Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7101 - 7120 of total 27320 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
Pay attention to levels of CO2 that have never happened before in man's history, Chief, because CO2 is well correlated to temps, as your graph shows. Only the last few pixel columns covers the industrial age.

The ocean heat content blue line is also rising, and no comment from you.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:45pm PT
Pay attention to levels of CO2 that have never happened before

Are you now going to tell us that the current levels of C02 has never occurred in the past 4.6 Billion Years?

Please do. Oh Please do.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
Go hit that pipe again dude. Cus you are spewing tons of C02shetpropaganda.

Once again. Per the Vostok Ice Core Data 1

The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
MONOLITH.
Exactly. Today's levels are NO where near with they were 500 Million years ago. BTW, Man was no where to be found. Nor was he even a twinkle in the stars eye.

BTW Bruce. Can not stand Palin. Actually, can not stand most of the REPUB party. Goes the same for the DEM PARTY. All thieves. Political thieves. Every last one of em.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:54pm PT
But why would we want to revert to no ice periods (and all the disturbances associated with it) if we can avoid it?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:56pm PT
PALIN is at least a MILF! The rest , each and every, havent one redeeming quality in them any more.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 9, 2013 - 10:58pm PT
MONOLITH
You are sooooooooooo ignorant. If we were in a cooling period with an impending Ice Age, we humans would not have a chance in hell. 2/3rds of the Northern Hemisphere covered in up to 6K' of ice. Be glad it's warming. We can survive that. Not an Ice Age.

No Ice Ages. Now you are gonna tell us that the planet will not have any further Ice Ages. Please do ref a model that shows that occurring. I want to see this one. For sure.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:00pm PT
You are sooooooooooo ignorant.

LOL.

Pot, kettle, black...
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
I knew the Chief would crack.

No ice (and the associated impact) is the present and avoidable danger, not 6k of ice in 2/3rds northern hemisphere. (
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
^^^ Sorry Pukingparentsdog, my pots are Silver.


Crack? Fking laughing my ass off at you clowns. Baaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaa!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
Here is a couple links. The first submitted for peer review which claims the ozone depletion holes are responsible for the lack of warming in the southern hemisphere till at least 2050-we all be dead by then of course. The second paper was just published and claims the ozone depletion holes are the reason for the 0.6c global temperature rise of the late 20th century. The first link brings you to a page showing all the authors works, click on the third one down. Both papers provide new perspectives both pro and con on CO2 forced warming.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/barnes+polvani-JCLIM-2013-submitted.pdf.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/s0217979213500732
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:30pm PT
I know that gal in your post above Bruce. Helped to install her as mayor to replace the former crooked 2 term mayor who was looting the town and standing in the way of sensible development. She is nothing like you like to portray.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 9, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
All politicians are made up persona's. Every one of them. She got trashed but then decided to laugh all the way to the bank. Currently resides in arizona and will probably take a senate seat from their, i imagine, if old num nuts gets out of the way.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 10, 2013 - 12:07am PT
I have been doing my own impromptu polling in my repeated travels about the country and i would say it is a lot more than 46%. Most people think it is a joke and chalk it up to crooked politicians, corporate and the wealthy's greed, and job security for the platoons of graduates of the environmental sciences. A sad, sad commentary on the state of our corrupt civilization.I even talked with a couple australians, germans, indians, and brits who all seemed to concur on the buffoonery of it all.Now, did you read those papers whose links i posted?And yes excuse me, i thought you were talking about percentage of belief in CAGW.The election of 2008, as many elections these days was decided by platoons of undocumentable democrats as well as the ignorant, innocent, insecure and of course the die hard party hacks. Come to think about it if the other team would of won it would have been by much the same constituency. Some choice we have now days.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 10, 2013 - 08:33am PT
Definitely NOT looking good for the GCC folks. Not good atal. Had this trend been in the reverse, oh how the ED & CHILOE brigade would be singing dixie. Instead, they are blowing through straws. I suggest they best start blowing harder.







Most people think it is a joke and chalk it up to crooked politicians, corporate and the wealthy's greed, and job security for the platoons of graduates of the environmental sciences.

Excellent post Rick.

Business as usual for humanity. Nothing new. Big Religion, Business and Politics. Same scheme just a different scam. Financial and personal gain. Ego.

BRUCE: I personally believe this dude outta be President. He would most certainly put the hammer down on you flakes. None of you GCCers would even understand. Unceasing adaption to the changes around us. That is what the game of survival is all about. Not attempting to alter what one thinks are the reasons for the dynamic changes in his environment.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 10, 2013 - 01:17pm PT
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” President Barack Obama tweeted last Thursday, May 16.

The president was cheering on the media-drawn bandwagon for the latest round of global warming “consensus” puffery. John Cook, an Australian blogger/global warming activist, has President Obama and all the usual climate alarmists in academia, the media, and the Big Green NGOs twitterpated over his latest “research,” which purports to prove that the scientific world is virtually unanimous in declaring that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — that is, human-caused global warming — is a dire and imminent existential threat.

Certainly “97% of scientists” is an impressive-sounding claim. But is it accurate? As we shall see, this supposed near unanimity of science evaporates like H2O over a Bunsen burner as soon as it is subjected to scrutiny.

“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook and his team at the Global Change Institute, was published in Environmental Research Letters. Many of the headlines pointing to this study in newspapers, television news broadcasts, and Internet websites led with the same 97 percent claim, same as President Obama. Some of them were a bit more careful than others to qualify that figure based on what the study said, but it would still take a careful reader to recognize that they weren’t saying the same thing as the occupant of the White House.

The story by Rik Myslewski of the British newspaper The Register is a typical example. The Register’s main headline read: “Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming.” But sub-headline immediately beneath says: “Of those who have an opinion, over 97% say we're to blame.”

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

The Consensus Con Game

The Cook study has already been taken apart and refuted in a number of blogs and articles. One of the critical scientists to take an early look at Cook’s suspicious claims was Dutch chemist and science journalist Marcel Crok, who points out many of the problems — here — concerning the Cook study’s misleading selection, categorizations, and descriptions of alleged endorsers of AGW.

A major reason for the supposed importance of the Cook study is that it claims to be based on surveying abstracts of “over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers,” published in the period 1991-2011, which would be an impressive sampling. But it turns out not to be so striking after all. Firstly, even most of the climate catastrophe skeptics readily concede that human production of CO2, along with other human activities, may have some impact on global temperatures. The question is how significant is the human contribution.

Only 65 (!) Abstracts in Cook Study of 12,000 Strongly Endorse AGW!

On that question there is a wide divergence of opinion in the realist/skeptic community — just as there is also a similarly wide divergence among the AGW believer scientists. Blogger Brandon Shollenberger appears to have been the first to have uncovered the Big Secret of the Cook charade: When stripped down to the bare truth, the actual number of studies in the Cook sampling that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is — get ready for this (drum roll …) — sixty-five. Yes, 65, or around half a percent, not 97 percent! And this miniscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of skeptical scientific papers included in the Cook study.

One of the issues that has dogged many of the leading purveyors of AGW alarmism in recent years is the accusation that they have refused to provide the public, other scientists, or even the government oversight agencies responsible for their funding, with the alleged research on which they base their extreme predictions. With far-reaching public policy at stake, including hundreds of billions (even trillions) of dollars, the circle of critics has become larger, more vocal, and insistent that the taxpayer-funded alarmist researchers supply this data. The lame excuses given by the likes of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hansen, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for failure to make their research available has embarrassed and outraged even many of the alarmists' supporters.

To his credit, Cook posted the results of his study, including his source material and an interactive feature allowing researchers to check his work. Perhaps he thought no one would actually make use of the opportunity, or if they did so they wouldn’t figure out the scam. When it comes to the vast majority of “science writers” in Big Media, Cook’s gamble paid off like a slot machine rigged for a bonanza payout. But independent scientists and analysts quickly saw through the cooked books. Shollenberg notes that Cook’s Skeptical Science website “recently invited people to rate the 12,000+ abstracts via Skeptical Science’s interactive rating system so people could ‘measure the climate consensus’ themselves. An additional feature of the system allows users to view the abstracts, as well as the ratings given by the people behind the paper.”

Shollenberger continues:

The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

Shollenberger goes on:

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.

Shollenberger’s discovery, as important as it is, is far from being the only major problem with the celebrated Cook study. Australian researcher/blogger Jo Nova, as usual, provides a very incisive column, “The twelve clues that good science journalists ought to notice,” that fairly eviscerates Cook — and the media mavens who unquestioningly accepted his deceptive offering.

One of the important points made by Nova is that the research methodology used by the Cook team to select abstracts for review was flawed from the start. Cook, et al, used the key words “global climate change” or “global warming” in searching the data base to assemble their sampling of research papers. But Nova pointed out:

Keywords searches may miss the most important skeptical papers.

