Gore Predicted Rise in Oceans, Instead He Gets Rise in Unpopularity

[boxcar]

Even his fellow Greenies can't stand him. His new show is a huge flop.

Greens Give Gore 2 Thumbs Down: Gore's climate 'reality' show faces strongly negative reviews from his fellow global warming activists Visit Site

I'm going to include several of the more juicy and humorous reviews from this site:

Former Vice President Al Gore 24 hour climate “reality” show is surprisingly facing strongly negative reviews from Gore's fellow global warming activists and environmental allies. In addition, two German scientists ridiculed Gore for his "apocalyptic" tone and his "promise of salvation."

Climate activist Bob Ward was tepid about Gore's show. “One could complain that some of the presentations overstated the certainty and wrongly implied that individual weather events could be attributed to climate change,” lamented Ward. Ward is the Policy Director, for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

And this next guy says that Gore ain't no savior -- not even a good prophet. :D

Mike Shanahan, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, bragged that he purposefully avoided watching Gore's climate telethon.

“I actually avoided the Goreathon, and I guess that says something in itself,” Shanahan wrote. He added that a journalist sent him a text declaring: “Gore gets gold for most boring and least galvanizing talk on climate, ever...That, and possibly damaging.”

Shanahan was blunt in his opinion of Gore: “Climate Change needs a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King or a Mandela, and Al Gore is none of those.”

Ooh...what a slap down. Gore just can't catch a modicum of respect. :lol:

The UK Guardian's Leo Hickman, a prominent media activist for man-made global warming, was embarrassed by Gore's extreme weather link to man-made global warming linkage.

“I was a little nervous this morning logging into Climate Reality...And, I have to say, my heart immediately sank,” when viewing it, Hickman wrote. Hickman asked: “Is Gore now a help or hindrance to global warming cause?” See: Hickman on Gore's 'Death by PowerPoint'-- “I have suffered this torture too many times over the years...[Gore's show had] slide after slide of extreme weather events...& linking everyone, it seemed, to rise in [man-made] emissions...that is a very contentious peg on which to hang your hat...That kind of talk traditionally requires lots of caveats and careful explaining. Done with abandon and raw emotion – as this presenter seemed to be doing – and you are quickly labeled in some quarters as a climate 'alarmist.'”

Sounds like Gore was in dire need of Hcap to help him out with graphs and charts. Or would have 'cap's contribution only generated this additional criticism: "Hcap's Death by Colorful Graphs"? :lol:

Then should we all be prayin' for an Environmentalism Revival and for Mankind's savior to come save us from our sinful, polluting ways? Well, not according to this next two critics:

Gore's 'promise of salvation'

A pair of German scientists noted the religious overtones of Gore's 24 hour climate telethon. “There was only one message, an apocalyptic one, with the respective promise of salvation; sometimes the discourse almost switched into a religious sermon: once we behave climate friendly, there won't be any storms or other natural disasters anymore,” wrote German scientists Hans von Storch & Werner Krauss of the Helmholtz Centre for Materials and Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany.

Storch and Krauss chided Gore for seemingly linking every bad thing to man-made global warming. “Highly speculative (and deterministic) assertions such as the interpretation of the Arab upheavals as a result of global warming were made repeatedly, sold as scientific knowledge and without being challenged,” the scientists noted. Also see: DudGate! Gore's Last Gasp – German Media Completely Ignores His Bitter Slur-athon

And if you think that was harsh, the Canucks went one better:

Skeptics of man-made climate change fears were also brutal on Gore's latest climate science effort.

Canada's Sun TV commentator with Charles Adler compared Gore to scandal ridden U.S. televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and warned of a “dangerous cult of personality” surrounding Gore. Adler mocked Gore as a prophet who was “going to hold back droughts.”

Don't worry, Gore: An Elijah you're not! :D

Lots more at this link:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12848/Greens-Give-Gore-2-Thumbs-Down-Gores-climate-reality-show-faces-strongly-negative-reviews-from-his-fellow-global-warming-activists

Hey, Mack, lots of fodder on this site, as it is chock full of links -- even links going back to climate history of the 50s, 60s and 70s that show that things were probably worse back then than they are currently. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Hcap, try weaning yourself off Sponge Bob cartoons. A new study out shows that too much of a bad thing has an adverse affect on the minds of 4-year olds. But you gotta act now before it's too late. This might be your last chance to join the real world.

[ArlJim78]

yeah well where were these dissenters back when he was peddling his power point presentation into a Nobel Peace prize and an academy award? he's always been a cross between Jimmy Swaggart and PT Barnum. the perfect stooge, I mean front man for the climate alarmists.(lemmings)

[Greyfox]

What a racket. British Airlines, a European carrier, will have to pay 50 million Euros next year due to it's Carbon Emissions.
Naturally they will pass that tax on to their customers.
All of that under the umbrella of "Man Made" Global Warming, which has never been definitively shown.
Climate change is mainly due to fluctuations in the Sun.
Gore has gotten rich at this church.
More info on that tax at the link below:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ef1e95c0-e097-11e0-bd01-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YM1DaXSE

[boxcar]

What a racket. British Airlines, a European carrier, will have to pay 50 million Euros next year due to it's Carbon Emissions.
Naturally they will pass that tax on to their customers.
All of that under the umbrella of "Man Made" Global Warming, which has never been definitively shown.
Climate change is mainly due to fluctuations in the Sun.
Gore has gotten rich at this church.
More info on that tax at the link below:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ef1e95c0-e097-11e0-bd01-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1YM1DaXSE

And if BA is stupid enough to pay it, I guarantee you their customers will be as dumb and pay the fare increases. And so what we'll have is a natural cycle of climate change spawning another cycle -- this one stupidity among humans. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

If half of the predictions of the Chicken Little's Doomers and Gloomers had come true the entire planet right now would be under water. These guys made for great False Prophets! :D

Perusing some of these dated titles to these apocalyptic-type articles makes for fun and entertaining reading.

http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/arctic

Boxcar

[Tom]

Gore will always have hcap and mostie to stand by him.

[Greyfox]

And if BA is stupid enough to pay it, I guarantee you their customers will be as dumb and pay the fare increases. And so what we'll have is a natural cycle of climate change spawning another cycle -- this one stupidity among humans. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

British Airlines, a private company, will have to pay the tax.
If customers want to fly, there will be no choice.
The Tax applies to All airlines, and probably has implications for flyers from the U.S.A. to Europe and vice-versa.
It's a long swim or row.

[boxcar]

British Airlines, a private company, will have to pay the tax.
If customers want to fly, there will be no choice.
The Tax applies to All airlines, and probably has implications for flyers from the U.S.A. to Europe and vice-versa.
It's a long swim or row.

If I were BA, I'd go out of business before I'd let government thugs shake me down.

Moreover, the Brits love to demonstrate, don't they? They're great when it comes to squawkin' and squealin' and screamin' for their "entitlements". If they had any brains, they'd demonstrate and picket all airlines in droves, claiming they're entitled to cheap air fares and demand that they government repeal the law. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Gore will always have hcap and mostie to stand by him.

Now if we could only get these Three Stooges to all stand on a melting glacier long enough... :D

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

If I were BA, I'd go out of business before I'd let government thugs shake me down.


Boxcar

Question to idiots:

Why is boxcar's solution impossible?

[redshift1]

If you suffer from insomnia here's an abstract on anthropogenic warming. I suggest jumping to the conclusion sections for the authors assessment of where we currently stand.

Of course you can always find doubters like Spenser the poster child of conservative policy enforcers like the American Tradition Institute and the Heartland Institute but its common knowledge that most climatologists subscribe to anthropogenic warming.






http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0968

[hcap]

No matter what you knuckledraggers post from rightie blogs and Faux Noos, nothing has changed. Even if you disregard everything Al has ever said about GW, the remaining consensus of climatologists and all the scientific organizations and agencies in the world continues as is. The existing consensus is far more more than just one man. Give it u guys, you are all losing it and grasping for lala land straws

One more time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]

[fast4522]

Getting the middle class workers of these united states to pay moneys into global warming or any tax is going to be a hard sell before the next election. Consider all new taxes imposed on this economy a dead deal and this President a lame duck that all will run from instead of to. Blame Bush now if you like, but the fact is we now have Barack Hussein Obama to kick.

[boxcar]

Question to idiots:

Why is boxcar's solution impossible?

Is BA owned or subsidized by the government? Is BA the Brit's version of America's USPS? (God forbid!)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

No matter what you knuckledraggers post from rightie blogs and Faux Noos, nothing has changed. Even if you disregard everything Al has ever said about GW, the remaining consensus of climatologists and all the scientific organizations and agencies in the world continues as is. The existing consensus is far more more than just one man. Give it u guys, you are all losing it and grasping for lala land straws.

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]

I wouldn't put very much faith in this "consensus", given these tree huggers have proven conclusively over all these decades that it wouldn't be able to predict its way out of the Lincoln Tunnel with the aid of a GPS. In the real world, we "knuckledraggers" still subscribe to an old fashioned idea called credibility. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. But keepin' lookin' up, 'cap. Maybe someday you'll catch a piece of that falling sky and frame it and hang it on your wall for a souvenir.

[hcap]

I wouldn't put very much faith in this "consensus", given these tree huggers have proven conclusively over all these decades that it wouldn't be able to predict its way out of the Lincoln Tunnel with the aid of a GPS. In the real world, we "knuckledraggers" still subscribe to an old fashioned idea called credibility. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. But keepin' lookin' up, 'cap. Maybe someday you'll catch a piece of that falling sky and frame it and hang it on your wall for a souvenir.I know you are goinjg to tell me ALL of the world governments, ALL of the worlds universities, ALL the worlds scientific organizations are involved in a vast global conspiracy, and that they are ALL are in in it for the funding. And Al Gore is a fat hypocrite who leads this gigantic hegemony of Godless evil doers.

BTW, when we look at the consensus of the above groups--Governments, universities and scientific orgs and agencies--the consensus is not 97-98 %, it is 100%.

(unless we include Jerry Fallwell U or Oral Roberts law academy :bang: )

How do you explain the 100%? Or can you name ONE of any of those groups that say otherwise? WorlNutDaily and the Heritage foundation are not to be counted. El Gasbag Limpbag, contrary to what you believe in your heat of hearts, has a minimum number of functioning brain cells and does not speak with God over his call in phone line and no credentials in any field except unctuous bloviating

[Lefty]

The earth is billions of yrs old. There has always been constant climate change. It's just for most of that time there were no DImocrats around to tax it.

[skate]

No matter what you knuckledraggers post from rightie blogs and Faux Noos, nothing has changed. Even if you disregard everything Al has ever said about GW, the remaining consensus of climatologists and all the scientific organizations and agencies in the world continues as is. The existing consensus is far more more than just one man. Give it u guys, you are all losing it and grasping for lala land straws

One more time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]

Are you and them the very same people who Clarify that the Sun has gotten 23% more hot, since 2 million years ago?

2 Million years ago the earth was at its most Proficient climate.

If not for clouding, smoke, on an increase, we would be hoter...you hotrod you. :)

[skate]

No matter what you knuckledraggers post from rightie blogs and Faux Noos, nothing has changed. Even if you disregard everything Al has ever said about GW, the remaining consensus of climatologists and all the scientific organizations and agencies in the world continues as is. The existing consensus is far more more than just one man. Give it u guys, you are all losing it and grasping for lala land straws

One more time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]

Hey Hotrod:

:lol: where did all this,above, come from....the clouds maybe? or did you forget your Quackey Quote Signs?:kiss:

Oh...you are sooooo beautiful;)

[hcap]

Hey Hotrod:

:lol: where did all this,above, come from....the clouds maybe? or did you forget your Quackey Quote Signs?:kiss:

Oh...you are sooooo beautiful;)skate, no offense, but I covered all of this in many debates about GW in detail. As far as lifting a chart?

Do you honestly think using photoshop I faked it?
I have posted it a dozen times previously and credited the source as well as 2 dozen other charts. I just don't take seriously all the blather anymore. Btw, if you right click on that chart and go to "View Image Info, you will see where I got it from-Wiki

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g



Asking about the Sun? Check out

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69204&highlight=Global+Warming

and 1/2 dozen other threads.

[boxcar]

I know you are goinjg to tell me ALL of the world governments, ALL of the worlds universities, ALL the worlds scientific organizations are involved in a vast global conspiracy, and that they are ALL are in in it for the funding. And Al Gore is a fat hypocrite who leads this gigantic hegemony of Godless evil doers.

BTW, when we look at the consensus of the above groups--Governments, universities and scientific orgs and agencies--the consensus is not 97-98 %, it is 100%.

(unless we include Jerry Fallwell U or Oral Roberts law academy :bang: )

How do you explain the 100%? Or can you name ONE of any of those groups that say otherwise? WorlNutDaily and the Heritage foundation are not to be counted. El Gasbag Limpbag, contrary to what you believe in your heat of hearts, has a minimum number of functioning brain cells and does not speak with God over his call in phone line and no credentials in any field except unctuous bloviating

All, All, All. "All" is your precious security blanket, eh? Safety in numbers, right? Safety and Security in a very flawed survey in that it was very poorly worded and too ambiguous.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Boxcar

[skate]

skate, no offense, but I covered all of this in many debates about GW in detail. As far as lifting a chart?

Do you honestly think using photoshop I faked it?
I have posted it a dozen times previously and credited the source as well as 2 dozen other charts. I just don't take seriously all the blather anymore. Btw, if you right click on that chart and go to "View Image Info, you will see where I got it from-Wiki

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g



Asking about the Sun? Check out

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69204&highlight=Global+Warming

and 1/2 dozen other threads.


Hey hey hey now look at that, "cover" was what i did regarding our finest Senator of ALL time, i had it all posted years ago....yeppers.:cool:

[hcap]

All, All, All. "All" is your precious security blanket, eh? Safety in numbers, right? Safety and Security in a very flawed survey in that it was very poorly worded and too ambiguous.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

All is correct. Your link is crap. Prove me wrong. I did say crap. Just post ONE. I am waiting for you to post ONE damn Governmental, university, or scientific organization that disagree.

Would it make you happy if I found another link that states climatologist overwhelmingly are in agreement?

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Scientific Societies

*

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)
*

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
*

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
*

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
*

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
*

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
*

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

National Science Academies

*

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
*

International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
*

International academies: The Science of Climate Change

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)

Research

*

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
*

U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
*

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
*

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

*

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Sign-on Statements

*

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)
*

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010)
*

U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008)
*

Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists

"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)

Last Revised: 03/07/11
You Can Help
Donate
Four Star Charity: Charity Navigator More Ways to Give
Get Email Updates
Spam Control Text: Please leave this field empty

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map | RSS | Jobs
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138-3780

Powered by Convio
nonprofit software

[hcap]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures."

See also.....

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

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

[hcap]

Hey hey hey now look at that, "cover" was what i did regarding our finest Senator of ALL time, i had it all posted years ago....yeppers.:cool:
Sorry, I don't speak Babbleonian. What the hell are you talking about :cool:

[skate]

Sorry, I don't speak Babbleonian. What the hell are you talking about :cool:





Da... i posted years ago all about MacCarthy and the Files that proved he was correcto.

You need not speak anything at all, but how are you with "reading" english?

....

[skate]

Fraud



""Climate Change: Global warm-mongers say they can't name a single scientist who doesn't agree with them. Well, here's one: Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, who just left a scientific society because he believes the debate isn't over.

We keep hearing from Al Gore and others that the debate is over, that the "consensus" is that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are heating the planet. The only scientists who don't believe in global warming, we are told, have been bought and paid for by big polluters.""

from IBD



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/585122/201109161838/A-Successful-Fraud.htm

" Norwegian scientist is no longer a member of the American Physical Society, the second-largest organization of physicists in the world. He resigned last week because he "cannot live" with the APS' position that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming."

When Giaever looks at the data, he sees evidence contrary to the APS position. "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," he wrote .


the report goes on to say;
But then, the reports the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not what they appear to be. Reports have been doctored by political insiders to make global warming look like an imminent threat over the objections of the scientists who actually participated in the writing of the reports.

is this too much Babbling for ya Sweety?

[hcap]

Fraud

""Climate Change: Global warm-mongers say they can't name a single scientist who doesn't agree with them. Well, here's one: Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, who just left a scientific society because he believes the debate isn't over.

We keep hearing from Al Gore and others that the debate is over, that the "consensus" is that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are heating the planet. The only scientists who don't believe in global warming, we are told, have been bought and paid for by big polluters.""

from IBD

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/585122/201109161838/A-Successful-Fraud.htm

" Norwegian scientist is no longer a member of the American Physical Society, the second-largest organization of physicists in the world. He resigned last week because he "cannot live" with the APS' position that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing global warming."

When Giaever looks at the data, he sees evidence contrary to the APS position. "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," he wrote .


the report goes on to say;
But then, the reports the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not what they appear to be. Reports have been doctored by political insiders to make global warming look like an imminent threat over the objections of the scientists who actually participated in the writing of the reports.

is this too much Babbling for ya Sweety?This stuff was posted and dealt with last week in the bullshit thread about the same Nobel laureate. But you have added some choice conspiracy buff paranoia. I guess you are qualified to be The New Sorcerers Apprentice.
You should really pay more attention

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87366&highlight=Nobel+laureate


And I have a new debater. skate. I don't think I can ever win debating skate. Migraines ain't worth the effort.

Now about that apprentice position, PM boxcar

[boxcar]

All is correct. Your link is crap. Prove me wrong. I did say crap. Just post ONE. I am waiting for you to post ONE damn Governmental, university, or scientific organization that disagree.

Would it make you happy if I found another link that states climatologist overwhelmingly are in agreement?

Well, I tell ya what would be very helpful: I'd dearly love to see the thousands of signatures of the scientists who supposedly subscribe to AGW.

And I'm not surprised that you would dislike my link. I bet you didn't like this part the most when Peter Doran (one of the researchers of the survey) blithely, unreservedly and and unequivocally admitted to having a particular agenda in mind when he constructed the questions. The guy has no shame. None! He clearly designed the questions to read in order to get his desired result. Let's review his remarks again, shall we?

Motives of the researcher

There is another aspect to this study which hasn't been mentioned; the motives of the researcher. I think this is a valid question, especially considering that climate skeptics are constantly having their motives questioned. Anytime a skeptical paper is published the accusations of 'big-oil funding' start to fly, implying that the researchers have impure motives. What was the motivation behind this study? Let's listen to the researcher himself. In combination with this press release, Peter Doran gave an interview on January 19th, 2009 to a University of Illinois at Chicago news program called Research News. It is available here. There is no transcript so I've written a section myself. It starts about 3/4's of the way through the interview:

Some people have asked me since this paper came out, "Barack Obama is in office now, the Democrats are in control, do we have to worry about this anymore?", and the answer is yes, because the general public is still about 50% convinced that global warming is an issue that's real, let alone do we have to do something about it. And so the public needs convincing, and also, there are still people in government that need convincing. As recently as December there was a senate minority report put forward that said exactly the opposite of what our paper said, and was trying to convince people in the senate that scientists don't agree on global warming. So there is a still a battle, if you will, to be fought here, and I hope our paper pushes the numbers towards more people believing that global warming is a reality. I think if people don't believe that scientists agree then they can use that as an excuse for inaction, and that's a dangerous thing.

Clearly this researcher wants his paper to change the public's mind and politicians' minds about the scientific consensus. I am not claiming that his paper is invalid solely because of this reason, but I do want to make the motivations of this particular study clear: the study is intended to convince the public, and politicians, that global warming is real and we have no excuse for inaction.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

This is how polls are skewed, 'cap. You do know this, don't you? All a "researcher" has to do with his poll or survey is frame his questions in a certain way to make it likely that he'll get his desired or preconceived response. Any honest person would have to admit those two questions (especially the second one) were very poorly worded -- and on purpose. They were too broad and too ambiguous.

But you keep insisting that these scientists are somehow above these kinds of human....err...."foibles". They would never stoop that low, would they? :rolleyes:

And then this Doran guy has the gall to claim a 97% consensus out of only 79 self-appointed participants.

First I'm going to address a common response to this study. In this post at The Hockey Schtick, it is pointed out that the 97% statistic is based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were self-selected. There are two concerns here. The first is sample size. While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may not have led to a representative sample.

And the Senate Minority Report thoroughly debunks this "universal consensus" nonsense.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. (emphasis mine)

Did you catch that phrase "peer reviewed"?

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

You're chasin' the wind, 'cap. But keep lookin' up. You might get lucky one day. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Pace Cap'n]

No matter what you knuckledraggers post from rightie blogs and Faux Noos, nothing has changed. Even if you disregard everything Al has ever said about GW, the remaining consensus of climatologists and all the scientific organizations and agencies in the world continues as is. The existing consensus is far more more than just one man. Give it u guys, you are all losing it and grasping for lala land straws

One more time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g/220px-Ratio_of_publishing_climate_scientists_who_believe _humans_are_warming_the_planet_based_on_Aderegg.jp g

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]

What that chart tells me is that nearly all scientists know which side of the bread the butter is on.

[bigmack]

hcap is the same nerd who tried to convince us (with scientific consensus) we were going to freeze our keisters off back in the 70's. Now we're going to melt. What's it gonna be, boy?

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/Timeflipflop.jpg


They FREAK OUT when Mama Earth does what she's been doing forever.

Nerds: Look it's warming/cooling. Blame it on "man. We can't get money from the sun.

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/temperature%20history.jpg

[boxcar]

As I dig even deeper into this AGW "scientific consensus" insanity, what is even more remarkable than the expose to the two loaded questions or to Doran's stated agenda for the survey is how that magnificent "97%" number was derived in the first place. This is a must read, folks. It's mind boggling, but I'm not surprised given that there's big bucks to be made for the right people (read: lots of bread and butter) doing this climate research.

Just check out some of these basic numbers. The "consensus" survey began with an email campaign to 10,257 scientists. Of these, only 3,146 or 30.67% responded. The other 69+% couldn't be bothered for one reason or another. This in itself is kind of odd, since our planet is facing imminent doom, if we are to believe the profiteering prophets. Such complacency is indeed immoral. :rolleyes: But I digress.

Now, of this number of respondents, only 5% of them (157 scientists) described themselves as being climate science "specialists". But Doran and Zimmerman wanted to limit the responses only to "experts: in the climate field, and so this number was further reduced to a mere 77 responses. To make sure everyone understands: The fate of all mankind was placed into the hands of 79 fallible, government or foundation-funded "experts". :rolleyes:

The survey researchers reduced the size of the field to this last number by limiting participants to those who have published more than 50% of their "recent" peer-reviewed papers on climate change. As the writer to this article points out, there was very little further detail as to just how many peer-reviewed papers were required on climate change. Was there a minimum? Or could some self-proclaimed expert have written two "recent" papers of which only 1 had to do with climate change? Also, how recent was recent?

So, how the 97% consensus was reached was that 77 of the 79 "finalists" actually gives us a 97% number, which was based strictly on how the second very loaded question was answered.

Even the 157 figure is modest -- very modest, considering this was supposed to represent a "global, worldwide" consensus (more on this in a moment). An inquiring mind would like to know why. Why did they limit the number of self-proclaimed "climate specialists"? Was it because after all the survey data was in, the D and Z boys didn't get the results for which they were hoping? And so, in order to get some "overwhelming" result, they concocted more qualifying rules that would disqualify dissenters? (They call this "retrofitting", don't they?) One has to think that even if they were anywhere close to the 97% numbers with the larger pool of 157 participants, they would have opted for the larger pool; for it would have been a more impressive sampling.

This is already too long, but a brief word about the supposedly global scope of this consensus. Here is the breakdown of the finalists -- the actual sub-set of scientists whose replies were considered. 90% if them came from the U.S., 6% from Canada and 4% from all others. So, 90% came from the Land with Deep Pockets who pay the right scientists well. :rolleyes:

But this even gets worse. One website ran a story on this "consensus" scam and boldly proclaimed that a poll was taken of 3,146 scientists and that over 90% of them believed that AGW is real! :bang: :bang: That's funny because if they want to use this large number as the basis for the survey instead of the much smaller sub-set of 79, then 77 respondents who answered "yes" to the second question would come to only 2.4% of scientists! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Unbelievable!

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

Boxcar

[boxcar]

hcap is the same nerd who tried to convince us (with scientific consensus) we were going to freeze our keisters off back in the 70's. Now we're going to melt. What's it gonna be, boy?

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/Timeflipflop.jpg


They FREAK OUT when Mama Earth does what she's been doing forever.

Nerds: Look it's warming/cooling. Blame it on "man. We can't get money from the sun.

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/temperature%20history.jpg

Whoa, Mack, that's an impressive chart! In living technicolor and everything. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

In the 2007 Senate Minority Report on the Environment, it was pointed out that 400+ scientists didn't quite see things the same way as the 77 did from the D and Z survey or even as the mere 52 did from the IPCC.

Then in the 2008 Senate update to the above report, about another 250 scientists were added to the roles of dissenters or skeptics, bringing the number up to about 650 scientists -- I would imagine from various disciplines. They probably weren't all climate change "specialists" or "experts" (as D and Z defined these, anyway). But I have to think there were a lot more than a mere 79 of them!

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/u-s-senate-minority-report-more-than-650-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-scientists-continue-debunk-consensus-2008/p17977

Here's another thing I find highly, highly suspect about the D and Z survey. We know that Doran (at least) definitely had an objective in mind -- a very well defined agenda. And this probably accounts for why he and his partner hid the data from the other 3,067 scientists who responded. Someone without an agenda -- someone who was truly on a fact-finding mission -- anyone without a bias one way or another -- would have provided the results for all three levels of sub-sets. They would have provided results for all 3,146 respondents.. Then results for second tier of 157. And then results for the final sub-set of 79. And then let the readers interpret that data for themselves. But there was NO transparency here! None! Zippo! Nada!

This huge "worldwide" consensus was comprised of 79 climate "experts" -- with 96% of them hailing from North America and the other 4% from wherever? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And to your mind that's a near unanimous global consensus? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The one thing I am convinced of is that since you believe this, then your brain must be fried! Maybe that accounts for all the heat you've been feeling. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. White helmets reflect the sun nicely. Give it a try.

[bigmack]

hcap can't come close to finding someone with the credentials of MIT Climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen. He debated some of their top nerds and made them look like children.

uu9fprxnkEI

[boxcar]

Hey, Mack, "MIT" to our dear ol' 'cap probably means -- "Made [up] in Transylvania". :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://www.globalwarminglies.com/pics/temperature%20history.jpg

Sure is accurate.

First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve is crap. Third, can you explain "Nomanic Time"? Fourth, where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. .

If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website. WHERE ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS? What is their source?

Here are is real data from Nasa and other sources You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1880-2005.gif

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1000.gif

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/surface_temps.gif

There are hundreds of scholarly charts based on data from reputable sources compared to the ONE above which doesn't pass the sniff test

[PaceAdvantage]

That Harris and Mann graph you question hcap...it looks pretty much the same as the graph you just posted...except yours starts in 1880.

The graph in question shows a rise in temperatures as well from 1880 onward...

So what's your beef with that graph again?

[lsbets]

That Harris and Mann graph you question hcap...it looks pretty much the same as the graph you just posted...except yours starts in 1880.

The graph in question shows a rise in temperatures as well from 1880 onward...

So what's your beef with that graph again?

It goes against his religion. He's an environmental evangelical.

The fact is we have no idea to what extent man is influencing climate. The ones pushing for drastic change don't give a rat's ass about climate change. They have a completely different agenda.

When someone is so insistent on their position like Hcap, it tells us one of two things:

1) He doesn't have a clue

or

2) He's not an honest man.

Take your pick. The simple fact is no one knows to what degree man is influencing the climate and this is the only field of science where dissent is crushed as quickly as someone who insults Mohamed in Saudi Arabia.

[bigmack]

Here are is real data from Nasa and other sources
Last time you started using NASA I showed you the story about the agency admitting their temperature numbers were WAY off. I think I remember you ignoring that and "moving on."

Just to review the debate team thusfar. You have Al Gore, Michael "Tree Ring" Mann, and 10 other nerds of your choosing. The other team has Dr. Lindzen.

Are ya ready? :lol:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/home/mann_treering.jpg

http://www.uncoverage.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/al-gore-2.jpg
Anybody got a laxative for Big A?

[redshift1]

Eminently qualified authors? ..... pretty chart but as non-scientific as Unicorns and Griffins. Note the credentials below for the ever lovable pair of Dr Demento's.



“How to profit and prosper from global climate change” is the subject of an International Weather, Commodity and Real Estate seminar (Coeur d’Alene, ID) with keynote speakers Cliff Harris, self-taught climatologist, and local TV news station meteorologist Randy Mann who holds a degree in geography. They contend that planetary climate changes are only incidentally due to manmade pollution but are instead a phase in a long-term weather cycle that covers eons of time. Another speaker, author Robert Felix argues from his book “Not By Fire, But By Ice” that the earth is more likely to experience an ice age “beginning any day”.

Read on for the religious basis of Climate change..........

http://gaiacapitalist.squarespace.com/the-gaialectic/

[Lefty]

I'm pretty sure that Global Warming is caused by all the hot air emitting from Al Gore and all the other liberals that agree with him.

[hcap]

It goes against his religion. He's an environmental evangelical.

The fact is we have no idea to what extent man is influencing climate. The ones pushing for drastic change don't give a rat's ass about climate change. They have a completely different agenda.

When someone is so insistent on their position like Hcap, it tells us one of two things:

1) He doesn't have a clue
or
2) He's not an honest man.

Take your pick. The simple fact is no one knows to what degree man is influencing the climate and this is the only field of science where dissent is crushed as quickly as someone who insults Mohamed in Saudi Arabia.1-If you believe the so-called chart by Harris and Mann is scientific, you know nothing and are an idiot
.
2-As far as having a religious stake in outcomes, you never provide any facts or details and mouth this nonsense as though it's YOUR religion. Yes, I am a environmentalist. Any sane human being has to be. You have bought into the imaginary "greenie""conspiracy, and from your lack of understanding, boxcar's "Al Gore International Illuminati Conspiracy" As have most defenders of the skeptics viewpoint here on PA off topic .


It is obvious these two "experts" are woefully lacking in ANY expertise and have pulled the wool over your eyes. No credentials, no credible source of data. And as redshift1 pointed out eminently unqualified to do serious research. Glorified TV weathermen posing as equals to the vast international scientific community.

Not convinced, do a search for Harris or Mann.

[hcap]

That Harris and Mann graph you question hcap...it looks pretty much the same as the graph you just posted...except yours starts in 1880.

The graph in question shows a rise in temperatures as well from 1880 onward...

So what's your beef with that graph again?Are you kidding? Look again at the 3 charts I posted. All indicate a rapisly increasing rate recently, and the 2 bottom charts go back to the ear 1000. All show a very different picture than the inaccurate one by Harris and Mann.

[lsbets]

Facts have been thrown up at you time and again and it makes no difference. You don't care to see facts, so I don't waste my time with it anymore. Al schooled you numerous times on global warming. He kicked your ass so hard you shouldn't have been able to sit for a year, but like a good cult member you kept drinking the koolaid.

Facts? You? :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Last time you started using NASA I showed you the story about the agency admitting their temperature numbers were WAY off. I think I remember you ignoring that and "moving on."

Just to review the debate team thusfar. You have Al Gore, Michael "Tree Ring" Mann, and 10 other nerds of your choosing. The other team has Dr. Lindzen.

Are ya ready? :lol:

Now, now...that's not entirely accurate. He has 77 climate change "experts" from all over the world ( :rolleyes: ) that have formed a 97% consensus.

On the flip side of the coin, there is Doc Lindzen and over 700 other scientists on record with the Senate (as of 2009) as being bona fide skeptics of AGW. And these 700+ folks have their names, credentials, peer-reviewed papers, etc. all on record with the Senate, as well as their reasons in their own words as to why they are skeptical. But in 'cap's mind, these guys don't exist. They're merely the "silent majority". They only outnumber the 79 in the Doran and Zimmerman report by a factor of nearly 10. Yet, it's the 77 of the 79 that form this highly touted 97% global consensus, of which only 4% hailed from somewhere other than North America.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hcap, I have some really great news for you, but you have to act this week to catch your little piece of the falling sky (well, almost, anyway):

Defunct NASA satellite to crash to Earth this week

(Reuters) - A defunct NASA science satellite is expected to fall back to Earth on Friday, showering debris somewhere on the planet although scientists cannot predict exactly where, officials said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/us-space-debris-nasa-idUSTRE78I5GE20110919

This might be your only chance to try to catch a piece of something falling from the sky. I wish you the best.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to wear a helmet, a chess protector and a very well padded catcher's mitt when lookin' up.

[hcap]

Facts have been thrown up at you time and again and it makes no difference. You don't care to see facts, so I don't waste my time with it anymore. Al schooled you numerous times on global warming. He kicked your ass so hard you shouldn't have been able to sit for a year, but like a good cult member you kept drinking the koolaid.

Facts? You? :lol: :lol:I missed your perceptive explanation on why the 2 weatherman's technicolor chart is accurate and every other chart drawn from reputable data sources is not. Don't tell me. Let me guess. Of course!! It is (Ta Da), The insidious Al Gore International Illuminati Conspiracy at work. So let me ask again. All you or fellow knuckledraggers have to do is link to or post ONE damn accredited university, one of the world's governmental agencies. One accredited scientific organization that does not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. I am still waiting. I guess it is now months since I posed that question to your spiritual guide and mentor boxcar, or master of childish ceremonies Burger Boy. I always thought although you, a dyed in the wool reactionary, were at least a thoughtful one. Recently, judging by your responses on the the Ayn Rand thread and this subject of GW, you have failed miserably to discuss things rationally. And when you lose on the merits resort to calling me a fanatic with Boxcarian tendencies. Thoughtful? I don't think so.

Before you and fellow idiots stop wasting your time with me, can you possibly explain why and how the vast liberal elite aforementioned Al Gore international Illuminati Conspiracy has managed to pull off their dastardly deeds? Or what are the odds of such a vast, successful manipulation of

1-Data?
2-Scientists?
3-Universities?
4-Governmental and scientific organizations?

And the kicker is you claim "facts have have been thrown up at me time and again and it makes no difference" Truly iroic.

Guess what? I am still waiting for verifiable facts.

[boxcar]

I missed your perceptive explanation on why the 2 weatherman's technicolor chart is accurate and every other chart drawn from reputable data sources is not. Don't tell me. Let me guess. Of course!! It is (Ta Da), The insidious Al Gore International Illuminati Conspiracy at work. So let me ask again. All you or fellow knuckledraggers have to do is link to or post ONE damn accredited university, one of the world's governmental agencies. One accredited scientific organization that does not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. I am still waiting. I guess it is now months since I posed that question to your spiritual guide and mentor boxcar, or master of childish ceremonies Burger Boy. I always thought although you, a dyed in the wool reactionary, were at least a thoughtful one. Recently, judging by your responses on the the Ayn Rand thread and this subject of GW, you have failed miserably to discuss things rationally. And when you lose on the merits resort to calling me a fanatic with Boxcarian tendencies. Thoughtful? I don't think so.

Before you and fellow idiots stop wasting your time with me, can you possibly explain why and how the vast liberal elite aforementioned Al Gore international Illuminati Conspiracy has managed to pull off their dastardly deeds? Or what are the odds of such a vast, successful manipulation of

1-Data?
2-Scientists?
3-Universities?
4-Governmental and scientific organizations?

And the kicker is you claim "facts have have been thrown up at me time and again and it makes no difference" Truly iroic.

Guess what? I am still waiting for verifiable facts.

That "overwhelming scientific consensus" -- err...would that be the same one that was slapped together by the D and Z boys with their keenly insightful questions, which they accepted answers from 79 scientists -- "around the world"? :lol: :lol: :lol: Is that the one to which you're alluding?

Boxcar
P.S. You should have a 5th one in your above list: IPCC defections. :lol:

[hcap]

So box, all you have to do to shake my propagandized Manchurian candidate brainwashed brain, is answer the same old question I have posed time and again. Most recently to lsbets. Are you ready? Take your time, call a lifeline friend, look in the bible, or whatever gets you thinking. (call skate? :lol: )

ONE MORE FReaKING TIME...

All you or fellow knuckledraggers have to do is link to or post ONE damn accredited university, one of the world's governmental agencies. One accredited scientific organization that does not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. I am still waiting. I guess it is now months since I posed that question to your spiritual guide and mentor boxcar, or master of childish ceremonies Burger Boy.

......................................

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
― John Adams

[BenDiesel26]

The most important part of any scientific model is that it matches data. Does CO2 trap heat? Yes. It is a strawman argument when CAGW proponents try to argue this. What you will never see them argue, hcap, and that you can't either, is that the most important part of any scientific model is that it matches experimental data. That is, "all models are wrong, some are useful." There are countless number of GCMs that model the physical theory of the greenhouse effect with many assumptions, and besides varying widely they do not match experimental data. They over predicted in 1990, and were adjusted down. They over predicted and 1995, and were adjusted down. They over predicted in 2000, and were adjusted down. You get it. They have over predicted every single time, and have been adjusted down. Unfortunately, the GCMs by which many would like to make policy decisions have been way off. This means something is wrong with the current model, aka the theory behind it. The MODELS DON'T MATCH REALITY. Kevin Trenberth: "The fact that we cannot explain the recent lack of warming is a travesty." (that's supposed to be a scientist that made that quote by the way). This can't be argued, because it's simply true. Look at some of the "consensus" predictions that you believe so strongly in--like the 2005 UN prediction that their would be 50 million or more climate refugees from pacific islands by 2010 (50 million people moved to those islands--nice consensus).

Meanwhile, the "proof" behind man made CO2 as the main driver behind climate change has basically been the explanation that nothing else can explain the increase (yeah right), so it must be CO2. That's it. Unfortunately, as science is beginning to work as it should now and no politicians overreacted, this explanation is falling apart. Three recent papers have been published, for example, suggesting that clouds have an overall cooling effect on climate. Meanwhile, GCMs have arbitrarily assumed a positive effect for no valid reason. While "the team" has been up in arms over this, even going as far as to put out response papers in very swift turnarounds (since we now know they have manipulated the peer review process, this is not argued), it continues to fall apart. Add to this the CERN cloud experiment. It's actually very fascinating science, but I suggest to you, hcap, that the only people that actually claim a scientific consensus on the subject are politicians and non-scientists like yourself, or scientists who believe so strongly that its true that they continue to peddle it until other people prove them wrong (it happens all the time with scientists too, they only see what they want to see and this is how science has worked in the past as well).

My suggestion to you is to actually educate yourself on the subject by reading sites where comments are not strictly moderated to block out non-conforming opinions (aka realclimate.org, etc.) Read the climategate emails and you will find that there has been successful manipulation of:

1) The peer review process
2) Data, as in data that didn't "tell the story they wanted" (their quote) was purposely removed from a plot (hide the decline) so that readers were unable to see it, computer programs with "very artificial fudge factors" (their words)
3) The FOI process. This is still ongoing big time, with desperate blockades of data sets and methods. Why? Science should be open, I'm sure you would agree with that. Right? Many of those on the team still refuse to divulge data and methods from work done over a decade ago because they are so afraid of science (aka, "why give out our data and methods when they will just find something wrong with it"--their words)

And with the verifiable facts--how bout you provide actual verifiable facts that man-made CO2 is the main driver behind the recent climate change--so many will love you, since it has not been done yet. And I pose this question to you--Do the current GCMs match reality? A place to start looking--how many hot spots have been found in the upper troposphere by the "scientific consensus" which has continually come up short on prediction--a primary characteristic of the modeled greenhouse effect?

[hcap]

And with the verifiable facts--how bout you provide actual verifiable facts that man-made CO2 is the main driver behind the recent climate change--so many will love you, since it has not been done yetI have many times Ben.
We had a very similar discussion on The Cool Air Causes GW thread. Remember?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69204&highlight=global+warming


Anyway although GCMs are not perfect in the sense that we can predict exactly what future temperatures will be, they are reliable enough for the consensus, and there is a consensus, to be quite certain of humanity's role and that temperatures will rise sufficiently for all to be concerned.

.................................................. ...............

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif


Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality the events are all within the upper range of the model’s predictions. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling chaotic systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

Comparisons IPCC AR4 model results (grey lines with model average as black line) to observations (red line) (Canadian CCCMA model results)


http://www.skepticalscience.com//images/ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif

[boxcar]

So box, all you have to do to shake my propagandized Manchurian candidate brainwashed brain, is answer the same old question I have posed time and again. Most recently to lsbets. Are you ready? Take your time, call a lifeline friend, look in the bible, or whatever gets you thinking. (call skate? :lol: )

ONE MORE FReaKING TIME...

All you or fellow knuckledraggers have to do is link to or post ONE damn accredited university, one of the world's governmental agencies. One accredited scientific organization that does not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus. I am still waiting. I guess it is now months since I posed that question to your spiritual guide and mentor boxcar, or master of childish ceremonies Burger Boy.

Now, now, take a deep breath, 'cap. You're the one who came on this thread bragging about the 97% consensus and then jumped that up to 100%. :rolleyes: That 97% fig was certainly based upon the D and Z survey, was it not? That's when and how that number became so popular, and I have shown that it was a 100% bogus, rigged study in various ways.

And as far as any given "scientific organization" goes, none of them speak for ALL scientists. I'd much prefer to hear 700+ individual, original explanations from skeptics than from 20 organizations spouting the "party line" with the promise of getting their next pay check for their cooperation.

Boxcar

[hcap]

CO2

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

The greenhouse effect occurs because greenhouse gases let sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation

A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).

Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif

Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

[BenDiesel26]

hcap, reread my post about the strawman argument that you have just made. If you would like some pointers to some papers or materials to educate yourself, let me know. THE COMPUTER MODELS AND PREDICTIONS FROM WHICH THE "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS" IS BASED DO NOT AGREE WITH REALITY. The climate is not warming as quickly or in the manner that the models predict, and has basically leveled off this decade. Hence the quote by Kevin Trenberth about the lack of warming. You can't argue this, it's just fact. I can begin to ask you some science/statistics 101 questions if you would like to give you an idea why this matters. Just let me know.

[redshift1]

My suggestion to you is to actually educate yourself on the subject by reading sites where comments are not strictly moderated to block out non-conforming opinions (aka realclimate.org, etc.) Read the climategate emails and you will find that there has been successful manipulation of:



Name your unbiased sites which purportedly refute anthropogenic warming.

There are literally 100s of articles vindicating the climate-gate scientists on the internet and news, hard to ignore unless you subscribe to some overarching scientific conspiracy to perpetuate the grant process.

Name your unbiased sources which refute the 100s of articles vindicating
the climate-gate scientists.

.

[boxcar]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Boxcar

[hcap]

Now, now, take a deep breath, 'cap. You're the one who came on this thread bragging about the 97% consensus and then jumped that up to 100%. :rolleyes: That 97% fig was certainly based upon the D and Z survey, was it not? That's when and how that number became so popular, and I have shown that it was a 100% bogus, rigged study in various ways.

And as far as any given "scientific organization" goes, none of them speak for ALL scientists. I'd much prefer to hear 700+ individual, original explanations from skeptics than from 20 organizations spouting the "party line" with the promise of getting their next pay check for their cooperation.
We have dealt with the quality of these "700". Most are not climatologist or are not in related fields. I guess you can use the term "The 700 Club" if it makes you happy.

Look I hate to cut and run, but please refer to the 'Cool Air Causes GW thread. Everything you and Burger Boy babble now, you babbled then.

And of course you still can not answer my question, can you? You know--about just ONE freaking accredited group?

All bluster No muster box :cool:

Btw, how came you haven't responded to John Adams saying you are an awful historian?
(As well as as a full time Looney tune I might add)

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
― John Adams

[BenDiesel26]

Name your unbiased sites which purportedly refute anthropogenic warming.

There are literally 100s of articles vindicating the climate-gate scientists on the internet and news, hard to ignore unless you subscribe to some overarching scientific conspiracy to perpetuate the grant process.

Name your unbiased sources which refute the 100s of articles vindicating
the climate-gate scientists.

.

Really, 100s of articles? Hard to find unbiased sites: so I just read realclimate.org (strictly moderated to make sure all posters agree with catastrophic global warming) and climateaudit.org, which checks up on them. I do not post on either. Go back and forth and decide for yourself. What I have found as a scientist myself, is that some of the articles are just plain bad, and I am curious how hard it is to get a PhD in the field. I guess this is expected as its a new field and basically all of the scientists in it do not have an official "climate science" degree. Go check out some of the stuff on the response to Spencer and Braswell written by Dessler that was just released. After seeing some of the stuff Dessler (part of the "consensus") has done statistically, I honestly have to question if he's ever even taken a freshman level college course in statistics. Admittedly, I have not read the Spencer and Braswell paper so they could be just as bad.

Also, list the 100's of papers that vindicate the climate scientists who are known by their own words to have manipulated the peer review process (check it out for yourself). I can include direct quotes from the climategate scientists, who were found to have broken the law (FOIA law but beyond statute of limitations). Read the emails and decide for yourself, then go find the context.

Once again, THE MODELS DO NOT AGREE WITH REALITY. That is just the cold hard truth. And finally, statistics 101, you have to PROVE CAGW before somebody has to refute it. That is another problem. In statistics, you always make your alternative hypothesis what you are trying to prove so as to give your results significance, not the other way around. That is, if you want to prove CAGW, you would have a null hypothesis that natural causes are to blame for the earth's recent climate shift that is of very similar magnitude to the shift that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. Consensus is not statistical proof, i.e. science can't be bought. There appears to be many that do not understand this.

[boxcar]

We have dealt with the quality of these "700". Most are not climatologist or are not in related fields. I guess you can use the term "The 700 Club" if it makes you happy.

Look I hate to cut and run, but please refer to the 'Cool Air Causes GW thread. Everything you and Burger Boy babble now, you babbled then.

And of course you still can not answer my question, can you? You know--about just ONE freaking accredited group?

All bluster No muster box :cool:

And I, sir, have dealt with the quality of the D and Z survey upon which you greenies hang your 97% consensus hat. I'll take the "700 Club" over the 79ers any day. And I'll even lay you lots of points. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php



Need I remind you the figs are for 97% of climatologists establishing a Consensus.. If we add in all disciplines as your new club, "The 30,000 Club" does, I guarantee you that 97% of the new enlarged group would agree with me and not you and Burger boy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

....to say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.


.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

Please read the rest of the article in addition to my excerpt. The rest goes on to talk about the sordid origins

[BenDiesel26]

Once again, consensus has ZERO to do with statistical significance. This whole these scientists say this, these say that is irrelevant. If you want to use computer models to tell us that we are in trouble, you would think that we would want them to actually represent reality. Even you can agree with that, right hcap? Also, I'm sure you agree on open data archiving as well. That would actually move the science forward. The field has taken a HUGE hit of credibility amongst the public and educated laymen since climategate. You'd think the proponents of CAGW would want to put that to rest by releasing methods.

[bigmack]

Once again, THE MODELS DO NOT AGREE WITH REALITY. That is just the cold hard truth. And finally, statistics 101, you have to PROVE CAGW before somebody has to refute it. That is another problem. In statistics, you always make your alternative hypothesis what you are trying to prove so as to give your results significance, not the other way around. Consensus is not statistical proof. There appears to be many that do not understand this.
I've been harpin' on that forever with hcrap. You want an authority, listen to Dr. Richard Lindzen.

ZsMV5-NRp2Y

Models are junk. hcrap is a bonafide cultist spreading propaganda. Selling flowers at the airport got old. This is his new cult mission.

[hcap]

As I was saying, to be generous and include and then compare say the atmospheric scientists, climatologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed your wondrous "Petition" with some other groups who are in the Consensus, we have a fuller story

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.


The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%.

The AGU ocean sciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated.

The American Meteorological Society claims over 14,000 members and the OISM claims 341 meteorologists as petition signatories. That’s only 2.4%.

It’s clear that the OISM names don’t represent a significant number of scientists when compared to either the total number of science graduates in the U.S. or to the number of practicing scientists who work in likely relevant fields. But that’s not all.

Over recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% of climate scientists surveyed “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring” and that “[o]nly 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.” The STATS survey involved a random sampling of “489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union” and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%.

The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.

84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption. The 13,245 scientists and 152 possible climate scientists who signed the OISM petition represent a small minority of the totals.

The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard.

A more recent survey of earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". 97.5% of climatologists who were actively publishing papers on climate change responded yes.(Doran 2009). What is most interesting about this study was that as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

[hcap]

Models are junk. hcrap is a bonafide cultist spreading propaganda. Selling flowers at the airport got old. This is his new cult mission.Read my response to Ben before you blow off steam from the top of your head or other gasses from other orifices

[BenDiesel26]

Bang. Head. On. Desk. Consensus is not science.

Scientific Method:
1. Problem Statement
2. Hypotheseses
3. Collect Real World Data to Test Hypotheses
4. Evaluate Results
5. Conclusions
6. Replication by other scientists using independent data sets and Criticism from other scientists in the field based on what was done
7. Repeat

CLIMATE MODELS DO NOT AGREE WITH REAL WORLD DATA. It is not science to stop at step number 2 of the scientific method. Conclusions from computer models are not scientifically valid results. You don't fit data to models, you fit models to data. Science 101.

[BenDiesel26]

Read my response to Ben before you blow off steam from the top of your head or other gasses from other orifices


Sorry hcap, just saw. Read my above post. There's a reason that the models are wrong every single time the IPCC report comes out, and will continue to be wrong. Because the underlying theory is not refined enough to be correct. Period. They can include factors every five years or so to match past data, but it never matches future data. So when the scientific consensus from 5 years ago was wrong, they come up with another, that's wrong 5 years later, and so on instead of just concluding correctly that the MODELS ARE WRONG.

I assume you are for open archiving of methods and data, correct?

[bigmack]

Read my response to Ben before you blow off steam from the top of your head or other gasses from other orifices
Hey, BagOCrap, where's the link to the last bag of wind post from your demented barrel of crap?

[BenDiesel26]

From hcap earlier:

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.

Boldface mine. Obviously, this was written by a non-scientist based on the above boldfaced statement. In fact, that is an absolutely pathetic statement. There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that this statement came from an actual scientific paper, as it represents complete ignorance of science/statistics and uncertainty in the climate itself. Unfortunately, the statement in bold is something that a typical layman with absolutely no background in science or statistics would read without questioning.

[bigmack]

Obviously, this was written by a non-scientist based on the above boldfaced statement. In fact, that is an absolutely pathetic statement. There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that this statement came from an actual scientific paper, as it represents complete ignorance of science/statistics and uncertainty in the climate itself. Unfortunately, the statement in bold is something that a typical layman with absolutely no background in science or statistics would read without questioning.
Much of his garbage (including what you just highlighted) is from a blogger out of Australia, John Cook, who hosts a site http://www.skepticalscience.com/. Go there and have a laugh.

He wouldn't link to it for a reason.

[boxcar]

Need I remind you the figs are for 97% of climatologists establishing a Consensus.. If we add in all disciplines as your new club, "The 30,000 Club" does, I guarantee you that 97% of the new enlarged group would agree with me and not you and Burger boy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

....to say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.


.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.

With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.

In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.

Please read the rest of the article in addition to my excerpt. The rest goes on to talk about the sordid origins

Do the number of "climate specialists" under the heading "Atmosphere" on the Petition add up to more than 79? I believe 578 does. All the disciplines listed under this heading are hardly unrelated to the climate. And what about the category of "Environment" -- that counts for nothing?

And the questions raised about the "sordid origins" were answered on the site.

And moreover, we don't know how many of the final 79ers chosen by the D and Z boys actually had doctorates. Nor do we know how many peer-reviewed papers they wrote. Lots of unanswered questions. But this we know: Doran had an agenda and his questions sucked raw eggs big time!

Boxcar

[hcap]

From hcap earlier:

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.

Boldface mine. Obviously, this was written by a non-scientist based on the above boldfaced statement. In fact, that is an absolutely pathetic statement. There is absolutely ZERO CHANCE that this statement came from an actual scientific paper, as it represents complete ignorance of science/statistics and uncertainty in the climate itself. Unfortunately, the statement in bold is something that a typical layman with absolutely no background in science or statistics would read without questioning.You left out the rest


....Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality the events are all within the upper range of the model’s predictions. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling chaotic systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

Comparisons IPCC AR4 model results (grey lines with model average as black line) to observations (red line) (Canadian CCCMA model results)

http://www.skepticalscience.com//images/ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif

You said.

Scientific Method:
1. Problem Statement
2. Hypotheseses
3. Collect Real World Data to Test Hypotheses
4. Evaluate Results
5. Conclusions
6. Replication by other scientists using independent data sets and Criticism from other scientists in the field based on what was done
7. Repeat

What I just explained above agrees with this.

[bigmack]

hcrap doing the same cut & paste work from The Mothership, that he's renowned for doing over....and over....and over.

The models don't jibe with reality. THAT'S THE FACT. DumDum (hcrap) is ready, willing & able to accept models for alarmist purposes.

I get it:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/10222.jpg

[boxcar]

hcrap doing the same cut & paste work from The Mothership, that he's renowned for doing over....and over....and over.

The models don't jibe with reality. THAT'S THE FACT. DumDum (hcrap) is ready, willing & able to accept models for alarmist purposes.

I get it:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/10222.jpg

Let's hope this Friday will be his big day. That's when all that stuff in the sky above falls. Our very own Climate-phobic Squawking Alarmist may never get a chance like this again.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Let's hope this Friday will be his big day. That's when all that stuff in the sky above falls. Our very own Climate-phobic Squawking Alarmist may never get a chance like this again.

Boxcar


FTFY.......

[Lefty]

Well looks like this thread alone refutes Algore when he said "The Debate Is Over."
It looks like it's just getting warmed up. Pun fully intended.

[redshift1]

Once again, THE MODELS DO NOT AGREE WITH REALITY. That is just the cold hard truth. And finally, statistics 101, you have to PROVE CAGW before somebody has to refute it. That is another problem. In statistics, you always make your alternative hypothesis what you are trying to prove so as to give your results significance, not the other way around. That is, if you want to prove CAGW, you would have a null hypothesis that natural causes are to blame for the earth's recent climate shift that is of very similar magnitude to the shift that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. Consensus is not statistical proof, i.e., science can't be bought. There appears to be many that do not understand this.

If i'm understanding you correctly your position is:

The climate scientists who support anthropogenic warming have somehow failed to consider the null hypothesis, and you know this how?

The climate shifts of the early 1900s are similar to recent climate shifts.

Temperatures have been rising steadily since 1900 at an ever-increasing rate and this correlates nicely with the widespread implementation of the Industrial Revolution technologies I.E the burning of hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Take a look at the steep slope of rising temperatures and the only similarties between 1900 and now is a positive slope.

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


.

[hcap]

hcrap doing the same cut & paste work from The Mothership, that he's renowned for doing over....and over....and over.

The models don't jibe with reality. THAT'S THE FACT. DumDum (hcrap) is ready, willing & able to accept models for alarmist purposes.

I get it:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/10222.jpg
You dumbo's repeat a familarar pattern.

1-One of you knuckledraggers post some fly by night criticism of GW by some lightweight or 1/2 baked weatherman.

2- I rebut it by either showing it wrong on it's merits or highlighting the "weatherman's" academic credentials, (usually a degree from either Jerry Falwell U, or McDonalds' night school Hamburger University )

3-Burger Boy loses chain of thought and posts a dumb graphic and equally dumb hubba hubba hubba snarky comment that is absurdly UNFUNNY to any one with 1/2 a brain. Then everyone else with less than that proverbial 1/2, cackles and hoots as though Burger Boy said anything of any relevance or yowsa yee doggies, an incredibly perceptive hilarious cosmic truth.

I do believe you gentlemen have reached a new level of ASSholian heights.

I apologize to Ben. For even suggesting he is included in that type of response. Unlike you gentlemen, at least his comments were reasonable.

Coe isbets. Time for your insults comparing me to your spiritual mentor boxcar

[hcap]

If i'm understanding you correctly your position is:

The climate scientists who support anthropogenic warming have somehow failed to consider the null hypothesis, and you know this how?

The climate shifts of the early 1900s are similar to recent climate shifts.

Temperatures have been rising steadily since 1900 at an ever-increasing rate and this correlates nicely with the widespread implementation of the Industrial Revolution technologies I.E the burning of hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Take a look at the steep slope of rising temperatures and the only similarties between 1900 and now is a positive slope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...perature_record
Good point. There are real world examples of NEW observable data sets correlating quite well with the specific model being tested. Also various models using different types of data are tested for convergence. Air, satellite, ocean, ice, geologic, tree ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice are the major categories. So it is more than just ground based air temps. There is no reason to assume horse players are the only ones to test models and that the vast scientific community is ignorant of proper verification of hypothesis.

[hcap]

Hey Mack, have you checked out Harris and Mann and their super duper scientific chart?

I understand they do weather forecasts on the west coast. Here back in the east we are still at the mercy of nature never knowing if it will rain or snow in July. Without your weathermen it sure is tough. What will we do?

[hcap]

Now as Al Gore is joined by an old partner the new name of the pervasive commie plot will be-

The Al Gore/Big Dog International Illuminati Global Warming Conspiracy ©


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/clinton-says-gop-climate-deniers-making-the-us-look-like-a-joke.php

Clinton Says GOP Climate Deniers Making The U.S. ‘Look Like A Joke’

Former President Bill Clinton has some tough words for Republican climate-change deniers: quit making the U.S. "look like a joke."

Kicking off his Clinton Global Initiative in New York, the former president said Americans should make it "politically unacceptable" for people to engage in climate change denial, according to Politico.

"I mean, it makes us -- we look like a joke, right?" Clinton said. "You can't win the nomination of one of the major parties in the country if you admit that scientists are right?"

[bigmack]

Fitting, hcrap waltzes in here with no other than BillyC (a man who as a sitting Pres was spending his time using a cigar on an intern) talkin' about looking like a joke.

The idiotic leading the ignorant asking us to believe little models from their nerds. :lol:

[hcap]

Fitting, hcrap waltzes in here with no other than BillyC (a man who as a sitting Pres was spending his time using a cigar on an intern) talkin' about looking like a joke.

The idiotic leading the ignorant asking us to believe little models from their nerds. :lol:Hey BigAssCrack, you neither defended your dynamic duo-The WestCoast Weathermen and their bogus chart, nor provided any answer to my simple question about ONE DAMN FReaKING accredited University, world Governmental scientific agency or ANY scientific organization. How come?

You remember Bill Clinton? He was the guy that left the first time in a long time budget surplus, that was trashed royally by his inferior successor.

But to be honest, now that Bush is gone, my opinion of him has gone up a bit. He has not sunk to Cheney's level after leaving office. (Then again a crack head cockroach is above Cheney), but Bush accepted GW, unlike 75% of the rethugs and 98.5% of the TPers.

[boxcar]

Hey BigAssCrack, you neither defended your dynamic duo-The WestCoast Weathermen and their bogus chart, nor provided any answer to my simple question about ONE DAMN FReaKING accredited University, world Governmental scientific agency or ANY scientific organization. How come?

You remember Bill Clinton? He was the guy that left the first time in a long time budget surplus, that was trashed royally by his inferior successor.

But to be honest, now that Bush is gone, my opinion of him has gone up a bit. He has not sunk to Cheney's level after leaving office. (Then again a crack head cockroach is above Cheney), but Bush accepted GW, unlike 75% of the rethugs and 98.5% of the TPers.

Such harsh words toward Mack coming from someone plagued with the CSA disease (Chronically Selective Amnesia). Have you so soon forgotten that the Congress was Republican-controlled at that time, and this fact primarily accounted for that surplus? The Impeached and Held-in-Contempt-of-Court President, therefore, was rightfully "trashed".

Boxcar

[hcap]

I bet you never thought I would give Bush credit for anything or stop referring to him as a rutabaga?

It seems obvious being a republican nowadays and believing in GW takes guts. So I will amend any previous statements I have made about Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan being too liberal to win a republican primary today. I will change that to, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and GW Bush being too liberal to win a republican primary today.

What has the world come to? :eek: :eek:

[Tom]

Hey BigAssCrack,

:lol: This makes me thing the debate is NOT over. The desperation is obvious! :lol:

[bigmack]

:lol: This makes me thing the debate is NOT over. The desperation is obvious! :lol:
Both he and The Royal Scam are starting to unravel. Most entertaining. :D

[hcap]

:lol: This makes me thing the debate is NOT over. The desperation is obvious! :lol:You know I sort of like it too. Just like
The BigAssCrack likes hcrap. What's good for the goose etc.

However my insult is more creative :cool:

[BenDiesel26]

If i'm understanding you correctly your position is:

The climate scientists who support anthropogenic warming have somehow failed to consider the null hypothesis, and you know this how?

The climate shifts of the early 1900s are similar to recent climate shifts.

Temperatures have been rising steadily since 1900 at an ever-increasing rate and this correlates nicely with the widespread implementation of the Industrial Revolution technologies I.E the burning of hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Take a look at the steep slope of rising temperatures and the only similarties between 1900 and now is a positive slope.

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


.

Redshift,

You're not really getting it. As for your first comment, please go get an introductory text on statistics. You can pick up MG Bulmer's book Principles of Statistics from Dover Books for about $8. If you make the claim that man-made CO2 is the driver behind climate change, you prove it by showing that the null, that natural causes, are statistically unlikely. You don't prove it by saying, "nothing else can explain what we are seeing so it must be CO2." Accepting a null does not prove anything statisically when other nulls are accepted. Nobody has ever actually proved that man-made CO2 is the driver behind climate with statistical significance. "Consensus" that can be bought by research dollars is not proof, it has absolutely nothing to do with science.

On your second point, take a look at your temperature record. There was a rise up to about 1940 that is considered to have occurred due to natural causes according to your "consensus", and that is on par with the current rise. Then, around 1940, aka when we started producing a whole bunch of CO2 and CO2 was increasing significantly, notice that temperatures DROPPED. This trend went through the early 60's. Then you see a trend similar to the early 1900's trend that has been described as "natural." Also, if your graph would have continued you would see a level line over the past decade.

The fact remains as I stated it before. THE MODELS DO NOT AGREE WITH REALITY. They are updated every time an IPCC report comes out to agree with the past, but they show virtually worthless predictive power. This is why the IPCC has lowered its prediction from 0.3 C/decade in 1990 to anywhere from 0.1 to 0.2 C/decade in 2007, because the underlying assumptions of their models are wrong. This is why no hot spots have ever been found above the troposphere. And recent peer-reviewed papers are calling into question some assumptions on clouds made in the models, some of the models which basically fall apart if you change these assumptions and make CO2 appear worthless. Hence you see the "consensus" fighting back viciously to try to discredit these papers.

[BenDiesel26]

hcap, I stand by my statement. What I put in boldface is a garbage statement, and anybody with a background at all in even an introductory statistics/science course would agree. Let me ask you this: is economics a settled science? Based on what you are telling me, we should simply be able to plug in numbers to match past economic data to predict the future. Kind of like the "unemployment won't go above 8%" prediction. This came from a model. According to your belief, if it matches past data there's no reason to believe that it won't predict future values. Right?

So then we have a non-linear, dynamic system known as the climate that is both more complex and has more uncertainty than the global economy, and you believe a normal activist who makes the boldfaced claims that these models have predictive power, when in fact they have been changed constantly to match past data every time a new report comes out? The updated models look great after the fact. But do me a favor it you can, and try to find the 1990 IPCC model for both temperature and sea level rise. Then plot it vs. what we now know happened after 1990. Why is it so far off?

As for the sea level rise graph, I have a question that maybe you can find the answer to. Would that be the same model that the UN (aka the "consensus") in 2005 used to predict that there would be 50 to 200 million climate refugees from islands in the Pacific and various other islands due to sea level rise by the year 2010, when in fact the populations of these islands grew by 50 million?

And before this goes on and on and on, are you one that believes that the warming will lead to a tipping point that will end humanity as we know it and that we must take corrective action to reduce CO2 now? I am not arguing that CO2 does not contribute to climate change, just that the effect at this point has been exaggerated and not consistent with reality. The predictions and correlations made by many that have no backing in science have been absurd.

[bigmack]

Among thousands of skeptical scientists:


Dr. Joanne Simpson - Former NASA Official, Atmospheric Scientist
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization, nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.”

Dr. Eduardo Tonni - Paleontologist of the Committee for Scientific Research, Buenos Aires
“The global warming scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
Ben Lieberman - Heritage Energy Expert
“Fear is a two-edged sword. It can be used to whip up support for action over the near term, but it is hard to sustain for long, especially if it is not well supported by fact. Eventually it could lead to a backlash. Indeed, the global-warming doomsayers may well prove to be their own worst enemy, with their credibility taking a tumble along with the prospects for cap-and-trade legislation.”

Prof. Walter Williams - George Mason Economist
“The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it’s a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman’s worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.”

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics
"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion."

Dr. Kiminori Itoh - U.N. IPCC Scientist, Award-Winning Environmental Physical Chemist
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia - Punjab University, Board Member U.N.Supported International Year of the Planet
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists."

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - Researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity."

Stanley B. Goldenberg - U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."

Prof. Geoffrey G. Duffy - Professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will."

Dr. William M. Briggs - Climate Statistician in Forecast Evaluation, American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet."

Dr. David Gee - Geologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, Chairman of the Science Committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"

Hajo Smit - Meteorologist, Former Member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC Committee
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact."

James A. Peden - Atmospheric Physicist, Formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."

Prof. Delgado Domingos - Environmental Scientist, Founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning."

Dr. Kunihiko Takeda - Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot."

[boxcar]

Good post, Mack! And that number of skeptical scientists is in the tens of thousands.

To add to your argument, we can look at this growing and justified skepticism from another angle, and this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works report:

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.

DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world. (many emphases mine)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966&Region_id=&Issue_id=

So, let's do a quicke recap for our resident Chicken Little Alarmist: In his world he brags about a consensus which consist of a biased, manipulative survey conducted by D and Z of a measly 79 scientists -- and they had the gall to portray this as a "global consensus" even though only 4% scientists hailed from outside of North America. And also in his corner are 18 scientific organizations that have officially signed on to the AGW scam.

By contrast all we skeptics have are over 31,000 scientists, of which over 9,000 hold Ph.Ds, that don't subscribe to AGW. Additionally, there are now over 700 skeptical scientists from various fields that have added their names to the latest Senate Minority Report. And on top of all this, we have just learned that far less that half of all published scientists endorse AGW theory.

Any reasonable, rational and honest person at the bare, bare minimum would have to conclude from all this that there is simply no such animal as a consensus. It doesn't exist. And it never did.

Shall we call these discoveries Consensus Gate or Climate Gate II? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[redshift1]

You're not really getting it. As for your first comment, please go get an introductory text on statistics. You can pick up MG Bulmer's book Principles of Statistics from Dover Books for about $8. If you make the claim that man-made CO2 is the driver behind climate change, you prove it by showing that the null, that natural causes, are statistically unlikely. You don't prove it by saying, "nothing else can explain what we are seeing so it must be CO2." Accepting a null does not prove anything statisically when other nulls are accepted. Nobody has ever actually proved that man-made CO2 is the driver behind climate with statistical significance. "Consensus" that can be bought by research dollars is not proof, it has absolutely nothing to do with science.



No, correct me if I'm wrong, your assumption is that we are experiencing a cyclic change in climate that occurs naturally. Coincidentally you're parroting (Spencer) when you state:

"Nobody has ever actually proved that man-made CO2 is the driver behind climate with statistical significance"

Nobody has ever actually proved Banshee's don't exist, conversely you cannot prove Banshee’s do exist. Can you actually prove we are in a normal climate cycle?

As far as the Null Hypothesis is concerned, it does nothing to disprove anthropogenic warming It's simply a hypothesis test and has nothing to do with climate change.

However since you seem so enamored with it let me point out your omission. You failed to mention that if the null hypothesis is true It's a type 1 error and if the null hypothesis is false then It's a type 2 error. You seem to think the null hypothesisis a panacea for climate "deniers" when refuting global warming. A type 2 error is clearly more egregious when considering the consequences. If you want to cite the null hypothesis then at least present the whole argument.


.

[bigmack]

Can you actually prove we are in a normal climate cycle?

Sorry, Bud. The burden of proof is in your shrinking camp.

To spell it out for ya, explain to us how we're abnormal and to what extent man has in that abYnormal. You're the nuts sayin' "we're all outta whack."

Good luck with that one. You'll be on The Today Show if ya cough that hairball up. That'll be nice, huh?

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfd7l3wndq1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif

[newtothegame]

Sorry, Bud. The burden of proof is in your shrinking camp.

To spell it out for ya, explain to us how we're abnormal and to what extent man has in that abYnormal. You're the nuts sayin' "we're all outta whack."

Good luck with that one. You'll be on The Today Show if ya cough that hairball up. That'll be nice, huh?

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfd7l3wndq1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif

I apologize in advance...but Mack, you're killing me with these pictures.....:lol: :lol:

Keep up the fight!! (and the pics) lol

[hcap]

Effectiveness of models. Both Hindsight and Foresight

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html

This video shows examples of both

/v/D6Un69RMNSw?


Co2 lagging?


/v/hWJeqgG3Tl8?

[bigmack]

/v/hWJeqgG3Tl8?
Let me say that I, for one, am embarrassed that I've debated this issue with this EggHead. Take a look at that nonsensical video he just put up featuring some nerd in his basement. By the way, was "Ernie" able to get clearance to use that Wizard of Oz footage? I highly doubt it.

Man...You's CRAZY.