Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  Next

Comments 95901 to 95950:

  1. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    #3: "measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2." Rising atmospheric CO2 seems to be making an impact in more than just coastal waters: See prior ocean acidification threads; here's one for starters. See also McNeil and Matear 2008 Southern Ocean acidification via anthropogenic CO2 uptake is expected to be detrimental to multiple calcifying plankton species by lowering the concentration of carbonate ion (CO32−) to levels where calcium carbonate (both aragonite and calcite) shells begin to dissolve.
  2. Meet The Denominator
    I think people too often dismiss the impact that PopTech's 850 papers site has. People locate that site and swallow the premise hook, line and sinker. The general audience doesn't think about it. That's why this simple method of applying the denominator is important. It's an easy concept to grasp and puts such numbers in proper perspective. This method of applying the denominator is a great way for the general public to apply true skepticism.
  3. Meet The Denominator
    In case you haven't heard I'm no scientist, nor do I have any affiliation with any research into the matter Poptech. But I do read a lot. Now I'm going to be very generous and whittle the searches I've made on Google Scholar and limit it to 35,200. That would give you a representative figure of 2.4%. That gives your argument far less validity than the IPCC claim of 95% certainty in my eyes. That means to me that there are a further 2.6% that are undecided or abstain from leaning one way or the other. A 95% certainty is good enough odds for this average Joe. So if you think that the average person these days is gullible enough to buy your nonsense, think again. Learn to be constructive or get out of the kitchen.
  4. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech: "No, I am only obsessed with correcting misinformation about my work." What work? From what I see, you are leeching.
  5. Meet The Denominator
    'Stu, "We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded."' ^ I didn't say that. "That is not peer-reviewed." What's your point? I never claimed that it was. FWIW, its reference material is: http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/ I said: "Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not." You said: "Incorrect." Wow, crushing argument. Let's leave aside the fact that you've previously acknowledged that there are some papers in the list that, if correct, mean that others in the list are incorrect (i.e, that you have refuted yourself). The above statement seems to suggest that you are in agreement with C&K when they say: "Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate." which is a demonstrably false statement because they neglected the time over which those emissions happened. And if you can't see that, there's no helping you. "Do you support Dr. Pielke's position on hurricanes?" Sure, I think he's right. Data is data. But he was also right when he said: 'the title of your post is: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category' So perhaps it's more about your sloppiness than anything else ;-)
  6. Newcomers, Start Here
    stephenwv - The ice cores are taken from glacial and continental ice sheets, as floating ice doesn't tend to have been consistently present for tens or hundreds of thousands of years; a requirement when establishing a time-line. See the wiki Ice core page, also for related published work see the NOAA page on this. Ice cores trap tiny bubbles (I considered a Don Ho reference here...) of atmospheric gases as they form and compact (compact due to accumulating snow on top of them). Depending on the rate of snow accumulation at that spot the bubbles represent a few 10's to perhaps 100's of years sample (depending on the core site). Analysis of relative oxygen isotopes indicate local temperatures, amounts of CO2 show atmospheric concentrations, beryllium-10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity, which can be used as a solar activity proxy, dust is an indicator of volcanic activity, and so on. Note, however, that whatever gases melting ice releases (a very very small amount) is of the relative concentrations from when it formed. That means the CO2 concentration in such released melts is lower in CO2 (190-290ppm) than in the present atmosphere (395ppm).
  7. Meet The Denominator
    PopTech... "Fascinating how everyone avoids the Pielke question." If you are going to use one statement from one scientist in one paper as a method to validate your entire invalid list, yes, we have reason to avoid the question.
  8. Meet The Denominator
    Eric in comment 117 made a good point. The problem with the Poptech list is that as designed, it's essentially worthless. Nobody has the time to look through 850 papers, so all that can be gleamed from the list is the number 850. But aside from the subjectivity of the list ("alarm"), it also contains known garbage like E&E papers, including EG Beck's nonsense. That a a paper is "peer-reviewed" by some definition of the word doesn't necessarily mean there is any worth to it. Now, if the list were at least categorized as in Eric's suggestion, something useful could come out of it. We could skip over the Beck-style garbage and look just at papers about hurricanes, for example. But just as a list, all Poptech gives us is an utterly meaningless number, which is exactly how "skeptics" use the list - as nothing more than a number. So Rob's treatment of the list as such in The Denominator is perfectly valid. You can complain about his methods, and we can complain about Poptech's. Bottom line, Poptech's list doesn't tell us anything worthwhile. I also urge everyone to remember the list purports to contain skepticism of AGW alarm, not AGW. Some comments are making this mistake.
  9. Meet The Denominator
    I have to say, I find PopTech to be a fascinating individual. The metal contortionism he's willing to go through to defend an ultimately indefensible position is nothing short of astounding.
  10. It's a natural cycle
    Certainly forcing produce multiple reactions. 2 reactions that I have not seen integrated into the CO2 mix, are the absorption of CO2 due to increased acidification, which seems to be accelerating. Coral and shells dissolve more rapidly as acidification increases, which allows for increased CO2 absorption. Also CO2 release into the atmosphere, from the ocean, decreases as the thermohaline circulation slows due to continued warming. There have been precious few, if any studies done on these CO2 reducing reactions, and incorporated into the CO2/AGW puzzle. This is one of the few references I have found to either. Harvard Magazine - Nov 2002 - The Ocean Carbon Cycle
    Moderator Response: See the post "PMEL Carbon Program."
  11. PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
    When I first heard about 'Ocean Acidification' I did a little reading up and quickly came to the the conclusion that much (i.e. all I saw) of the hype was unwarranted. I found that the pH of the ocean water starts dropping (see Fig 3.) when you descend past the biologically active layer (~pH 8.1), and reaches a minimum of around pH 7.6 at around 800 meters. I did not see this important fact mentioned on the PMEL website. Near the coasts, this deep water upwells and mixes with the surface water, lowering its pH and bringing vital nutrients to the surface. The rate of upwelling is a function of the direction of coastal winds. So, in other words, measurement of pH in coastal surface waters is essentially measuring the effect of wind patterns on upwelling, not the effect of rising atmospheric CO2. As far as the impact of surface pH on ocean organisms, I found that the most alarming research (thin shells etc.) was done in areas of known upwelling. It is clear that living organisms will spread and populate the very edges of their tolerance - shellfish will live in low pH water that dissolves their shells IF there are sufficient nutrients to support them. Finding examples of critters at the edge of their tolerance is just a matter of selecting the right critter and the right locale. I am concerned that the PMEL website is showing a lack of objectivity when it repeatedly focuses on anthropogenic nature of ocean carbon cycle changes (in the mission statements) when there are large natural variations that should also be studied to gain a true understanding of the ocean dynamics.
  12. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    #56: "increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate" Try searching "carbonate compensation depth climate change" in Google Scholar; 8000+ results.
    Moderator Response: Stephenwv, in the Search field on this page, type PMEL Carbon Cycle.
  13. Newcomers, Start Here
    #114 It is correct to state that the Vostok ice core samples were not created directly from salty ocean water. The Vostok station is located in the center of the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, hundreds of miles from the ocean. I apologize for not providing any supporting links as this is being tapped out from my phone, which does not support copy & paste.
  14. Meet The Denominator
    "What is "bad" science is subjective." This is about as untrue as a statement can get. Science that is demonstrably incorrect is bad science. That's entirely objective. Right here is a brief blog post (with references), perhaps one you've seen before, that describes concisely why Khilyuk & Chilingar (2006) is wrong, by my objective definition above. Face it: your list contains bad science as measured by the objective position of whether it is demonstrably correct or not.
  15. Newcomers, Start Here
    stephenev, The ice cores are from glaciers not frozen seawater.
  16. Newcomers, Start Here
    #112 Prior to finding the reference of CO2 in ice core samples I had only heard there was no CO2 in ice. Recently I read that when ocean water freezes, there are pockets of unfrozen water that is trapped. This is supposed to allow concentrations of salt to form as the remaining water freezes. This suggests that the small amounts of CO2 present in the water would also be trapped. Do you have a link that would address any of this and the miniscule amounts involved that you state exist in the core samples. Am I correct that these ice core samples are not created directly from salty ocean water?
  17. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 02:13 AM on 14 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    Is it time to close off this thread? Poptech has been given enough rope and has used it well to hang himself several times over. We get it. Poptech has attempted to justify the unjustifiable and has not succeeded. Rob's post was worthwhile, drawing out Poptech to demonstrate just how worthless his list is (as demonstrated by the fact that almost no-one uses it anymore in trying to convince people to their odd beliefs). And no-one from the Oregon Petition fraud has even bothered to comment. Probably because the fraud has already been well and truly exposed for what it is.
  18. Meet The Denominator
    Mod, an unsnipped duplicate version of my post is still here. Did I accidentally re-submit it? Anyway, the snip makes it look like I've been very naughty. Readers, try and guess what word I used ;-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] It was only 1 word (the toe went over the line). Very naughty & the whole comment would've been disappeared. :)
  19. Ocean acidification isn't serious
    I am unable to find studies that address the increased absorption of CO2 resulting from the dissolving of the calcitrate in shells and coral due to increased acidification. Funding for such CO2 absorbing studies must not be available. Here is one of the only references I can find. Harvard Magazine - The Ocean Carbon Cycle - Nov 2002
  20. Meet The Denominator
    #116: "an instance serving for illustration" If you had included the last word in that sentence ('specimen') in your cut and paste, you would have the correct context. What you provided was neither an instance nor a specimen, but an illustration. You made it up to make a point, something the deniersphere seems to do quite frequently. If you cite 'illustration' as 'example,' it is evident that you draw no distinction between fact and fiction. Further commentary is pointless.
  21. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
  22. Meet The Denominator
    "What is considered a "legitimate concern" is subjective. This is the problem with many of the arguments here, they are in the context of the author's personal opinion which may not relate to someone else." Granted*, but by your definition a paper that concludes 'in a certain region crop yields fall in warmer years' is alarmist - even if it's based on observations rather than projecitons. But how can it be alarmist if it merely states this and makes no policy recommendations? *By the way, in my opinion your opinion is ( - tiny snip- ).
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Let's take the high road, Stu. There are ways to say what you said that do not violate the Comments Policy.
  23. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech wrote : "I did not use the scientific definition of the word theory." Now that explains a lot. Thank you. Just like you don't use a real-world definition of 'alarm', 'AGW alarm' or 'skepticism' - you use the versions you have created in that Poptech world of yours. Let's face it, you can make any word mean what you want it to mean and no-one can get past that confirmation bias of yours. Round and round and round you go, where you end up, no-one knows from post to post. Amazing.
  24. Meet The Denominator
    "Not at all as that is for science to decide not those who wish to censor science." Oh good grief. Do you realise how foolish you sound? I'd say that maintaining papers on the list whose authors have objected to being on the list is, if not censoring science, akin to censoring scientists. Or rather, smearing them by association. Aside from the regular papers whose results you have somewhat misinterpreted (or interpreted as being skeptical of AGW rather than simply discussing climate science), you are giving an airing to a lot of papers that really shouldn't see the light of day. Not because anyone's censoring them, but because they're bad science, mainly published in low-rent journals, and no-one's ever going to cite them. I talking about papers like Khilyuk & Chillingar's efforts. But hey, if you wanted to provide a resource that makes your fellow 'skeptics' more wrong, then mission accomplished!
  25. Newcomers, Start Here
    @111 I think you just have a basic misunderstanding. The gas bubbles in ice represent what was in the atmosphere at the time they were captured, which includes all gases. Releasing those gases together as the ice melts is not going to increase the parts per volume of those gases in the atmosphere.
  26. Meet The Denominator
    Fascinating thread, the attack and defense of generalities. There are a few scientists who believe CO2 is not historically high, skeptic Ferdinand Englebeen shows conclusively that they are wrong. A slightly larger number, but still only a dozen or two that believe that CO2 is not a major GHG or that increases in CO2 do not increase GAT. Another skeptic, Jack Barrett, uses MODTRAN to show that their basic arguments are wrong. Often their arguments contradict each others. The only skeptic papers worth arguing about, IMO, are those which acknowledge AGW and show low or no amplification or show that 2C or less in a century is manageable, or that give a broad perspective of drawbacks and benefits of CC. Those can be countered with specific arguments to the point where presuppositions, logic and conclusions can be compared. My advice to Poptech is to categorize the papers by type of argument. I believe the urgent-action-required side could use categories like models showing sufficient warming to melt Greenland in century timescales or trends in catastrophic impacts or other CAGW arguments. The rest of the papers supporting AGW, of which there are thousands, are settled science, but should not be conflated with catastrophic projections for which urgent action is required.
  27. Newcomers, Start Here
    #110 Context is paramount. At our current level of understanding, global warming is beimg caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration makes it easier for the oceans to absorb CO2 despite the increased temperature that would otherwise cause the oceans to become a net source. #111 The gas composition analysis of ice core samples is done through relative comparison of the minute gas pockets trapped in the ice crystal matrix. Melting ice is not a significant source of CO2.
  28. Newcomers, Start Here
    Regarding my belief that there was CO2 in ice, another NAS affiliated web site, states: “Atmospheric CO2 measured from bubbles in Dome Fuji ice shows the same pattern as the temperature time-series.” You tell me ice has no CO2 to release as it melts. Somehow I got the impression that they were measuring CO2 in ice. My bad. I thought NOAA was supposed to be a credible Government scientific organization, again, affiliated with the NAS. So I was not skeptical of their statement. I'm learning. Must be skeptical. Can't trust anyone. What the words say is not to be taken literally (or something).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link (the system was not recognizing the italic double-quotes you were using).
  29. Meet The Denominator
    #109: "I just gave an example" The word 'example' is defined as a specimen or instance that is typical of the group or set of which it forms part Since you admit that your 'example' is not a member of the group you specified (search results for the words anthropogenic global warming without any quotes), we must conclude that your use of the word 'example' is made up to suit your purposes (just as your use of the made up 'AGW Alarm'). Whatever credibility you may once have had was done in by your own words -- again. The rest is just noise. Too bad the web doesn't have a squelch control, the way old ham radios did.
  30. Newcomers, Start Here
    NOTE: I wanted to have the quote and link at the bottom of this post read first, please do so. For some reason my entire comment would not preview if it led off. Sorry. I have always seen your credible blog posters discredit the referenced statement/author/website for false information rather than attacking the messenger (me). As this was not done, I was skeptical of the criticism. In retrospect, now it appears you only bring anti-AGW web site/studies/authors to task and not pro-AGW. As I was trusting of web sites basically controlled by the US Government, apparently, incorrectly believing that if they were not the most credible source of information, who was? In the past I have been skeptical of any sites that smacked of special interests and bias. Now you have taught me to be skeptical of the government sites, as well as how you apply your own bias of heavy criticism of anti-AGW anything, while you give a virtual free pass to pro-AGW anything. With that being said and understood, I do find your site to be the most helpful I have seen in sorting out the hysterical propaganda from the less hysterical. "WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING DOING TO THE OCEANS? It's raising the oceans' temperatures ever so slowly, but also, it's making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2)." Gov. AGU statement
    Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link (you were missing the closing double-parenthesis from the URL tag). Also, please refrain from using all-caps. Thanks!
  31. Coral Reef Baselines
    John, you're a scientist looking at reefs? Can you tell me what the following quotes from your piece has to do with the science? "Global climate change skeptics have frequently use a very similar approach: they rationalize cherry picking a favored data set and time interval in an attempt to show land and ocean temperatures haven’t increased, that sea ice hasn’t declined, etc" "Climate change deniers use this argument frequently, suggesting that natural short term variation makes long-term, anthropogenically forced trends, unlikely or undetectable. This is in a sense what Sweatman et al are arguing as well." Can I just clear something up? You seem to be labelling Sweatman a skeptic/denier. At the very least it looks like guilt by association. Is this true? If so it's rather worrying that only certain 'types of science' are acceptable. I hope you don't find it too rude. It was very honest of you to note you reviewed this paper. Obviously Sweatman defended your criticisms through the review process sufficiently to get the paper published. Do you think it's appropriate to vent your spleen here. Surely the review process was the correct place for this? I guess I'm talking professionally here. As an individual you have every right to say what you want, where you want, however you want to say it. One final question. Have you told Sweatman you're airing your opinion of his work publically on a blog? Maybe he has a right to reply here? Then again he's done this through the review process maybe he doesn't feel the need to go over old ground again.
  32. Meet The Denominator
    #106: "the results just contain those words" Try again (or rather, don't bother with another repeat of the same old carp). Your premise was blown way back here. What other contexts exist for the 47700 items under the search 'anthropogenic "global warming"'? Actually, you just made up that example, as the sentence you 'quoted' does not appear as a search result. Oops, there went whatever credibility that was left. I wonder why this entire exercise isn't spamming up your 'forum,' rather than here, where there are actual discussions of substance.
  33. Meet The Denominator
    It already is, "...negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW." That's a very broad definition. In your opinion then is there no distinction between legitimate concerns about such effects in a warming world (indeed, regardless of the cause of warming) and yelling 'we're all gonna die cos of globl warmin!!' from the rooftops? In my mind AGW alarm (or alarmism) is very different from plain facts and theories about what will happen if the planet warms up within the range of projections. Evidently not in yours...
  34. Meet The Denominator
    Rob, This is excellent and I am adding bits of this to my site. Scott Mandia
  35. Meet The Denominator
    Yes Stu, by handing his fellow deniers a list full of often mutually contradictory papers-some of which don't even support the skeptic position-he is really leaving them open to complete demolition by any non-denialist with half a brain. Some of the papers, though, are pure pseudo-science (especially the stuff from E&E). For example, the hypothesis regarding a natural 1500 year cycle simply isn't supported by available evidence. For instance, if the cycle is around 1500 years long, then why do we have one warm period starting around 3,000BC (almost 6,000 years after the peak of the Holocene Optimum), then nothing until 300BC (2700 years later), then another one starting in 500AD (only 800 years later), then another one starting in the 1700's-less than 1200 years later-& ending in the 1940's. Then the most recent warming-supposedly-occurring only 10-20 years later. Doesn't sound like much of a "cycle" to me-especially given that they've shown that different causes-& even a combination of causes-have been responsible for each warming event.
  36. Meet The Denominator
    I have a feeling that this thread is going to go round and round in circles (as is usual when Poptech is involved) and end up lasting months, but at least it will stop him spamming other sites ! Anyway, good examples of his reality-creating are : Yes all the papers support skeptics arguments against AGW Alarm. "The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW." Now, his first statement uses his own version of 'alarm' (does anyone actually know what he means by this ? I have never seen his definition and don't believe there is one) to claim that his own version of 'skepticism' (against his own version of 'alarm') is confirmed by his little list. Talk about confirmation bias. You can't argue against someone like this, which is why he always goes round and round in circles. However, that first statement is then discarded and another version of his beliefs appear in his second statement, which he self-quotes from his site. No mention of 'alarm' there, for some reason. Why ? Simply so he can claim that the papers support his version of 'alarm' and, at the same time (and in the same breath) that they support a general, fuzzy skeptical view. In his own reality, he has covered all angles and can argue semantics until everyone else gets dizzy. Again, you can't argue against someone who has closed off his mind so completely in this way. And, as he knows, some of the authors have told him that their papers do no support his strange views : "There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. If they sopport _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be: "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"" Roger Pielke Jr's Blog - Better recheck that list "I'd suggest then that you clarify your post and its title to more accurately reflect what it purports to show." Roger Pielke Jr's Blog - Better recheck that list In fact, the IPCC should be included in Poptech's little list because they are so conservative in their projections that they can obviously be accused of against 'alarmism'. But then, having just shown how subjective his world-view is, he asks this : Please provide the objective criteria (not your subjective criteria) for determined who is a "specialist"." Yes, that's right : someone who bases his whole little list on his own subjective definitions of 'alarm' and 'skepticism' is demanding someone else provide "objective criteria" ! Pot, meet kettle. Again, you can't argue against someone who can demand the real world have a higher degree of proof than occurs in his own reality. Finally, we have the typical response of those who believe they have the secret knowledge that will overturn accepted norms : This is just a theory of mine based on researching this. I have enough circumstantial evidence to consider the theory plausible. In Poptech's world, I'm sure he does have such a theory but, like all those who hold such high opinions about themselves and their abilities, in the real world people know the difference between 'theories' and 'hypotheses' and know how to back-up such claims. In the real world, such claims should be treated with a large pillar of salt. Oh, and the response from Poptech will be along the lines of - 'no, it's not', 'no, I'm not', 'no, I don't', 'no, it doesn't', etc. ad nauseum.
  37. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech, you state that your list is intended as a resource for skeptics rather than a list of papers you explicitely agree with. Okay. So does it bother you that since they can't all be correct, by definition you must be equipping your fellow skeptics with false information? Think about it.
  38. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech: "The list is very meaningful which is why you and the others here are so desperate to yet failed to discredit it." Maybe if you are obsessed with lists rather than science. Are you obsessed with lists Poptech? Or do you actually understand any of the paper that you list?
  39. Meet The Denominator
    Poptech: "I have yet to see any hard numbers on peer-reviewed papers that explicitly endorse AGW." Well done Poptech, it seems you understand science at least to a certain degree. Why would a research paper endorse AGW?? Science funding isn't largely to prove AGW, the majority of climate science funding is to improve knowledge about climate. As a result of that research, we understand the climate and that understanding shows warming! I suppose your comment could also show that you are ignorant on the subject, but I'll let others decide.
  40. Meet The Denominator
    Dont think this is ad hom as it goes to the heart of his credibility Donald Poptech is exaggerating his qualifications when he claims to be a computer scientist. Those of us who know him of old know he’s a computer technician- Dell A+, not university. —- Well then he fits right in with Ball & so many other Deniers who specialize in resume stretching [actually Eli is polite to the point of being inaccurate to call it “stretching” … in many cases it is outright fabrication.
  41. Meet The Denominator
    Marcus, the funniest part about Beck's article is that Arthur Rörsch, involved in the journal and that particular article, claimed it was the most thoroughly peer reviewed paper of E&E. And still it contained clear and unacknowledged problematic issues, which even a cursory reading would reveal to anyone *critically* reading the paper.
  42. Meet The Denominator
    Plenty of stuff like this on the internet, “Poptech's again referring to his own self-publi­­­­shed "popularte­­c­hnology­" webpages, which are riddled with disinforma­­­­­tion and lies. For example, when are you going to remove the following patent, science denier tabloid-so­­­­­urced lie* from your "popularte­­­chnology­" webpages, Poptech? "Climatega­­­­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" Oh, right - as you Poptech have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­­­­ing that you have no intent or interest in promoting the truth about climate science.
  43. Meet The Denominator
    You know, as much as PopTech tries to defend E&E, the facts just don't support him. Here is a classic example of the kind of "quality research" that E&E lends its name to-you might recall the work of the Biology Teacher, E-G Beck, who collated the works of early (19th Century) chemists (who were studying ways to quantify CO2) & claiming his reconstructions of this data "proved" that CO2 levels were higher than in the mid to late 20th century. Of course he failed to mention that (a) the methods used to quantify CO2 had much higher margins of error than today's methods & (b) that all the samples were collected at surface level, & most were collected in urban environments with high levels of CO2 (from factories & wood fires). Of course, none of these obvious problems prevented E&E from publishing this piece of bilge. Which, of course, simply reinforces the view that E&E is only interested in pushing *propaganda*-not in advancing science.
  44. Meet The Denominator
    and they never reference one of PT's papers,actual link to the site and pdf, only he does that they will give a link to what some fool like watts has cherry picked out of it, we finally got Cox to give the actual papers but it was nearly all over by then, must admit though it was good fun playing with PT's mind but that is another story
  45. Meet The Denominator
    "McShane and Wyner’s paper demolishing the centrepiece of AGW science, the Hockey-stick". This, also, is highly deceptive. None of the contrarian papers have come close to proving that the *adjusted* "hockey stick" is wrong-& several papers, using better methodologies, have actually further reinforced the adjusted hockey stick-i.e. that though the planet has warmed in the past, it was neither as warm as today, nor did it warm as fast as it has in the last 60 years. Of course, the added deception is that debunking the hockey stick would somehow demolish AGW, given that pre-industrial warming doesn't rule out anthropogenic warming now-especially given that all the natural forcings suggest the planet should be *cooling*, not warming!
  46. Meet The Denominator
    "McKitrick’s paper demolishing another centre-piece of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot". This, of course, displays the deception engaged in by PopTech. Even if the Tropical Hot Spot were a center-piece of AGW (it isn't, as the Hot Spot is meant to exist *regardless* of global warming) then McKitrick's paper wouldn't successfully demolish it, as McKitrick hasn't even proven that the Hot Spot doesn't exist-only that its very difficult to find with current technology. So, if this is the kind of "standard" of PopTech's much vaunted list, then no wonder he's not prepared to provide evidence to further back his list.
  47. Bjarne Mikael Torkveen at 19:54 PM on 13 February 2011
    Meet The Denominator
    I am amazed at the hypocrisy of the climate deniers in the case of these lists. They constantly say that science is not made by consensus, and yet here we have to examples (OISM and PopTech) of climate deniers trying to...build a consensus.
  48. Meet The Denominator
    This is how Cox references a paper http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43878.html "McShane and Wyner’s paper demolishing the centrepiece of AGW science, the Hockey-stick, McKitrick’s paper demolishing another centre-piece of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot and Koutsoyiannis’s follow-up paper showing the AGW computer models have no predictive skill." then claimed that he included correct references but the dog ate them
  49. Meet The Denominator
    The only purpose served by this list is for deniers to make the claim that there are 850 papers that,and they always use the words refute or deny or are sceptical of or disprove, when you ask them to post one then it will usually be one of these as posted at abc unleased by Cox Lindzen and Choi’s follow up paper: http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf Spencer and Braswell: http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spencer-braswell-jgr-20101.pdf Knox and Douglass: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf Miskolczi’s revised paper: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf McShane and Wyner and the Hockey-stick: http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html McKitrick and the hot-spot: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf Koutsoyiannis and model prediction failures: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/278978__928051726.pdf they will never cite the ones that do not even dispute AGW, useless list that I would not even bother to debate, with a few more definitions he could probably claim 3000 , that was how it went from 500 to 850, So when the say there are 850 papers that...........AGW just ask them to post one , they wont .. just like these papers above the list is useless rubbish
  50. Meet The Denominator
    Also, if I put all of the above terms into quotation marks, then I still pull out about 600,000 hits. Again, how does the 850 papers, which we're just supposed to *assume* support the skeptic case, stack up? Not very well I'd say, which is why [ -Snip- ] PopTech, is so keen to distract attention away from the weakness of his original list by attacking others.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Not helpful (keep it clean).

Prev  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us