What Do We Think About Climate Change

Here is an interesting little piece on how Boston's beloved consensus was formed......... of course the authors of the article are ignorant facist toadies of the oil industry.......



http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3112

 

I read the whole thing, word for word. Whatever else in it may be relevant to the discussion, the part you chose to quote is nonsense.

You and your cohorts on here are sneering at legitimate scientific evidence, research and data left and right, and throwing it out by the pound as unreliable. You're calling the vast majority of scientists bumbling incompetent fools, cynical lying charlatans, or both. Then you turn around and tell me, "but two poems written centuries ago didn't say a word about ice and snow, so that's scientific proof positive there wasn't any."

I'm sorry, but that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard, period. It begs to be laughed at.

 

Troy, the "vast" majority of scientists worldwide actually think AGW is a joke. A majority of climatologists believe in the dogma of AGW of course or they would have little purpose for hanging around wasting the taxpayers money. Are the "consensus" members charlatans, yup, read the email analysis. Are they incompetent, well, only so that they screwed up by not hiding the evidence of their fraud as well an Mann tried to hide the decline. When I see some evidence that the AGW agenda isn't just an adjunct of the zero growth movement I might pay attention.

The climate is changing, of course it is. Otherwise it would be broken. But you are asking us to believe that by removing 6ppm of anthropogenic C02 from the atmosphere warming will be abated and everyone will live happily ever after. Can you grasp just how silly and preposterous such a claim is?

If we accept all the nonsense, fraud, lies, duplicity, greed, and extremism of the AGW movement it still boils down to trying to mitigate the effects of a fart in a hurricane. It's not about the climate Troy, it never was. It's about control.

 

36 measurement studies done over a ~50 year period by different scientists and teams of scientists working in different countries and with a range of funding sources, all peer-reviewed, concur that the CO2 residence time is short. There are NO (zero, none, nada) measurement studies that show it is long. So what do YOU and YOUR cohorts do with this very legitimate scientific evidence? You sneer at it and throw it out by the pound, of course!

Jimbo

PS

If you STILL try to retort that the CO2 residence time is of little or no importance to the discussion, I would suggest that this discussion is clearly 'out of your league'

 

hmm I thought we were talking about the Oreske's paper on consensus
and that the rebuttal to it was rejected

no worries that one was way to easy anyway and I think anyone reading along could see through the incredible poor science anyway as Peiser admitted himself that he used unscientific and not peer reviewed work in his survey where as Naomi used only peer reviewed and accepted papers

ps
Oreskes admited nothing other than that she misquoted her key search words, an honest mistake which she stood up and admitted.
an example the deniers would do well to consider

give me a minute and Ill go look up and review the papers you mention there publisher the review board and there record and Ill get back on this latest
however
the rebuttal to this theory seems valid and although I have not seen the original paper nor the detailed rebuttal and it seems that enough people are pointing out the details of the verisimilitude that its validity seems seriously in question.

oh
I spoke to several people up at NOAA today about this saturation theory and both laughed and said there is a saturation point but its up around 15 to 20% co2 content.
thousands of times higher than what we have today

anyway
beer
a movie
and while I watch Ill check some sorces on these papers you mention

cheers
B

ps
hope all is well G

 

one might think you are not actually reading the posts presented in rebuttal there G

several rather stinging reviews can also be had by following the links included ( if the links dont come up Ill fix it after dinner )

seems pretty clear his paper was rejected multiple times before he was able to get it passed a panel overseas in Hungary

now why would someone who's work was rejected not stop and make the required corrections, then resubmit as is customary rather than skip from panel to panel to panel to panel to panel until finally someone publishes it. Not only bad form sorta brings the integrity of the paper into question.

tell you what
I could not actually make heads or tails of the paper ( seemed like BS to me ) and if you can present a detailed analysis of the questions concerning it presented in the rebuttal above I for one would love to see it and I'll be happy to present it to the correct panel for a detailed review
it you can explain that paper in detail you'd be the only one including its author who is willing to make a defense of it.

basically the guy walked away from numerous review panels in order to escape this very defense that Im asking you for

instead he apparently went from panel to panel until one accepted without a defense

although if you have some evidence to the contrary I'd be open to admitting he made a defense but it looks like his tactic was designed to avoid a standing defense

had he done so I would expect these questions listed above would have been addressed then

not sure how familiar you are with the review process but its partly based on long established traditions
which does not include running off to make multiple submissions
that's kinda considered really poor form
and brings up a lot of questions at least in my mind

Ill keep looking at it as its a detailed problem
however
there seem to be some significant questions concerning the validity of the work

cheers
B

 

I read it, Boston. The first time.
But that's not one of those peer reviewed papers you constantly mention as the fountain of all good. That's just from one of your reality deniers' blogs. I have told you that. But you are the one who does not read other's posts. Most probably you didn't realize, but Miskolczi publicly claims his paper has not been falsified since its publishing in 2006. Is he nuts? Is he lying? Go and tell him.

Anyway, I'll dig deeper into this matter.

Cheers.

P.S. Firts thing I've found is that there is NOTHING about Miskolczi in the Climate Audit site. Go and check it. So perhaps your favourite fountain is the one who is lying (BTW: you keep on not telling us from where you got it. Why?)

 

actually I read yours
I do however ignore a few others fine contributions on this thread
basically some folks have no ability to present a clear and coherent opinion
yours however are often challenging and I have learned a few things investigating the better of the claims.

always a pleasure G

and yes
Im curious if this guy actually made a defense and to find out who rejected him and why
as is noted on his home page
he was rejected multiple times

the rebuttals were not presented as papers as far as I know but it would be interesting if anyone has
will have to try and look that up as well

 

Bos, you're still over there? Oh well, it makes it interesting...

 

So it is not the quality or findings of the work what you are critizising, but a given and somewhat poetic paragraph that should not be taken of context when doing it. That and giving negative rep points to someone who is debating with you without gentlemanly displaying your name, tells all about your highness of mind and the quality of your postings, I'm afraid.

Cheers.

 

Boston:
I have followed one of the links in the text you mention, and found this interesting and most detailed analysis:

http://landshape.org/enm/modeling-global-warming/

It consists of several pages (4 parts +) I still have to go through. As it's going to take time, I'll do it later and then comment. I suggest you doing the same.

Cheers.

 

GW the others possible origins

May be it is time now to look at this problem seriouly.

Kansas may have found the key to the actual cool global warming (-3°C this morning in Marseille)

 

We need a Pirate Breeding Program! NOW!

 

hey whats up Mark

hows life without the economics thread treating you

 

excerpts from that review I have already posted in my previous
at least I think thats the one
unless there is more than one four part review

ps
I was very disappointed to find that most of the links were unavailable
am still looking for rebuttals as Im busy downloading another movie now

but almost out of beer

woops
apparently there is more than one four part review

but I have discovered ( at least according to schollar.google ) that the paper has not a single citation
http:
//cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18874011
nor is a single citation noted
( not sure I was supposed to link to that but oh well )

which basically means no one is willing to stick there neck out on this one

=============================================

I knew I smelled a rat
in researching this paper I found myself reading some info from Niche Modeling ,green house physics
buy David Stockwell
and it just seemed fishy for some reason
so I looked up the author and sure enough
Stockton is a classic
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/australian-nz-scientists-against-agw.html

almost fell for it G
almost fell for it