Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7081 - 7100 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Yes, you are incorrect.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 3, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
The article on "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (Cook et al. 2013) that monolith cites above has been subject to strenuous blog attacks of course, but it's stood up pretty well. Economist Richard Tol, widely quoted on blogs and Twitter as a critic, was encouraged to write his critique up as a paper and get that published. He tried to and was rejected, because his attempt at a paper still read like blog writing, and failed to give evidence that Cook et al.'s conclusions were wrong.

blueblocr above can't read the graph or probably the paper, but more curious folks can -- it's free. Here's the abstract with a link to the paper itself (pdf), where you can learn for yourself what they actually did and found.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 03:46pm PT

Do you think one explains the other?

Definitely not for me!! And in no way am I in denial with the scientific world. Quite the contrary. I greatly respect mans knowledge of nature. It's his wisdom that I'm always questioning. Without a doubt whenever there's an action, there's a reaction! Man has taken out of the ground and burned how many billions of barrels now? There has got to be a consequence. A change. Go close ur garage door and start your car and see how long you last. Obliviously smog is not good for us!
I really just don't like fellow Americans trying to make other Americans feel guilty for what they were raised to understand as a typical agreed upon lifestyle. IE driving a car, or heating ur house. It's legal to go fill up my tank and drive to big bear for a vacation. So don't make me feel quilty about it! Alcohol and pot are legal and if you want to partake to become stupid. I don't make you feel quilty, do I? When these two things are the leading cause of death today!!
Are you more concerned with what man may do to the planet in the next billion yrs, or with what man is doing to himself TODAY?

My love and respect for God and His creation goes far beyond hugging a tree. I recognize that man is going to have his way on planet earth. But why condem him for it? Jus teach the children a better way..

I'm actually stoked seeing Americans decifering the pros and cons of the burning of fuels. And aggressively searching for alternative methods. Besides the real problem isn't going to be only in America's lap in 30-40 yrs. it will be in the up and coming countries who are coming into the typical lifestye in the modern world like Mexico,brazil, soviet union, china,india, etc. We need to take the lead in TEACHING those children what's good for mother earth.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 3, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
Bruce, do you suppose more people attend church during times of suffering?
Climate change is going to cause a lot of suffering.

If religions stand to benefit from climate change, then isn't it likely that they will block its mitigation?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
^^^ that's right

That's why today we should be singing praises to God for what He created to sustain life some 15 billion yrs ago. And sent into motion with such preciseness, that life still flourishes now today.

And man in his quest for realization can destroy it in just a few generations.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
No Mr. Chiloe, Cook et al has been thoroughly debunked, repeatedly. It is a good measure of the desperation in the CAGW community to witness scientists spending considerable allotments of time in efforts to prop it up even in relatively "back water" blogs like ST. If all you guys would just identify and move on to "another cause" the world would be much the better for it. Below are links to a rather more significant number of scientists opposing CAGW than you could ever muster into your ranks.

http://www.petitionproject.org
The paper by Fred Seitz attached to the signatory letters mailed out to scientists is quite informative.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report
!000 international scientists, including many physicists, in dissent of IPCC and CAGW hypothesis

http://c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html
And for comparison i once again post the pro CAGW side below

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 3, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
Play me a different tune Jerry. You know, politics is a disgustingly messy, rough and tumble business, beneath your dignity. Anyway, let the good people here look at it all and decide for themselves.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 3, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
...by "debunked" you mean attacked on the blogs...

Yah, Rick has swallowed those "strenuous blog attacks" I mentioned. That's his way of knowing.

In the real world, no one has come close to showing that Cook et al. are wrong -- probably because they are not. Think they are? It would not be that hard to mount your own counter-study, which none of those blog critics has yet tried.

The ultra-simple approach I mentioned, just scan contents & abstracts of any relevant journal (you choose!) will lead to a similar conclusion. Because it is true, most scientists who study the matter agree that greenhouse gas buildup is changing the atmosphere and hence thermal properties of the planet, with uncertain results that we probably won't like.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
That was a little weird Ed..

How about posting ur percentages?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 3, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
Time will reveal all,

but the cult will just move it's goal posts as all apocalyptic cults do until it becomes just another quaint historical relic.

Now we have descended to shooting the messenger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails



Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 3, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
Ed, you left out his 'command error' account. It's his tactical fall back position.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 4, 2013 - 08:11am PT
That was a little weird Ed..

Actually, it's sort of cool. I can't be the only one wondering how his/her own contribution would look through this lens. Is it handmade or quick now?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 4, 2013 - 10:37am PT
NO ONE denies climate changes,,

Ah we're back on STEP TWO!!!!111111111

(even if there IS climate change humans aren't causing it...)

NO ONE denies the Three Step Shuffle.

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 4, 2013 - 10:38am PT
goes on unexplained

No, it doesn't. You're not even trying to read, are you? Just repeating yourself loudly.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 4, 2013 - 10:42am PT
you cant tell a .09 degree of difference on yur face any day.

.09 Rong? Do you mean 0.9? Orders of magnitude matter. You have been corrected on that several times, and you seem to insist on screwing it up every time. Why?

And wtf does the sensitivity of one's face have to do with mean global temperatures?

YOU SAID 7 AND 1/2 APPLES. I DON'T SEE ANY HALF APPLES.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 4, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
Ron, multiple choice:

What happens when you increase the temperature of melting ice by 0.9 degree Celsius?

A) The ice melts twice as fast
B) The ice refreezes
C) It is physically impossible to increase the temperature of melting ice
D) I don't see any half apples
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 4, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
I am not sorry foes, i will not dance to your tune, or participate by the rules of your well practiced system of personal destruction. You are not my audience, just the means to reach them. Dr. F moved my original post to this thread from another. The inevitable attacks ensued, i gave back almost as good as i got. Many months ago declaring i am going to win this little argument. I believe it was Norton who requested me to show what I've got. My response; I'm not going in blind like Custer to be massacred. No, the battlefield must be carefully surveyed, all intelligence gathered, the enemy probed, this could take years.

There are deep troubles in the CAGW cult, not the least of which is that the weather is not cooperating. One spectacular prediction after another has failed- hundreds of millions were already supposed to have died from heat that supposedly should have risen in tandem with atmospheric CO2 content, this hasn't happened the limited absorption bandwidth of the mythical molecule has been saturated and the higher frequency heat radiation can't reradiate downwards but instead is conducting upwards out of the atmosphere towards the cold of space-now there is some physics in need of reevaluation and reinterpretation of the Stephan-Boltzmann law used as a construct to artificially and unsatisfactorily close Maxwell's equations. The Sea levels were met to rise several feet by now, according to the likes of Gore and Hansen, swamping low lying island nations such as The Maldives and Tuvulu Islands-this hasn't happened, in fact studies show that 87% of the Tuvlu's are stable or rising. The Poles melting were meant to have accelerated with an ice free Arctic already and whole Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets sliding off into the Sea- this hasn't happened, instead the Antarctic, contrary to prediction, is cooling and ice mass, especially in sea ice extent, is growing. The Arctic is at the end of warm cycles of the PDO and NAO, last year a severe Arctic cyclone broke up the ice in August and compacted it into restricted areas, it did not all melt, this year above 80 degrees north has been unusually cold and the storms of 2012 have not yet repeated with the result being that sea ice extent is recovering. Greenland is right back to normal temperatures without the surface melt the compliant media relentlessly hyped in 2012. Tornado's were meant to be more frequent and severe, droughts deepening and permanent, Hurricanes increasing in frequency and severity. Well it has been one of the quietest years for Tornado's in years, in fact discounting the increase of developed areas and the consequent property and life destruction of a relative few outbreaks, the frequency of Tornado's is decreasing compared to early decades of the 20th century. The drought's in the lower Midwest and southwest seems to have been drenched in repeated torrential downpours this year. Hurricane season has been unusually quiet for nearly a decade, there hasn't been a category four or larger hurricane make landfall in the U.S. since Katrina. The world over, scientists are acknowledging that the global mean average temperature ( if there could ever be such a thing) has plateaued and by many accounts is heading downwards. I could go on and on.

There are deep problems in the IPCC process and it's continued existence is in question as one country after another has pulled out of Kyoto and many others are demanding rewrites of AR5. Scientists are in open revolt, many previously high profile CAGW proponents have jumped ship-look at Judith Curry's story. The trickle of papers that the CAGW industry previously did their best to limit has turned into a torrent. Every aspect of the theory is being challenged, every region's proxy data reconstruction being reevaluated. The little ice age, medieval warm period, roman warm period are being revalidated and returning in a vengeance. The models are not getting better, the errors they exhibit in hind casting emphasized over and over, the flaws in the models predictives versus observed empirical evidence shown again and again.

Yet, our bureaucracy, our politicians, our corporate giants and ultra wealthy "intellectuals", our decreasing number of CAGW cult scientists are now engaged in a last gasp effort to impose a scheme of "necessarily skyrocketing" energy regulation and replacement by wholly inadequate "green energy" produced by not ready for prime time wind farms and solar arrays that cover thousands of square miles of land, degrade the environment and aesthetics, costs hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars and produce on an intermittent basis only 3% of our energy. This scheme, if allowed to accelerate, will not only render our remaining industry unprofitable, but will result in huge job loss and impoverish our middle class into indentured servitude.

Now is the time to turn this thing around. Even the mainstream media is waking up and beginning to acknowledge the problems and failings of climate science. There is hope for a bright future, while this debate has been raging natural evolution and market forces, despite government resistance, has resulted in new technologies in FF energy location and safe extraction to the point we now have at least a hundred year supply of clean burning natural gas ( 50% less CO2 emission and much less other real pollutants) that is naturally supplanting coal in energy generation. Our vehicles can also be fueled by NG starting with the commercial truck fleet. A new generation of nuclear technology has resulted in designs that are virtually failsafe and reprocess and reuse fuel to the point that spent fuel is only dangerous for a decade rather than thousands of years. We have much geothermal potential in this country and it is currently being expanded. The tens of billions of dollars wasted on the "prophets of Doom" singing the "gospels of doom" would be much better spent on research and development for real and viable next generation clean technology that is competitive with our current energy mix.

There is a best selling book in Germany- English language title translation of The Neglected Sun- that has become a bestseller and is waking up the population to the wrongness of the CAGW science and the dangers of the implementation of carbon taxation and shortcomings of the replacement of energy production with windmills and solar. One of its authors was previously an executive in the wind energy industry. Anyway the book will be available here in America shortly and should be quite eye opening. Any fence sitters out there that are willing to climb down on this side? If so PM me with your mailing addresses and i will buy and amazon copies to the first ten people.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 4, 2013 - 05:11pm PT
Extensive review of the history of the sun and climate change science.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 4, 2013 - 05:44pm PT
If only there were 100 years of reproducible experiments that clearly show how increased CO2 affects air temperature...
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 4, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
A readable and reality-based alternative to Rick's long rant above, this article from two days ago in the Financial Times:

What climate scientists talk about now
...
But there is one thing the final version
[of the forthcoming IPCC 5th Assessment Report] must include when it is published next month, according to Sir Bob Watson, the British scientist and climate action advocate who chaired the IPCC for nearly six years up to 2002. “I think the current Working Group I report must address in detail the slowing down in the last 10 years,” he said, adding that although the past three decades were probably the warmest in 1,000 years, “there is also no question that it would appear that the rate of change in the last decade or so is definitely slower than the previous two decades.”

“The IPCC must address this because the climate deniers are linking on to this as a reason to say we’ve got all the science wrong. So I think one of the very most important issues is indeed for them to address this issue absolutely head on.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2b1z1z01m
Messages 7081 - 7100 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews