Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

No, Poptech, when you are showing a CORRELATION, you always scale the things together. This is exactly the way its done in science, a field you need to learn something about some day.

In other words, you have just made a fool of yourself.
 
Keep making excuses for your alarmist graph. You are right it has everything to do with scaling for effect, apparently exaggeration is how "science" is done according to you.
 
varwoche said:
Quiz, who said this...?
Benny Peiser pdf after various holes were shot in his study
Click to expand...
Hmmm, it appears that Oreskes got her results by considering only articles in her search, while Peiser's 34 dissenting views came from items which were not articles.

I guess I need to go find out at least what the two items he cited were, if they weren't articles.

Although, I think Peiser's criticism (that Oreskes counted articles which didn't disagree as implicit agreement) is probably valid.
 
varwoche said:
Quiz, who said this...?
Click to expand...
Yawn, you need better sources.

"I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view'. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change." - Benny Peiser
 
So then, the scientific community (save for a few brave souls) is engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us believe AGW is real? Or, they're engaging in "junk science," or drawing incorrect conclusions because? To what end? They're all a bunch of liberal, pinko, capitalism-hating a-holes proped up by a biased media OR are are they morons? I'm just dumbfounded at the notion that all these scientists are so shockingly bad at their jobs or so politically motivated that they'd compromise their work. God Bless these modern-day Galileo's who, even in the face of "the consensus," have the integrity to do what is right.

PopTech (and I'm not attacking here so keep the hackles down), you seem to have an extensive knowledge of AGW lit (or at least the corollary to it). You're saying, outright, that ALL of the AGW evidence (even research done on Antarctic ice-core samples, for example) is 100% based on computer models? I'd be shocked if that is, in fact, the case.
 
themusicteacher said:
So then, the scientific community (save for a few brave souls) is engaged in a vast conspiracy to make us believe AGW is real? Or, they're engaging in "junk science," or drawing incorrect conclusions because? To what end? They're all a bunch of liberal, pinko, capitalism-hating a-holes proped up by a biased media OR are are they morons? I'm just dumbfounded at the notion that all these scientists are so shockingly bad at their jobs or so politically motivated that they'd compromise their work. God Bless these modern-day Galileo's who, even in the face of "the consensus," have the integrity to do what is right.
Click to expand...
There is no conspiracy. The scientific community as a whole believes no such thing. There is a wide and varied opinion on climate change out there. There are a handful of die-hard alarmist scientists pushing most of the extremist views: James Hansen (Gavin Schmidt's boss), Gavin Schmidt (Realclimate.org affiliated with Al Gore) ect..

Think for a minute how many "scientists" you actually hear from with alarmist claims. No what you hear is Al Gore and others in the media repeating hysterical assertions.

themusicteacher said:
PopTech (and I'm not attacking here so keep the hackles down), you seem to have an extensive knowledge of AGW lit (or at least the corollary to it). You're saying, outright, that ALL of the AGW evidence (even research done on Antarctic ice-core samples, for example) is 100% based on computer models? I'd be shocked if that is, in fact, the case.
Click to expand...
I am saying ALL of the alleged "evidence" linking man to climate change is based on computer climate models. There is scientific evidence for climate change in general. This is completely separate from AGW.

Ice core samples for example in no way prove man causes climate change and has nothing to do with climate models.
 
Last edited:
It's all the fault of the "Liberal Media," isn't it? And soon we will hear that it is the "Jew-controlled Liberal Media," don't you think? Those are the guys who "invented" AGW so that they can bring about Global Communism.

Simple, huh?

If you are simple yourself, that is.
 
I checked Peiser's two dissenting abstracts, and one of them (Reid, 1997) IS an article. The other (Ammann, 2003) doesn't say what it is, but it's 10 pages in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, so if it isn't an article, it's a substantial chunk of something else.
 
Poptech said:
We still have reality.
Click to expand...

And the reality is that Pieser was rejected for publication for good reason. Not the least of which most of his articles that "challenge the consensus" don't, in fact many explicitly support it.

I'm still awaiting your statistical analysis showing a larger sample size is required.
 
I find it laughable that you can selectively omit 11,000 papers by using search terms different from the title of your paper and try to claim statistical relevance to your "conclusions".

Here is my analysis: Deceptively using the search terms "global climate change" Oreskes omitted 11,000 papers which included many that doubt AGW, thus refuting her propaganda study.
 
lomiller said:
most of his articles that "challenge the consensus" don't, in fact many explicitly support it.
Click to expand...
Name three.

I don't think you can support your claim that MOST of the 34 articles don't challenge the concensus. Peiser has said
some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.
Click to expand...
but "some" is not "most" and "very ambiguous" is not "explicitly support it."
 
97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

January 22, 2009

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role".
Click to expand...

move on - don't feed the troll......:garfield:
 
Stop the bickering and personal attacks and stay on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Poptech said:
It should say "earth scientists". That is 2579 "Earth" Scientists (7054 did not reply, only 79 considered themselves climate experts and 567 Do not believe man is causing climate change) vs.

31,478 Scientists Reject 'Global Warming' Agenda (Petition Project)
Click to expand...

Well, if we're going to play that little game. From the petition:

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

These could be signatures of ANY types of scientist. While they attempt to add credibility by listing the separate types of scientists, fully a third of them have only a bachelor's degree. While I have respect for our middle and high-school science teachers, I wouldn't exactly say that a typical high-school physics teacher is capable of (or has the time to) parse all that data. DVM's and engineer's are hardly climate experts, either. I did see the part, PopTech, where you got the "AGW is based entierly on computer models" stuff so I see where you're coming from.

So, Poptech, your argument is that there is, in fact, a full and vigorous debate in the scientific community that is going on but is being masked in the media? So, then, there is a conspiracy to sell global warming. To what end?
 
DoranAndZimmerman2009.png


The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say:
Click to expand...

I other words those most knowledgeable about climate, active in the field....

and a reminder regarding the updated policy statement from one of the largest scientific bodies on the planet....

snip from the full statement - the AGU is composed of Earth and Space scientists...
http://www.agu.org/about/

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

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.
Click to expand...

continues
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom