Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

Thankfully the definition of climate is vague enough that it allows subjective interpretations.

Several YEARS of anomalous cold weather, and we start talking climate.
Click to expand...
How many years exactly?
 
BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
If, as you say, global climate is a vastly chaotic system, how much credence do you think we should be giving to computer model predictions spanning decades and more?
 
Poptech said:
Thankfully the definition of climate is vague enough that it allows subjective interpretations.


How many years exactly?
Click to expand...

This many;

attachment.php
 
Poptech said:
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.
Click to expand...


We anxiously await your statistical analysis proving a sample of 938 is too small a sample. Until you produce that, you really don't have anything.
 
lomiller said:
Until you produce that, you really don't have anything.
Click to expand...
We still have reality.

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...
 
Wait, wait, wait, you mean this many...
 

Attachments

  • loehle_fig2.JPG
    loehle_fig2.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 4
lomiller said:
We anxiously await your statistical analysis proving a sample of 938 is too small a sample. Until you produce that, you really don't have anything.
Click to expand...
It looks like he has Oreskes claiming that there were NO dissenting opinions to be found in the abstracts, while Peiser found 34 dissenting opinions. He cited two of those explicitly, and both certainly seem to me to be dissenting views.

It's one thing to claim the debate is over. It's quite another to fudge the numbers to "prove" it.

Unless Peiser simply invented the dissenting abstracts, or is misrepresenting those two as 34, I think Oreskes has some 'splaining to do.
 
No Consensus on Climate Change

A recent study has further debunked Oreskes alarmism.

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Fear of anthropogenic “global warming” can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
Click to expand...
 
Good work Poptech, but only graphs put up by warmers have any merit:rolleyes: If we put up a short term graph that shows cooling it is always ignored, but if they put up a short term graph that shows warming we are to take it seriously.
 
The scientist in the video would be...

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science, James Cook University, Australia
 
BenBurch said:
You scale the graph such that a trend that is in the data appears to be flat.
Click to expand...
What as opposed to scaling it near vertical? Unbelievable. Your graph shows a 0.4 degree change in temperature scaled like a thermometer that is ready to burst.

BenBurch said:
A very effective way to lie to people who don't know the carny trick involved.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! Thanks for proving my point.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
That has been discredited.

RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology).
Click to expand...
Quiz, who said this...?
I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact ... Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority.
Click to expand...
Benny Peiser pdf after various holes were shot in his study
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom