Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 Next
Comments 95551 to 95600:
-
Peter Offenhartz at 16:52 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
It would be much more informative if the change in polar ice were ratioed to the total ice content. This is important for two reasons: (1) The ratio is in fact small and (2) It is the polar ice that puts a brake on global warming. The total heat capacity of polar ice is huge, greater than the heat capacity of the world's oceans. It important to understand the role polar ice plays in stabilizing climate over the course of scores of years, and possibly hundreds of years. -
Ron Crouch at 16:52 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#410 PT "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started." Then you have violated your own policy by allowing your post on your site to be subject to comments. Why? Because you have included substance that comes from the comments section of this post. In other words you are soliciting comments on your site that directly relate to comments on this site. A blatant violation of your own policy. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:49 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Re: Bern (7) Hansen 2011 (p. 17) makes the case for a best-fit 5-6 year doubling time for mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica due to non-linear ice sheet losses, and that we have already equaled the temperature levels of the Holocene Altithermal (Holocene Maximum). Pass the popcorn. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 16:39 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Re: koyaanisqatsi (31) I suspect an issue exists in terminology (see here for discussion). D Kelly O'Day has an excellent post on CO2 here. Quality posts on the subject at SkS can be found here and here. The Yooper -
Bern at 16:34 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
And that's assuming that Hansen's estimate of a 10-year doubling period for ice mass loss isn't correct... 5m by the end of the century? 25m sea level rise in the next few centuries? Nasty stuff! Will it be amazing? Yes, absolutely. In the same sense that a plane crash, or a train wreck, or a massive pile-up on a freeway is amazing. Some forms of amazement I can do without. Watching those ice mass loss charts get steeper by the year is just scary! -
PT_Goodman at 16:23 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
@muoncounter I've been to NOAA, downloaded and spread-sheeted annual CO2 ppmvs and increments for 1950 to 1020. I've calculated increments for each year from consecutive annual ppmv averages (kinda agree with NOAA's). I've calculated % ∆ppmv change for each year. I've calculated average ∆ppmv and %∆ppmv for 1959 to 1020 and 1970 to 2010. I get an average %∆ppmv of 0.45 from 1970 to 2010. That's good. I still don't know where NASA's 1% annual ppmv increase (average) comes from. What is that number? I've emailed NASA and OCO--no answer yet. My NASA OCO link above works..I just double checked. If I can't defend my number I'm on no more firm ground than a skeptic, and that's a very uncomfortable place to be. -
Marcus at 16:08 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm". Which is what differentiates the Denialist Cult from the rest of us. The Denialist Cult rely a lot on personal belief-without the need for strong evidence to back it up-which is very Faith based. Indeed, the ability to accept mutually contradictory positions is also another typical trait of those who base their views on Faith, rather than Fact. The scientific evidence, over the space of more than 100 years, show a strong relationship between the rise in CO2 & the rise in global temperatures over the last 30-60 years-with other past forcings trending in the opposite directions. This same evidence suggests, very strongly, that further CO2 emissions will lead to yet more temperature rises over the coming century. Even the best case scenario for future Global Warming (which assumes low sensitivity) could cause enormous societal & environmental damage-& based on the impacts of climate change events in the past. That view is not the product of Faith or Personal Belief, it is the basis of more than 100 years of very strong evidence established via the best principles of the scientific method, evidence which no attempt by the skeptic community has managed to undermine. By comparison, Poptech, your much vaunted list represents nothing more than a patchwork quilt of unsubstantiated nonsense-which does more to weaken your case than to strengthen it. -
Stu at 16:06 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started. " Your site has a post on this exact topic and it is by definition a continuation of this topic. You would evidently prefer it to remain unchallenged on your site, given that I reckon the majority of your readers will not come over here and see what else the sks regulars have to say. Skeptical Science could just as easily not approve any submissions from you in this thread, even though your list is the major topic of discussion (just as sks is the topic of your post). Please correct me if I am wrong, but you would consider it a trifle unfair if they did that, no? Anyway, you approved one (completely content-free) comment on it, so why not mine? -
guinganbresil at 16:02 PM on 16 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
On coastal upwelling see Feely et al 2008. The salient measurements were made in May and July of 2007: "The central and southern coastal region off western North America is strongly influenced by seasonal upwelling, which typically begins in early spring when the Aleutian low-pressure system moves to the northwest and the Pacific Highmoves northward, resulting in a strengthening of the northwesterly winds (Hickey, 1998; Pennington and Chavez, 2000). These winds drive net surface-water Ekman transport offshore, which induces the upwelling of CO2-rich, intermediate depth (100 to 200 m) offshore waters onto the continental shelf. The upwelling lasts until late summer or fall, when winter storms return." I should point out that although this paper alleges to show exacerbation of low ph due to anthropogenic sources: "Although seasonal upwelling of the undersaturated waters onto the shelf is a natural phenomenon in this region, the ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has increased the areal extent of the affected area." This was not done through time series measurements showing the increase in affected area. It was shown by applying a model that assumes increasing pH to their essentially single temporal data point taken in May-July 2007. This is a classic case of 'begging the question' - applying a model that assumes increasing pH to essentially a single temporal data point to show that pH increases. This paper does, however, show that the coastal regions are subject to upwelling of low pH water which would result in pH stressed organisms. Here is an excellent example of sad shellfish studied in an area of documented upwelling. I hope this provides some coherence for Rob Painting... not so novel... Does all this disprove the assertion that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risk to ocean health through increasing pH? No. On the other hand, it shows that there are more factors than just atmospheric CO2 at play here and some in the popular press (back to Sigorney Weaver) are playing fast and loose with the facts. -
muoncounter at 15:32 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Koy: Go to NOAA for CO2 data; skip this NASA site question altogether. -
PT_Goodman at 15:19 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
I get the right number by not using the NASA supplied 1% increase in annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But is my reasoning correct???? That is the big question for me. If I can't defend the reasoning, I don't stand much of a chance in converting the skeptic who thinks NASA lied. Not that I've ever converted a skeptic. -
John Cook at 15:04 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
"What wonderful times we live in, in that we can see and monitor these changes." I'm not sure the hundreds of millions of people who depend on glacier melt for drinking water consider glacial retreat so wonderful, nor the other hundreds of millions who will be displaced by the one to two metres sea level rise predicted over the next century. -
Marcus at 14:52 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Got to love Poptech's earlier comment that supposedly Cato Journal & E&E are not guilty of bad Peer Review processes. Yet both "Journals" have a clearly articulated political/ideological agenda which are the absolute *antithesis* of good, neutral peer review. Hence why papers from said sources must be treated with heaping pillar of salt. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:47 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The OCO site won't load for me. Anyway, NASA isn't involved with tracking CO2 at Mauna Loa; NOAA is in charge of that. So I'd stick with the experts. As far as CO2 measurements & their reliability, SkS has a post on that -
Bern at 14:39 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
HuggyPopsBear: You're right, we're going to see some amazing things over the next few decades / centuries, sights that humans have never seen before. However, it puts me in mind of the Chinese saying: "May you live in interesting times." Remember, that's a curse, not a blessing... -
muoncounter at 14:38 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
The rate of warming you obtain is consistent with graphs shown by Peter Hogarth in the post on northern hemisphere warming rates. Arctic amplification, we are here. -
muoncounter at 14:31 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The OCO site Koy links is indeed misleading. One percent annually, starting at 326 ppm, means a >3ppm increase in year one. That didn't happen. It's now (391) increasing at ~2.5 ppm per year, which is still less than 1% per year. The real increase is bad enough, why the fuzzy math? -
K T at 14:30 PM on 16 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
To Ann: I think there's another critical choice we all need to make -- that between INDEFINITE EXPONENTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH and a STEADY STATE system. If we choose the former, no amount of 'green' technology will help. Let's say we use 'green' technology to cut down by half the amount of pollution cars generate. If we then merrily proceed to double the number of cars around, what happens? We'll go back to square one. That's what the arithmetic dictates -- you can't get around it. Are any of us prepared to abandon the ideology of indefinite growth, though? Can we reasonably expect Asians to abandon it first? By the way, the traditional philosophies of Asia, such as Buddhism, have been found to contain much that is ecologically insightful. But of course Asians have (largely) been brainwashed by their former colonial masters from the West into thinking that their traditions were obsolete. -
PT_Goodman at 14:05 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. First, I have patience and no virtues. Second, you don't have to convince me. But, the numbers do not add up in the NASA OCO article. Clearly, a 1% annual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppmv from 1970 to 2010 (with a 1970 value of 326 ppmv) would result in a in 326*1.01**40=485 ppmv in 2010. But the CO2 concentration in 2010 is 389 ppmv. The best I could do was assume that only 43% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, so that the math becomes 326*1.0043**40=387. That is the right number, but I'm not convinced. It strikes me that NASA has been a little sloppy here, even if I am right. The deniers go nuts over stuff like this--they think it's a proof that AGW advocates are lying. It becomes a real problem when we shoot *ourselves* in the foot. koyModerator Response: I don't understand. You get the right number, so why are you unconvinced? -
Rob Honeycutt at 14:01 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"No, my site is not for a continuation of comment discussions at other locations." Got a good chuckle out of this one. In other words: My site is for me to comment on other discussions that I find relevant but not for others to challenge or question anything that I might choose to say in any form. You are, I have to say, very consistent in your application of absurd logic. -
HuggyPopsBear at 13:57 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
I suppose its amazing really to see the changes in the world today, and to see an ice free artic regions would be something this world has not seen for many thousands of years. What wonderful times we live in, in that we can see and monitor these changes. As they say there is nothing new under the sun, it's just we have never seen it before with the naked eye and mankind has to re-educate himself that nothing is permanent and he is going to have to uproot and move with the times. No wonder animal species (as we are) tend to migrate seasonally. -
muoncounter at 13:53 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT today: "at one time I have either read the abstract, summary or conclusion to all the papers on the list." PT yesterday: "no I have not read every paper completely. I have read many of them and all the abstracts and conclusions (where available)." Contradiction? Qualification? Obfuscation? You be the judge. Either way, the charade will continue ... Let us recall the wisdom of Einstein: “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” -
scaddenp at 13:53 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Hmm, comment from Poptech on RSS but not showing here. Anyway, a response for Poptech so he can answer properly. "I don't consider any climate or economic predictions based on computer models to be meaningful" I am well aware of that. What I asked is whether you considered those "alarming". ie IF they were true, would they fit your definition of alarming? This is what I am trying to define. And while you wont accept that they might be true you could also be dead wrong. "I believe these are influenced more by economic policies than climate." Economic policy could be linked but you might need several indicies. However, I am not asking you to agree with mine, I am asking you to name data which you agree would change your mind. You surely arent taking the position that there is no data that could change your mind? "Which are based on bogus computer modeling." I believe you should have phrased that as "models I believe to be bogus despite all the evidence to the contrary." -
pbjamm at 13:53 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
400 comments in let me summarize this thread for the newcomers. 1 - Poptech's list of 850 skeptical papers represents a tiny fraction of the total number of papers published on the subject and many that are on the list are of questionable quality 2 - Poptech: There is nothing wrong with any of the papers on my list and they all come from peer reviewed journals. 3 - Some are poor science that has been refuted and some are contradictory! The still represent a tiny percent when compared to AGW supporting papers 4 - Poptech: The papers are fine and your methods are terrible. 5 - OK, the method was flawed, but your papers are of terrible quality. 6 - Poptech: No they are not and you dont know what you are talking about. 7 - GOTO 5 -
Stu at 13:47 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Hi Poptech I made a comment on your post, nothing remotely unpolite about it, just asking a couple of questions. I think I submitted it correctly - does it pass your blog comment submission policy? -
Daniel Bailey at 13:39 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Thanks for that S&S paper, Albatross. So much for the long-heralded "recovery". Albedo-flip, here we come. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 13:30 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
The first figure is from GRACE data. 2007 is about the mid-point of the reference range, so they used it for a zero point. Mass loss has continued from 2002 (inception of GRACE data). Central Greenland is gaining mass through increased precipitation, principally in the form of snow, but that gain is vastly offset by the thinning margins and marine-terminating outlet glaciers. The Yooper -
Stu at 13:29 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Oops, ignore that. I see from here that the figure shows: "Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass over the 2002 to 2010 period. Black line shows monthly values. Orange line shows long-term trend (John Wahr)" So it tells you that Greenland has lost about 2000Gt total since 2002 - that's not yearly mass change. Sorry for the confusion. -
Riduna at 13:26 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Thanks to all for advice/references. Much appreciated - Screen & Simmonds (2010) is very clear. Implications for the Greenland IS do seem bleak. -
Stu at 13:21 PM on 16 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
I'm a little confused by that first plot of Greenland ice balance - specifically, that it seems to show that Greenland was in fact gaining ice until about 2007 (if the y-axis shows what I think it does). This does not sync up with the GRACE data shown in this previous sks post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Greenlands-ice-loss-accelerating.html By the way, that's a post I hadn't read before, and the graph showing how surface mass balance used to track precipitation until runoff started increasing at a rapidly accelerating rate around 1995-2000. What an eye-opener. -
Albatross at 13:12 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Submitting a papers which are essentially the same, not even necessarily identical, is frowned upon in science. It is called padding one's CV and rehashing, and any prospective (respectable) employer would seriously frown upon that. -
Albatross at 13:10 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
" that paper supports the theory that solar activity is the primary cause of climate change." That would be a hypothesis, not a theory. It would also be a false assertion, as anyone with access to SkS's search function can quickly determine. -
Albatross at 13:08 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
All, Someone is appealing to faux authority. And credentials are not everything-- Michaels, Singer and Lindzen have, or have had, ties to the FF industry. Scientists for hire if you will. It is a long list, they are not the only culprits, to contrarians who mix political or religious ideology with science. While these people may be qualified and their (padded) CVs compelling, their qualifications do not speak to their ethics, morality or integrity or quality of their science. These are the usual suspects in an orchestrated attack on science and climate scientists that has been very well documented. I encourage people reading this to do some rigorous research on their backgrounds. -
scaddenp at 13:03 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
'No papers were "waved through" E&E as it has a rigorous peer-review policy" Ha ha. We are well aware you believe that but the science community has passed it own judgement. If you consistantly publish rubbish, noone capable of judging the merits of a paper will believe the "rigorous" bit. Also, its normal when talking about science for "peer reviewed" science to be understood as a/ Science b/ reviewed by other publishing scientists (peers). Journals like "Cato" might well allow you put your hand on your chest and declare "its peer reviewed", and I guess all that's all that matters to your audience, but because neither a/ nor b/ are satisfied, it doesnt mean the same as a paper published in a real journal. Instead of your quoting of qualifications, trying quoting cross-journal citation numbers of their publications on climate change (not other fields), then we might be impressed. Still waiting for your answer to #379 -
adelady at 13:01 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Come to think of it, such a payment system would be larger but much, much easier than other systems. There are no eligibility requirements apart from existence. No means tests or rate changes or age limits or income adjustments or interactions with the tax system as there are with all other benefits. -
adelady at 12:54 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Harry@39. ".... can this really be handled without creating a bureaucracy?" Well, it can be handled without creating an entirely new bureaucracy. There are 2 functions of government that modern societies have really got under control. One is administering taxes, the other is distributing benefits. (Leave aside my personal views about the efficiency of various systems in different countries.) A carbon tax differs very little from alcohol excises or customs duties or sales taxes. Name the taxable item, set the rate, impose the levy / tax / duty / excise. Every industrialised country has one or more established bureaucracies that could simply add this item to the other imposts they collect. A universal carbon payment looks a great deal like other near-universal payments. Child benefits, pensions, you name it. All you need to do is to get the recipients on the system, set the rate, choose the payment intervals, send cheques / transfer funds to bank accounts. The only complications will be those that already affect existing payments - nursing home residents, homeless people and all the similar bureaucratic headaches. But they're the same bureaucratic headaches, nothing new. -
Albatross at 12:46 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Regarding polar amplification, don't forget Screen and Simmonds (2010). -
Daniel Bailey at 12:43 PM on 16 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
@ koyaanisqatsi (22) Patience is a virtue (or so I'm told). Anyway: You're friend is nuts/wrong/misled/mistaken (your call which). Flask, in-situ, ice core: all datasets show increasing concentrations of a globally well-mixed gas. We can even see it from orbit: And over geologic time: Have a great day! The Yooper -
robert way at 12:42 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Flanner et al. (2011) might address your previous point pertaining to the forcing at the poles. In particular note the following "On the basis of these observations, we conclude that the albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere falls between 0.3 and 1.1 W m−2 K−1, substantially larger than comparable estimates obtained from 18 climate models." -
robert way at 12:39 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Agnostic, I chose 64 to 90 N because its the easiest way to partition it in the Gistemp algorithm. It naturally includes that region as its own zone so it makes it easier to extract from that region. The other key point is that what defines the Arctic is very difficult to conclusively define. Lets consider this, northern Labrador is considered to be part of the Canadian East Arctic but the furthest north in Labrador is 60 N. The arctic treeline there is near 57 N which is very low and the mountains there have the only biome consisting of Arctic Cordillera outside of the very high Arctic. Mean annual air temperatures (MAATs) in the region are as low as -7°C. That region is excluded from my analysis but I could make very strong arguments for its inclusion. Nonetheless it is very difficult to conclusively define what is Arctic and what is not and you make an interesting point. -
Utahn at 12:29 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, I notice you conveniently neglected to answer my last question, so I'll pose it again. Granted that 850 papers on cigarette smoking exist that could be construed to "strengthen the skeptical position" against the consensus that smoking causes cancer, would you say that that is strong evidence against the consensus, or weak evidence, or could you tell? -
pbjamm at 12:13 PM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@385 "Deleting posts wholesale is censorship. Calling it violation of the comment policy does not change this fact." Nonsense. your comments have not been wholesale deleted from this tread as anyone reading it can easily see. If you have made comment that violate the policy they get deleted. Everyone here knows how this works. "I will accept editing of the part of my comments that violate this policy when it is evenly applied." It is highly unfair to expect the mods to edit your posts for you in order to keep the conversation civil. That is the job of the poster. Editing of comments would also open the mods up to accusations of context doctoring. -
Chris G at 12:06 PM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
Harry S., I'm hoping Obama's budget request is not killed by congress, but my hopes are not that high. I think that in the US, the people that get elected are more often the ones who spend more on their campaigns. That means accepting donations from people with money, and the fossil fuel industry has more money than any other industry I know. And let's not kid ourselves; solving the climate change problem means putting them out of business, and they know it. I'm not saying that politicians necessarily change their opinions based on the donations they receive, but if you are in danger of being put out of business, you are going to support those who see things your way. All that means is that it is difficult to overcome the status quo, but it's not like everyone here didn't already know that. Already there are Republicans in congress who are saying that the $4 billion per year loss of fossil fuel tax subsidies would cost the US to loose jobs. Yeah, no kidding, shifting off of fossil fuels will cost jobs in that sector. The local Republican governor has stated that one of his main goals is to see a new coal plant built, because Kansas needs the energy. Why would a political figure feel the need to push forward a project in private industry? And the vast majority of the energy produced is contractually bound to Colorado; the energy left over is a few windmills worth; so, why does the governor feel that Kansas needs the plant? Pirate, Open up Google Earth and zoom in on an industrial agricultural area. You see roads, train tracks, and about every 20-40 km a town. That town will have a school, a hospital, and other infrastructure. Shift poleward and what do you see; none of that. In the case of southern Australia, you see ocean. You are supposing that shifting where we grow food will have no cost, even if we can grow food there. What if where you can grow food crosses national boundaries? Hadley cells will shift toward the poles and push the rain ahead of them. Thanks Glenn T, you have just repeated the all things that make me wonder why I bother to get out of bed in the morning. But, no matter what happens, my kids will be better off if I give them a good start in life. IMHO, I don't think we'll ever see 9 billion people on this planet. The world's resources are finite; there is a limit to the earth's carrying capacity; Malthus will be proven right in time. I just hope that we reach that limit softly. If the environment is seriously degraded, the earth's carrying capacity will be on a decline when our increasing population hits it, and that is a recipe for a major over-correction. There is a possibility that we will have a revisit of Easter Island on a global scale. In the local newspaper, there was a comment that might as well have said, "I don't want to have to give up luxury items; therefore, AGW is just a government conspiracy." and he had supporters. My hope is not high. I can't comprehend people who argue about the cost of repairing the electrical wires when their house is in danger of catching fire. Sorry, this is getting way to long, but weather has always introduced a certain amount of variability in food production, but we've optimized to certain means and variations about those means. and now we are changing them. Why would anyone think production will not be adversely affected? -
scaddenp at 11:56 AM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, still interested in your answer to the questions in #379. -
Marcus at 11:56 AM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Deleting posts wholesale is censorship." Well you'd know, wouldn't you PopTech, as you frequently delete posts on your own site-even if they *don't* violate the comments policy. Not that you have to worry about that so much anymore, now that you've intimidated your dissenters into silence with the threat of releasing their personal info. As it happens, I've had a number of my posts here deleted wholesale because I crossed the line. However, unlike members of the Denialist Cult-who see a conspiracy in *everything*-I just take it in my stride & try & moderate my own comments in future. If you can't stand the heat.... -
scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
And more recent (with references to earlier reviews) Serreze et al 2009 -
mclamb6 at 11:53 AM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech at 383: In relation to your claim that 850 papers is "a lot" or whatever language you used earlier in the thread. The whole point, once again, is that 850 papers (taken at face value) is meaningless as a statistic to bolster a particular view point absent a frame of reference to the overall body of peer review climate science relating to climate change. You cannot in good faith argue otherwise. -
Marcus at 11:52 AM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Yes any increase in the number of papers (even by 1) would strengthen the skeptical position. It would be illogical to say that an increase would weaken it." What a load of nonsense. That would only be the case if the paper in question (a) told us something we didn't already know & (b) is backed up by firm evidence. Most of the papers you list tend to be rehashes of long disproved ideas, don't provide evidence to back them up or are-at best-skeptic neutral. Using papers like that doesn't strengthen the skeptic position, it weakens it by proving that your argument is so weak that you need to pad it out with nonsense. -
scaddenp at 11:51 AM on 16 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
Agnostic - there is this article on why. (It's not simple - its what the GCMs predict). -
JMurphy at 11:49 AM on 16 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Actually they are not identical papers..." Who said they were ? "...another is a much longer paper with a more detailed analysis" Unproven. Prove it. "...as I have proven above" Strawman. What's that got to do with relevance to 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that means ? "All of this has been gone over many times ad nauseum with you." No it hasn't. Prove it. "...the link worked when I just checked it..." No, your link didn't work, which is why I got the error message. You are wrong again. "Not surprisingly I only receive emails on this from those not out to attack the list." Unsubstantiated. Prove it. "Those that are post these irrelevant things..." 'Irrelevance' is subjective and unproven. "Implying what I don't know..." Who implied that ? Prove it. (Actually, no-one needs to imply that, anyway) "I am not an admin of the CSA servers and have no control over their hyperlinks" Strawman. Who said you did or were ? Prove it. "Wow you guys are great, thanks for helping make my argument." Oh dear. You have an argument ? I can see why you would need others to make it for you...whatever it is.
Prev 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 Next
