Recent Comments

Prev  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  Next

Comments 33951 to 34000:

33951. Kernos at 02:31 AM on 21 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       "Rob Honeycutt at 01:31 AM on 20 September, 2014
       Kernos... You do have access to the research, through a subscription. There happen to be costs that come into play regarding the publishing and distribution of research. That's what subscriptions pay for."

       We have already paid for the research. We shouldnt have to pay again. With most journals online, costs are minimal anyway. If it has to come out of the grant money so be it. Include it in your grant proposal. 

       If the public is to become more science literate, access must be available to all. $20-$30 a paper is impossible for most Americans. And, avoid publishing in for-profit journals. They need to disappear.   

33952. Tom Curtis at 02:08 AM on 21 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       MA Rodger @69, from an extended discussion of the issue by K.a.r.S.t.e.N:

        

       

       As he concludes, "From a NH point of view, the AMO plays a minor role as far as the temperature evolution is concerned."

33953. MA Rodger at 22:23 PM on 20 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       

       jwalsh @63 & @65.

       Being as generous as I can , Figure 3 from Mann et al (2008) here shows perhaps 0.1ºC per century rise for the NH "since 1600 or so", about 7% of the 20th century rise. (Being less generous, note that some of the reconstructions are flat with zero warming.) I'm not sure how much of the warming is attributable to the Maunder Minimum/Dalton Minimum - probably the lion's share. When solar forcing is considered for the post-1950 contribution, it will be small but cooling.

       So using Mann et al (2008) to argue for a significant natural contribution to the global surface warming since 1950 (33% to 25% is quoted @63) doesn't make any sense to me.

33954. Tom Curtis at 16:12 PM on 20 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh @63:

       "First, If you water-board me to come up with a figure for AGW since 1950, I'd probably say 66-75%, so I am arguing from a position "within" the 97% (if I had published something on climate)."

       I did not ask about where you estimated the anthropogenic contribution to be, but what evidence you had in support of inflating the IPCC's uncertainty by a factor of two or more.  Never-the-less it is interesting to note that your "estimate" of the anthropogenic contribution has a probability of 2.3% based on Fig 10.5, and that even if we inflate IPCC uncertainty so that there is a 5% chance of a 50% contribution or less, that probability rises to only 5.8%.  Further, it is interesting to note that, as discussed above, your evidence for your preffered contribution is weak, ambiguous (at best) and does not in fact support your preferred value.  However, if I ever decide to determine the anthropogenic contribution by inexpert ellicitation, I'll be sure to keep your wild assed guess in mind.

       "He's right of course. You can't assume that the net natural contributions must be positive. But the same argument can be made about assuming them to be "zero" or negative over a short time frame."

       This argument misses the true beauty of the AR5 assessment.  The GMST record shows a gradual fall from 1880-1910, a sharp rise from 1910-1940, a gradual fall from 1940-1970, and a sharp rise from 1970-2000, with a gradual rise thereafter.  That pattern is the basis for claims that internal variability is a significant contributor.  It sets the phase and period of the multi-decadal internal variability in global temperature, if it exists.  But that being the case, the period from 1951-2010 is exactly in phase.  It goes from the early declining phase of the first cycle to the exactly equivalent year of the second cycle.  Ergo any contribution from that cycle to the rise in temperature over that period comes entirely from any purported change in amplitude of the internal variability - which change of magnitude is not evident on any grounds, and on best evidence is a decrease in magnitude.

       Nor is it any good to claim that the periods of the internal variation is not coordinated with that pattern.  If it is not, then the effect of internal variability has been small such that it does not impact the overall pattern of warming through the twentieth century.  So, either 2010 is in phase with 1950 and the internal variability between the two is consequently small, or the internal variability is small in any event, having little effect on the overall temperature pattern.

       The logic here is very simple, and leaves no room for a large non-forced component of the temperature change from 1951-2010 unless it comes from multi-century patterns of internal variability, and as seen above those patterns do not have sufficient trend to be relevant, and are in any event most probably forced.

       So, my questions remain unanswered.  I asked for evidence as to why the IPCC uncertainty should be greatly inflated and you have merely provided unsupported speculation about the actual contribution, and ill thought out meanderings about Schmidt's comment that paid no attention to the actual relevant durations.

33955. Andy Skuce at 11:53 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       Maybe the means of calculating the impact factor itself could be changed to encourage open-access publishing. This might encourage researchers to go to open-access journals first. Perhaps an open-access journal could justify having more IF points because we might assume that its articles are more widely read, since there is no barrier to access from people with no instititional library access. It's not just citations that matter, but eyeballs, also. 

33956. Tom Curtis at 11:08 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Will Power @346, incorrect.  Specifically, "the AGW theory" is, in its simplest form, that:

       a) humans have caused most of recent warming,

       b) continuing as we have will result in a very significant warming, and

       c) warming is likely to cause significant adverse consequences.  Therefore Russ R's position as stated by you is incoherent.  Specifically, if 97% there is "a 97% consensus supporting AGW theory", then there is also a 97% consensus supporting the claim that humans have caused most of recent warming.

       Russ R's position should be restated that "there is a 97% consensus supporting that anthropogenic factors have caused some (>0%) of recent warming; and 1.6% supporting that most (50% or more) of recent warming has been anthropogenic".  That position, however, is also incoherent as shown in my post at 318 , which I recommend you read if you have not done so already.

       Finally, it is sometimes said that Cook et al show there is a 97% concensus behind the theory of AGW, or the IPCC.  In fact it does not.  Certainly it shows (as much as any empirical study can) that there is a 97% concensus behind (a), and by implication also behind (b).  However, some small part of the scientific community accept (a) and (b) without accepting (c), and (c) was not specifically tested for in the survey.  There may also be a 97% consensus behind (c), but Cook et al have not shown it.

33957. Will_Power at 11:02 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       RH, you can say it isn't a point reasonable people can disagree about, but it seems abundantly clear it is a topic people do disagree on. I think it'd be good to clarify exactly what they disagree about. You can't do a good job explaining how a person is wrong if you don't explain what they say.

       In that vein, am I right to say Russ R thinks this is an appropriate description of your results:

       There's a 97% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and 1.6% put the human contribution at >50%.

       And you guys say that statement is wrong, that it misrepresents your results?

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] It is a misinterpretation of the results.

33958. Will_Power at 10:12 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Let me see if I understand the disagreement correctly. Everyone agrees Category 1 quantifies the human contribution, but Categories 2&3 do not. The disagreement is Russ R feels that means we should describe the results by saying:

       There's a 97% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and 1.6% put the human contribution at >50%.

       The other view says we should say:

       There's a 97% consensus that puts the human contribution to global warming at >50%.

       Because while Categories 2 and 3 don't directly quantify the human contribution, they do endorse the idea it is >50%.

       Am I misunderstanding one side of this, or can can everyone agree that description of the positions is right?

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] This is not a matter of disagreement. The fact is, categories 1-3 endorse human contribution and categories 5-7 minimize human contribution. Cook13 also went the additional step to be self-skeptical of potential bias that could have been introduced by raters (as Andy Skuce aptly pointed out with section 4.1, and Tom Curtis has repeated pointed out), by asking scientist to self-rate their own research. Thus, Cook13 has two independent measures that agree, which also agree with the results of previous research by Oreskes, Doran&Zimmerman and Anderegg.

       This makes Russ' description wrong. 

33959. Tom Curtis at 06:40 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Will Power @343, saying "papers in Categories 2&3 do not quantify the human contribution" is ambiguous.  Papers in those categories do not explicitly quantify the contribution by definition of the category.  They may still endorse (explicitly or implicitly) that >50% of recent warming is anthropogenic.  An example of an explicit endorsement without quantification would be "while anthropogenic forcings continue to rise, combined natural forcings are negative over recent times, and internal variability is small" from which it is readilly deduced that anthropogenic factors are the primary cause of recent warming, without being able to quantify whether they contribute 55% or 110%, or something in between.  Another example of explicit endorsement without quantification is "The IPCC shows global warming to be a substantial threat to human civilization".  (It is irrelevant to the case whether they actually do show that, so please don't get distracted.)  Such a statement endorses the (purported) IPCC findings, and therefore endorses basis of those findings, including that anthropogenic factors have contributed more than 50% to recent warming.

       Because the abstract ratings in Cook et al attempt to quantify a quantitative factor (">50% or recent warming") using non-quantified data, that increases the risk of errors but several tests including the self ratings have shown the errors not to have effected the results.  That is, they are more likely to have rated as neutral papers that do endorse the consensus than the reverse (as is shown by statistical analysis of internally detected error rates, and by comparision with the author self ratings).  Unless you can show by statistical analysis or by replication that those two tests of relative error rates are in error, bringing up short lists of supposed errors is mere cherry picking, and rhetorical rather than scientific criticism.

33960. Andy Skuce at 06:30 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       I would encourage everyone to read (or reread) section 4.1 of our paper "Sources of uncertainty". Many of the problems that our critics think they have uncovered were previously acknowledged there. Perhaps this is a sign that they never actually bothered to read it.

       Yes, the abstract rating process was often subjective and the results were noisy. We frequently disagreed amongst ourselves. There will be instances where the final ratings can be reasonably disputed. It would be great to see this work redone by a different team.

       The fact remains that very few papers and fewer abstracts reject the consensus on AGW. I was thrilled whenever I found one. Reading thousands of abstracts that endorsed or were neutral on AGW did get a little boring and finding a real dissenter brightened my day. It turns out there were just 78 rejections out of 11944 abstracts. Finding a real one could take hours of patient slogging.

       Rejection of the basics of  AGW in the scientific literature is a fringe activity. If your worldview hinges on there having to be significant doubt among experts about the basic science, it is understandable that this can be a hard fact to swallow.

33961. Will_Power at 06:19 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       RH, I'm confused. I guess my comment did go through. What point do you want me to acknowledge? My comment specifically agreed with everything you said in your response to me. It seems clear we agree papers in Categories 2&3 do not quantify the human contribution. Is that right? Can everyone accept that and move on?

       Can we all agree, "Categories 2&3 don't quantify the human contribution but do endorse the consensus"?

       Papers that are in 2&3 are not expected to quantify AGW. They only need to implicitly endorse the consensus position.

       Did you mean to say implicitly or explicitly/implicitly? I thought only Category 3 was for implicit endorsements?

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] My error: Cat 2 explicitly endorses human caused warming, without quantification. Cat 3 implicitly endorses human caused warming, without quantification. Neither requires quantification.

       Your original statement suggested that tons of 2&3's don't quantify, which is what is expected for papers found in those categories.

33962. Tom Curtis at 06:17 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       With respect to Will Power @335, the title and abstract of the first abstract from which he quotes read as follows:

       "Effect of encapsulated calcium carbide on dinitrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide emissions from flooded rice

       The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flooded rice. In a greenhouse study, the nitrification inhibitor encapsulated calcium carbide (a slow-release source of acetylene) was added with 75, 150, and 225 mg of 75 atom % 15N urea-N to flooded pots containing 18-day-old rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants. Urea treatments without calcium carbide were included as controls. After the application of encapsulated calcium carbide, 3.6 μg N2, 12.4 μg N2O-N, and 3.6 mg CH4 were emitted per pot in 30 days. Without calcium carbide, 3.0 mg N2, 22.8 μg N2O-N, and 39.0 mg CH4 per pot were emitted during the same period. The rate of N added had a positive effect on N2 and N2O emissions, but the effect on CH4 emissions varied with time. Carbon dioxide emissions were lower with encapsulated calcium carbide than without.The use of encapsulated calcium carbide appears effective in eliminating N2 losses, and in minimizing emissions of the “greenhouse gases” N2O and CH4 in flooded rice."

       I have placed in italics the portion he quoted, and underlined the portions most relevant to the classification.  It is my opinion that interest in the reduction of greenhouse gases, the only criteria under which the treatment was tested, is only relevant if greenhouse gases are the major contributor to global warming, and only a recommendation of greenhouse gases are the major contributor to global warming.  Hence implicitly the abstract assumes that greenhouse gases are the major contributor to global warming (which is also implicitly assumed to be a bad thing).  As background, the anthropogenic origin of the recent increase in greenhouse gases is so well established that rejection of it ranks with rejection of heliocentrism in terms of scientific credibility.  Ergo acceptance of greenhouse gases as the major contributor to global warming strongly implies that anthropogenic causes are the major contributor to recent warming.  Without that assumption (and hence tacit endorsement), the paper is as of much scientific interest as 19th century papers about how long it takes for ants to wander outside circles of specific diameter.

       For the second abstract, here are the title and full abstract:

       "Global warming and clean electricity

       Examines the possibility of global climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The problem can be ameliorated by reducing fossil fuel consumption through conservation and expanded use of nuclear and solar power. In particular, major reductions can be achieved if fossil fuels are replaced in electricity generation and if electricity assumes a larger role in the overall energy economy."

       Again I have italicized the portion quoted, and underlined the relevant portion.  From the abstract the article examines whether or not increased greenhouse gases will cause climate change.  Further, it goes on to explore ways of ameliorating climate change by reducing emmissions of greenhouse gases.  Clearly, therefore, it found that increased GHG do cause climate change, and that they cause it at sufficient quantities as to require amelioration.  Given this information it is possible, though unlikely, that they found greenhouse gases cause global warming at sufficient rate only to cause 45% of recent warming, but it is far more likely that they found warming at a sufficient rate to cause >>50% of warming.  Again, this is an inductive conclusion that may be wrong - but it is unlikely to be so and as previously noted, errors from neutral to endorsement have been shown to be outnumbered by errors in the reverse direction.

33963. Will_Power at 06:01 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       It seems one of my comments didn't go through. RH, I have read the paper. I don't disagree with anything you say about it. You say "only categories 1 and 7 'quantify' human contribution." If only Categories 1&7 quantify the human contribution, Categories 2&3 cannot quantify the human contribution.

       That means I accept with everything you say about the paper.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Your previous statement was, "I read through 200 abstracts today.  There are tons in Categories 2&3 which acknowledge AGW but don't quantify the human contribution.  They are silent on the issue."

       Papers that are in 2&3 are not expected to quantify AGW. They only need to implicitly endorse the consensus position. 

       Please re-read Cook13 more carefully before proceeding to comment.

33964. Tom Curtis at 05:38 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Well said KR @337.

33965. Tom Curtis at 05:37 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Will Power @355, by the definitions of the rating categories, any paper rated 2 or 3 that does quantify the contribution explicitly and rated 2 or 3 is a mistake.  Pointing out that those papers do not explicitly quantify the contribution is therefore not a criticism of the paper, and if you think it is it shows you have not understood it.

       With regard to the two papers you consider, it is quite clear that they implicitly endorse the consensus.  That is, their statements together with reasonable background knowledge  strongly implies that the paper endorses the consensus.  

       That implication is inductive.  It may be wrong.  However, error analysis first conducted by Richard Tol, and then done correctly by Cook and others in their response to Tol clearly show that there are more errors in the opposite direction.  Ie, if we corrected all such probable (or plausible) errors, more rating 4 abstracts would be rerated as 3 or higher, than rating 3 or higher abstracts rerated as 4.  The net result would be to strengthen the consensus finding.

       You are welcome to disagree with that finding, but if you do you need to quantify the proportion of such mistakes in both directions (and also as related to rejection papers).  Failure to do so renders your critique merely rhetorical.  Ideally you would replicate the paper, but make sure your replication includes the element of author self rating as a check on your abstract rating bias.

33966. Tom Curtis at 05:20 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Dikran Marsupial @328, there is a defacto exclusion of papers that are not related to climate by the inclusion of category 4:

       "(4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate"

       Presumably the intention is to exclude opinions by non-physical scientists who are not only not necessarilly expert in a particular area of climate science, but do not necessarilly have the scientific background to assess the evidence adduced by the IPCC in support of the concensus position.  Therefore we can conclude that a limited number of Duarte's very small list do represent genuine errors of classification.

       What Duarte (or Russ R) have not established is the relevance of that.  Of course there are errors of classification.  The classifiers were human, and humans make mistakes.  In so large an excercise with the classification of 12,465 papers there are bound to be a number of mistakes.  It is well known, and easilly established that the largest single group of such mistakes is classifying rating (1-3) articles as rating (4) due to simple error or insufficient information in the abstract and title, something we know by comparison with the author self ratings.  There are in the order of 3500 such "mistakes".

       Given that there are bound to be such errors, both increasing and decreasing the consensus value, the only significant question is what is the effect of correcting those errors.  For one class or errors (internal rating errors) it is now well established that it has no significant effect by Cook et al's response to Richard Tol's flawed critique.  Duarte, and Russ R acting as Duarte's puppet, raise a different category of mistakes.  They make no attempt to quantify relative proportions of such mistakes, either by count or statistically, and cherry pick mistakes only in one direction.  However, simple analysis as above shows it is highly implausible that such mistakes will impact the result.  

       Another approach is to note that only 283 out of 12280 abstracts were rated as not climate related, ie, just 2.3%.  Assume that twice that number escaped correct classification and all were rated as endorsing the consensus.  With these utterly implausible assumptions, "correction" of the results would reduce the consensus rate from 97.1% to 97%.

       Again this underlines the fact that simply finding an error of classification or rating does nothing as regards a scientific critique of Cook et al.  With out quantification of the relevant ratios, and a projection of those ratios to determine the impact on the concensus rate, listing cherry picked examples of such errors is simply propaganda, haveing nothing to do with science.

       
       Of course, I have laid out these points before @322.  Russ R firmly established which side of the science/pseudoscience divide he is on by brushing them aside with an inane comment.  Other than pointing that out, I will leave it there lest I also become guilty of excessive repetition.

33967. KR at 05:13 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Stepping back a bit from the repeated attempts to post hoc redefine the criteria actually used in the Cook et al paper (absurd), I find it utterly fascinating how stridently any expert consensus on AGW is being denied. 

       Look at other consensus objections: as with creationism, anti-vaccines, the entire tobacco industry campaign, ozone, acid rain, and now anthropogenic global warming - a repeating pattern of minority opinions trying to convince the public that the experts are not in agreement (when they actually are). Possibly because people without a relevant background will trust the majority opinion of the experts as being meaningful, and that shapes policy. 

       So - nit-picking on tiny aspects of papers that don't, that cannot, change the base conclusions of the science, fake experts (the 3%), the ad hominem attacks on authors in attempts to discredit their work, the contradictory counter-explanations du jour (the sun, cosmic rays, cycles, it's not happening, anything but us), on and on and on. And claims that the consensus doesn't exist, despite 'skeptic' attempts to claim a skeptical consensus does (the OISM petition). But a distinct lack of science - of attempts to examine the data and see if those minority opinions have any support from the evidence. 

       So why is consensus on AGW fought so much by the 'skeptics'? IMO it's because if 95-97% of those studying a topic agree, yet you vehemently disagree, you just might be fooling yourself... and people seem to find that intolerable.

33968. factotum at 05:08 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       let me add that any person who thought a paper had value could donate some money to the author, his listed projects, his institution etc.

33969. factotum at 05:05 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       There is a method to determine the ranking of chess players that might work here.  http://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-ratings---how-they-work

       We can assume that all places of publication are the same since everything on the internet is, for all practical purposes, in the same place. 

       It will require some refinement since there is not likely to emerge as objective a method as who has won the most games against other players.  One could possibly get google could add their expertise in ranking things.  The strength of a ranker might start off with some combination of Years of post graduate education, number of papers published, number of patents, prizes won in the relevant area.  There might be a table constructed of relevancies.  Other factors might be the global ranking of the unuversity or institution for which the author / critic works or derives primary income.

       
       Surely with all this intellectual horsepower around the people who care could come up with come consensus as to how this would work, at least to start.  And then maybe once every couple of years, revise the system.  Again, you may wish to start by asking google to advise.

        

       think of it as a mashup between wiki and google GW  Call it sciub.  A person posts a paper to scipub.   It gets reviewed and that review goes at the bottom of the paper along with the ranking of the reviewer who also ranks the paper.  The first 5 reviews are posted in order of their publication, after that they are listed in decending order by the ranking of the reviewer, but can be re-sorted by date, authors name, institution with whom author is affiliated -— other stuff. 

33970. Will_Power at 04:53 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       RH, why would I ask myself that?  I never said those papers "[imply] humans have had a minimal impact on global warming."  I said they don't quantify the human contribution.  Accepting AGW without quantifying the human contribution means the papers could accept any value between 0 and 100%.

       I read through 200 abstracts today.  There are tons in Categories 2&3 which acknowledge AGW but don't quantify the human contribution.  They are silent on the issue.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Clearly you have not read the Cook13 paper, because only categories 1 and 7 "quantify" human contribution. Please re-read the paper more clearly before continuing to comment on this issue. Any follow up comments need to acknowledge this and move forward. Any comments re-stating this error will be deleted.

       Edit: If you do not like the methods used by Cook13 then you are highly encouraged to create your own research and submit to peer review. We would be eager to see your results.

33971. Will_Power at 04:31 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       This page was linked in a page I found on Reddit. I don't understand how there can be arguments about this. Categories 2&3 have tons of papers which don't quantify the human contribution. One such paper only says:

       The efficiency of N use in flooded rice is usually low, chiefly due to gaseous losses. Emission of CH4, a gas implicated in global warming, can also be substantial in flooded rice.

       http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00336375

       Another

       Examines the possibility of global climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The problem can be ameliorated by reducing fossil fuel consumption through conservation and expanded use of nuclear and solar power. In particular, major reductions can be achieved if fossil fuels are replaced in electricity generation and if electricity assumes a larger role in the overall energy economy.

       http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/33/13/004/

       Methane is "implicated in global warming." Global warming a "possibility." How can anyone claim these quantify the human contribution? They don't. Neither do hundreds of other papers in these categories.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Ask yourself if either of these papers "[Imply] humans have had a minimal impact on global warming..." per the category definitions stated in Cook13. There are 8 "baskets" in which you can place a paper. Read them and see which basket you would put these papers in. 

       Better yet, look at the menu bar above and you can start rating papers for yourself and see what results you come up with.

33972. Dikran Marsupial at 04:22 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Sorry Russ, too little, too late.  I am not interest in discussing science with someone who appears out to deliberately antagonise, even if they occasionally intersperse their bad behaviour with more sensible comments.

33973. Russ R. at 04:18 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Dikran Marsupial,  

       "AFAIK the stated methodology does not require the papers concerned to be on climatology,"

       No, but it does require them to be climate-related.  Papers deemed to be "Not climate related" were supposed to be excluded.

       "so if you question the potential inclusion of papers in phsychology, why not also question the inclusion of papers that are known to be incorrect."

       I agree it would be ideal to exclude all the "known to be incorrect papers".  You'd need to build that into the screening and rating process, (and I don't know how that could be done objectively).  But that quality filtering was not done here.

33974. DSL at 04:17 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Yes, that's true, Russ.  y = 1.6%.  And z = the number of papers that quantify and find less than 50%.  z = ~.03% (and a mighty sketchy 0.03% at that).  What's your point?  

33975. Dikran Marsupial at 04:13 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       RussR, there was no justification whatsoever for posting the text of a private discussion, you could have made your point perfectly well in your own words.  It seems to me that your purpose here is simply to be an irritant, rather than to discuss the science in good faith.  I see no point in trying to discuss anything with you any further.

33976. DSL at 04:11 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       DM beat me to it.

       Russ, you're evading the question.  Here it is again, in a different way: if we want to improve Cook et al., should we get rid of questionable papers (e.g. papers that are a stretch for the criteria, papers that are fundamentally flawed, papers that were "reviewed" by non-experts, etc.)?  This doesn't add subjectivity into the calculation; it reduces it.
       
       I'm surprised you don't know who Chilingar is.  You found (or copied from Duarte) something to quibble with in the marginal papers that supported the consensus, yet you didn't spend the time to investigate the 3%.  You simply trusted the method of Cook et al. where those were concerned. 

33977. Russ R. at 04:06 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Perhaps the final answer on whether Level 2 ratings endorse >50%:

       "We can't assume that just because a paper says "anthropogenic global warming" that they agree the human contribution is >50%, but they have explcitly endorsed that humans are contributing. Thus they go in category #2.

       The way I see the final paper is that we'll conclude 'There's an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly put the human contribution at >50%'."

       2012-02-16 05:51:23
       dana1981

       It would appear that x = 97.1 and y = 1.6

       (snip)

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Reposting from material hacked from the SkS forum is way over the line.

       Final warning.

33978. Dikran Marsupial at 03:58 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Russ, AFAIK the stated methodology does not require the papers concerned to be on climatology, so if you question the potential inclusion of papers in phsychology, why not also question the inclusion of papers that are known to be incorrect.  You can't have it both ways, the inclusion criterion were objective, which is important for replicability.  If it includes a small number of studies of tangential relevance that seems a small price to pay, in my view.

       If you want to perform a study that you feel in hindsight to be more informative, then go for it, replication is what science is all about.  Quibbling over small details, without looking to see whether they affect the conclusions, is rather less productive.

33979. Russ R. at 03:43 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       DSL

       "Russ, if you were shown sound evidence strongly suggesting that the work of the Chilingar group was based on fundamental errors of physics and/or method, would you be critical of Cook et al. for including that work?"

       I've never heard of the "Chilingar group", but if the papers:

       1. were climate-related and peer-viewed,
       2. have not been retracted, and
       3. contained an abstract which could be rated.

       Then yes, they should be rated and counted (along with whatever rebuttals have been published).

       That was the study's stated methodology, wasn't it?  I don't recall there being any test for fundamental errors in the papers prior to rating them.

33980. Dikran Marsupial at 02:11 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       A more efficient approach would be for the research funding councils to fund their own high quality journals, so the publication charge need only cover the bare costs of publication.  The journal I mentioned earlier (JMLR) apparently only costs a few tens of thousands of dollars a year to run, which shows this can be done.  Then tax payers money would not go to commercial publishers profits, and could be spent on more science.

       I have no objection to people wanting to make money, but at the same time, I do want to see taxpayers money spent wisely.

33981. Russ R. at 01:49 AM on 20 September 2014
       Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
       

       Tom Curtis,

       Thank you for your long reponse @322 to my question @320.  A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.

       (BTW, as I've mentioned before, my personal position would be Level 2, "Explicit endorsement without quantification". I've never disputed the paper's results, so telling me that these issues don't change the result does nothing to address the issues. I don't care if elimating the non-climate papers makes it a 99.8% consensus. That's not my point.  The paper's methods and findings are my point, and that's specifically what I'm addressing.)

       Now that we've establised that non-climate papers were indeed counted toward the consensus (contrary to the authors claims that these papers were excluded), let's address the claim that 97.1% of the papers which take a position endorse that "most" or ">50%" of warming is manmade, or that human activity is the "main cause", "primary cause" or "dominant cause" of warming.

       Do all 3,896 abstracts that counted toward the 97.1% "Consensus" endorse anthropogenic warming as "most", ">50%", "main cause", "primary cause", "dominant cause' (or some similar majority concept), as opposed to merely stating that CO2 or human activity causes global warming?  Again, a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

       As a tangible example, perhaps someone could explain how this paper which was included as "Mitigation" and rated Level 3 ("Implicit endorsement"), makes a case for the majority of warming being anthropogenic?

       Cattant, F; Crusset, D; Feron, D (2008) Corrosion Issues In Nuclear Industry Today,  Materials Today, Volume 11, Issue 10, October 2008, Pages 32–37

       And while you're looking at it, could you also explain how it is "climate related"?

       (snip)

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Snipped for excessive (to the extreme) repetition. This issue has been fully and completely explored and you have been more than conclusively shown that the issues you're bring up are not sufficient to challenge the paper.

       For the 100th time now, if you or Duarte or anyone else believes the results of Cook13 are not robust, then you should take the time to do what researcher do: Produce your own research testing the scientific consensus on climate change. We would all be excited to see your results. The track you are on now suggests that you are only interested in obfuscating the truth rather than revealing it.

       Edit: 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

33982. Rob Honeycutt at 01:31 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       Kernos... You do have access to the research, through a subscription. There happen to be costs that come into play regarding the publishing and distribution of research. That's what subscriptions pay for. 

       Perhaps you would be in favor of raising taxes to underwrite those costs so all research can be made freely available to the public.

33983. Kernos at 01:00 AM on 20 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       If taxpayers are paying for a researcher's research, then taxpayers should have open access to that research. 

       The concept of for profit journals is as egregious to me as for profit hospitals. Noth have an obvious conflict of interest. 

33984. Tom Curtis at 00:37 AM on 20 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       Given that jwalsh has confirmed a reliance of Mann et al, 2008, I have determined the global CRU-EIV trends from 1700 and 1730 to 1850 (ie, commencement of the CRU instrumental record) as being 0.011 C per decade, and 0.007 C per decades respectively.  To 1880 they are 0.013 and 0.011 C per decade respectively.  The CRU and EIV reconstructions were chosen because EIV shows a larger trend than the CPS, and CRU is the land only, and again shows greater trends.  

       So, even with these exagerated trends we have a "trend" warming from 1951-2010 of between 6.4% and 12%.  With no evidence that the trend in question is not forced, or even not anthropogenic, jwalsh concludes from that the IPCC attribution should be reduced by 38%, from 108 to 70%.  That is, he exagerates the influence of his basis for his non-expert attribution by at least a factor of 3, without bothering to have showed that it is even a basis for a change in the IPCC estimate.

33985. Tom Curtis at 23:07 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh @63, like MA Rodger, I am curious as to which longer term trend you have found in the Paleostudies.  The Paleostudies I am aware of show virtually no trend between 1730 and the commencement of the (GISS) instrumental period in 1880:

       

       The overall NH temperature trend over that period amounts to 0.003 C per decade.  It is likely that the global trend is less.  Assuming that global trend is the same, and that it represents a natural cycle of internal variability rather than a consequence of forcing (which is already accounted for) gives a 0.018 C of 0.65 C temperature increase over 2.7% of the 1951-2010 warming.  Both assumptions (ie, that global temperatures increased at the same rate, and that the increase is a consequence of internal variability rather than forcing) stretch credulity.

       I suspect you want to include the period from the greatest temperature resonse associated with the maunder minimum (approx 1700).  That, however, sill only gives a NH trend of 0.018 C per decade, for a total 1951-2010 warming of 0.11 C, or 16.8% of warming.  Further, the trough in temperatures at 1700 is known to be a forced response both to solar variations (from sun spots) and especially to the volcanic record.  Both factors are already included in the IPCC attribution, such that counting them again would be double dipping.

       The data in that image can be discussed here.

       All of this furhter begs the point as to why the long term cooling trend visible in the paleo record only (slightly) reversed itself in the early eighteenth century, ie, after the invention of the steam engine and the widespread use of coal for domestic heating:

       

33986. jwalsh at 22:45 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       MA Rodger @64

       It would improve your message immeasurably if you could in some way indicate what "longer-term trends and paleo-climate studies, most (but not all) show cooling or warming over centuries long periods" are you asking us to "look at"?

       Oh, as I said, there are many.  But Mann, M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., 2008 contains as good a graphical representation as any.  http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalPNAS08.pdf

        

       At least visually, a better way to look at it, I think is to remove the instrumental portion. I am not a fan of stapling temperature records to data that is considerably smoother as a result of method.  But it doesn't really matter.   (snip)  Depends on which you pick, but I think most people agree that it was cooler in the LIA than in the 19th century or early 20th. 

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] If it "doesn't really matter" then you won't mind if I remove thinly veiled and inaccurate accusations against Dr Mann's work.

33987. MA Rodger at 21:13 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh @57 & before.

       You seem to be struggling with the classification of Juduth Curry. I would suggest this may be because there is more than one Judith Curry.

       
       Judith Curry-Scientist tends not to express wild theories which would not easily pass scientific review. For instance take Wyatt & Curry (2013) (PDF here). This is rather tame, saying nothing very controversial. Rather it proposes a hypothesised mechanism that allows "numerous observations of climate behaviour" to be seen as part of a larger mechanism, a hypothesis called the Stadium Wave. Although the writing is bad, you will see that nowhere does this work say NHT wobbles as a result of this Stadium Wave mechanism. It only shows that NHT wobbles in step with it given present data and that there is a mechanism for warming certain NH lands. Although a coded message could be perceived by those looking for it, the paper actually goes no further than to say about "numerous observations of climate behaviour":-

       "We suggest that the stadium-wave hypothesis holds promise in putting in perspective the numerous observations of climate behavior; offers potential attribution and predictive capacity; and that through use of its associated proxies, may facilitate investigation of past behavior that may better inform our view of future behavior."

       You will find Judith Curry-Hypothesist synthesises her talk at the APS using language that is much stronger. "The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus."

       However, the fully-powered message is only apparent when presented by Judith Curry-Blog-Mom. "The stadium wave and Chen and Tung papers, among others, are consistent with the idea that the multidecadal oscillations, when superimposed on an overall warming trend, can account for the overall staircase pattern."

       jwalsh @63

       It would improve your message immeasurably if you could in some way indicate what "longer-term trends and paleo-climate studies, most (but not all) show cooling or warming over centuries long periods" are you asking us to "look at"?

33988. Dikran Marsupial at 20:36 PM on 19 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       Mike, such journals already exist.  One of the top journals in my field is the Journal of Machine Learning Research.  This runs on volunteer effort (most reviewers and editors for commercial journals are also unpaid, so that isn't much different).  The difference is the journal is published online and the papers are open access and neither the authors nor the readers pay.  A print-on-demand version is made available for libraries that want it.  It is not completely clear that there is any need for commercial journals, given the success demonstrated by JMLR.

       HOWEVER, I suspect the success of JMLR is largely due to the support of the very top researchers in the field that form the editorial board and panel of action editors etc.  

       Most journals, even the commercial ones, tend to allow authors to distribute pre-prints of their papers from their websites or institutional websites, so the papers are still available to the public.  You can find out the journals policy using the Sherpa/Romeo database.  However, if all else fails, sending an email to the corresponding author asking for a pre-print of the paper will usually be successful, most authors are only too pleased to hear somebody wants to read their work!

33989. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:18 PM on 19 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       Yeah scaddenp, very interesting stuff. Some folks sure must hate that pesky real information stuff

33990. jwalsh at 17:55 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       Tom Curtis@60

       jwalsh, to reduce the probability of anthropogenic factors contributing 50% or less of observed warming from 1951-2010 to 4.99%, you have to increase the uncertainty shown in Fig 10.5 by 208%, and the uncertainty relative to model uncertainty by 419%.

       What evidence beyond hand waving do you have that the uncertainty is understate by such a large margin? What evidence beyond handwaving do you have that the IPCC's original increase of uncertainty by 201% relative to the innate uncertainty of the models is insufficient?

       First, If you water-board me to come up with a figure for AGW since 1950, I'd probably say 66-75%, so I am arguing from a position "within" the 97% (if I had published something on climate).  If I had strong evidence that the figure 10.5 uncertainties were off in a publishable manner, I'd probably point you to my peer-reviewed paper on that! Heh.

       I don't know if the CMIP5 models inputs or outputs correctly characterize uncertainties or not. However I do know that the outputs regarding temperature have been "running hot" for a couple decades now. Something must be wonky, without knowing precisely "what".  And yes, I know there is no shortage of potential explanations. But it may not be the uncertainties that are wrong, but the underlying assumptions.  Figure 10.5 shows natural variation as effectively "nil" with a small uncertainty. I don't believe the evidence points that way. 

       When I read Gavin Schmidt's statement from the realclimate discussion, I did a bit of a double-take. 

       "It is worth pointing out that there can be no assumption that natural contributions must be positive – indeed for any random time period of any length, one would expect natural contributions to be cooling half the time. " - Schmidt

       He's right of course.  You can't assume that the net natural contributions must be positive. But the same argument can be made about assuming them to be "zero" or negative over a short time frame. And I think the models make that assumption (and 10.5).  I'd dearly love to be able to play with a super-computer for a while and test out various things myself, but I can't be certain I wouldn't use the computer time to mine Bitcoins or pick stocks instead...

       But if you look at longer-term trends and paleo-climate studies, most (but not all) show cooling or warming over centuries long periods.  So to me, it seems at least plausible that we're still (since 1600 or so) in an upward natural trend that would shift the value for the natural component up in figure 10.5.

       I don't think those arguing for 50% or less are completely off-base, or unscientific, for thinking as they do.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] "I don't think those arguing for 50% or less are completely off-base, or unscientific, for thinking as they do." But they are putting forth a position that holds the same likelihood as >160% man-made contribution, and completely ignoring that fact as well.

       While I appreciate you staying on topic here, the discussion doesn't seem to be moving forward, and is only circling back on to previous themes. Please find a way to advance the conversation so that it doesn't become repetitive.

33991. scaddenp at 15:19 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh - then try for something less noisy in the models. The attribution statement equally well for total OHC. Not much in way of pesky natural cycles operating there. Do you accept that pdf is accurate representation of cause of increase in OHC - or do you have some other source of energy that might do?

33992. Tom Curtis at 14:57 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh @57:

       "My quibble was with deciding her opinion (alone) was representative of a larger group."

       Thankyou for your quibble (=def "small complaint or criticism usually about something unimportant") that Curry, being a borderline member of the 97% cannot be taken as representative of the 3%.  The corrollary, that the position of the 3%, is even less rational or evidence based than hers is duely noted.

33993. Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh, to reduce the probability of anthropogenic factors contributing 50% or less of observed warming from 1951-2010 to 4.99%, you have to increase the uncertainty shown in Fig 10.5 by 208%, and the uncertainty relative to model uncertainty by 419%.  

       What evidence beyond hand waving do you have that the uncertainty is understate by such a large margin?  What evidence beyond handwaving do you have that the IPCC's original increase of uncertainty by 201% relative to the innate uncertainty of the models is insufficient?

33994. jwalsh at 14:10 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       Do you think that model failure to have any skill at short term prediction, especially ESNO/PDO variability affects the way in which models are used in attribution studies?

       I am going to assume this is on topic. It's getting hard to tell. :) I don't know that it does affect the attribution studies, but I see no reason why it can't affect the attribution breakdown picture.  Could be anything at issue, stratospheric aerosols, transient carbon dioxide sensitivity estimates, etc..  We might not really know without model enhancements, better computers, and a couple of decades of new (or better) data.  I have seen some commentary about employing better and more modern statistical analysis techniques to get a better handle on uncertainties as well.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Please move any further discussion of climate modeling to a more appropriate thread.

33995. scaddenp at 12:27 PM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh, " And I would not do that. I merely made the observation that the 10.5 graph was primarily derivative of CMIP5 models."

       The repeated issue here would appear to be some confusion between how the models are used for attribution as opposed to forecasting long term climate. Do you think that model failure to have any skill at short term prediction, especially ESNO/PDO variability affects the way in which models are used in attribution studies?

33996. jwalsh at 11:57 AM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       I suspect that the moderator will remove your post on the grounds of excessive repetition, and given the warning you have recieved they would be quite justified in doing so. That will not preclude your posting on this thread on topic - ie, attempting to show why the IPCC assessment is wrong beyond your mere say-so (your only evidence todate); or why Curry is right, or why some third explicitly stated position is right.

       I'll try not to mischarecterize your arguments, but please do me the courtesy of the same. I no more think the IPCC assessment is fully "wrong" any more than I think it's fully "right".  On balance, I think the assessment is much more right than wrong though.  And even if I did, why should my opinion matter a whole lot?  To do so is improperly pretending that the complexites are simple.  And I would not do that.  I merely made the observation that the 10.5 graph was primarily derivative of CMIP5 models.  The CMIP5 model assumptions (educated ones) about variables may indeed be correct or very close to it.  I was a bit questionable about placing an inordinate amount of focus on models.  Reliance on models and their outputs is one of the major criticisms of climate science in general.  But I fully understand why they are used. We can hardly experiment with altering the variables of the planet (although some would argue that we are in an unguided way).  Therefore models are used as a proxy.  And they get better and better with time, and increased computational power. 

       FYI: I think Curry is right about some things and wrong about others. My quibble was with deciding her opinion (alone) was representative of a larger group.

       You keep complaining that I haven't responded to things like the 10.6 graph. There's a reason for that. I looked at it again (not the first time I have read the entire chapter), but I have not yet found or read, any of the referenced papers. So I didn't comment on it (yet).  I am not going to flat out be forced to make an uneducated opinion.  When I get a chance to I'll probably take a look.

       As a side observation, I think the denigration of a "side", any side (doesn't matter), online or otherwise, does not serve a useful purpose. It's more about the human tendency to form "tribes".  As such, probably of interest to anthropologists, but not climate science.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] This is continuing to drift far off topic. Please bring it to a close or locate a more appropriate thread.

33997. Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 19 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       scaddenp @5, very interesting.  I notice one of the documents (Fig 5) notes that the station is "about a mile south east of Rutherglen".  The current station is well over two miles from the town.  That suggests the "office" in 1958 was one of the farm houses, and the site to have been where the BOM suggests, or even further north.

33998. scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 19 September 2014
       Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat
       

       Just noticed this - BOM have gone into archives and showed evidence for the move which was obvious from the record. I wonder if they got an apology from Dr Jennifer Marohasy (perhaps they should have sent her a bill for wasting their time). I wonder if Ashton still thinks "it may be that those questioning the integrity of the BoM might, just might, not be miisguided conspiracists". Looks to me like BoM integrity intact - conspiracy theorist - not so much.

33999. Tom Curtis at 10:51 AM on 19 September 2014
       The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?
       

       jwalsh @56:

       1)  I have twice explicitly stated that Curry just falls inside the 97%.  There is no basis for your misrepresenting me as saying otherwise.  I do share the moderator's (RH) belief that she argues as though she thought the value was lower, and suspect she states her position as 50/50 merely to position herself as "in the middle" and by implication "fair and balanced" when neither of those are in fact true.

       2)  I left several discussions in my preceding comment to which you are responding explicitly dealing with the actual attribution studies.  True to form you totally ignore them, concentrating solely on the trivial (whether or not Curry falls just inside or just outside the 97% when it is blindingly obvious that she does not fall within the IPCC concensus), and the off topic.

       3)  The two Curry papers endorsing the consensus were both written prior to 1996.  It is well known that she has had a major shift in position since then, and it follows that they are irrelevant  to determining her current position.  I find it difficult to believe that you did not know this, and if you did you have deliberately and knowingly presented irrelevant evidence in the hope that it will be mistaken as relevant.  Perhaps, however, it was a mere accident.  Doubly so because you present that as an argument for removing those papers from the consensus when by her own statement she accepted the consensus at the time.

       4)  There is no "much larger third side of the coin" either as determined by Cook et al (2013) or Verheggen et al (2014).  My comments under (3) above apply. 

       5)  One of the features of trolling is the repeated concentration on trivial or off topic points, a feature that describes your behaviour perfectly.  I stand by my assessment.

       
       I suspect that the moderator will remove your post on the grounds of excessive repetition, and given the warning you have recieved they would be quite justified in doing so.  That will not preclude your posting on this thread on topic - ie, attempting to show why the IPCC assessment is wrong beyond your mere say-so (your only evidence todate); or why Curry is right, or why some third explicitly stated position is right.  If they remove your post they will, of course, remove mine as well, as responding to a deleted post (and are welcome to do so).  Just remember when you go of to other boards, if your posts are deleted, you clearly brought it on yourself.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] The moderator is in agreement.

34000. Tom Curtis at 07:48 AM on 19 September 2014
       Deciding who should pay to publish peer-reviewed scientific research
       

       John Abraham, recently during discussion of a very poorly referreed article by Ross McKittrick, I had reason to look up Jeffrey Beal's list of predatory pubishers.  The journal that published McKittrick's paper was part of the Scientific Research group, and indeed, Scientific Research appears as number 405 on Jeffrey Beal's list.  You, however, recommend it, or at least indicate it is going to be a successful academic publisher.  You may want to reconsider that judgement, or alternatively give your reasons for disagreeing with Beal.

Prev  672  673  674  675  676  677  678  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  Next