Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 21506 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 27, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
Credit: Wade Icey

do ya wear cotton, swabbie?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 27, 2013 - 09:19pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#327659


I use cotton Wade..
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 27, 2013 - 09:57pm PT
I know a psychiatrist at the VA. I can hook you up Sailor. PHD and all.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 27, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Credit: monolith
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 28, 2013 - 12:43am PT
Yabadabadooo.

Credit: Wade Icey
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 28, 2013 - 01:19am PT
Good response Ed, no longer any pretense of fighting this on scientific grounds. Pocket book issues are understandable to just about all. Please tell us all how a carbon tax, added onto skyrocketing energy prices, along with ongoing inflation on all the staples of modern life, and now including distinctly increased healthcare costs for a majority of working peoples, will close the gap on this imagined deferred social cost of carbon. Particularly troubling is the huge estimates of costs for tiny reductions in temps. Look at Europe.

I see many of the rest of you are swimming in The Chiefs toilet again-just great.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 28, 2013 - 09:55am PT
Some of you guys watch too much Fox news or get your science from Limbaugh.

Go to the source. Even if you can't handle the math of a paper, you can usually understand the abstract.

This thread is pretty much dead. I will have a calm discussion with anyone, but a guy like the Chief ruins any discourse. I am going back to boycotting him. If he posts on a thread, I'm gone.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 10:06am PT
This thread is pretty much dead. I will have a calm discussion with anyone, but a guy like the Chief ruins any discourse. I am going back to boycotting him. If he posts on a thread, I'm gone.

Hate to lose you, your contributions are excellent. But yeah it's like trying to have a conversation while a crazy child screams for attention in the center of the room.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Oct 28, 2013 - 10:17am PT
BASE,While I agree with the above,I do understand your point.

Even though I cannot speak for all here,your contributions here are greatly appreciated.

Probably 6-10 times as much as you think.

Really like the opinion/reference from the E and P side of things as well as the Geological knowledge.

Thanks for all.Terence
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Oct 28, 2013 - 10:21am PT
Class Act Chef,and I really mean ACT.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:04am PT
Ed you are a living sci-fi story. It's amazing the contortions even learned men such as yourself go to to justify belief in this science even as it fails all tests and gets more and more hysterical. I can only believe that underneath this combative veneer of yours is realization of it's failures and occasional fair examinations of better fitting explanations for the ever changing climate.

Bruce, I guess you missed the finer point of swimming in The Chiefs toilet-just where he wants you guys.

Yes, you should boycott this thread before you swirl down the drain enroute to being permanently mounted as trophies in the underground gallery of The Chiefs leach field.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:34am PT
What finally moved me into the AGW camp, which is downright heresy in the oil business, was the analogy with the Cretaceous event, which is well studied. There was a period of global ocean acidification that laid down the high organic shales which sourced the Middle East oilfields. Most of the mid-continent shales are from a Devonian event that is poorly represented in the rock record.

I keep telling you guys to google

cretaceous hothouse
gingko balboa stomata index
ocean acidification

That should get you heading in the right direction.

I'm out. Gotta go drive today.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:37am PT
Discussing with the chief et al. is similar to trying to teach my four year old daughter simple math. She just don't seem to be able to understand it. There are two important differences though, she wants to learn and she is going to learn it in the future.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:47am PT
Yes, already familiar with it from long before participation on this thread Base. The huge quantities of volcanic GHG's lofted into the atmosphere are far beyond mankinds meager abilities.

Why don't you take a good look at the science as represented by the NIPCC climate change reconsidered II. Fifty scientists, 1098 pages, better fit to the observations, Ed.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:53am PT
The Miller et al. (2013) paper discussed upthread, in which researchers found that some retreating Canadian ice sheets are exposing ancient moss that has been ice-covered for more than 100,000 years, has predictably drawn blog attacks by the usual suspects. But their arguments have been weak even by denialist blog standards.

One good thing to come of this circus has been to make me aware of the blog "Musings on Quantitative Paleoecology," by paleoecologist Richard Telford (University of Bergen). He nicely explains with crayons how the same ice sheet, melting back, can expose vegetation of different ages. If you'd like to understand what Steve McIntyre could not, you might check this out.

Since I discussed the presumed Eemian mosses being exposed on Baffin Island discovered by Miller et al (2013) and the clueless response from WUWT, I’ve seen that others are discussing this paper, including Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry, and Jim Bouldin.

Curry’s contribution can be summed up as

The reasoning behind the Miller et al. conclusions is rather complex, with a number of assumptions, I’m not sure what to make of their arguments.

Both Bouldin and McIntyre comment that at some of the icecaps’ margins, the moss appearing from under the melting ice is mid-late Holocene, at others it is >~40,000 years old, presumably Eemian. For example, from McIntyre,

A question: How does one reconcile the supposed in situ continuity of the little “ice cap” in the vicinity of sample M10-B231v (1395 m) since 44000 BP with recession in the vicinity of nearby higher M10-B226v (1438 m)?

Let’s get the virtual crayons out to try to explain what is happening.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:53am PT
AS i looked out the door this am,, the 3" of snow laying everywhere,,global warming seems to have went elsewhere.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
The huge quantities of volcanic GHG's lofted into the atmosphere are far beyond mankinds meager abilities.

Mankind's meager abilities are currently lofting about 35 gigatons per year for CO2 alone. That's something like two Yellowstone Caldera supereruptions per year.

Why don't you take a good look at the science as represented by the NIPCC climate change reconsidered II. Fifty scientists, 1098 pages, better fit to the observations, Ed.

The NIPCC report has no credibility among scientists. For example, see discussion upthread.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 28, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
Thanks for that paleo link, Chiloe.

And no Sketch, not an echo. They commented on the same post, with different info. Is that ok with you?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
476 comments, 1 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
Global warming graphic
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”



As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
Shouldnt you be busy photo shopping some more of your "man crush"..??

ps,, that 97% crapola is CRAPOLA..
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 21506 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews