What Do We Think About Climate Change

not a real impresive list given the half million PHD's that could be considered as scientists and that 97% agree
that leaves 3% that should have been on your list
looks like you landed 400 when you should have been able to show 15,000 or some significant fraction thereof

Jim the idea that you proved anything in your diatribe about co2 is simply false
science works by a consideration of preponderance of evidence and you consistently show mostly industry sources for you evidence. Those industry sources do not qualify as scientific evidence so what your generally arguing is agnotology not science

I would admonish folks to actually go read starting from post 2369 as it is pretty clear that a review of the basics is going to be needed in order to understand where the deniers begin there denial

and the deniers clearly are refusing to involve themselves in a honest discourse of those basics

ask yourselves why

why would the people who uphold a standard of scientific accuracy want to review the basic physics involved in the consideration of feed backs and reflectivity ( albedo ) and the deniers refuse to participate

 

Jim since you and your industry minions refuse to discuss the physics involved in understanding the issues

how about a look at the history of the saturation question that was laid to rest about a hundred years ago

so I guess my question would be
why are deniers refusing to review the basic physics involved in the debate and instead raise hundred year old questions that have long ago been answered

explained in 1862 to be precise and quantified in the 1940's

 

Another pesky guy who disagrees with Boston.............

From David Evans:

“Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public”.

 

This 97% number intriques me. Where did it come from, was it a poll, if so who conducted it, who sponsored it, and how were the questions framed, and what methodology was used to come up with the results? Who was polled? How were their creditials determined? Can the names of those polled be verified, along with their answers? Seeing as how the AGW proponents are the ones who want to change the world into a social model as complex as a meerkat colony it is incumbent on them to provide the answers to the above.

 

Fasteddy
that last was a well stated question
way to go
let me attempt to clarify a misleading assertion from a previous post and Ill get back to you soonest on the poll

the following is a letter to a DR Jeff Severinghaus, and his response; it's in direct regards to your exact assertion that climate science was not able to account for the lag in co2 and temp

so the whole point is as has been stated by myself and others many times in this thread that although co2 is the predominant green house gas aside from h2o the rapid clime in co2 levels amounts to such a radical deviation from the norm that it has disrupted the typical cycle
IE
man has altered the climate

I can play the quote papers game all day long and have numerous times but untill we can establish what science is and why some sources can and should be considered and others not there is no point in it
however
the science of ice core data is alive and well and the permeability of the ice well known
so the issue of lag has not been any part of questions on any other than the layman deniers pages
because it takes a little more than the typical layman to understand permeability and its effects as well as the feed back cycle
certainly not one of contention on the science end of things

I appreciate your attempts to discuss this in a little more reasonable a tone
B

 

what science is

science has a code of ethics that plays a critical role in how it is conducted

think of it like a court room

if a witness gets called
and the credibility of that witness is lacking
if they can be showed to be in the employ of say one or the other of the litigants
then there testimony will be held in question
and generally have little consideration in the outcome of the case

likewise in the case of science

and so the study of agnotism

I typically hate to quote wiki but in this case it was succinct

similarly it would be reasonable to say that the oil and gas industries attempts to conduct a similar campaign in regards to the byproducts of there industry and I might add actually hire a lot of the people who had previously worked for the tobacco industry can be considered classic examples of agnotism

 

although the answers to the previous questions concerning the numerous polls that were in agreement can be found in many places throughout this thread the length of the thread may make it difficult to find so Ill post again but I urge all of you to do a search on "97% of scientists agree" and see for yourselves

that will be one of the many studies conducted to determine a consensus among scientists
these studies are common and done regularly so as to determine a consensus view of various theories and hypothesis that may be in Vogue at any given time

there are more and I will reproduce several more as the discussion moves ahead

in light of recent events it might be prudent to point out that
since deniers are clearly using agnotology as a basis for there tactics and since deniers have recently shown an unwillingness to review the basic physics involved; it would be hard to believe they are not aware of the deception they are attempting. Even being unwilling to discuss the basics in any reasonable way is tantamount to admitting they are ignoring those basic tenets (thanks for the correct spelling) in an effort to make there denial possible.

there can be no doubt that basic optical physics dictates the qualities of reflection and refraction a given substance will have,
and that an inability or unwillingness to understand what those basics are prevents a discussion concerning various albedo effects

if there is an interest in actually understanding climate science then there must be an interest in understanding the basics of physics involved

a lack of that willingness in that regard might suggest to the casual reader that the one side is

denying

something

 

Boston,

This is just the regurgitation of the 'Mikey Mann Virgin Stratosphere" theory. If the mechanism/scenario they are positing is indeed real, then please answer me this one little question:

Why do we observe cooling "In the layers so high and thin" rather than warming?

A bit problematic for the theory, wouldn't you say?

Another problem I noted on that page when I first read it back in '07 is this statement:

"The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates "

This is false. Look at the observations of Christy, Spencer and Lindzen. Outgoing LW is NOT decreasing during periods of thermal pertubation; in fact it was found to increase[/] temporarily during those periods. They've outlined the mechanism, published the papers and the papers were peer reviewed and accepted, unlike the MMVS thingy you keep throwing up.

This whole page is just a blog fantasy; nothing more. Furthermore, we've already covered it and how it collides head-on with observed data from satellites which show no warming where the MMVS theory says there should be warming.

Trying (once again ) to answer a scientific question by painting all your detractors as industry hacks just shows that Mr Boston is an *******. It does not show that either the point of contention lacks scientific merit or that the opposing expert lacks integrity, but rather, just that you are an *******.

So keep on keeping on, Boston! The only two people impressed with you answering scientific objections with paranoid rants about the oil industry is the scarecrow and the cowardly lion (and you both know who you are )

Jimbo

 

here is another poll this time a Harris poll
it is about the lightest on the numbers and reflects a low end of the scale on results
in a purely scientific approach to mapping the results of the various polls this one might have been thrown out as the low
but Ill include it anyway
this one contains answers to many of the questions you posed
and I hope begins to make clear that there is a consensus that the consensus is growing and that it is substantial

 

why Jim and I thought you had wanted to play nice

so if a witness is placed on a stand and found to be paid by one of the litigants the witnesses testimony should be considered impartial?

I cant imagine anyone but you attempting that argument
please lets not be so blatantly transparent

and I never said "all" were industry hacks
just most
you should be able to find at least some fraction of that 3% of scientists who disagree

you dont
but you should be able to

what Im saying is it wont mater if you do cause there is that pesky 97% that do agree

thats called a consensus and its how science works
or maybe you don't realize how science works

thing to remember Jim
although I typically despise the basic Judo-Christianic bs
where turning the other cheek fails an eye for an eye generally works just fine

lets try and keep things a little more civil this time round
you keep on denying everything
and Ill keep pointing out the you are in denial
that your sources are more often than not agnotists
and that the vast majority of the science and scientists involved agrees with the theory of climate change

at some point some deniers will have to realize that there denial is a choice and not a reasonable conclusion
although some will forever deny the earth was discovered to be round instead of flat
so there is always that certain percentage

are you really saying there is no significance to the fact that although 97% of climate scientists agreed that not only was global warming occurring but that it was caused by man as compared to Petroleum geologists and meteorologists who were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement

for god sakes man wake up

 

Goodness gracious me....!

 

The the extent that this is an admission that you will continue to answer scientific objections with character assassinations, I will continue to call you an ******* each and every time you do so.

Not just any old ordinary ******* either, but a big

*Flaming ********



Jimbo

 

"The oceans will go acidic when we run out of rocks." -I may use that. In fact, everything of Ian Plimer, "about science". I am not so eloquent, nor knowledgable but meld that with a finely honed measure of sarcasm and there's something which I may be tempted to Biden (plagiarize).
Say Habibullo Abdussamatov fast three times and I'll pretend to believe in man-made GW, also because I'll "fit in" at coffee shops and REI.
Fred Ebert, http://www.koaradio.com/podcast/theprofessor.xml , is worth listening to and will dispel myths and debunk conspiracies better than anyone I know. I couldn't find anything on GW on his shows, but on this topic, whatever he believes, I will believe. I discovered his live show and racked up considerable minutes on hold waiting to yak while driving through Colorado a few years ago and am sorry to have not known of him my entire life. Really, take the time to listen to some of his shows and you'll wonder how you ever surfed in silence...

 

A few posts ago, Perry brought our attention to submarine volcanoes and hot spots, one of the many missing aspects at the IPCC's very incomplete and inacurate computerized climate simulations. 75% of the world’s volcanic activity takes place beneath the sea in the world’s oceanic basins, making the eruptions very hard to discover.

I would like to gather and debate here information on volcanoes (while avoiding insults and disqualifications in the process) and their influence on global climate, very particularly submarine volcanoes and their influence in surrounding seas' temperature and PH.

A first insight:
http://helicity.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/volcanoes-and-climate-change-part-1/

Cheers.

 

so when reason fails you
this is the best you can do
descend to the typically childish tantrums of someone who clearly doesn't comprehend the liturature being presented

in your own words jim
read it slowly and look up some of the words if you need to

agnotism

pretty lame Jim
pretty lame