university degree in Physics which means you MUST have passed Calculus & you MUST have passed Probability & Statistics. And of course with Physics
training you MUST be able to read journals.

Therefore, YOU ryggesogn2 can work it out.

Or go away and STOP wasting everyone's time, especially yours.

Instead get a real university education.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
PopTech getting oddly picky with
Mike_Massen, you continue to not understand the context of how Agomemnon used the word "correct" which was defined as, "right according to your opinion or judgment of a situation". This is the same problem with what is "more appropriate" which is also subjective. It can be argued that a "more appropriate" CO2 level has not been reached.
Not a matter of "..continue.." - guh !

Its a matter of the more appropriate linguistics in a Science framework.


Mike..its simple. If you're arguing that CO2 is too high you have to have some level of the correct qty of CO2? What is it? Why?

If this can't be answered all your arguments and suppositions are moot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
Mikey, I didn't claim that the temperature of the ocean could be measure by its expansion:
" Yes, one way to measure the heat in a body of water is to lower a thermometer through it. However, recall that heat also causes seawater to expand. So, an indirect measure of the heat contained in the oceans is to measure their expansion (which is done throughout the world). Expansion is a measure of the energy added to the water. That is then backed out of the measurements of the variables in the ocean. The science is "physical oceanography" and they are constantly improving those measurements. Hence, the knowledge of change of heat in the oceans."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Then for thermo, how much water expanded to infer any temperature increase?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2014
Agomemnon claimed
Mike..its simple.
Thats the problem with many, its not simple but, simple people tend to love simple yes/no - that is a facet of determinism. Been discovered long ago probabilism is the more fitting reality - it hasn't got through to the uneducated public, they are resistant to understanding complexity.
If you're arguing that CO2 is too high you have to have some level of the correct qty of CO2?
No.
Who ultimately knows if its too high. I have been saying:-
- CO2 levels are rising
- CO2 has known thermal properties ie. re-radiation

The consequences are increasing heat, resulting in higher temperatures in general.

The effect is known physics/chem:-
- Expansion of water - rising sea levels - many issues there
- Acidification of the ocean - impacting on food production
- Some food plants switching to cyanogens - ie Cyanide
What is it? Why?
If this can't be answered all your arguments and suppositions are moot.
Answered.
Education is so important.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2014
Mike - you are correct there are known properties of CO2. You are incorrect in your fearful unscientific assumption as to what those are.

CO2 is rising. I consider that a good and will not be an issue unless we get to 2000 ppm (current is approx 400 ppm)

Rising sea levels - this is a non-issue as sea levels rise between ice-ages, where during they then retreat. Hence based upon the historical record..

Is CO2 a driver in the warming that occured (and recall there has been no warming for 17 years)....um..no. Obviously not. Based upon physics and based upon the historical record.

BTW- with more CO2 (like the level I say is good) food production is more efficient and will require less water to grow.

You can dispute what I said...but please use something resembling the scientific method. (you can look it up in Wikipedia)
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Agomemnon NEEDS to focus on details in Science not preoccupation of a hope
You are incorrect in your fearful unscientific assumption as to what those are.
Not fearful these are facts, not assumptions there are measurements.
CO2 is rising..will not be an issue unless we get to 2000 ppm..
Very bad idea but, what is metric please ?
..sea levels - this is a non-issue as sea levels rise between ice-ages
You are unaware millions live on/near river deltas & places like Tuvalu damage now !
You are also unaware of storm surge/swell.
..Based upon physics and based upon the historical record.
You are unaware of the properties of water "Latent heat of Fusion" which increases heat at no temp change !
.. more CO2.. food production is more efficient and will require less water...
You are unaware of plants adding more Cyanide, if plants grow more they must have MORE water, a structural component !!!

There is a lot u are unaware of !
See refs at bottom wiki as body editable.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Mike - you really lack the aptitude in the subject you attempt to browbeat others with. You have continued to open your mouth (or typewriter) and removed all doubt.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Great example questioner such as Agomemnon, couldn't or wouldn't answer my simple questions
Mike - you really lack the aptitude in the subject you attempt to browbeat others with.
Thats a very bad & strange Claim, I didn't "browbeat", I answered questions faithfully & directly to be aware of the issues and are absolutely true !
You have continued to open your mouth (or typewriter) and removed all doubt.
Doubt of what, the truth that:-

- CO2 levels rising
- CO2 demonstrable thermal properties

I hope you note: I have Never offered "Fearful" claims as you badly claim, I have offered Facts, you can decide if they are fearful & all are irrefutable, sorry !

Eg.

- Water expansion a fact
- Ocean CO2 absorption getting more acidic
- Water absorbs Massive heat
- Perturbation is dynamic

I want to hear from educated uni graduate deniers, their position ?

I don't make alarmist claims, I state facts, good Scientists do that but, are misunderstood.

The question arises, what to do ?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
@jakack "I acknowledge there are loads of peer reviewed papers out there to support AGW."

This is incorrect, only a small percentage of climate related papers even mention "Anthropogenic Global Warming".


This is incorrect, not the statement from jakcack. More than that, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of the bulk of the papers that discuss the subject.

poptech, most papers to not have the words "anthropogenic global warming" in them simply because the vast majority of scientists recognize the fact of global warming and no longer feel the need to express that fact when writing their papers. This is no different than geologists no longer mentioning the fact of plate tectonics when discussing volcanoes.

To present it differently, as you try to do here, is a misrepresentation. To suggest that just because a paper does not make specific reference to the fact of global warming means it does not support global warming is disingenuous at best, a deliberate lie at worst.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Doubt of what, the truth that:-

- CO2 levels rising
- CO2 demonstrable thermal properties

But the equations that use these facts don't reflect the real world.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also ACC/AGW Alarm. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
Your definition of "alarmist" is sensationalist, and your reference to a retired professor and one of the only experts who takes issue with SOME aspects of the alarmism surrounding research into the effects of (not the fact of) global warming is an exercise in biased sampling. You are looking for evidence, not considering evidence.

My criticism stands and I disagree with your characterization of that criticism as a "strawman ".
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.
I made specific reference to the fact that, when I made that comment, I had not looked further.

Worse, however, is that YOU are making a strawman argument! It is indeed important to look at the data being presented in support of a paper, and this is especially true in an area where the amount of data has grown exponentially since the advent of scientific studies of our climate. Citing papers that rely on outdated data or unknowns that are now known is an act of biased sampling and misrepresentation.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Using the argument that an older paper is still correct is a strawman, in that I did not argue counter to that. My criticism was based on the act of attributing a higher weighting to a paper only because it says something you want it to say. My criticism on that aspect stands.

Regarding this:
Furthermore, it seems you have included ANY article that mentions global warming, regardless of the field the article is from. That's a pretty biased sampling, in my opinion.
I reiterate; you have included ANY article from ANY field that mentions global warming. While those papers may be peer reviewed, in that the referees of the journals they are published in are "peers" in that particular field, that does not give the same weight as having the papers reviewed by climate scientists. That an electrical engineer argues against global warming and does so in an electrical engineering journal does not mean he has the knowledge base to support his challenge AS IT RELATES TO CLIMATE.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014

"1300 articles against versus 13,000 for. (http://www.skepti...ced.htm) So you're happy with 10/90 then?"

That is a worthless study that counted papers written by skeptics as in support of AGW.
This is the most disingenuous thing you have said so far. It is certainly a more worthwhile study than your act of simply gathering any article that remotely or otherwise counters global warming, and presenting it as anything other than an interesting side show.

The articles used by Nutucelli et al can be accessed here: http://www.skepti.../tcp.php If you have criticisms of their methods or findings, please express them as criticisms, not a blanket "oh that's worthless" as you did in this thread.

I find your comment especially repugnant considering the effort you have undertaken to legitimize your list. Just because you have faced unfair criticism does not give you the right to denigrate the efforts of others.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014

Mike..its simple. If you're arguing that CO2 is too high you have to have some level of the correct qty of CO2? What is it? Why?

If this can't be answered all your arguments and suppositions are moot.


You are constructing a strawman argument. The level of co2 in the atmosphere is no more or less "correct" now than at any other time in Earth's history. It is not a matter of what is "correct" it is the degree and speed of change precipitated by a sudden, large influx of co2.

The amount of co2 that has been added to the atmosphere has only occurred in geologic history at a time when intense volcanism created the Deccan and Siberian traps, and both of those events covered hundreds or even thousands of years. Our burning of fossil fuels has increased the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere on par with those events in the space of a century!

THAT is the issue.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, did Cook et al. falsely classify skeptic papers claiming to know more than the authors? The fact that they did is irrefutable;

http://www.popula...sts.html

Calling the "study" with egregious errors like this worthless is accurate.

PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
poptech, most papers to not have the words "anthropogenic global warming" in them simply because the vast majority of scientists recognize the fact of global warming and no longer feel the need to express that fact when writing their papers. [...]

To present it differently, as you try to do here, is a misrepresentation. To suggest that just because a paper does not make specific reference to the fact of global warming means it does not support global warming is disingenuous at best, a deliberate lie at worst.

No poll of the world's scientists has ever been done to determine a majorities position on climate change, please stop making unproven arguments (I am not interested in any of the propaganda "consensus" studies). What is disingenuous is claiming support for AGW when no mention of such is made anywhere in a paper. It is one thing to ask an author's opinion, it is quite another to claim support without doing so.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
CO2 is rising. I consider that a good and will not be an issue unless we get to 2000 ppm (current is approx 400 ppm)
Please, do expand on why you think this makes sense? The last time the Earth's co2 levels reached this mark were about 50 MILLION years ago (see Pearson, PN & Palmer, NR "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years." Nature Aug 2000) during the PETM and caused a 6C rise in temperatures, but this rise was over the course of millions of years (with some hyperthermals lasting about 200,000 years). On what grounds can you possibly believe such a thing over the course of a couple of HUNDRED years would be "good"?
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, My definition is relevant to the context of the list, falsely characterizing the list as anything other than what is presented is disingenuous. It is impossible for a list with a specific objective to be "biased" as it does not discriminate between competing skeptic theories or arguments. The purpose of the list is clearly explicitly ,

http://www.popula...#Purpose

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;

I have many more scientific experts who are skeptics, those are simply two examples. It is not possible for a strawman argument to stand. You are of course free to continue to misrepresent the list.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
I made specific reference to the fact that, when I made that comment, I had not looked further.

Your comment was a false implication now refuted and absolutely absurd regardless.

Worse, however, is that YOU are making a strawman argument! It is indeed important to look at the data being presented in support of a paper...

Strawman, my argument was based on publication date only.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, did Cook et al. falsely classify skeptic papers claiming to know more than the authors? The fact that they did is irrefutable;

http://www.popula...sts.html

Calling the "study" with egregious errors like this worthless is accurate.
So saying it twice makes it somehow less wrong than saying it once? The fact that they DID NOT "falsely classify" anything is beyond refute, and your continued attempts to denigrate their efforts paints YOU in a cloak of denial! Furthermore, linking to YOUR OWN blog to support your libelous, derogatory statement is the height of poor taste!

I say to you again, if you have a specific criticism, then make it! Don't hide behind the skirts of denialism, support your case!
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
[b]Regarding this: [While those papers may be peer reviewed, in that the referees of the journals they are published in are "peers" in that particular field, that does not give the same weight as having the papers reviewed by climate scientists.[/b]
Again, you do not understand the peer-review process and this addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] does not have relevant reviewers.

Rebuttal: The criteria for reviewers is similar for all scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Reviewers are always credentialed experts relevant to the subject matter of the paper not the journal. Being independent volunteers, reviewers are not part of a journal's staff and can review for any journal.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
So saying it twice makes it somehow less wrong than saying it once? The fact that they DID NOT "falsely classify" anything is beyond refute, and your continued attempts to denigrate their efforts paints YOU in a cloak of denial! Furthermore, linking to YOUR OWN blog to support your libelous, derogatory statement is the height of poor taste!

I say to you again, if you have a specific criticism, then make it! Don't hide behind the skirts of denialism, support your case!

Oh Really? Are these scientists lying? Why are you and Cook trying to libel these scientists?

http://www.popula...sts.html

Were you unable to read their replies or do you not understand the argument? I have never seen anything like this before.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 mumbles linguistic rubbish with
- CO2 levels rising
- CO2 demonstrable thermal properties
But the equations that use these facts don't reflect the real world.
Ok, so you accept these facts, thats a start - as a graduate in physics you KNOW you can confirm them anyway, so no argument there at all, one difficult hurdle with ryggesogn2 passed - hoorah !

Now, you CLAIM you have equations, offer them please as any GOOD graduate of PHYSICS !

But,
As a claimed university physics graduate why can't you reply in scientific terms commensurate with your training or are you just poking this way and that & wasting everyone's time all over again & again & again, never apologizing for lying...!

What the f..k do you mean by "don't reflect the real world" ?

These (demonstrable) facts are based on real world physics, so ryggesogn2, they are experimentally tested many many times, how is it not REAL, ryggesogn2 FFS, you MUST obviously have a screw loose again & again ?

Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, you could gain a little bit of credibility if you included a disclaimer that many of the papers included in your listed come from institutions with a political/policy agenda.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014

No poll of the world's scientists has ever been done to determine a majorities position on climate change, please stop making unproven arguments (I am not interested in any of the propaganda "consensus" studies). What is disingenuous is claiming support for AGW when no mention of such is made anywhere in a paper. It is one thing to ask an author's opinion, it is quite another to claim support without doing so.
Obfuscation. Several polls of scientists have been conducted, all of which support the consensus position. Please stop making false arguments based entirely on your decision to reject the proof you don't like.

It is one thing to make a blanket claim of usefulness, it is quite another to suggest the factuality of that claim based purely on a desire that it be so.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
Obfuscation. Several polls of scientists have been conducted, all of which support the consensus position. Please stop making false arguments based entirely on your decision to reject the proof you don't like


As a matter of fact, that is how this web site http://www.thecon...ect.com/ came into being.
not only from a STUDY what was done on consensus of scientists, but to help others understand what is going on
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Again, you do not understand the peer-review process and this addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section,

Criticism: Journal [Insert Name] does not have relevant reviewers.

Rebuttal: The criteria for reviewers is similar for all scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Reviewers are always credentialed experts relevant to the subject matter of the paper not the journal. Being independent volunteers, reviewers are not part of a journal's staff and can review for any journal.
I can't believe someone would make this statement in good conscience! Reviewers are chosen by journals based on their knowledge of the material published by the journal. It makes no more sense to have a climate scientist review an electrical engineer's paper than having a chemist review an orthodontist's paper. That you would make that blanket comment is disingenuous, and suggests that YOU don't know how peer review works!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Mikey, the the equations used to create AGW panic do not predict what is happening.
Maybe the equations that use CO2 data are not correct.
BTW, the equations that use the CO2 data do not really use first principle CO2 data. CO2 data is 'tuned' to what the modelers expect, and then the model is still spitting out bad data.
GIGO.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 implies but can't follow through
Mikey, the the equations used to create AGW panic do not predict what is happening.
What equations you claim, show them !
Maybe the equations that use CO2 data are not correct.
Rather more likely is you don't have the equations for intelligent comment !
BTW, the equations that use the CO2 data do not really use first principle CO2 data.
Prove it, show them
CO2 data is 'tuned' to what the modelers expect, and then the model is still spitting out bad data. GIGO.
Prove it show them.

Did you not understand combinatorial complexity of modelling ?

Did you not understand chaotic systems ?

Did you not understand my comments re asymptotes ?

Did you not read my questions as you haven't answered them ?

Did you not cover the details as I asked ?

Did you not understand we don't have heat data for ice core temperatures ?

Did you not understand that to tell lies about your claimed university physics degree makes you an idiot ?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014

Oh Really? Are these scientists lying? Why are you and Cook trying to libel these scientists?

http://www.popula...sts.html

Were you unable to read their replies or do you not understand the argument? I have never seen anything like this before.
No, I am saying that you are making a false claim by using a tiny, biased sample to support your contention that there is no consensus. Furthermore, I have seen the arguments of Cook et al and taken the time to review some of the papers they discuss, along with their stated methods, and I feel they are, if anything, assigning TOO LOW a rating to most of those papers which I, myself read.

Your argument fails! You are using a red herring fallacy and biased sampling to reach a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence you supply in support of it. It is YOU who apparently has trouble understanding the argument!
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, Many thanks for your well thought and informative posts here and on other threads. I've been following developments in climate science since the early 80s and my frustration with the deniers is only matched by the difficulty in expressing myself after suffering a "mild" stroke this past summer. I'm slowly improving but it is a slog. Keep up the good fight. Same goes for Stumpy, Mike and others here that understand the science.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
The amount of co2 that has been added to the atmosphere has only occurred in geologic history at a time when intense volcanism created the Deccan and Siberian traps, and both of those events covered hundreds or even thousands of years. Our burning of fossil fuels has increased the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere on par with those events in the space of a century!
I made a mistake here. The formation of the traps covered tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, Many thanks for your well thought and informative posts here and on other threads. I've been following developments in climate science since the early 80s and my frustration with the deniers is only matched by the difficulty in expressing myself after suffering a "mild" stroke this past summer. I'm slowly improving but it is a slog. Keep up the good fight. Same goes for Stumpy, Mike and others here that understand the science.
Thanks Vietvet! I'm sure it is a slog, and I hope you recover quickly and completely!
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
What equations you claim, show them

They are in the failing climate models.
Did you not understand chaotic systems ?

Do you?
If you did, how can you claim any model of an emergent, chaotic system like climate can make valid predictions even in the near term?
"But in fact what's realized now is that unpredictability is very common, it's not just some special case. It's very common for dynamical system to exhibit extreme unpredictability, in the sense that you can perfectly define equations, but the solutions can unpredictable to a degree that makes it quite unreasonable to use the formal causality built into the equations as the basis for any intelligent philosophy of prediction."
"A Passion for Science", Wolpert & Richards, Oxford U. Press,1988 p.43.
If it really matters to you, the comment above is from a theoretical physicist.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
@Maggnus, My definition is relevant to the context of the list, falsely characterizing the list as anything other than what is presented is disingenuous. It is impossible for a list with a specific objective to be "biased" as it does not discriminate between competing skeptic theories or arguments. The purpose of the list is clearly explicitly ...snip...

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise; .
I am not sure what you consider a false characterization, considering you accuse me of such and I see no such characterization of your list in my comments. Furthermore, I have enough respect for your compilation that I have book marked it for my own references, and I have taken the last couple of days to read a number of the references on that list. My criticisms are not made blindly, unlike yours made of Cook et al's work.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Furthermore poptech, your claim that your site lists contrary papers that are intended "to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;" is disingenuous in that there has been no claim that there are no such papers. The claim is that they make up a minority of the papers published, and that they amount to no more than 3 to 6% of all such papers. Therefore your stated purpose for the list as put here is in opposition to your stated purpose for that list in the preface of the list itself. So which purpose are we to believe?
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, you could gain a little bit of credibility if you included a disclaimer that many of the papers included in your listed come from institutions with a political/policy agenda.

@Vietvet you have already made this baseless claim. The peer-reviewed scholarly journal, "The Cato Journal" represents exactly 2 papers on the list. So why would I lie about the list by posting a fraudulent disclaimer like this? Your cherry picking exercise is an utter failure.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Obfuscation. Several polls of scientists have been conducted, all of which support the consensus position. Please stop making false arguments based entirely on your decision to reject the proof you don't like.

It is one thing to make a blanket claim of usefulness, it is quite another to suggest the factuality of that claim based purely on a desire that it be so.

This is a factual statement, none of those polls are comprehensive let alone representative of the world's scientific community. Every single one of the so called "consensus" studies is fatally flawed and cannot be used as a valid argument of a consensus position one way or the other. As of right now the current position of the scientific community in relation to AGW is unknown. I make no claims based on any "desires" but rather what is known.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
This is a factual statement, none of those polls are comprehensive let alone representative of the world's scientific community. Every single one of the so called "consensus" studies is fatally flawed and cannot be used as a valid argument of a consensus position one way or the other. As of right now the current position of the scientific community in relation to AGW is unknown. I make no claims based on any "desires" but rather what is known.
Horse manure! Every single one of those studies is peer reviewed and together form an unassailable argument that that vast majority (something like 97%) of all climate scientists agree that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing warming of the global climate. Your ardent DESIRE that it not be so not withstanding!
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
I can't believe someone would make this statement in good conscience! Reviewers are chosen by journals based on their knowledge of the material published by the journal. It makes no more sense to have a climate scientist review an electrical engineer's paper than having a chemist review an orthodontist's paper. That you would make that blanket comment is disingenuous, and suggests that YOU don't know how peer review works!

Incorrect, you did not even understand what I stated. If an electrical engineering journal has a paper that covers climate change relating to electrical engineering than there would be two sets of reviewers - both electrical engineers and climate scientists. This is how the peer-review process works. This is why interdisciplinary journals have diverse editorial advisory boards to help with the selection of appropriate reviewers. It is myth that scholarly journals only employ the services of a select field of reviewers.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
I make a further claim here; based on the papers that I, myself, have read, I contend that many of the papers you have cited as having a position on human caused global warming DO NOT, in fact, dispute human caused global warming or alarmism as you contend, and, at best, can be considered to have a neutral position on the subject.

PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
No, I am saying that you are making a false claim by using a tiny, biased sample to support your contention that there is no consensus.

Strawman, that was not my arugment. I am using irrefutable evidence to show that the methods employed by Cook et al. is worthless. The Cook et al. paper is the laughing stock of the climate science community and has been thoroughly discredited. Any "study" that falsely classifies KNOWN skeptic papers as endorsing AGW is worthless.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Incorrect, you did not even understand what I stated. If an electrical engineering journal has a paper that covers climate change relating to electrical engineering than there would be two sets of reviewers - both electrical engineers and climate scientists. This is how the peer-review process works. This is why interdisciplinary journals have diverse editorial advisory boards to help with the selection of appropriate reviewers. It is myth that scholarly journals only employ the services of a select field of reviewers.
A factual statement then. Ok, prove it. I say that an electrical engineering journal reviewing a paper from an electrical engineer discussing electrical engineering aspects of global warming would not have any representation from climate sciences and that your contention that they would is false.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Furthermore poptech, your claim that your site lists contrary papers that are intended "to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;" is disingenuous in that there has been no claim that there are no such papers.

Wrong, again you failed to read the list,

http://www.popula...#Purpose

"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004)

Why do you keep making things up?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
Strawman, that was not my arugment. I am using irrefutable evidence to show that the methods employed by Cook et al. is worthless. The Cook et al. paper is the laughing stock of the climate science community and has been thoroughly discredited. Any "study" that falsely classifies KNOWN skeptic papers as endorsing AGW is worthless.
You have provided no such evidence, and my argument is not a "strawman". You seem to misunderstand the meaning of that fallacy.

Furthermore, your contention that the Cook et al paper is a "laughing stock" is not supported by the evidence of comments by the majority of climate scientists, and you have provided exactly nothing to support your wild and inflammatory contention that it has been discredited.

That YOU say it is meaningless in the context of the science and speaks clearly to YOUR biased view of any subject matter touching on the science behind global warming.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
I make a further claim here; based on the papers that I, myself, have read, I contend that many of the papers you have cited as having a position on human caused global warming DO NOT, in fact, dispute human caused global warming or alarmism as you contend, and, at best, can be considered to have a neutral position on the subject.

Strawman, I never made this claim. The list explicitly says that all the papers "support skeptic arguments" against Alarmism.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
No poll of the world's scientists has ever been done

@PopTech
will a study do? (for Otto's sake: that would be a PAPER published and peer reviewed, but also linked publicy on Skeptical science)
From http://www.thecon...ect.com/ click ABOUT
The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed papers on "global warming" or "global climate change". Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus[sic]
http://www.skepti...nsus.pdf

http://iopscience.../024024/
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
...snip...
"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State and Failed U.S. Presidential Candidate (2004)

Why do you keep making things up?
I am not interested in your obfuscation in using the mistaken comments of some US politician as the basis upon which to make the blanket and incorrect allegation that all people who support the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere claim there is no research counter to the proposal, when all of the scientific discussions of consensus speak clearly to the fact that 3 too 6% of papers argue aainst that premise!

Why do you resort to appeals to authority as the basis for your incorrect allegations?
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
A factual statement then. Ok, prove it. I say that an electrical engineering journal reviewing a paper from an electrical engineer discussing electrical engineering aspects of global warming would not have any representation from climate sciences and that your contention that they would is false.

Then it is clear you have no experience with the peer-review process. First of all journals only take on such papers if they are in their broader scope as there are no "pure" electrical engineering journals on the list. Journals that have a broader scope have an editorial advisory board to support this and thus obtain relevant reviewers to the contents of the paper. I am contacting journals right now and will have to wait for their reply but I will obtain verifiable proof that is known to anyone who publishes.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
the difficulty in expressing myself after suffering a "mild" stroke this past summer. I'm slowly improving but it is a slog

@Vietvet
hang in there & keep pushing yourself! Took me a year to learn how to walk again after getting blowed up. Still walk funny and with a cane most of the time.
This is a factual statement, none of those polls are comprehensive let alone representative of the world's scientific community. Every single one of the so called "consensus" studies is fatally flawed and cannot be used as a valid argument of a consensus position one way or the other

@PopTech
ok, above you make a conjecture based upon WHAT evidence
PROVE that the Consensus project paper that I linked is FLAWED, please
it is a STUDY that included all publications in the last 2 decades + one year.
Please describe the FLAW in the study so that we can all see it and petition the publisher to retract it.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Strawman, I never made this claim. The list explicitly says that all the papers "support skeptic arguments" against Alarmism.
Again, not a strawman and you should really look up the meaning of that fallasic argument.

My contention remains; many of the papers you cite do not, in fact, support skeptic arguments against alarmism, and, at best, they take no position on the subject.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
You have provided no such evidence, and my argument is not a "strawman". You seem to misunderstand the meaning of that fallacy.

It is a strawman to claim that my evidence against the Cook et al. paper is arguing "that there is no consensus" when I am explicitly arguing against the METHODOLOGY of the paper. Your argument was a text book strawman logical fallacy.

Everyone that is not an alarmist ideologue completely rejects Cook et al. once I show them that they falsely classified skeptic papers. It is one of the worst papers in the history of climate science and will remembered as such,

http://www.popula...sts.html
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
I am not interested in your obfuscation in using the mistaken comments of some US politician as the basis upon which to make the blanket and incorrect allegation that all people who support the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere claim there is no research counter to the proposal,

You are the master of Strawman arguments, I never claimed "all people" support anything. I specifically said that the claim was made and not just by John Kerry. Why are you intent on misrepresenting what I say and what my position is? Prior to the existence of my list (pre-2009) these claims were much more frequent online. Thus my list exists to refute this notion that still pops up from time to time.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Then it is clear you have no experience with the peer-review process. First of all journals only take on such papers if they are in their broader scope as there are no "pure" electrical engineering journals on the list. Journals that have a broader scope have an editorial advisory board to support this and thus obtain relevant reviewers to the contents of the paper. I am contacting journals right now and will have to wait for their reply but I will obtain verifiable proof that is known to anyone who publishes.
You quibble and play loosely with the facts. I agree with what you say here, in general, and this is not the basis of my criticism.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Horse manure! Every single one of those studies is peer reviewed and together form an unassailable argument that that vast majority (something like 97%) of all climate scientists agree that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing warming of the global climate. Your ardent DESIRE that it not be so not withstanding!

Only if you don't understand the "studies" used to derive this nonsense as each is fatally flawed. The 97% figure is bogus propaganda that has been completely refuted and only accepted by alarmists ideologues.
PopTech
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
My contention remains; many of the papers you cite do not, in fact, support skeptic arguments against alarmism, and, at best, they take no position on the subject.

Your contention is completely false, name one.

(the 3 minute post limit is aggravating as I cannot possibly reply to more than one person at a time)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
(the 3 minute post limit is aggravating as I cannot possibly reply to more than one person at a time)

@PopTech
ok, I can understand this, however... you made a claim
Only if you don't understand the "studies" used to derive this nonsense as each is fatally flawed.

and I posted links to a study above
given that your claim has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE while the above claim I made, consensus, is backed by a peer reviewed study as well as other information freely available,
then I challenge you to show the flaw in the study
and when that is done, you can file a grievance or request for removal on those grounds
but until then, making the claim
the "studies" used to derive this nonsense as each is fatally flawed

is personal conjecture without evidence based upon your beliefs (your comment can also be considered libel) and has every bit the same legitimacy as "fairy farts make/cause hurricanes"
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
You are the master of Strawman arguments, I never claimed "all people" support anything. I specifically said that the claim was made and not just by John Kerry. Why are you intent on misrepresenting what I say and what my position is? Prior to the existence of my list (pre-2009) these claims were much more frequent online. Thus my list exists to refute this notion that still pops up from time to time.
You said, and I quote:
to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;
and my argument was, has been, and remains that the existence of such papers is explicitly admitted by the very studies of consensus which repeatedly state that 3 to 6% of the peer reviewed papers considered are in opposition to the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the global climate to warm. Your wording is (probably purposefully) couched in a manner that suggests "anyone who agrees with global warming claims".
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, So The Indepentent Review doesn't have an agenda?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2014
My contention remains; many of the papers you cite do not, in fact, support skeptic arguments against alarmism, and, at best, they take no position on the subject.

Your contention is completely false, name one.

(the 3 minute post limit is aggravating as I cannot possibly reply to more than one person at a time)


I was hoping you would ask! http://onlinelibr...ntenance A discussion of the Dyer-Tyson cycle in Southern Africa. You've apparently included it as it discusses periodical rainfall levels, but it has nothing to do with either global warming nor alarmism.

And yes the 3 minute thing can be frustrating.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Only if you don't understand the "studies" used to derive this nonsense as each is fatally flawed. The 97% figure is bogus propaganda that has been completely refuted and only accepted by alarmists ideologues.
Grandstanding. The number is generally accepted except by those whose desire is to obfuscate and those who insist a conspiracy of scientists led by some mythical cabal.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
to prove that these papers exist contrary to claims otherwise;
and my argument was, has been, and remains that the existence of such papers is explicitly admitted by the very studies of consensus which repeatedly state that 3 to 6% of the peer reviewed papers considered are in opposition to the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the global climate to warm. Your wording is (probably purposefully) couched in a manner that suggests "anyone who agrees with global warming claims".

I have never seen ANYONE fabricate a blatant lie about the purpose of my list before. My wording is exact and I provide two explicit examples (on the list) to support it which has nothing to do with the bogus 97% studies. Please keep your strawman arguments to yourself and please stop misrepresenting my list. Unreal, if someone is not arguing that no papers exist than this argument obviously does not apply to them and I have never claimed it did.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, So The Indepentent Review doesn't have an agenda?

No, but it is published by another libertarian think tank. Are you numerically challenged? How many papers are on the list from The Independent Review? Your cherry picking exercises are getting pathetic.

Captain Stumpy apparently cannot click on links that I have posted multiple times.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Captain Stumpy apparently cannot click on links that I have posted multiple times.

@PopTech
I want to know SPECIFICALLY what you are referring to in the peer reviewed publication that I provided that is fatally flawed

GIVEN that I gave a specific account, and that you make a remark about that account, albeit indirectly, as you referred to all studies generally

THEN it is my prerogative to specifically request your EVIDENCE that REFUTES the STUDY THAT I POSTED

Give me SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE STUDY IS
fatally flawed

provide your definition of FATALLY FLAWED with specific reasoning

as I chose a specific report, you give a specific answer with supporting evidence, just like I did
only seems fair (it also gives you the ability to provide direct proof) so DO IT

or is this your attempt at obfuscation and an attempt to distract from your lack of evidence?
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
A discussion of the Dyer-Tyson cycle in Southern Africa. You've apparently included it as it discusses periodical rainfall levels, but it has nothing to do with either global warming nor alarmism.

Strawman, the list has nothing to do with "global warming" as all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. Papers are included because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. The CC stands for "climate change". This paper explicitly discusses climate change and supports skeptic arguments for a larger Lunar influence on climate change relating to rainfall. Did you fail to notice the paper is the in "Lunar" section?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
or is this your attempt at obfuscation and an attempt to distract from your lack of evidence?

@PopTech
so, given your downvote and your silence, we can then assume that:
1- you have NO evidence
2- the study is legitimate and stands as irrefutable proof against your claims
3- your claims are then biased for personal/mental reasons
4- your continuing argument elsewhere is most likely due to obfuscation or distraction
5- your further attempts are disingenuous at best, but are predominantly driven by a need to conjure some validity for your conspiratorial stance

Feel free to add anything that I might have missed...

but I would prefer that you directly addressed the study, as then we can take those comments and address them directly to the authors, which would allow them to directly refute your claims

I'll check back in a couple of hours for your refute.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
"A Japanese scientist called on Monday for his own headline-grabbing study on stem cells to be withdrawn from publication, saying its findings had now been thrown into too much doubt."
"The research - hailed when it came out in January as a breakthrough that could herald a new era of medical biology - was covered widely in Japan and across the world after it was published in the highly reputable science journal Nature."
http://www.reuter...20140310
And 'Nature' peer reviewed this paper?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
"Democrats were also slammed for organizing the 14-hour "Climate Talkathon" to please San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, who has pledged $100 million to make global warming a top tier issue in this year's elections."
""But for most of these folks, they just want to talk all night. They don't want to do anything, they just want to talk," Barrasso added. "It's astonishing that the most vulnerable Democrats did not show their faces last night."

Four Democrats — Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — did not show up last night because they face tough re-election races this November."

Read more: http://dailycalle...vh6z52PE
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, Found another, Economic Affairs, same agenda as Cato.
PopTech
1.1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, Found another, Economic Affairs, same agenda as Cato.

Yawn, that is 6 more papers are you actually counting? IEA is not the same as Cato and you are still missing one by another think tank. I'll help you out, there are little more than a dozen such peer-reviewed papers on the list, remove them and you still have 1350+. Which makes your "many" claim a complete fabrication and your cherry picking exercise futile.

PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, So The Indepentent Review doesn't have an agenda?

Like all journals it states its "agenda",

http://www.indepe...ons/tir/

"...interdisciplinary journal devoted to the study of political economy and the critical analysis of government policy."

Again, this journal is peer-reviewed and listed in the ISI,

http://science.th...086-1653
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Captain Stumpy is apparently not following my conversation with Maggnus or cannot click on links.
PopTech
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Grandstanding. The number is generally accepted except by those whose desire is to obfuscate and those who insist a conspiracy of scientists led by some mythical cabal.

Grandstanding. The number is generally rejected except by those whose desire is to promote alarmism and those who try to smear skeptics as conspiracy theorists.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
I have never seen ANYONE fabricate a blatant lie about the purpose of my list before. My wording is exact and I provide two explicit examples (on the list) to support it which has nothing to do with the bogus 97% studies.
You have an issue with word comprehension as well it seems. I'll try to explain it using smaller words so you can understand it.

I did not say it had anything to do with the scientific consensus, as robust as that may be. I said that your allegation that those who support the premise of global warming claim that there are no peer reviewed papers opposing this premise is not true, and your list (which YOU said "exists to refute this notion that still pops up from time to time") does not change the fact that those on the majority side of the equation do not make the claim you allege.

I further state that your use of two quotes from US politicians is immaterial and a gross exaggeration of the position of most scientists, as your 3-6% of papers is admitted.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
It's interesting now how the AGWites are not beginning to sound like lawyers.
But then their 'dear leader', Mann, has resorted to using lawyers, not science, to state his case.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
all skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
All? You speak for them all then?
Papers are included because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. The CC stands for "climate change". This paper explicitly discusses climate change and supports skeptic arguments for a larger Lunar influence on climate change relating to rainfall. Did you fail to notice the paper is the in "Lunar" section?
This paper is silent to the question of cause, and says nothing to alarm. Therefore, this paper does not support your stated purpose of the list, which makes you a liar and a fraud, at least as it relates to your stated purpose of what this list is for.

Wow, you twist and turn better than McIntyre does!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Grandstanding. The number is generally accepted except by those whose desire is to obfuscate and those who insist a conspiracy of scientists led by some mythical cabal.

Grandstanding. The number is generally rejected except by those whose desire is to promote alarmism and those who try to smear skeptics as conspiracy theorists.
Apparently math is not a strong suit either! You call it a smear, yet your very premise that your list is needed to counter some nebulous group that is conspiring to hide the "real" evidence is the exact conspiracist dogma I speak to. I suggest you are making the exact argument of the conspiracist crowd, and I further suggest that your wording and attitude display the common denialist agenda we have come to expect on any science site daring to allow discussions of global warming.

A good number of the papers you cite do not take the position you say they do. I can say that because I have read a number of them now. Can you say the same?
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
You have an issue with logical fallacies.

I said that your allegation that those who support the premise of global warming claim that there are no peer reviewed papers opposing this premise is not true, and your list (which YOU said "exists to refute this notion that still pops up from time to time") does not change the fact that those on the majority side of the equation do not make the claim you allege.

Perpetual Strawman argument, I made no such "allegation" you are.

I further state that your use of two quotes from US politicians is immaterial and a gross exaggeration of the position of most scientists,

Strawman, I made no such argument in relation to the "position of most scientists".

Your arguments are gross exaggerations and wild distortions of mine.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
All? You speak for them all then?

For this specific argument, it is well known.

This paper is silent to the question of cause, and says nothing to alarm. Therefore, this paper does not support your stated purpose of the list, which makes you a liar and a fraud, at least as it relates to your stated purpose of what this list is for.

Where is it claimed on the list that the papers must be explicit to the question of cause or alarm? It is made quite clear that the papers only need to "support a skeptic argument" it does not say how. I just explained how it supports the purpose of the list by supporting skeptic arguments for a larger Lunar influence on climate change. Your rejection of this clear explanation makes you the liar and fraud.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Apparently math is not a strong suit either! You call it a smear, yet your very premise that your list is needed to counter some nebulous group that is conspiring to hide the "real" evidence is the exact conspiracist dogma I speak to. I suggest you are making the exact argument of the conspiracist crowd, and I further suggest that your wording and attitude display the common denialist agenda we have come to expect on any science site daring to allow discussions of global warming.

Perpetual strawman, no such argument is made on the list. I spoke of no such "conspiracy" but of factual beliefs that I explicitly quoted. One of the purposes of the list is to debunk the myth that no such papers exist. Why do insist on lying and trying to smear me as a conspiracy theorist because you are unable to debate with intellectual honesty? Your fabrication of a premise I never made is astoundingly dishonest. WTF does math have to do with your argument?
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
A good number of the papers you cite do not take the position you say they do. I can say that because I have read a number of them now. Can you say the same?

Strawman, I don't claim the papers explicitly say anything. If alarmists claim hurricanes are getting worse due to AGW and I use a paper that shows hurricanes have not increased in intensity or strength, yet this paper makes no such explicit argument relating to "climate change" or "alarmism", it can still be used to "support skeptic arguments against alarm". This is not very difficult to understand. Every single paper on the list supports a skeptic argument.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, Earlier Maggnus pointed out the age of some papers and he has a valid argument. Reading some of the papers from the 80s and 90s I was struck by what may have seemed reasonable arguments against AGW then are laughable now in light of newer research.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Captain Stumpy is apparently not following my conversation with Maggnus or cannot click on links

@PooTech
actually, I have been following
but I asked a specific question, to a specific paper, that you referred to as
fatally flawed

therefore, PLEASE SHOW WHERE THE PAPER I LINKED WAS FATALLY FLAWED

Dont like the fact that the evidence is against you?
Nice re-direct attempt, too bad I am going to ignore it

now... I made NO gross exaggeration, like YOU did with your "fatally flawed" comment
I am asking for SPECIFIC INFORMATION on a SPECIFIC PAPER so that we can DEBATE THE SPECIFICS

You came with an agenda to "prove" something, and made a general statement that was wrong, and I aim to prove it, whether you like it or not...

and given your inability to address the study, I would say that it was proof that you are lying and cannot refute it

Therefore your statement is biased and without merit

PopTech
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
@Vietvet, pointing out that papers are "wrong" because of the publication date is not a valid argument. The fact that alarmists do not like the papers is not new and has nothing to do with whether the papers exist or were peer-reviewed.
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
Captain Stumpy has resulted to childish name calling instead of trying to read the conversation where I have posted the link multiple times that shows why the Cook et al. paper is fatally flawed. Lets see if he can learn to click on links.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, I wasn't pointing out they were "wrong" because of the published date. I was pointing out that they should be withdrawn because they are now wrong.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
Captain Stumpy has resulted to childish name calling instead of trying to read the conversation where I have posted the link multiple times that shows why the Cook et al. paper is fatally flawed. Lets see if he can learn to click on links

@PooTech
no, the Captain wants you to SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS the hypothetical FATAL FLAW in writing so that he can then go DIRECTLY to the source (the authors) and get THEIR POINT OF VIEW so that he can then bring more valid information to the discussion instead of making blanket accusations and posturing like a Banty rooster after his first female lay.
So...
GIVE ME A PEER REVIEWED STUDY THAT PROVES BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT THE PAPER WAS FATALLY FLAWED

P.S. you should be held accountable to the same standard that they were: peer review etc
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
@Vietvet no paper is removed from the list because an alarmist does not like them. Papers are only removed from the list if they are retracted by the journal.

Childish name callers who cannot click on links will be ignored.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, I know in the real world papers are only withdrawn by the author/s or journals when they are proven wrong, just as happened today. Can you admit some of the papers on your list are no longer correct in light of scientific findings?

If I hadn't been clicking on links I wouldn't be here.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2014
Childish name callers who cannot click on links will be ignored.

@pop
I am assuming this is directed at me
first off... you have YET to provide PROOF that the STUDY I LINKED WAS FATALLY FLAWED

second: this proof MUST BE PROOF OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE STUDY LINKED

is your link a peer reviewed study?
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2014
@PopTech, I need to edit my last comment. Journals only withdraw a paper for misconduct, falsification of data etc. I have not called anyone a childish name.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2014
Childish name callers who cannot click on links will be ignored.

@PopTech
you are saying Banty rooster is childish? I thought it appropriate given your conduct

so, what we have here is your INABILITY to produce a study that has the same validity as the study I linked, which was PEER REVIEWED and published
you consider yourself someone who provides "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" (Copyright © 2004-2014 Popular Technology)
then by all means, I wish to see a PAPER that is PEER REVIEWED that meets the SAME PUBLISHING CRITERIA as the one I listed PROVING that the paper I posted was FATALLY FLAWED.
Now, given that the National Enquirer as well as the EU/Thunderbolts also publish on the internet, your rag column cannot be taken at face value without strict application of the same processes that drive the scientific method. Until it DOES... it is nothing but supposition and has all the validity as the comment: "Fairy snot causes allergies"
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@Vietvet, I do not make any assessment towards the scientific validity of any of the papers. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds. As I said papers will only be removed from the list if they are retracted by the journal or found to be listed in error (e.g. not peer-reviewed).

The name calling comment was directed at Captain Stumpy who still does not know how to click on links and is now obsessed with a strawman argument. Everything in the link is verifiable, anyone can contact the authors themselves. This does not require peer-review,

http://www.popula...sts.html

But it is further refuted here,

http://www.popula...-97.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
The name calling comment was directed at Captain Stumpy who still does not know how to click on links and is now obsessed with a strawman argument.

@PopTech
a STRAWMAN argument? Why is that?
I asked for specific information which you only say: [I] still does not know how to click on links
which only YOU claim refutes the argument
when I ask for a study that is bound by the same requirements that I have to produce to YOU as evidence, then your argument then becomes that I am
now obsessed with a strawman argument

when anything WE produce must be peer reviewed etc for proof of evidence
the SAME should apply to YOU and YOUR ARGUMENT
THIS is NOT a straw man on my part. I want SPECIFIC INFORMATION put here in WRITING so that I can SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS IT TO THE AUTHORS and allow them the possibility to REFUTE

THIS is MY argument
until it is met, You are just TROLLING
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@PopTech
here is another thing I find irritating about your "links"
you make the claim on your site "Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" (Copyright © 2004-2014 Popular Technology)
you are posting as though you are high and mighty and without flaw...
here is ONE flaw I noticed right off, which is WHY I AM PUSHING SO HARD

there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO MENTION, PUBLICATION OR ALLOWANCE FOR THE AUTHOR TO RESPOND TO THE CLAIMS YOU MADE
now, you will probably say "you gave them the chance" etc... which then begs the question: WHY DIDNT THEY?
Is it because you are a pop-rag with an agenda?
Well, given your posts here, there is MUCH evidence to support THAT claim... so...
AGAIN
UNTIL you provide a published peer reviewed article refuting the one I posted, you are a TROLL
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
I do not make any assessment towards the scientific validity of any of the papers. It is left up to the person using the resource to make up their own minds. As I said papers will only be removed from the list if they are retracted by the journal or found to be listed in error

@PopTech
and LASTLY, this is the BIGGEST COP OUT I have ever read!
You hold US to empirical data but it is OK for you to play the JOURNALIST card??
THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE
we require EMPIRICAL DATA, not your lack of journalistic integrity
if you CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DATA, your claims are no better than Joe Schmoe saying that Global Climate changes are caused by Rooter teeth and ugly snails
IOW – failure to meet the same requirements that we use for proof means that you are TROLLING for a fight, and you lose every time
Give it or get to steppin', Troll
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, What is absurd is your ridiculous requirement that these author's statements need to be peer-reviewed before they can be accepted. You are effectively stating that they are lying. I have never made any such argument relating to an author's own position. There is nothing to refute as those papers were falsely classified and everyone intellectually honest can clearly see this. Cook et. al. are intellectually dishonest propagandists who have no interest in the truth but are instead looking to push a marketing agenda, clearly laid out in their hacked forum posts,

http://www.popula...lan.html

"To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion." - John Cook

I agree that Dr. Tol's analysis should be peer-reviewed and it is as we speak, soon to be published as well.
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, should papers you dislike be de-listed from Web of Science? Then there is no reason to remove them from my resource.

I am not here to argue any of the papers but rather the false attacks made on the list. Trying to label me a "troll" because I was successful in doing so and you are now losing that argument comes off as rather desperate. My "empirical data" is the list of papers which are all fully cited and sourced. My argument is that they exist, are peer-reviewed and all support skeptic arguments.

I haven't made any claims about what causes climate change. You appear to be fighting strawmen and not actually following what I am arguing. When I began researching this I was flat out told no such papers exist, yet I have managed to compile over 1350 papers. I do not like to be lied to nor do I like others to be misinformed.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
I agree that Dr. Tol's analysis should be peer-reviewed and it is as we speak, soon to be published as well

@PopTech
when it IS peer reviewed, and if it IS published, then it can be presented as refute
You are effectively stating that they are lying

actually, I was inferring that the SITE could be lying, as journalistic integrity is NOT what it used to be
and this is NOT absurd or ridiculous
again, I say to you: in order to make a statement that is not considered Trolling or spam, I must make a valid statement and support it with FACTS
I did so with a PEER REVIEWED STUDY
I am requesting the same of you
giving a link to an article that does NOT meet the same requirements of my link is not a refute, it may be used as supporting evidence, perhaps, but in and of itself it has the same weight as any conjecture that I may claim without evidence
your word sans evidence but with supporting article against peer reviewed study=fail

when you have empirical proof, present it
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
you are posting as though you are high and mighty and without flaw...
here is ONE flaw I noticed right off, which is WHY I AM PUSHING SO HARD

That is ridiculous, as a large amount of clarifications and corrections have been made to the list over the years. These comments are very explicit with the full scientist's names given, so it is very easy to contact them if someone thinks I am making it up. What they have said has never been disputed, as inconvenient as these comments may be.

there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO MENTION, PUBLICATION OR ALLOWANCE FOR THE AUTHOR TO RESPOND TO THE CLAIMS YOU MADE
now, you will probably say "you gave them the chance" etc... which then begs the question: WHY DIDNT THEY?

I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances". Everything that is not an editor's opinion on my site is fully cited and sourced so people are free to verify these claims themselves.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
should papers you dislike be de-listed from Web of Science?

@Poptech
no. but you also have not presented any that are valid to my argument
I am not here to argue any of the papers but rather the false attacks made on the list

IOW – you are defending your honour
this is a SCIENCE SITE and as such requires empirical data
who cares about your list as it proves nothing in and of itself other than there is a list?
You keep thinking I am fighting a straw man... or that you proved something... perhaps you ight have to someone else, but MY ARGUMENT STILL STANDS
I want EMPIRICAL DATA PROVING THAT THE STUDY I LINKED IS FATALLY FLAWED
this is a separate argument than everyone else
you made a blanket statement, and I want PROOF
I haven't made any claims about what causes climate change

neither have I
yet
I want to establish what makes the study FATALLY FLAWED
and THEN we will address, point by point, WHY it is flawed, and allow the authors to also do so
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances". Everything that is not an editor's opinion on my site is fully cited and sourced so people are free to verify these claims themselves

@PopTech
and I shall do my homework there as well
this is NOT an attack against you personally, it is an attack against your blanket accusation which included my link/study
then, as I already said, I will address the points with the AUTHORS which will be given FAIR & EQUAL TIME to refute, just as I am addressing YOU NOW
I will not treat you any differently than I treat anyone else that makes blanket statements without empirical data to back them up
PopTech
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
actually, I was inferring that the SITE could be lying, as journalistic integrity is NOT what it used to be

I have done my due diligence and challenge anyone to prove these scientist statements were not made. Here is further evidence that these are true.

Dr. Scafetta cites the article in a rebuttal he posted to another paper,

http://people.duk...stad.pdf

Dr. Carlin cites it in this paper,

http://multi-scie...k5876h8/

That is fairly damning evidence.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
You appear to be fighting strawmen and not actually following what I am arguing. When I began researching this I was flat out told no such papers exist, yet I have managed to compile over 1350 papers. I do not like to be lied to nor do I like others to be misinformed

@PopTech
and what you seem to ignore (given that I have stated it more than once) is that I am NOT arguing the same argument
my argument is specific
and it requires the same proof that I gave you
WHICH IS NOT ABSURD nor is it REDICULOUS to ask for...
people said that no papers existed to you, and you found some...
now I am asking YOU to PRODUCE A PAPER THAT SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT MY PEER REVIEWED STUDY AS FATALLY FLAWED
so that I can get it addressed with the authors and allow them equal time for rebuttal against you...
AND your statement
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"

tells me that you are NOT performing an "Impartial Analysis"
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
I will address the points with the AUTHORS which will be given FAIR & EQUAL TIME to refute, just as I am addressing YOU NOW
I will not treat you any differently than I treat anyone else that makes blanket statements without empirical data to back them up

A meaningless exercise as it is not possible for the Cook et al. authors to read the minds of the ones I quoted. The quotes and names of the authors I presented is empirical data that can be verified. Cook et al.'s failure to properly categorize these authors papers means their methods were flawed and this part of their analysis is worthless and never should of been published. They will argue that the author self-survey's confirm these results but they actually don't, they confirm my argument that the Cook et al. team abstract ratings are worthless since the self-surveys are again different than the abstract ratings. The entire paper is pure propaganda since 66% of the papers they rated held "no position".
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
I have done my due diligence

@PopTech
AND I CAN PROVE YOU WRONG ABOUT THAT ABOVE STATEMENT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS
written above... here they are QUOTED
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"

so dont go professing to me that you are impartial and all that... you've already admitted that you are NOT
telling me that you are impartial and you did your DUE DILIGENCE and then saying you dont give people chances is nothing more than the mark of an insincere person playing a game that is based upon a commitment to create a false assumption, or some other agenda, of which only YOU can specifically identify... but IMPARTIALITY is NOT one of them given your statements thus far
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
A meaningless exercise as it is not possible for the Cook et al. authors to read the minds of the ones I quoted

@Pop
did I say I wanted a Tarot reading of the study? No
I said I wanted the authors to be able to refute your statements (or maybe justify their actions as legitimate)
YOU are assuming that I am doing something different
Cook et al.'s failure to properly categorize these authors papers means their methods were flawed and this part of their analysis is worthless and never should of been published......

then an IMPARTIAL STUDY would have allowed their side of the story to be said
which only PROVES that your site is agenda driven
which brings me back to the beginning
YOU make a claim
THEY MADE A PEER REVIEWED STUDY
if you want to refute it, then you must either provide the same or get theirs removed as incorrect
this is NOT a straw man, it is asking for legitimate evidence to back up your claims OTHER than an agenda driven website for outliers in society
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
now I am asking YOU to PRODUCE A PAPER THAT SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT MY PEER REVIEWED STUDY AS FATALLY FLAWED

When Dr. Tol's paper is published you can read it, until then everyone intellectually honest can read what these falsely classified authors said in their own words.

tells me that you are NOT performing an "Impartial Analysis"

What part of I cannot comment on their website do you not understand? It is not possible to have a discussion when they delete all of my comments and ban me. My analysis has no bearing on their comments. Maybe you should inquire why the journal is refusing to publish Dr. Tol's comment and he has to instead publish it elsewhere. The reviews make ridiculous claims like this,

http://richardtol...per.html

"Rather than contribute to the discussion, the paper instead seems oriented at casting doubt on the Cook paper, which is not appropriate to a peer-reviewed venue,"
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
this is NOT a straw man, it is asking for legitimate evidence to back up your claims OTHER than an agenda driven website for outliers in society

@PopTech
oh, and before you get all quirky about that comment... it is a VALID ASSUMPTION given that you have NOT ALLOWED THE AUTHORS EQUAL TIME FOR REBUTTAL

An IMPARTIAL study would allow at LEAST that much, as well as the ability of the authors to comment and refute the updates.
AS you have NOT allowed that by your own admission, then your site is NO BETTER than PSEUDOSCIENCE as it does NOT address alternative viewpoints other than in derision and negatively
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
so dont go professing to me that you are impartial and all that... you've already admitted that you are NOT

Please don't put words in my mouth as I have only admitted to not giving a forum to those who censor my comments which is a very different thing and quite rational. My website is not a forum for propagandists who censor all dissenting opinion - they have their own site for that. I have no qualms about whom I criticize on either side of the debate if warranted,

http://www.popula...ach.html

So please spare me your lecture on impartiality.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
everyone intellectually honest can read what these falsely classified authors said in their own words

@PopTech
an "intellectually honest" person who was "impartial" would have allowed the authors equal time and space for rebuttal, so dont get all sanctimonious on ME
My analysis has no bearing on their comments

what part do YOU not understand? IMPARTIAL analysis means addressing ALL sides of the equation with equal veracity
Maybe you should inquire why the journal is refusing to publish Dr. Tol's comment

maybe the peer review process WORKS?
How would I know... I dont read minds
it also said
has a number of critical flaws, and thus should not be accepted, per the ERL stated guidelines

impartiality requires all sides with equal veracity, and you have NOT done it, therefore you are NOT impartial, but agenda driven
this is NOT debatable as you have admitted as much above
inferring that anyone else is intellectually dishonest is pot-calling-kettle-black
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Please don't put words in my mouth

@PopTech
I used your very words
as I have only admitted to not giving a forum to those who censor my comments which is a very different thing and quite rational

IF you make a claim of impartiality
THEN deny people equal time for rebuttal
THEN YOU ARE NOT IMPARTIAL
how does this escape you?
My website is not a forum for propagandists who censor all dissenting opinion - they have their own site for that

sigh... no equal time for rebuttal means IT IS BIASED AND NOT IMPARTIAL
I have no qualms about whom I criticize on either side of the debate if warranted

neither do I
that is why we are involved in this discussion
because the FIRST thing I noticed about your link was THAT IT WAS NOT IMPARTIAL as per your claims on the page
which brings us back to square one
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain, you are not the arbiter of impartiality so please give it a rest. There is no justification for their actions except flawed methodology. I have no interest in their excuses, only a retraction of their fraudulent paper that falsely classifies well known skeptics. You act like it is debatable to claim to know more about a paper than its authors. You keep asking for evidence, evidence, evidence! It is all here, TRY READING IT,

http://www.popula...sts.html

Don't believe it? Contact the scientists, prove me wrong. Your arguments are the equivalent of asking the authors to rebut 1+1=0. It is illogical.

What part of those who censor and deleted my comments will never have a forum on my website do you not understand?

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
So please spare me your lecture on impartiality.

@PopTech
ANY site that claims impartiality in its COPYWRITE logo, and then does NOT deliver, is liable for their biased actions, did you know that? In fact, some claims can be construed as libelous etc... how much insurance do you have?

Also, as long as you CLAIM impartiality and DO NOT OFFER EQUAL TIME AND SPACE FOR REBUTTAL to opposing views, then you are NO BETTER THAN ANY PROPAGANDIST RAG that publishes straight lies! In fact, you would be WORSE, as you are PROCLAIMING IMPARTIALITY while publishing PROPAGANDA as it is NOT FAIR AND BALANCED, NOR IMPARTIAL.
WHY CANT YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?

PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy,

Since impartiality is subjective and you are not an arbiter your comments are irrelevant. Your inability to not be able to separate your subjective opinions from facts is a problem most alarmists share.

Now I know I really won the argument as you break out legal threats, thanks for the confirmation. Bring it on.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
you are not the arbiter of impartiality so please give it a rest

@PopTech
well, neither are YOU, regardless of your cute-sy copyright tag-line
and THAT is really the POINT I am making
There is no justification for their actions except flawed methodology

them=PEER REVIEWED
you=not peer reviewed
I have no interest in their excuses, only a retraction of their fraudulent paper that falsely classifies well known skeptics

then you should be arguing elsewhere
You act like it is debatable to claim to know more about a paper than its authors

never made such a claim, nor will I
I CAN state that the evidence on your site is anything BUT impartial with proof to back it up
It is all here, TRY READING IT

I have no real interest in propaganda sites, and yours qualifies
GIVE ME EMPIRICAL DATA
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy.

Since impartiality is subjective and you are not an arbiter your comments are irrelevant.

Here is empirical data that can be verified,

http://www.popula...sts.html

enjoy! I have never seen such denial of authors' own explicit statements before, these must be causing you massive cognitive dissonance.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Since impartiality is subjective and you are not an arbiter your comments are irrelevant. Your inability to not be able to separate your subjective opinions from facts is a problem most alarmists share

@PopTech
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position
given that you have REFUSED equal time for the opposing viewpoint, then you are promoting PROPAGANDA on your site, as well as pushing an agenda which does NOT view impartiality as its main concern, against the express written publication that your site uses as its copyright tag-line
I have the ability to allow both sides equal time, whereas you have admitted that you dont... that makes ME impartial and you the subjective opinionated commenter, not I
Your arguments are the equivalent of asking the authors to rebut 1+1=0

actually, my argument is the same as any IMPARTIAL person would have
I am arguing against YOUR PROPAGANDA
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
enjoy! I have never seen such denial of authors' own explicit statements before, these must be causing you massive cognitive dissonance

@PopTech
again, I am not arguing against their position, BUT YOURS
YOU cant seem to understand that...
IOW – AS YOU ARE NOT IMPARTIAL, then YOUR PUBLICATION IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A PROPAGANDA RAG PUSHING AN AGENDA
THEREFORE YOU CANNOT USE YOUR LINKS AS IMPARTIAL OR REFUTE AGAINST EMPIRICAL DATA as it is NOT EMPIRICAL, nor is it even IMPARTIAL.

YOUR links/claims have all the veracity as the comment "Rainbows are like Beer dreams with bigger unicorns"
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain Stumpy.

Since impartiality is subjective and you are not an arbiter your comments are irrelevant.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
Since impartiality is subjective and you are not an arbiter your comments are irrelevant.

@PopTech
impartiality is subjective only in your mind
Impartiality is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
Therefore the inability to allow all sides equal time to present their objective criteria or to even present their argument supporting their study is nothing more than bias, prejudice and preference which would normally be called propaganda as it pushes a known agenda with DISINFORMATION

oh yeah... this also means that your links have all the weight of any other pseudoscience crackpot link to propaganda sites... IOW - NO WEIGHT
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
It is disappointing to see the captain trying to smear my site since he cannot win an argument.

So far he has following the alarmist playbook when they cannot win an argument,

1. Engage in childish name calling
2. Make veiled legal threats.
3. Attempt to smear my site.
PopTech
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain, you do not get to define the context of the words I use.

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

I am connected to no one and influenced by no one, game over. Alarmists repeatedly believe they have magic powers to redefine the context of how words are used by others.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
It is disappointing to see the captain trying to smear my site since he cannot win an argument.

@PopTech
its sad to see someone push impartiality when there is obviously NONE... that is what is sad, really.
You've made the claim, not I. I only PROVED THAT YOU WERE NOT IMPARTIAL
Engage in childish name calling

banty rooster? You WERE psoturing around like one.. and you have YET to prove that you are impartial, OR produce a peer reviewed refute to my post
Make veiled legal threats

not veiled, just reminding that as you are publicly posting, you have an obligation to produce proof of your written word, which you cannot do as you are NOT impartial (I would change that were I you)
Attempt to smear my site.

why would I do that.... you are doing it just fine?
After all... I USED YOUR OWN WORDS, not mine.
I proved that you were NOT impartial, which makes you no better than the propaganda rags you disdain.
The only way to change it is to allow equal time
(HINTHINT)
PopTech
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

http://www.macmil...mpartial

GAME OVER.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

@PopTech
given the ABOVE definition, and given the quote
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"

as well as demonstrably excluding any parties that can effectively refute a known stance through justification or otherwise
means that YOU ARE NOT IMPARTIAL as you have SHOWN CONNECTION with ONE PARTICULAR GROUP (in this case, the deniers) as well as published it with intent to mislead given that impartiality would require all sides of the issue to be equally presented for personal adjudication

CHECKMATE

I can do this all night. I am retired and bored and I despise propaganda as well as intentionally misleading publications that are libellous in their claims
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 PROVES yet again & again & again he has NO physics degree or any understanding of mathematics
What equations you claim, show them
They are in the failing climate models.
You SHOULD know models are probabilistic & asymptotic, there is no metric to point to that claims a "Fail".

ryggesogn2 mumbles ignorance AGAIN
Did you not understand chaotic systems ?
Do you?
Far more than you.

Besides you miss the point AGAIN, you should KNOW integration is a powerful tool to handle chaotic variations within a system. You SHOULD also know about bounding issues & you SHOULD be able to understand heat capacity.

ryggesogn2 being vague again
If you did, how can you claim any model of an emergent, chaotic system like climate can make valid predictions even in the near term?
Define 'near' ?
Besides we are not predicting the heat movements within the system, we are INTEGRATING over the WHOLE system why do you not understand ?

Stop wasting everyone's time !
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
WizzKid doesnt understand ice core data
..it has risen in a straight line at 0.5degrees per century for 300 years since the Sun recovered from the Maunder minimum. This is long before industrial revolution could have any influence.
Present temp is 7degrees C below most of the last 500 million years.
Ice core samples don't address heat capacity definitively, they are by far local measurements.

Wizzkid
Even if today's warming was unprecedented, the Sun is the probable cause, it was more active in the past 70 years than the previous 11400 years.
Of course the sun is the primary driver by way of Insolation but, hey present that reference ?

Primary local influence on our planet summed to Insolation points to CO2, evidence confirms.

Wizzkid
Even if CO2 were to blame, no runaway greenhouse catastrophe occurred in the Cambrian period at 500Ma when there was 20times more CO2, and it was 7degreesC warmer than today.
You obviously cannot appreciate unnatural rate of change !!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Alarmists repeatedly believe they have magic powers to redefine the context of how words are used by others.

Redefining terms is the common and necessary trait of the socialist who periodically calls himself a 'progressive' or a 'liberal' but is neither progressive nor liberal.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
there is no metric to point to that claims a "Fail".

When such a model predicts 'X' and 'X' fails to occur, the model fails.
Type I error: non-use of a valid model
(Are GCM valid?)
Type II error: Use of an in-valid model
Type III error: Use of an irrelevant model.

Which type of error is causing GCMs to fail?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
(Sigh) ryggesogn2 proves again^7 he has lied claiming he achieved a university degree in physics (which MUST include mathematics & elements of modelling) with naivity
When such a model predicts 'X' and 'X' fails to occur, the model fails.
These are comments of simplistically minded people who have never been educated in probability & statistics & have never been through Calculus such as tangents/asymptotes.

ryggesogn2 tries again to narrow down understanding to his static level of minimal cognition & negligible training in anything technical with
Which type of error is causing GCMs to fail?
Obviously ryggesogn2 you didn't understand the term "metric", it implies more than you can imagine or appreciate !

Why is it ryggesogn2 doesnt understand error bars re metric assessments ?

Why is it ryggesogn2 still hasnt looked up asymptotes ?

Why is ryggesogn2 STILL wasting time ?

Why is ryggesogn2 posting narrow one-dimensional barbs instead of getting a (good) education ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Mikey doesn't understand how quickly chaotic, emergent systems blow up when one tries to model them with a computer. Especially when the modelers don't know all the variables and how they interact.
'"But in fact what's realized now is that unpredictability is very common, it's not just some special case. It's very common for dynamical system to exhibit extreme unpredictability, in the sense that you can perfectly define equations, but the solutions can be unpredictable to a degree that makes it quite unreasonable to use the formal causality built into the equations as the basis for any intelligent philosophy of prediction."
"A Passion for Science", Wolpert & Richards, Oxford U. Press,1988 p.43.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
""P values are not doing their job, because they can't," says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.

For many scientists, this is especially worrying in light of the reproducibility concerns. In 2005, epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California suggested that most published findings are false2; since then, a string of high-profile replication problems has forced scientists to rethink how they evaluate results."
"More broadly, researchers need to realize the limits of conventional statistics, Goodman says. They should instead bring into their analysis elements of scientific judgement about the plausibility of a hypothesis and study limitations that are normally banished to the discussion section: results of identical or similar experiments, proposed mechanisms, clinical knowledge and so on."
http://www.nature...-1.14700
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
"Differences between
observed and simulated 20-year trends
have p values (Supplementary Information)
that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012
under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under
assumption (2) (Fig. 2c). Here we note
that the smaller the p value is, the stronger
the evidence against the null hypothesis."
"Worse still, prevailing
techniques for quantifying the uncertainties
that are inherent in observed climate trends
and projections of climate change are out of
date by well over a decade."
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2013 |pp.767-769
jakack
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
Geeeesh!! Can we stop the "My peers are better than yours" arguments!?! I thought I would come here to find a little bit of substance in the last 100 posts. :-)
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 again hasnt read my posts, he is a bot not thinking but posting opinions & unable to address maths
Mikey doesn't understand how quickly chaotic, emergent systems blow up when one tries to model them with a computer. Especially when the modelers don't know all the variables and how they interact.
Fortunately ryggesogn2, you are partly right, you can't predict interactions WITHIN bounds of a chaotic system.

You can however INTEGRATE & get data commensurate with PHYSICS known, confirmed, corroborated, proven.

ryggesogn2 claimed he has a university degree in Physics but can't get his head around Calculus, can't apply it to chaotic systems.

Try ryggesogn2 to get your head around:-

Eg. Ocean currents have chaotic aspects, you cannot predict interactions of one current rising vs another waning, local temps of one upswell vs another's downswell etc

BUT ryggesogn2, you still know thermal properties of water apply to the WHOLE.

INTEGRATION ryggesogn2 its PROVEN Maths !!!!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
"But in fact what's realized now is that unpredictability is very common, it's not just some special case. It's very common for dynamical system to exhibit extreme unpredictability, in the sense that you can perfectly define equations, but the solutions can be unpredictable to a degree that makes it quite unreasonable to use the formal causality built into the equations as the basis for any intelligent philosophy of prediction."
"A Passion for Science", Wolpert & Richards, Oxford U. Press,1988 p.43.

thermal properties of water apply to the WHOLE.

But water is not a whole in the climate. It has many forms and concentrations and its vapor is more significant than CO2.
Agomemnon
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
are we sure Mike isn't just some java robot. All we get is the same nonsensical jargon and exhaustingly repeatable responses.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain

Don't spread libelous lies about me as I am not connected with Holocaust Deniers, let alone publish anything with the intent to mislead. You are one dishonest individual and have already lost this argument and are now resorting to libelous lies. Your post has been reported for libel.
PopTech
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
It appears this site attracts very nasty and dishonest individuals who once they lose an argument resort to libel and veiled legal threats. This is certainly not a scientific site. I have had more rational discussions on political forums.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
Don't spread libelous lies about me as I am not connected with Holocaust Deniers, let alone publish anything with the intent to mislead. Reported blah blah blah

@PopTech
1- cant be considered libelous if I use your OWN words and then prove that you are not following your intended publication standards
2- it is not libelous if you post the definition of "impartial" and your own words/site proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is NOT IMPARTIAL
this is a statement of FACT
therefore, to extrapolate that you MUST then have an agenda is nothing short if logical, given analysis of your statements, your actions and your posting here as well as the fact that your site is NOT impartial
reporting the post, ANY post I did above, is only proving that I hit a sore spot, as WELL as proves that you are NOT IMPARTIAL
the ABOVE POST CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that your site is NOT IMPARTIAL
the comments you made here only support the argument that you are pushing an agenda
you know where I am
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
It appears this site attracts very nasty and dishonest individuals blah blah blah I have had more rational discussions on political forums.

@Pop's
are you angry because it was pointed out that you lied?
Are you angry because we ask the same level of evidence that you would require of us when we make claims?
no... you are angry because I pointed out that you are NOT the holier-than-thou "impartial" publisher/reporter that you are claiming to be

this is NOT nasty, dishonest, NOR is it against the forum rules which require people to back up their claims without using pseudoscience, which, as your site is NOT the impartial site it claims, then your site pretty much falls under the category of pseudoscience unless you start linking cites/studies, etc...

IOW – your site is no better than hearsay or any other unsubstantiated claim made here
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Pop, when they start personally attacking you instead of defending/promoting their position, you have won, making them even more angry producing more personal attacks.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain, please stop posting libelous lies about me and my site as I am not connected to nor influenced by anyone, thus I am impartial as defined.
PopTech
2 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
@Captain, your continued libelous posts are all being reported.

@ryggesogn2, this is true but I have never experienced such libelous lies like this on a supposed science site before. The Captain appears truly deranged after losing the argument so badly.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2014
The Captain appears truly deranged after losing the argument so badly.

The actions of most of the AGWites here are more evidence that AGWism is a religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
your continued libelous posts are all being reported.

This is useless.
The 'moderators' don't moderate and are biased for vulgarity and personal attacks.
I think traffic is most important for the owners of physorg.
PopTech
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
This is useless.
The 'moderators' don't moderate and are biased for vulgarity and personal attacks.
I think traffic is most important for the owners of physorg.

Thanks, that explains a lot and why this behavior is allowed to continue here.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
@PopTech, abusive posters here have been banned. You are losing the debate and being thin skinned about it.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2014
@Vietvet, I have not lost a single argument in relation to ones I have actually argued unlike the multitude of strawman arguments directed at me.

There is nothing "thin-skinned" about being libeled.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
please stop posting libelous lies about me and my site as ...I am impartial as defined
&
your continued libelous posts are all being reported

@Pops
PROVE them libelous
Now... I've already PROVEN your comments are NOT "impartial" using YOUR OWN WORDS/COMMENTS, and therefore it cannot be considered libel, just logic
this also supports the claim that your comments are agenda driven
I also PROVED that your links/references are not capable of standing to the same scrutiny as a peer-reviewed study, like I linked
how can you say that
I have never experienced such libelous lies like this on a supposed science site before. The Captain appears truly deranged after losing the argument
?
prove yourself the same way I did
provide links/references of empirical data the SAME as I did
or use my words to prove that I am "libelous" or even "slanderous"

you Are being thin skinned after losing a valid debate which proved you are NOT impartial with your own words
SEE ABOVE for details
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2014
Some say, the first casualty of war is the truth.
I guess that also applies to flame wars in comments.

Likely you can't both be right but you surely can both be wrong.

Agree to disagree and move on. It's all been said and done for this thread.

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
ryggesogn2
But water is not a whole in the climate. It has many forms and concentrations and its vapor is more significant than CO2.
Here is ryggesogn2, who claimed to have completed university level Physics which must include mathematics and STILL hasnt understood Calculus, especially INTEGRATION.

ryggesogn2, do Integration over the whole mass of water as ice, liquid & vapour, along with all other GHGs and you will discover as a Physicist, not a climate scientist necessarily, that there is more heat in the system overall.

ryggesogn2, still hasnt understood:-

Water reaches a max content in the atmosphere dependent on temperature, its called humidity
which can never be more than 100%. As a consequence there is an equilibrium level which doesnt change by much BECAUSE as soon as you add more H2O it finds a way to precipitate out relatively quickly and unfortunately mostly over Oceans.

CO2, as reported before many times ryggesogn2, has no such quick path & no upper limit !

Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
ryggesogn2 might want to feel this way
The Captain appears truly deranged after losing the argument so badly.
The actions of most of the AGWites here are more evidence that AGWism is a religion.
Unlike religion, physics fundamentals are universally known, you cannot accept them.

All said before re properties of water, CO2 re-radiation but, ryggesogn2 still goes around in circles, cannot address core physics or Calculus.

ryggesogn2 LIED he achieved a university degree in physics.

All his posts betray he has no such training, or associated discipline or any means to advance the knowledge of the details needed, Science = "The disciplined acquisition of Knowledge"

ryggesogn2 has no such discipline.

Agomemnon uttered
All we get is the same nonsensical jargon and exhaustingly repeatable responses.
Details please ?
Sadly, you chose to not get a good education in anything technical which this issue demands, don't give up, you can still learn at community college...
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
@Captain, provide verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by or retract your libelous claims. It appears you must be paid to this sort of dirty work by activist groups.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
@Pop's
your argument/words are evidence that:
you deny peer-reviewed literature as legitimate, and therefore I can claim connection to "climate science consensus deniers" through your argument against legitimate studies
as well as your claims against the overall consensus without empirical data backing your claims in the manner of IMPARTIAL links/references and peer reviewed studies

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
http://legal-dict...om/Libel
KEYWORD = UNTRUTH
given that I used ONLY YOUR OWN WORDS as evidence that you are not impartial,
and used a logical deduction that your lack of impartiality means there must be an agenda VALIDATED BY your support (through argument & publication) of a known fallacy (you claim that consensus is not a legitimate claim which is contrary to the overwhelming empirical data)& also,
GIVEN that your accusations are supported only by a site which has been PROVEN BIASED with your own words
THEN I have made NO LIBELOUS claims
PopTech
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@Captain, continuing to argue your strawman argument by using the wrong definition of impartial only makes you look more like the fool that you have proven to be.

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

Provide verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by or retract your libelous claims. It appears you must be paid to this sort of dirty work by activist groups.
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
you deny peer-reviewed literature as legitimate, and therefore I can claim connection to "climate science consensus deniers"

Another libelous lie, I never made any such claim. I reject peer-review as infallible. Your "connection" using such an argument is abject idiocy.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@PopTech
impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

given the ABOVE definition, and given the quote
I don't give people who delete my hundreds of comments from their website and ban me "chances"

as well as demonstrably excluding any parties that can effectively refute a known stance (through justification or otherwise)
means that YOU ARE NOT IMPARTIAL
this also supports the claim of connection with ONE PARTICULAR GROUP (in this case, the deniers of consensus) as well as published it with intent to mislead, given that impartiality would require all sides of the issue to be equally presented for personal adjudication

my comments are fully substantiated above by your comments,
your inaction and failure to give equal time on your site,
as well as your inability to produce proof of libel OR proof of inaccuracy of statement or logic

I stand by my statements
PopTech
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@Captain, you have already made that strawman argument. Now try and focus and address what is actually being argued (I understand your difficulty with simple tasks) and notice no one intellectually honest is assisting you in your libelous arguments.

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

Provide verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by or retract your libelous claims.

It appears you must be paid to this sort of dirty work by activist groups. How much do you get paid?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
@Pops
and as for THIS comment
you deny peer-reviewed literature as legitimate, and therefore I can claim connection to "climate science consensus deniers"

Another libelous lie, I never made any such claim. I reject peer-review as infallible. Your "connection" using such an argument is abject idiocy.

your comments above were that you denied the legitimacy of the study that I linked,
and you gave your grounds in a link to YOUR site (which is NOT impartial, for all YOUR claims to the contrary, as proven by YOUR OWN WORDS)
there was NO peer reviewed study refuting it, and the link that you gave to an attempt at peer reviewed study refuting the link I left was denied by the peer-review process, as it
has a number of critical flaws, and thus should not be accepted, per the ERL stated guidelines

Therefore, AGAIN, I have made NO LIBELLOUS remarks
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
Now try and focus and address what is actually being argued (I understand your difficulty with simple tasks) and notice no one intellectually honest is assisting you in your libelous arguments

@Pop
1- I dont need assistance
2- given your inability to COMPREHEND what I am saying, you are effectively trolling at this point
read the above... I've given my proof, as well as reiterated my stance with proof
Provide verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by or retract your libelous claims

see last several posts
no reason to continue copy/pasting the same thing over and over
this is really getting tedious and wasting a lot of space for an argument that is already supported above... how about this:
YOU provide PROOF of a LIBELOUS CLAIM that I have made that is not supported in this thread by valid argument, logic, or your own words, which I have already given you

and hurry it up. I actually have something else to do tonight
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
your comments above were that you denied the legitimacy of the study that I linked,

Quote where I stated that the study was not peer-reviewed and then try to comprehend what I mean by peer-review not being infallible. Are you arguing that a peer-reviewed study is "truth" simply because it was peer-reviewed? Only a fool would make such an argument.

You keep posting libelous lies that I am not impartial yet fail to provide any verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by. How much are you getting paid for this dirty work?
PopTech
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
Maybe somebody else can assist you with clicking on links as you appear to have an inability to perform basic tasks like this. You also appear incapable of understanding the definitions of works in context to how they are used. I take it you never had a university level education.

http://www.macmil...mpartial

impartial (defined) "not connected to or influenced by one particular person or group"

Provide verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by or retract your libelous claims.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
@Pop
this is getting stupid
Quote where I stated that the study was not peer-reviewed

I didnt say that, did I?
You claimed it was "fatally flawed", then offered a link to a web-site that is NOT IMPARTIAL as supporting evidence, whereas I asked for the SAME LEVEL of evidence as I provided
You make CLAIMS on your page, but you DO NOT ALLOW EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and THAT IS PROVEN by YOUR OWN WORDS
given that you are DENYING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY which is NOT impartiality, then I can rightfully assume AND claim your site to be equivalent to any other pseudoscience site that also makes claims and do not allow equal opportunity and space for rebuttal
THIS IS LOGIC
it is ALSO SPELLED OUT MORE THAN ONCE ABOVE
Continuing this argument is a waste as you are arguing circles around YOURSELF, not me
YOU made the INVALID CLAIM, not I
to be continued... unfortunately
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
ctd
You keep posting libelous lies that I am not impartial yet fail to provide any verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by

@pop
AGAIN: it is NOT libelous if it is TRUE
ALREADY PROVIDED -SEE COMMENTS ABOVE as I have already explained this to you MORE THAN ONCE
Maybe somebody else can assist you with clicking on links as you appear to have an inability to perform basic tasks like this

ALREADY PROVIDED -SEE COMMENTS ABOVE
I take it you never had a university level education

double major Bacc. in Applied Physical Science and Business management specializing in Fire Science and Paramedic, as well as Emergency Services Management
plus 30yrs experience with investigation as well as the court system and testimony

your re-posting of the same tired argument that has already been explained to you over and over constitutes TROLLING, bubba
you are making the claim.. now provide PROOF of libel that is NOT SUPPORTED BY ARGUMENT ALREADY SHOWN TO YOU
thanks
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
@Pop
in the last six hours, you have posted 7 times that I made libelous remarks
I answered your claims 5 (and a half) times, specifically giving you the details that prove my claims, as well as addressing you to the above comments for further references
now, I also said
hurry it up. I actually have something else to do tonight

so provide proof
otherwise you are TROLLING

I will be leaving in a couple minutes, so feel free to continue with your diatribe after I am gone
I will be back, except that I will NOT reply unless you:
1-provide proof that needs my attention/feedback
2-post obvious stupidity that must be addressed

one parting comment for tonight:
you cannot prove me libelous if I use your own words as proof of argument
see (way too many) above comments

Nice chatting with you again
see you tomorrow
PopTech
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
You keep posting libelous lies that I am not impartial yet fail to provide any verifiable evidence of whom I am connected to an influenced by. How much are you getting paid for this dirty work?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
"The technique
of flux correction attracts concern because of
its inherently nonphysical
nature. The artificial corrections
make simulations
at the ocean surface more
realistic, but only for artificial
reasons."
308 BAMS MARCH 2008
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
""Science is more than a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those that tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious who comes ambling along."

- Carl Sagan"
http://www.realcl...ate=stop
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
I just checked out poptech's site to see what the fuss is about. Any claims to impartiality or no bias are poppycock. There's no libel here. But if you really believe there is, put your money where your mouth is and sue somebody. Otherwise shut the hell up.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn, it's ironic you quote Sagan when you don't understand the difference between being skeptical and bone-headed bias.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn, it's ironic you quote Sagan when you don't understand the difference between being skeptical and bone-headed bias.

I see the bias among AGWites every day.
Real 'settled science' does not create the emotional response I observe among the AGWites here.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Mar 13, 2014
You can debate the effects of CO2 all you want but the reality is that we are all screwed by peak energy anyway!!!!!!!!!!

"HOUSTON — Shell will slash spending and staff in its oil and gas field operations in the Americas, CEO Ben van Beurden told investors Thursday, largely in response to disappointing results in U.S. shale plays"
http://fuelfix.co...-impact/

US Natural gas supplies are very low.
http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html

US oil and nat gas supplies were supposed to be damm near infinite due to fracking and gas/oil shales.

This whole debate will be meaningless in a few short years. Welcome back to the early 1800s.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2014
Peak energy?
Water was just discovered over 400km under the earth.
But there is plenty of nuclear power available and until a Dyson sphere is built, and the sun burns out, there is no peak energy.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn2, what the hell does water over 400km deep have to do with peak energy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn2, what the hell does water over 400km deep have to do with peak energy?

Ever hear of abiogenic oil?
And the main point is that peak oil has been proclaimed many, many, many times.
And if finding water hundreds of kms below the surface, what else might there be?
MR166
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
"And if finding water hundreds of kms below the surface, what else might there be?"

Pretty much anything that is 400KM beneath the surface of the earth is going to stay there. 4KM is a very deep and costly well and there had better be a LOT of oil in the formation to justify the drilling costs. Abiogenic Oil may or may not exist and is not really part of the equation of "Peak Oil" since only oil or gas that is economically recoverable is useful.

If water ever becomes so scarce that we are forced to drill 400KM to obtain it we are all doomed. Energy returned on energy invested is the final arbitrator of the survival of mankind as we know it. It is the utilization of cheap energy that separates us from early man.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn2, it figures you would throw in unproven abiogenic oil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
"Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago."
"The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits.""
http://www.usnews...xploring
"Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today."
http://www.space....rth.html
Does this mean there is life on Titan?
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2014
@ryggesogn2, you still haven't provided any proof of abiogentc oil.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2014
No one has provided proof of peak oil or peak energy.
But explain how old oil fields refill and is geologically older.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
A little AGW history if you care to listen to the other side.

http://www.youtub...U#t=2149
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
ryggesogn2, peak oil is a prediction most petroleum geologists agree with but disagree about when it will happen. Some say decades and others 100-150 years or more. Oil is a finite resource no matter what abiotic adherents claim.

If you google 'Eugene Island", on the the same page showing your link to the USNEW article, you'll find several per-reviewed papers on the geology of the Eugene Island block explaining the ages of the oil and how for a while the field increased production before falling again. It makes for some interesting reading. Hope you enjoy it. If you can understand it.

Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2014
@MR66
A You Tube video on the John Birch Society channel? You've got to be kidding me!!!!!

And John Coleman? Used to watch his weather forecasts occasionally in San Diego and listened to some of his right-wing rants on his radio show. He is a bitter man with a huge ego that gets in the way of his judgement.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
Oil is a finite resource no matter what abiotic adherents claim.

Why?
Are the ingredients somehow destroyed?
Hydrocarbons are concentrated on the ocean floor, subduct, are pressure cooked and return.
If Titan has oil, does Titan have life or is oil abiogenic?

And like a good little AGWite, VV attacks the messenger instead of addressing the message.
To AGWites like VV, no one is qualified to be critical of AGW unless they have a 'climate science' PhD, AND toe the AGW line, right?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
"To AGWites like VV, no one is qualified to be critical of AGW unless they have a 'climate science' PhD, AND toe the AGW line, right?"

And don't forget the colliery to that, if you are pro AGW you are automatically considered an expert scientist. Gore is a prime example.

Rygg, as far as peak oil/gas is concerned it depends on the EROI of the remaining fields. The amount of oil left in the ground is only 1/2 of the equation and recovery/transportation costs are the other half. Much natural gas is flared off or reinjected because there is no economical way to get it to market. Believe it or not, the economics of fracking are still in question since the decline rates of these shales are still unknown.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
peak oil/gas is concerned it depends on the EROI of the remaining fields.

But that doesn't apply to other energy sources?
A better measure is the cost of getting the energy to where its needed. Of course this requires that the costs are not artificially inflated.
And not just the cost of getting the energy where it' needed, its getting the energy where its needed in a form it can be used.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2014
Of course, EROI applies to all energy sources. Another metric is the energy density of the energy produced. Oil is very valuable because it concentrates a lot of energy in a very small space and is light in weight. Thus it is a great transportation fuel and should only be used where there are no replacements. Natural gas is way too valuable to use as a source of electricity. The US is making a huge mistake by not using it's vast coal supplies for this purpose since it is not easy to use coal for transportation. Of course, nuclear needs to be utilized. The waste needs to be stored in a few central locations for future use and security reasons.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.