Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

bokonon said:
I think the consensus is real, but consensus does not necessarily mean correct.
Click to expand...
Have you ever actually looked for evidence of the alleged consensus?

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears
Click to expand...
 
cbish said:
You've brought this up before in other threads. WTF!!!! What the hell are you talking about?!?!?!?! What changes in the Earths inclination?!? Orbit!?! Talk about NONSENSE!!
Click to expand...
I don't recall mentioning this in any other threads, so possibly you have me confused with someone else.

The fact is, we share the solar system with several other planets. Some of them are pretty big. We also have the largest moon in the solar system for the size of our planet, which (if you look at it) is always bobbing north and south as it orbits the earth.

The earth's axis has a 26,000-year precessional cycle. This affects its inclination.

The notion that some combination of these forces might cause climatic changes isn't so far fetched. We've been drifting in and out of ice ages for at least the last 800,000 years, and it probably wasn't because the earth was breathing and fluctuating CO2 levels were causing the changes.
 
Last edited:
technoextreme said:
Well I wasn't really trying to say they are morons in the sense that they aren't smart. Its more like the analogy that I gave about going to your doctor for cancer treatment versus anyone else who has a PHD. Also, are economist considered scientists?
Click to expand...

Some think they are scientists. I spoke with Milton Friedman on this topic once, and he thought it might BECOME a science some day, but that it absolutely was not then. This was in the late 1970s.
 
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
It is definitely not far fetched.
Click to expand...

Have your sources detected any sudden change in the Earth's orbit over the last century? Something that's gone unnoticed by the general science community?

If not, what do Milankovich Cycles have to do with current events? They may be new to you but they're not to most of us.
 
CapelDodger said:
Have your sources detected any sudden change in the Earth's orbit over the last century? Something that's gone unnoticed by the general science community?
Click to expand...
That was in reference to ice ages and long term climate changes a opposed to the discredited theory of CO2 forcing.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Have you ever actually looked for evidence of the alleged consensus?
Click to expand...
No, but I stumbled across this just clicking around. I don't think the method is bulletproof, but it is strongly suggestive.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Have your sources detected any sudden change in the Earth's orbit over the last century? Something that's gone unnoticed by the general science community?

If not, what do Milankovich Cycles have to do with current events? They may be new to you but they're not to most of us.
Click to expand...

Next he'll reveal himself to be a disciple of Immanuel Velikovsky...
 
bokonon said:
No, but I stumbled across this just clicking around. I don't the method is bulletproof, but it is strongly suggestive.
Click to expand...
That has been discredited.

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology).

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."
Click to expand...
 
bokonon said:
I don't recall mentioning this in any other threads, so possibly you have me confused with someone else.

The fact is, we share the solar system with several other planets. Some of them are pretty big. We also have the largest moon in the solar system for the size of our planet, which (if you look at it) is always bobbing north and south as it orbits the earth.

The earth's axis has a 26,000-year precessional cycle. This affects its inclination.

The notion that some combination of these forces might cause climatic changes isn't so far fetched. We've been drifting in and out of ice ages for at least the last 800,000 years, and it probably wasn't because the earth was breathing and fluctuating CO2 levels were causing the changes.
Click to expand...
I apologize. Hayenmell first brought up the idea of earth tilt and rotation on this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146136
Post # 11. It doesn't mean I still think this is a crazy idea. You're talking geologic time; not dozens of decades.
 
BenBurch said:
Weather is caused by climate like birth defects are caused by genetics.
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to sound clever or something?
My point is that it's entirely inconsistent to dismiss short-term cold periods because "that's just weather, not climate", but then make glib references to a short-term hot period (such as that in the southern UK at the moment) as some kind of support for climate change.
Would you agree?
 
Interesting how she authors a paper claiming consensus on "climate change" yet use the search phrase "global climate change" which leaves out 11,000 papers.
 
plumjam said:
Is that supposed to sound clever or something?
My point is that it's entirely inconsistent to dismiss short-term cold periods because "that's just weather, not climate", but then make glib references to a short-term hot period (such as that in the southern UK at the moment) as some kind of support for climate change.
Would you agree?
Click to expand...

I was agreeing. Short term variation is not climate. Climate is defined by averages. But climate CAUSES short term variation. But like genetics and birth defects, the relationship is not 1:1. And that is the point I was making.

A spell of anomalous cold weather could be caused by the climate changing, or it could just be an anomaly in a vastly chaotic system.

Several YEARS of anomalous cold weather, and we start talking climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom