Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Next
Comments 96151 to 96200:
-
muoncounter at 16:51 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#56: "only around 1900 papers even include the phrase "anthropogenic global warming"" Or not. Try anthropogenic "global warming" (quotes as shown), you get 47700 hits on Scholar. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:47 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "I just irrefutably demonstrated that only around 1900 papers even include the phrase "anthropogenic global warming". Thus it is literally impossible for a paper to endorse something it does not even mention." Hm, so by your standard a paper that mentions "climate change" doesn't count. A paper has to specifically use the term "anthropogenic global warming?" Fascinating. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 16:37 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
@ poptech, who said: "This is just a theory of mine based on researching this." Poptech, are you going to publish your research in E&E or on your own website? I'd be very interested in seeing the data (if any) that you have based your 'theory' upon. Perhaps your 'theory' is only a hypothesis of yours and you have not yet collected any data one way or another. Sorry, mods. I've had a bit of fun since poptech has joined in and has highlighted how far he is willing to go in his unscrupulous mischief. He is targeting those lacking basic research skills who are of a denialist bent. Not sure why he thinks anyone on this website would fall for his transparent 'tricks'. -
Marcus at 16:36 PM on 13 February 2011Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
RSVP, to the best of my knowledge, you've yet to display a "spirit of open-mindedness". To date you've provided absolutely *nothing* to the debate beyond pseudo-scientific bunkum, word-games & contrariness for its own sake. I've always had a very open mind about the cause of recent global warming, yet still have yet to see any remotely convincing argument for a cause other than rising greenhouse gas emissions. As you have also failed to provide even remotely convincing evidence, I'm still left with the view that humans are responsible for current warming-that's something that your increasingly pointless posts cannot change. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:26 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "All published papers are rigorously peer-reviewed." Really? Hm, the rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to agree with that position. -
muoncounter at 16:24 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
#40: "papers supporting the 1,500 year climate theory" Funny how if you search Google Scholar using "1500 year climate theory" in quotes, you get 0 results. "1500 year climate cycle" gets a measly 2 pages, mostly Singer, Loehle and company. But I always thought it was the quality of the papers, not the quantity of papers that counted. -
Rob Painting at 16:24 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Angusmac @ 46 - I am glad that Einstein ignored the numbers that were stacked against him when he came up with the theory of relativity and challenged the ruling paradigm of Newtonian physics. Your history is a little fuzzy. Einstein developed ideas put forward by others years earlier. You could research this stuff you know. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:21 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... ".Do you always fail to read everything you attempt to "analyze"? ..." What you do in qualifying your list this way is essentially render it meaningless. Basically what you've done is stated that whatever you say goes regardless of any outside normalcy. You've created your own alternate universe that has no bearing on the world the rest of us live in. -
pbjamm at 16:17 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
angusmac AGW has mountains of measured data. If the doubters intend to overturn the established order they had best get to work producing some numbers and data of their own. It can be done, if your doubt is science based. -
Marcus at 16:14 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"The papers supporting the 1,500 year climate theory are include because that is one of the skeptic's theories." A theory, Poptech, needs *evidence*-& the evidence for the 1,500 year climate "cycle" is weak & often contradictory. That you included these unproven hypotheses in your list of peer-reviewed articles merely highlights the weakness of your original claims. Equally weak is your claim that other journals arbitrarily refuse papers written by skeptics-when all the evidence proves that skeptic papers *are* published in these journals *if* they meet the basic standards of peer review. What E&E does is abandon those standards in order to promote its skeptical agenda-hardly something I'd be keen to put forward to promote my case. -
angusmac at 16:09 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I am glad that Einstein ignored the numbers that were stacked against him when he came up with the theory of relativity and challenged the ruling paradigm of Newtonian physics. It only needs one person to be right. The AGW paradigm may be correct but it will not be proven by numbers – it will only be proven by facts that are shown to comply with measured data. -
Rob Honeycutt at 16:09 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "...she simply does not arbitrarily refuse papers because they come from a skeptic as other journals do." In other words, E&E does not bother to thoroughly review their published papers, unlike other journals. -
pbjamm at 16:06 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech If you are going to claim that other journals "arbitrarily refuse papers because they come from a skeptic" you are going to have to back that up with some evidence. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:59 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech said... "I just would like to point out you scored your own goal regarding the Oregon Petition as you would have to apply the same numerical standards to lists of proponents of AGW." That's not the case because I would never use such absurd standards to evaluate a scientific issue. Would I poll everyone with a BS or better to evaluate a medical procedure? No. The proper way to evaluate a specific scientific issue is to ask the specialists in that field of research. And I'm sure you are quite aware of the results of Doran 2009. -
Marcus at 15:54 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"You failed to go through every single search result, confirm they were all peer-reviewed papers (not a news item, editorial or letter to the editor) from a peer-reviewed journal, not a duplicate listing and explicitly endorse AGW theory." So sure are you, Poptech. On what basis do you make such a bold claim? How do you know Rob didn't do exactly that? You expect us to take-at your word-your claim to have thoroughly checked all the papers you list as supporting the skeptic position-even though the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, yet you don't afford the same courtesy to Rob or any of the other posters here. Talk about typical denialist hypocrisy. -
Marcus at 15:51 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal." Yet every scientific journal of note is listed in ISI-which clearly means that the *entire* scientific community sees ISI listing is highly relevant-at least as far as peer-review status. In my own field of expertise, nothing short of publication in an ISI listed journal counts towards your publication record. Face facts, you just don't want to admit that E&E is a poorly "peer-reviewed" journal-established for purely ideological reasons-that has delusions of grandeur. -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:50 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Sorry you're disappointed with my article but you fail to even listen to the authors of the papers you list regarding their positions on the issue. I don't think you have any room to be pointing fingers in this case. If I were to go through a more rigorous exercise from my side of the issue that would require that I do the same on your side as well, such as evaluating whether E&E can legitimately be considered peer-reviewed. This is a case of, be careful what you ask for. -
muoncounter at 15:48 PM on 13 February 2011It cooled mid-century
#7: "show no significant impact from CO2" That's absolutely incorrect, as the graph below (from NOAA/NCDC clearly shows). Where do you come up with such silliness?
And of course, you're off topic. Find the appropriate threads using the search function.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:45 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
E&E is the only publication with scientific pretense that acknowledges and even claims a bias toward a certain conclusion in research results. It was created and has been maintained to be "a platform" (Sonia B.C.'s words) for "skeptics." The main criterion is not the work's quality but its intention. That's a pathetic perversion of everything science stands for. How Sonia B.C. managed to have this piece of garbage listed as a peer-reviewed science journal reflects on her relational skills and aptitudes to work the system more than anything else. If it appears in print, it is a rather sad thought that a tree was cut to support this nonsense. Even the pesky junk mail deserves to exist more than this thing. -
Marcus at 15:44 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Another point, Poptech, is that its *irrelevant* how many proponents/opponents to AGW there are out in the general scientific community-at least as far as true consensus goes. What is relevant is the number of proponents/opponents to AGW there are within the broader climate science community-& the evidence that they have to back their position. To the best of my knowledge, there are as few as a dozen Climate Scientists who do not back the consensus view on AGW-& at least two of those (Lindzen & Choi) are only in disagreement insofar as how bad AGW will get in the future-though the evidence they provide for that position is less than compelling. Based on your list, though, you happily include the papers of these, shall we say, "luke-warmists" in you list of papers to further pad it out. You also have included at least half a dozen papers that claim this is all part of a natural 1500 year cycle-even though there is still NO EVIDENCE to back that view (the last warm period, after all, ended *less* than 1,000 years ago (700 years to be precise), which would mean this supposedly natural "cycle" is a good 800 years early. Even if you take the 1500 years to start from the *beginning* of the last cycle, its still 200 years early). I've not had time to do a full analysis of your list of papers but, if that's the quality of them, then your position is *incredibly weak*!Moderator Response: (Daniel Bailey) I had to warn Poptech so I have to warn you, Marcus. Please, no more all-caps. Thanks! -
Rob Honeycutt at 15:40 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PopTech... Thanks for stopping in. re: #32... I actually deselected the patent button when I did the search. I also went through the list fairly thoroughly and noted that most all the articles listed were from actual published papers, as I noted. -
Marcus at 15:33 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
"I just would like to point out you scored your own goal regarding the Oregon Petition as you would have to apply the same numerical standards to lists of proponents of AGW. Thus you have done nothing but help support that there is no consensus." Hmmm, this just displays your ongoing, blind ignorance to what scientific consensus actually is. Its not a popularity contest, no matter how much you try & make it so-its about the *scientific evidence* that either backs or debunks an existing theory. To date, though you've been quick to cite those papers that allegedly support skepticism of AGW (even though some are contradictory or don't, in truth, support skepticism as you claim) you've not been honest enough to do your own search of the literature to see how this stacks up against papers that *don't* support AGW skepticism. If you were an honest skeptic, & not merely a propagandist, then you'd have the common decency to do this. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - Funny: I get 2020 Google Scholar finds with quotes, 67,700 without. -
Marcus at 15:21 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
You know, Poptech, if I were trying to build a *scientific* case against Global Warming, I'd be very leery about using a journal that isn't ISI listed, & whose editor has publicly admitted that the journal has a "political agenda"-namely backing so-called skepticism. You criticise others-with no evidence-of using non-scientific sources to bolster their argument, yet you've clearly felt a need to pad out your own rather dubious list with the pseudo-scientific nonsense published in E&E-talk about an own goal right there! -
villabolo at 15:05 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Tell me, Poptech, how many peer reviewed papers in favor of Climate Change would you estimate there are? More than or less than 850? If greater than 850, by how much? An order of magnitude or two perhaps? By the way, what do your links at #17 have to do with the number of Climate Change articles? -
scaddenp at 14:39 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Also note that in Poptech's world, a paper in E&E is perfectly equivalent to a paper in Science, Nature, or even Geophys Letters. Wonder what the numerators for cross-journal citations are like? -
MichaelM at 14:33 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
After #22 I wouldn't be surprised if "850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of 'Man-Made' Global Warming (AGW) Alarm" suddenly becomes "851 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of 'Man-Made' Global Warming (AGW) Alarm". -
Marcus at 14:12 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
It goes even further than that though. I have a Bachelor of Science-with Honors-& work in a scientific field (Molecular Biology/Soil Microbiology). I understand the Scientific Method well enough-& know how to read a scientific paper-to be able to understand when a theory is supported by good evidence. Yet if someone were to make an "appeal to authority", & get me to sign a petition saying I support the theory of AGW, I don't know if I could do so in all good conscience. Not because I *don't* support the theory of AGW (because I do), but because ultimately I don't have the background to sign such a petition honestly. So it *really* bugs me that there are supposed scientists out there who are prepared to dishonestly lend their names to a petition about a subject which the majority of them clearly know even less about than I do. Hope that makes sense! -
r.pauli at 13:47 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Hmm... I see that Wikipedia says tt is estimated that approximately one percent of the general population are psychopaths. -
Henry justice at 13:18 PM on 13 February 2011It cooled mid-century
The temperature variations according to NOAA/NCDC dataset from 1880-2010 vs rising CO2 levels indicate no significant impact from CO2. However, the day/night variations explained above appear to be legitimate science and I applaud them for their work. The real worry may not be so much CO2 but a possible sudden release of Methane Hydrate from the sea bottoms and tundra bogs of Siberia. -
villabolo at 13:14 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I got 622,000 by folowing the same exact criteria but when I dropped the quote marks on "climate change" I got 956,000. -
Marcus at 13:07 PM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #10: Warming in the Pipeline
Thanks for clarifying that Dana & Muon. I knew I only had part of the story. Any look at CO2 vs solar forcing for the last 120 years shows that CO2 easily swamps solar. Its worth noting that solar forcing grew from almost zero during the Maunder/Dalton Minimum periods up to the highs of the mid-20th century, yet that produced-at best-a +0.6 degree warming over a period of about 200 years. By contrast, we've seen a +0.6 degree warming in just the last 60 years-with +0.5 degrees of that being in the last 30 years-which represents an almost 10 times more rapid warming trend than from Solar "alone" (I say alone, though for the period of 1900-1950 CO2 was almost certainly playing a minor role). IMO, that really does highlight how powerful greenhouse gases are at boosting temperatures-compared to solar forcing alone-something further reinforced by a consideration of how much hotter our planet was 500 million years ago-in *spite* of the sun being significantly cooler than today. -
MattJ at 12:44 PM on 13 February 2011PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
Here in this article, you say the oceans absorb a quarter, but in the NOAA sites itself, http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean%2BAcidification, it says "one third", which is even more scary. The oceans might not turn completely lifeless, but they will be pretty barren pretty soon. Worse yet, people will still have videos of people eating sushi and other seafood, so they will know what we have deprived them of. So instead of the ancestor worship still common in the Far East, there will be a widespread cult of ancestor cursing. -
Ron Crouch at 12:30 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Even if you had been more liberal in your treatment of the OP or Poptech, it would still have demonstrated that it's little more than "grandstanding". It's like these outfits try to prey upon gullibility by speaking as if they have some ordained authority. The sad part is that there is an element of realism to it. I don't know about the rest here but I come into contact with plain old Joe of the streets on a daily basis. And I find most are simply misinformed, citing garbage like this, and could care less to find out the real truth. Oh, lest I forget those who would deny the truth based upon some "higher" belief, or those who deny just because it's in their nature to do so. Most of them are too busy trying to be the nice hand fed puppies that they are, mindlessly sipping their Latte' from Starbucks. Most don't hold opinions of their own design. Don't worry about not being counted as a real scientist just cause you live outside the U.S. The Ville, cause "Your not a Real American unless Your a Marine" either, or so the story goes. And to think that all these years I was raised to believe that a Real American was -- an Indian. -
MattJ at 12:23 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
@Alexandre- Right you are. But isn't it sad? Doesn't it say something is terribly wrong about our so-called "scientific peer review"? After all, the paper really did somehow manage to squeak past. Even if they are a minority of papers that passed peer review, this is really, really bad. -
MattJ at 12:22 PM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Now what you have to do is get the article to show the Austrian-accent pronunciation of "I'll be back";) Oh, BTW: I see the comments have already made a good start on it, but I'll mention it anyway: once you have shown that even giving them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers are not behind them, it really does make sense to go ahead and show that they never deserved that benefit of the doubt in the first place. Like Polar Bear said, there are a lot of people with degrees who really don't know much science, even with nursing degrees, where they really should have learned something about it. Sad to say, there are even a lot of people with medical and engineering degrees who think they know science, but most of what they 'know' about it isn't even true. Why, I'll go even further and say that there are too many "practicing scientists" who don't even really know science. I have in mind this one individual with a PhD in science who publicly humiliated and ridiculed a fellow scientist for pointing out the unsolved problems in the presenter's thesis in a seminar on biology that took place at a major biotech company. But such criticism IS a vital part of the scientific method: if your conclusion/proposal cannot survive sound criticism, then it is unscientfic. After all: in Newton's 'Opticks', where he gave his still valid description of the scientific method, he says: "And if no exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally (p380)". But how will we KNOW whether or not exceptions occur, if we silence objections like this? We MUST allow them, as long as "they are taken from Experiments or other certain Truths (ibid)". In the case I am criticizing, they were. Objections can be silenced only when they are truly unscientific, such as the objections of Lindzen and Monckton, which are neither from experiments nor from any other kind of "certain truths". NB: Newton's 'Opticks' is in Google Books. It is worth reading the citations above in context, since his description of the scientific method is SO good! -
JMurphy at 12:14 PM on 13 February 2011Monckton Myth #9: Monckton vs Monckton on heat waves
With reference to the high/low ratio : This is now the 10th month out of the last 13 since last January that heat records have exceeded cold ones. The ratio of high temperature records to low temperature records over that period is 2.18 to 1, and the cumulative excess of heat records is almost 7000. January Heat Outpaces Cold -
rhjames at 12:09 PM on 13 February 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Thanks - I'll go through this in detail. Where possible, I try to get as close to the data source as possible (eg the Hadcrut data I listed earlier). I get concerned when someone modifies data, and gets a different gradient or trend. Normalisation with a baseline shift is fine, but the basic trends normally shouldn't change. I expect I'll find the answers when I study the text. Keep in mind that my earlier comments were based on data I've looked at from the actual data sets before these adjustments are applied, so I'm seeing a different picture. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:49 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I would be very curious to know how many papers PopTech has read in order to get 850 that he believes challenge "AGW alarm." -
JMurphy at 11:43 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
The main thing about Poptech's little list is that no matter what the authors of the papers actually think, they are, in his own mind, supporting his own version of what he considers 'AGW alarm' to be, i.e. he has his own world-view and beliefs and he can twist any paper into agreeing with what he thinks 'alarm' means. It's a very good example of Conservative reality-creating, necessitated by the real world being too inconvenient. -
JMurphy at 11:25 AM on 13 February 2011It hasn't warmed since 1998
protestant, I notice you still haven't retracted or backed-up your accusation of "unjustified interpolation", so, to help you out, please look at the following comment. You can reply there to retract or back-up your accusation. -
Chemware at 11:24 AM on 13 February 2011Coral Reef Baselines
I visited the Cairns area in 1967, and clearly remember inshore reefs right on the coast on the drive up to Port Douglas. When I next visited that area in the early 1990s they were gone. Clearly, any survey that started in 1986 will not include these reefs, so any claims that the GBR was in a pristine state at this time are ridiculous. -
JMurphy at 11:17 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
I thought I would add the actual image from the first link I gave previously, just in case :
-
JMurphy at 11:13 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
johnd, instead of seeing Australia as one entity that can only get wetter, drier (whatever it is that you want to argue against), why not have a look at a trend map where you will see that the majority of the country seems to be trending wetter, while a significant minority seems to be trending drier. You see, the two states can exist at the same time in different parts of the country, because Climate is complicated. That is why people easily get confused when they expect Global Warming to mean that warming will occur linearly everywhere, year by year. It's a shame that it needs to be constantly re-iterated. As for 30-year trends, laugh at this : The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. However, many WMO members, including the UK, update their averages at the completion of each decade. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. MET OFFICE I believe you will find that they decided that before Al Gore and all his alarmists thought it would be a good idea to use 30 years, to be mean to all the so-called skeptics...well, according to the so-called skeptics, anyway. -
Rob Painting at 11:06 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
John D - "Your comment about the relevance of the most recent drought indicates that perhaps you are more influenced by such short term aberrations rather than the bigger "broad-scale" longer term picture." Define what you mean about aberration. We have over 40 years of a general drying trend in Australia:
When does your aberration end and non-aberration start?.
How does this relate to your own assertions?
From Gallant & Karoly 2010
John D -"These trends mostly stem from changes in tropical regions during summer and spring."
I do hope you understand that rainfall totals can fall in a region yet extreme rainfall events can increase. You get that right?. The long term drying trend is what causes drought.
-
Polar Bear at 11:04 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
There are a lot of people with bs degrees in Nursing who do not know much science..After an associate degree,work experience gets credit toward the degree..that could explain why my state nursing organization did not want to discuss global warming when they had a big meeting about the environment and health -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:56 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Toolmaker... Regarding an analysis of the points made on the OP, that's a little outside the point I'm trying to make with this article. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:47 AM on 13 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Toolmaker... Good catch. Updated the post. -
johnd at 10:40 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Rob Painting at 07:18 AM on 13 February, 2011, the conclusions of the Gallant & Karoly 2010 paper were "Around the mid-late 1970s, the broad-scale Australian environment changed from a period where colder and drier extremes dominated to one where hotter and wetter extremes were more prevalent. Such changes manifested in annual, seasonal, and daily extremes." How does this relate to your own assertions? Whilst they noted regional differences, the conclusions were defined as referring to "the broad-scale Australian environment". Your comment about the relevance of the most recent drought indicates that perhaps you are more influenced by such short term aberrations rather than the bigger "broad-scale" longer term picture. It is only when the status-quo has been re-established after a drought and the ground water reservoirs have been replenished that any indications will become obvious. Indeed even in the paper it was the only the focusing on very short time scales, 5 years and less that allowed their conclusions to be reached, and that leads me to wonder what is the relevance of it all as I feel measuring anything less than the time frames that are found in the various ocean based cycles yields little. Just as there are shorter and longer periods of dry weather, so too are there shorter and longer periods of wet weather. The systems that bring rain to one region, generally deprive another region of theirs. In Australia's case that means not just regions within Australia, but includes Indonesia, India and Africa all being within the Indian Ocean region. One other aspect that I am not sure of in such studies that are analysing extremes is whether or not double counting or worse occurs or not. Generally if the systems are such that it brings above average rainfall to one region, another region is deprived of theirs. This should not be counted as two extreme events, but given how it was indicated in the paper that contrasting extreme events were evident in some regions, then I suspect they were accommodated as two separate pieces of data. How do you think they have been accommodated, or should be accommodated? Recent events worldwide also indicate that perhaps the same may apply to heat, if the various systems coincide in such a way that the heat carried by them is directed into a single region, then it will be at the expense of other regions. Any thoughts on that? -
Rob Painting at 10:35 AM on 13 February 2011Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
Marvin @ 34 - If this six weeks of extreme weather events in 2011 is an indicator of AGW, then could we assume that six weeks or more of relative inactivity indicates the opposite? If you ignore the preceding 3 centuries of increasingly more extreme weather in Australia, and focus only on the last 6 weeks, then maybe. Sounds a tad unscientific though.
Prev 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Next
