Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 Next
Comments 95651 to 95700:
-
Daniel Bailey at 06:51 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Re: P/t (254)Ron, "I would assume shooting the Denominator to be tantamount to a desperate need to not have his number put into context." No, it is to put something dangerously misleading out of it's misery.
Surely I am not the only one seeing the irony in this statement? The Yooper -
RickG at 06:49 AM on 15 February 2011The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
I recently finished viewing his class lectures (23) from PHSC 13400, Global Warming for non-science majors, Fall, 2009. Its a good primer for understanding Earth's heat balance and how the planet is warming as well as the acidification of the oceans. The lectures can be found here. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:48 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... "Yet failed due to a meaningless denominator based on erroneous results." Here. I did a little extra homework for you... Here are a few peer-reviewed journals and the number of results (sans "citation") that come up in search results for the term (complete phrase) "climate change." Nature - 2290 Science - 16,900 AGU - 5440 E&E (dubious, but...) - 125 Geophysical Research - 7780 CSIRO - 1320 PNAS - 3230 Journal of Climate and Climate Research - 8850 Climatic Change - 1830 That's a VERY short list of peer reviewed papers and the total number of papers is 47,765. Now, if you will kindly go through and figure out what papers in your list are actually skeptical of AGW then we will start to be on even ground and can provide useful data. Being that E&E is so dubious I would suggest we pull all E&E papers from both of our figures. At very best I'm guessing maybe 1% of peer reviewed papers on climate change are skeptical of AGW. -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Pop, "Your "context" is not why the list was created." Aaah, it is all becoming clearer now ;) I think we all here (even you) know why the list was generated. If your measure of success is blog traffic and emails from goodness knows who, then I'm afraid that you are horribly misguided. I'm still waiting for some examples of skeptic theories (see my post @240). And you have not answered this yet: "Please tell us at what point (i.e., warming above pre-industrial levels) does AGW become alarming?" It is relevant, as you use the word "alarm" in your title. -
pbjamm at 06:44 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Wow, that is some pretty serious word mincing. I thought it pretty clear in the context of the discussion. Since you believe your list of 850 papers is a "significant amount in direct relation to the amount of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly endorse AGW theory", how many peer-reviewed papers endorsing AGW theory do you believe there to be? -
Albatross at 06:38 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Pop @249, You are not making sense anymore. I never made reference to that. And I just love your display of D-K when you were arguing with Brooks about tornadoes. He was not happy about you including his research in your list, that much is very clear. "I have not received an email from any scientist negative in any way about the list." How am I meant to validate that? -
pbjamm at 06:34 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@260 If you have no idea how many peer review papers there are then why did you say @229 "I personally believe 850 peer-reviewed papers is a large amount. I also believe this is a significant amount in direct relation to the amount of peer-reviewed papers that explicitly endorse AGW theory." -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:18 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... I'd like to ask, how many peer reviewed papers would you venture to guess there actually are? -
pbjamm at 06:17 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Time to inject some semi-relevant humor: Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman! -
Lou Grinzo at 06:15 AM on 15 February 2011The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
I also liked Archer's book quite a bit, although, like others here, I wasn't thrilled with the illos or the long sidebars (those boxed pieces of text). There's no excuse for the former, but the latter is really tough to get around because of the nature of the material. Sequester that material (pun intended) into appendices, for example, and few people will read it. Leave it in place and you wind up with the problem of forcing the reader to make a lot of side-trips in his or her journey through the book. On the issue of the PETM burp, I have to wonder if we're approaching a realization that aerosols have a higher cooling effect than expected. Notice in the current IPCC report that the error bars on aerosol cooling are quite large. Low aerosols in the PETM (no one was burning coal) means more warming from a given CO2 content. For us, here in bright and shiny 2011, that's exceedingly bad news because one area where we seem to be making progress on the environmental front is reducing those aerosol emissions from coal plants in the US, EU, and China. If we wind up exposing a lot more warming effect than expected, the "aerosol whiplash" effect could be a very nasty surprise. -
Berényi Péter at 06:14 AM on 15 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
#49 Dikran Marsupial at 03:54 AM on 15 February, 2011 nice attempt to distract attention from the fact that you had used a regional trend to try and refute a claim about global trends NH extratropics is quite some region. However, if you have global data going back to several millenia with annual resolution, just drop a link. That way anyone can see your point. Otherwise it is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam once again. You basically say as we do not have global data for 950-990 AD, it proves global trend was different. As to Argumentum as Ignorantiam, that would be true if I had said that the AGW hypothesis rests solely on the fact that we can't explain the current warming without AGW, but I didn't write that. Instead I wrote that there was a known mechanism with good support from experiments, observation and theory. You are right. Based on that knowledge would you please explain to all why global SST increased between 1910 and 1940 at a 0.165°C/decade rate, dropped by 0.24°C during the next decade, then increased again at a rate of 0.1°C/decade ever since?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:10 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Which is what my original article was also doing. -
Rob Painting at 06:05 AM on 15 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Ken Lambert @40 - To suggest that 30 years is a significant period to judge changes in flood/drought events is preposterous........Not even 100 years is a significant period . And yet you drone on and on and on......... about ocean heat content over a 5 year period, when the ARGO & XBTproblems have yet to be sorted. Do you see your lack of internal consistency?. -
Albatross at 06:04 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Pop, Well, you are stubborn to a fault, that is all I can say. Again, context is important. Again, as I and others have demonstrated, your title and the content in many of the papers are oftentimes inconsistent with each other. My comment about "uncertainty not being equal to skepticism" is not a strawman. Your list includes papers which speak to uncertainty. That is not reason to be "skeptical", or question AGW or be cause for alarm. That disclaimer of yours is interesting (not to mention that I'm sure it almost never gets included when people reference the list). Can you provide some concrete examples of "yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm". And just what do you mean by "alarm"? That sounds emotive, not scientific. Please tell us at what point (i.e., warming above pre-industrial levels) does AGW become alarming? You did not answer my question about Brooks. And are you going to remove refuted papers such as McLean et al. (2009) and G&T09? "For obvious reasons I don't take "advice" from people who are intent on misrepresenting the list or making false allegations about it. I have ignored their "advice" to great success." That sounds hypocritical coming from you-- your list does in fact mis-represent the science on so many levels. Many of my papers have been greatly improved by the critical observations and comments made by reviewers-- i did not always appreciate the receiving the (terse) advice, but in the end they were right. Can you please quantify "great success". Your list has in part gained some traction in certain ideological circles, because people are ignorant of the science, have misguided ideas, confirmation bias, do not have time to properly review the list and its contents. It is no more than something to throw up when debating someone on the internet..."hey have you hear there are 850 papers which...." -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:01 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I would assume shooting the Denominator to be tantamount to a desperate need to not have his number put into context. -
John Hartz at 05:50 AM on 15 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
Kudos to David Roberston for an excellent post. Here are my personal words to live by... "Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children." Ancient Native American Proverb -
muoncounter at 05:41 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#206: "are you denying the existence of peer-reviewed social science journals?" Surely you don't claim E & E is a 'social science' journal? If so, how is it also a climate science journal? Or is this more PT doublespeak? Example (note an actual item from your 'list', not a made up illustration to make a point): Biased Policy Advice from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 929-936, December 2007) Richard S.J. Tol Interested readers (if there are any left) looking for a laugh should read PT's rebuttal to this post, in which he appears to be shooting a Terminator. Real classy choice of images there, shooting those we disagree with. -
Stu at 05:40 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech at 232: I'm pretty sure quoting someone who has the same opinion as you on that matter doesn't count. It's recycled hearsay, not actual evidence. As for John Kerry, one man's statement does not make it a 'popular belief'. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:31 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... "No not among all of them but that is not the point of the list, it is a resource. I do not discriminate among skeptic's theories." So, in reality, you really have several alternative theories of climate change within the broader list? I would suggest it is appropriate to apply each of these smaller theories up against the broader theory of AGW. That would make the results an even smaller fraction than suggested in the main article here. -
muoncounter at 05:29 AM on 15 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
#47: "warmed by 0.66°C in 40 years between 950 and 990 " Fascinating how you can so sharply discern a 40 year event on data filtered with a 40 year low pass. The 20 year filter shown earlier in the Esper 2002 paper (their fig 2, which you did not present here) has a distinct break in this so-called 'multidecadal event'. Of course, tree rings are mere proxies and who gives them any credibility? "while no paper is found which would explain this particular event by natural causes" Maybe such papers are found. How about a Krakatoa-class volcanic eruption (the Tianchi eruption, with a volcanic explosivity index (VEI) of 6) immediately before your so-called multi-decadal event? From Zou 2009: The great 10th century Tianchi (or Baitoushan in Korean) eruption represents one of the two largest explosive eruptions (along with the 1815 Tambora eruption) in the past two thousand years. ... The huge eruption ejected about 100 km3 of tephra and resulted in the formation of a 5 km diameter caldera: the Tianchi (Heaven Lake) caldera. If Zou's 100km3 is correct, Tianchi produced an order of magnitude more eruptive debris than Pinatubo and is nearly VEI 7. Yin et al. 2010 pin down the date of this eruption with tree rings: Tree-ring widths were measured and cross-dated. Almost 69 AMS ages were obtained from Yalujiang section. These dates allowed estimation of the time of the eruption with high precision by wiggle-match analysis to 935-942 AD. We can obviously expect a few years of post Pinatubo-style cooling following this event, similar to that in the image shown below.
The subsequent warming is thus partly a rebound effect, as seen 1992-93 (~0.5 degrees C in just two years!) So the mere observation of warming rate is not the point here -- it's the driving mechanism behind that rate.
-
Meet The Denominator
pbjamm - Entirely correct. Many of the papers on that list are rather infamously invalid upon larger scrutiny, despite repeatedly turning up in skeptic/denial discussions. Incidentally, in regards to the G&T 2009 paper (one I've had particular issues with, as heavily bandied complete bunk) - that was not peer reviewed, but was instead an editor invited review paper. Is peer review a requirement for that list? -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:28 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... "... the word "Alarm" was added to make the title more clear as to the purpose of the list." You know if you keep going I think you can qualify the title even further so that you encompass ALL papers on climate change. -
rustneversleeps at 05:25 AM on 15 February 2011The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
Nice review, Andy. I will second the book recommendation. I often think that organizing a high-school or first-year university science curriculum around a parallel track studying the carbon cycle (and maybe other biogeochemical cycles) would be an effective teaching tool, because the latter inevitably intersects with biochemistry, paleontology, geology, fossil fuels, marine chemistry, and on and on. In that vein, I also rather liked Tyler Volk's "CO2 Rising" and Eric Roston's "The Carbon Age". Regarding the mystery of the terrestrial biosphere's "missing sink". You might enjoy this recent video of a seminar at Stanford with Stephen Pacala. Specifically the first 3:40 and then from 8:20 to 34:50. He references upcoming work from Oliver Phillips, Stefan Gerber and others, which seems to suggest that much of the missing sink may have been identified: it/has been in the tropical forests, and CO2 fertilization is the key driver. (Interestingly, he makes the point that tropical forests are not limited by nitrogen fixation to the same degree as temperate and boreal forests so that would at least help explain why would see the CO2 fertilization effects in some forests but not others.) If this is true, then, in a way, that would be an interesting and encouraging result. If CO2 fertilization were the driver, it would have the potential to scale up with atmospheric concentrations, whereas if the "missing sink" were due to things like secondary forest regrowth it would just be one-time bumps. But if one then considers the 2005 and 2010 droughts in the Amazon, it is somewhat disconcerting, because this sink could quickly reverse! Of course, these are new - and therefore, preliminary results - which circles back to Archer's point of how much more there is to learn. But it's fascinating watching the carbon cycle mysteries as they are being investigated and resolved. -
Bibliovermis at 05:24 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, Your definition of alarm lumps substantiated negative effects with bluster. -
pbjamm at 05:23 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Arguing about what papers should be included on Poptech's list is not really constructive since it is his list and his subjective criteria. Discussing the quality of those papers is entirely fair. Just because they made it past peer review and were published does not mean they held up under further scrutiny. As he stated @215 "All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results" for the list to be invalid. -
Albatross at 05:23 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Potech, "I do not discriminate among skeptic's theories." In other words-- anything goes. Nice. And IIRC, they are not "theories", but hypotheses. Hypotheses which repeatedly get overturned or refuted. I am curious though, please name one such "skeptic theory", with a citation form your list. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech pbjamm, "What exactly is it you are arguing for here?" "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." I see... Have you never heard of sampling theory? As I discussed here, it's quite simple to apply sampling to the thousands of results from various databases and Google searches. Even a simple sampling indicates well ~2% +/- some amount displaying disagreement with AGW, ~2% disagreeing with consensus estimates of how much warming is caused by AGW; >96% indication of agreement with AGW as a critical involved factor in climate change with some level of consequences to the field of study. Extrapolating from that I estimate <4% papers disagreeing with AGW or denying consequences in the field of climate science, subject of course to +/- sampling error. And I consider that percentage inconsequential. -
Albatross at 05:14 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @215, "I have to do no such thing. All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results, which I have done." Actually you do. You disagree with 0.1%. Pray tell then...what is the correct fraction? In this sort of endeavour, context is everything. to the man on the street 850 (an inflated number) sounds like a big dent. Well, it is anything but a big dent. And you should very much consult the authors of each paper, b/c by including their paper/s in the list (which is essentially a politically-motivated list) list you may be misrepresenting their position on AGW, and perhaps even misrepresenting their science by lumping it in with a) refuted papers and b) dodgy journals and c) a propaganda list. Again, uncertainty is not equivalent to or suggest a reason to be skeptical of the theory of AGW. you title really does not make any sense, and i suspect that you were trying too hard to cover too many aspects. Didn't Harold Brooks request that you remove one or more of his papers included by you on the list? I still see his name there, more than once in fact. While your merry dance here is intriguing and at times entertaining, I would advise you that it is not helping your credibility one bit. People are trying to help you improve your list. Ignore their advice at your own peril. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:10 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Is there a consistent theory amongst the 850 papers you list? Or are you merely listing papers supporting a variety of dissenting opinion? -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:09 AM on 15 February 2011The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer—a review
I am reading this book at the moment, the main problem I have with it is that the boxes (which house various digression) are rather distracting (works well in a magazine with large pages, but no so well in a standard paperback). The content is excellent though, I'd certainly recommend it to anyone wanting to know a bit more about the carbon cycle. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:07 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Do we really have to bring up Pielke? -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:05 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... 850 is a large amount relative to what? And, again, the standards you apply to what qualifies for the list is highly questionable. Therefore a more rational number is likely closer to half of that. But again, the number of 850 unto itself has no context. You have to provide context. -
Stu at 04:58 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"The context and meaning of the 850 list is that they exist contrary to popular belief and it is a valuable resource for skeptics" Ooh here's an opportunity. Can you please point out an example showing popular belief to be that 'skeptical' papers don't exist? That'd be real handy. PS. It's only a valuable resource for throwing a number out there. Thereafter, a real skeptic will look at the papers and analyse them, finding that a very large number are simply crap. Then the 'skeptic' (the person the list was supposed to help) is left trying to defend scores of sub-standard, contradictory papers and looks foolish. Like I said earlier, if you were trying to make your fellow 'sceptics' more wrong, mission accomplished. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:57 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... When you have authors of papers who specifically say that the papers they wrote do not say what you suggest they say, what is that? -
pbjamm at 04:57 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Rob Honeycutt @225 Exactly. The papers in the list may or may not have scientific merit. I am not arguing that, nor would I be qualified to make such an evaluation. The point is that without the denominator the quantity is meaningless. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:53 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... The only thing of value to skeptics is the number you try to throw out. You create a false impression that there is a large body of evidence running contrary to AGW and it's just not true. It's a lie. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:51 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... "Was the point of the article to falsely imply you perused 200 pages?" There is an error there that I will correct. I perused through about 200 papers. Not pages. There are 100 pages of articles. But that does not alter any of the results. -
Stu at 04:50 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech said "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." So, in fact, I was right when back in comment 169 I said: "I know there are more grains of sand on a beach than 850... but I can't count them all. I guess that means by Poptech's logic that his list has as many 'skeptical' papers as there are grains of sand on a beach?" Poptech also asks why Rob is counting papers about climate control in cars... simply because it was intended to be a rough number. One could just as easily ask PT why he includes papers like the one Mr. Marsupial pointed out, that actually gives cause for alarm if AGW continues. In fact, make that a question directly addressed to you Andrew: why's that paper in there? It's behind a paywall but I will assume Dikran has accurately summarised it. Anyway, if one is very generous and assumes that only 1 in 100 of Rob's counts would actually count, then that list is still 10 times longer than Poppy's. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:45 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "All I have to demonstrate is his conclusions are based on erroneous results, which I have done." So we are left with an erroneous numerator and erroneous denominator. That's why I said before, it's really too bad that you don't apply a more rigorous standard to your list because it could actually be very useful. Of course, probably not useful for your preferred conclusions. -
pbjamm at 04:44 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@209 "That the percentage of climate change papers in relation to AGW and AGW alarm is undetermined and cannot be determined without evaluating each and every paper individually." Excellent. So we agree that the quantity of papers in your list (850) is entirely without context and therefor without meaning. All that remains is the evaluate every paper written about AGW (and its consequences) to arrive at a meaningful ratio. How many of those do you suppose there are? Can't be very many if 850 Skeptical papers makes up a significant percentage of the total. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:42 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... You ask: How did you peruse 200 pages? and Did you count climate control systems in automobiles? I'm saying in response have you contacted all the authors in your list and asked them if they support the position you are assigning to their papers. Do you not see what is right in front of you? We're just reducing the fraction to a lower common denominator. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:39 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... You obviously continue to miss the point of the article. In the article I clearly state that I'm giving you (however dubious) the benefit of the doubt. All I'm doing is applying a very cursorily researched denominator. If you want to drill down into the denominator you have to apply equally rigorous scrutiny to the numerator. We're just engaging in a reduction of the fraction. Believe me, if we carry this exercise out you're not going to fair any better. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:34 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Did you remove articles because they were published in a journal that is nominally (at best) considered peer-reviewed? (E&E) -
Albatross at 04:34 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
The onus on curator of the list, being a honorable fellow who is interested in presenting the science properly, to specify what portion of the scientific literature on the subject of climate change the papers on his little list (which is padded as I and other shave shown) makes up. It is likely to be more than 0.2%, or even 0.5% or even 1%. Rob here has made an initial effort. Poptech can not plead ignorance. Now he is welcome to improve upon the number shown here, and so long as the results of this search are independently verifiable and his methodology sound, i'm sure Rob will be happy to amend the 0.1% number. The ball is now in Poptech's court-- not to nitpick at the 0.1%, but to undertake their own analysis and arrive at his own number. and given that he claims to be happy to correct things, he can start be removing all those papers on the list which have been refuted by subsequent research. he can start with G&T09, followed by McLean et al. 2009, L&C09 etc etc....he can also remove papers which contradict each other. I can;t believe we are helping poptech...if he implements these changes alone, the list will have much more credibility. But first of all he has to unambiguously decide what he wishes to demonstrate, in terms accepted by the science, and then show those papers which directly speak to to that point. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:30 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "Rob, why are you counting results about climate control systems in automobiles?" Give me a break. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:27 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "Rob, how did you peruse 200 pages?" Are you avoiding questions again? Can't take the heat? -
Don9000 at 04:22 AM on 15 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Ken Lambert: Although I am an English teacher and American literature professor by training, I will comment on the "12m" flood datum. You write: "In the Brisbane flood 2011, the hydrologist who oversaw the planning of Wivenhoe dam was quoted in the 'Australian' thus: 'When John Oxley discovered Brisbane 180 years ago, the local Aboriginal people were very agitated about flooding and they showed him high water marks that would have been 12m'." To begin with, your dates are very unclear, and the claim put forward about Oxley's "discovery" of Brisbane is a sloppy misuse of the English language. My first factual correction: 2011 less 180 yields 1831, a date that is too late for the establishment of the English settlement at North Quay, which took place in 1825 after the penal colony at Redcliffe, dating to 1824, was abandoned. In other words, I must conclude the unnamed hydrologist you say the _Australian_ was quoting in its story about the 2011 flooding actually made this statement in 2004. You should have made this clear. Next I will take on the "would have been 12m" figure itself. To begin with, as you present it, this is a number with a very hazy provenance, and hardly one I would bruit about in a triumphalist fashion. Note that the unnamed hydrologist uses the words "would have been" to introduce the number, a verbal hedge that suggests the possibility that either Oxley or the hydrologist was skeptical of the claim. With that in mind, before anyone can comment on the validity of the claim, the very first thing that would need to be done is to look into Oxley's writings,extract the relevant data, and evaluate it for its actual value. Thus, your apparent belief that you have scored a great point by citing this putative record of a 12 meter flood is not exactly founded on sound scientific methodology. -
muoncounter at 04:20 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#199: "stated on the list that all the papers are science papers only that they are peer-reviewed." More obfuscation and hiding behind semantics. Your own definition of 'peer-reviewed' begins with scientific or scholarly research. Papers about policy don't fit; especially since you dispute the science, there is nothing to talk about in policy. This bickering should really be done on PT's site; its just noise here. Or does PT not take comments as freely as SkS? -
pbjamm at 04:16 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, What exactly is it you are arguing for here? Are you arguing that a large percentage of Climate Change papers are alarmist? Skeptical of AGW? Skeptical of the dangers? All we currently have is your 850 number that you believe support your position. But, even after reading this entire thread, I am not sure what that is. The point of the original article is still valid. Without the total number of papers published on the subject your 850 is entirely without context. -
Phila at 03:56 AM on 15 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I've never seen a comment from PopTech, here or anywhere else, that I'd describe as anything more than trolling. Given the fact that he's basically incapable of admitting error, and is pretty much his own worst enemy, why give him so much patient attention?
Prev 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 Next