Keyword searches are more likely to turn up “consensus” papers. Many skeptical papers don’t use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change”: eg Svensmark (1998), Douglass (2007), Christy (2010), Loehle (2009), and Spencer (2011). Were they included? Perhaps they were, but they don’t appear to match the search terms in the methods. These are just a few seminal skeptical papers that might have been missed.

As it turns out, Nova was spot on. In a subsequent post, she reported that other researchers had confirmed that all of the important skeptical studies she had cited were indeed “missed” by Cook and his vaunted research team. Hardly a sound endorsement of Cook's dependability. “I randomly checked my top list of major skeptical articles and had no difficultly coming up with those 6 papers,” says Nova. "I could have come up with many more if I bothered to keep opening papers and searching for keywords. He has missed many skeptical articles. And that would matter if the study was worth doing in the first place.”

Special mention should be made of the proper trashing of the Cook AGW propaganda by Spiegel Online, the German flagship news magazine, one of the few exceptions in the Big Media to subject Cook’s claims to critical examination, rather than merely regurgitating and amplifying his talking points.

Speigel reporter Axel Bojanowski hit on a number of key points, including another study by the University of Mainz in Germany that surveyed climate scientists and came up with decidedly different results than Cook. According to the Mainz survey, reports Bojanowski, “Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’”

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported.

The Media Should Have Been Skeptical

The so-called mainstream media should have been skeptical of the Cook study from the start. John Cook is well known for cooking the books when it comes to climate issues. Cook runs the blog site SkepticalScience, a deceptive misnomer, since he fanatically endorses and practices AGW alarmism and has failed to express the slightest skepticism regarding even the most outlandish catastrophic climate predictions. While not a climate scientist himself, Cook very unscientifically and unprofessionally disparages distinguished climate scientists who are skeptical of claims of catastrophic climate change. He calls the skeptics “deniers” and “denialists.” In 2011, Cook co-authored Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington. The “denier” label is a particularly vicious form of character assassination, attempting to link scientific AGW skepticism with Nazi Holocaust denial. The Cook book also claims that the scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are part of the corrupt “denial industry funded by the fossil fuel companies that literally denies the science, and seeks to confuse the public.”

Related articles:

Was 2012 the Hottest Year? Alarmists Blowing Hot Air Again

Climate-change Computer Models Fail Again — and Again, and Again

Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring

New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce (“Extreme Weather” 2012)

Blaming Climate Change for Hurricane Sandy

CFR Pushes End to Sovereignty at UN's Doha Climate Summit

UN Climateers and the “Complete Transformation of the World”

UN Summit Fails to Enact “Complete Transformation” of the World

Global Climate Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago, UK Met Office Admits

IPCC's Bogus Claims About Melting Glaciers

What Consensus? Public, Scientists Doubt Climate Crisis

“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda

"Skeptic" Climate Conference Challenges UN

Scientists Say 'Whoa!' on Climate Legislation

Scientists Challenge Global Warming “Crisis”

2008 Climate Debate: Science Conference Challenges Global Warming Alarmism

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

More in this category: « Climate “Consensus” Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report Global Warming, Acid Oceans, and GIANT Crabs — Oh My! »
1 comment

Comment Link Tuesday, 21 May 2013 19:36 posted by gtb
Every major National Academy of Science in the world agrees that climate change is happening and that it is man made. http://clmtr.lt/cb/sqn0XD

Login to post comments
back to top
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 10, 2013 - 04:18pm PT
So true Ron. Glad you brought this to everyones attention. Let's hope the few true CAGW believers on this thread take the time to read, then independently take the time to reach the inescapable conclusion-CAGW is "forced science fiction" designed for the purpose of enriching the few while pilfering from the many.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 10, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
That column Ron pasted was from an article in "The New American," which is a publication of the John Birch Society.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books

Ron, this is why no one takes your claims seriously. Your arguments and "facts," when you bother to cite them, usually come from raving right wing crap sources.

The John Birch Society?

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 10, 2013 - 04:33pm PT
Ron, alternative views are vetted where they should be vetted: by other scientists through the peer review process.

You seem more comfortable seeking out facts that support your worldview in right wing paranoid rags.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 10, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
so then you DIDNT read it or give any review,, just condemning the source?

Obama lied to you the other day when saying 97% consensus on the affects of GW. Hes lied many times lately actually, too dang many to count.
Messages 7101 - 7120 of total 27320 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