What Do We Think About Climate Change

Skeptics have been calling for many years to have the 'case' of AGW heard in an open court. We'd settle just to have one of these hand wringers simply show up for a debate of an informed skeptic in a public forum, let alone show up in court. If Lord Monckton is such an idiot, why won't a single bed-wetting AGW worry-wart debate him? Surely his rantings would be easy prey for an 'informed' believer!

Jimbo

 

As with so many of these 'consensus' polls, the devil is in the details. In your first poll (Doran, Zimmerman), You seem to be impressed that a majority of respondents (only ~32% of those polled responded) agreed that it has warmed in the last 200 years. Well, duh! I and Guillermo and every skeptic alive agree that it has warmed! So What? Then you tout the 97.4% that both responded AND agreed strongly with the AGW narrative! May I suggest that the people who responded to this poll did so BECAUSE they were in agreement with the AGW narrative? So the REAL fraction of positive responses cannot be known because we have not factored out that potential confounding motivator. The ~7000 that DID NOT respond likely included MANY skeptics who, motivated by their distaste of contributing to a poll designed to help the AGW alarm cause, refuse to respond to such nonsensical, non-scientific polls!

This is the problem with non-scientific polls such as this.

The next poll (Bray and Storch) suffers a similar problem with less than 20% responding.

The Harris Interactive poll is meaningless because of its wording. Again, I and Guillermo and every skeptic would have to agree with those questions, as they are all general questions. Yes it has been warming. Yes, human-induced warming is occurring and science substantiates that it is occurring. But these questions do not even begin to approach the crucial question of HOW MUCH warming is caused by human industry, so the poll is TOTALLY DEVOID OF MEANING.

Finally, we get to the grand daddy of all the 'consensus' polls, the Oreskes. I'll save that shredding for another post

Jimbo

 

Jimbo,

Still waiting for your response, or was your statement that the UNFCCC defines "climate change" as "climate change caused by human activity" just another one of your made up "facts"?

 

I think Jimbo was actually pretty close on that particular statement, Alan. Much as I hate to stick up for him....

Or at least his statement was correct as far as it went. I googled a UNFCC website with a glossary, and this is apparently how they use the term:

Climate Change (UNFCCC definition)

A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods.

http://unfcccbali.org/unfccc/compon...d,31/term,Climate Change (UNFCCC definition)/

 

Thank you Troy.

 

Jimbo,

Troy has noted that you may be right about your claim on the UNFCC definition.

 

Christopher Monckton is one of the best known deniers of global warming, and has been cited on this thread a number of times as one of the scientists opposing global warming.

However, he has no credentials in this field. In fact, it appears that he has no scientific training at all. He has a B.A. degree in Classics from a prestigious university in the UK. He has a masters degree in Journalism from another university in the UK.

He did write an article for an American Physical Society (APS) forum on climate change. The APS has stated that this is not a peer reviewed journal. The APS also specifically stated that the society disagrees with the conclusions of Monckton's article.

Monckton once claimed to be a member of the House of Lords by hereditary right. However, the House of Lords has stated that Monckton has never been a member of the House of Lords.

There are a few legitimate scientists who disagree with global warming... not many but a few. Monckton is not one of these legitimate scientists.

 

sounds like a Reorgism

I believe the term you were looking for is

bull pucky

 

interesting logic Jim
so you are assuming that no deniers would respond
sorry thats simply wishful thinking although I do kinda like your admission that there is AGW thats kinda new

the oreskies study has been corrected for the initial error and resubmitted and approved by committee as is defined in the scientific process. I've heard the arguments against this and they simply are smoke and mirrors typical of the deniers camp

I used this process as an example of what should be happening with the Misclowski (I think thats how to spell it) paper and its many glaring flaws yet you guys defended a flawed paper and chide a corrected one. Interesting display of obvious bias isn't it ?

 

Maybe because it would be a complete waste of time and resources to give the man another platform from which to spout his ill-conceived, ill-informed, ill-advised 'scientific' beliefs?

When you're the sort of person Monckton is, any publicity is good publicity. I see no reason to gift him with more of it. A public debate between him and legitimate scientists would imply that he's also legitimate, and that there's simply a disagreement between scientific equals.

Monckton is definitely a politician, rather than a scientist. And the first thing a politician who's running way behind in funds, name recognition and credibility does is challenge his opponents to a debate. If he's lucky and manages to goad them into going head-to-head with him, it may give the public the impression he's to be taken as seriously as his opponents.

I see no reason why any legitimate scientists should do Monckton that favor.

 

gotta go with Troy on this one

there is no debate simply because there is no coherent counter-theory and there is no reasonable doubt of the existing theory. No self respecting scientist would waist his time arguing these points or correcting the ill educated opinions of those involved in the oil and gas PR campaign

yes there is anomalous data but that only to be expected, whats interesting is the lack of anomalous data given shear volume of data in support of the theory; I believe it was something like 90% in favor or something like that. Kinda overwhelming actually.

there is no debate
what there is is a oil and gas industry PR campaign similar to and in many cases conducted by the same people as the tobacco PR campaign

Whats funny is the only thing these deniers need to do is sue the IPCC and they would have there day in court. Yet they continually complain that they cant get a day in court. Sounds pretty fishy to me

 

So far the smartest thing you have ever said.

You should think about that.

And worry if you understand the significance... (but I cannot see the danger of that happening for you.)

 

I am not sure what you mean by the above Boston. Which globe is that that is warming so much and by who's measurements?
Give the computer modelling graph a rest. Try real time measurements from reliable weather stations that are not warmed up by parking lots or air con fan.
The planet is not warming and has not done so for the last 12-14 years to the great disappointment of the global warming alarmist.
The light globes may be getting warm when they are on. However it seems the lights are not "on" very often in this thread.
PS
Present company excepted of course ... and "significant" cheer leaders excused.

PS/PS
Who was the smart guy who sent me a nice message agreeing with me on my well crafted post yet giving me negative points? With friends like that I don't need enemies ha ha!! It's the OTHER button pleeese!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkPQU3UDBM0&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BptZ7CXHziA&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI&feature=related

 

But if you think you have seen it all, take a few minutes to see why we must now develop a vaccine against human kind.
That's right, stop warming folks start checking out.
You first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAsWmxTx7Lk