Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MOR

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Sep 2, 2014.

  1. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,833
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +806
    Alright, last one for me then I'm exiting the echo chamber.

    The WUWT link criticizing the 97% consensus has also fallen apart. Lomborg and Shaviv falsely claimed to be included in the "support" category, which they were not. Tol says he was categorized correctly, he just disagrees with his own words, and even has "little doubt" that the 97% figure is correct. There was also a "self-rating" survey, in which the authors assigned their own full works to a rating on a similar (but not identical) scale, that came up with a 97.2% consensus (the Cook et al. abstract-only study was 97.1%). The self-rating survey got 2142 responses from more than 8500 scientists, including the ones above, invited to respond. All of the authors of the papers (over 12K) whose abstracts mentioned climate change were invited to respond.

    So while the methods don't lead to absoluteness, of course, they lead to the same general result that Oreskes, Doran & Zimmerman, Anderegg et al., Cook, and the climate study authors themselves, using different methodologies, all come to.

    However, speaking of sketched out methodology, WUWT (Anthony Watts principally, with lots of input from people like Steven Goddard -- figured out who he is yet???) ran not only with the errors above, but also with Monckton's famously ludicrous math that came up with 0.3% consensus. He divided every paper searched (12K) by the number of abstracts that quantified anthropogenic warming in Cook et al's paper (which he also reduces to about 40, through equally painful anti-logic). Interestingly, using that methodology, only 0.08% of the papers denied AGW. But of course that last number is inaccurate also, even though it's much closer to reality. Monckton is likely not that dumb, although I suppose it's possible.

    So at some point you have to rely on your judgment and hitch your wagon to a particular horse. Even just based on this single thread, why one would choose WUWT and that crowd, minus some sort of rigid agenda of course, over the alternative is baffling. I sincerely hope that de facto "Steven Goddards" here are just idealogues, and I actually suspect that is true. That's at least a plausible explanation.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,295
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    So do we know who Steven Goddard is? I've been wondering that for awhile. Too lazy to go look.
  3. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,034
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,203
    The only thing the United Nations has proven, is that they are incompetent.
    The warmist take data, compress it so or change numbers to fit their agenda. It is almost they are willing to do any further study and green energy companies to claim anything to get bucks for their "operation".They have abandoned common sense and resorted to name calling of their opponents, a sure sign of them losing their position on man as greatest cause of climate change and disregarding nature.
  4. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,271
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,600
    That's funny because this entire thread is about deniers using cherry picked numbers to satisfy their agenda.
  5. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,034
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,203
    Nay, nay. Check out the manipulation of warmists reports and see how they have changed data over the years. Omissions and selected periods to try to reinforce their position. Some being flat out lies.
  6. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,295
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    Gore is not a climate scientist, so trying to blame scientists for his getting things wrong is nonsense. But it's odd that you are saying people "can't just toss out his statements..." when you routinely dismiss a whole bunch of science because you don't like the personalities of some of the scientists.

    It's good practice to cite research, of course, but it's also easy to get conclusions wrong especially about such complex topics.
  7. wygator
    Online

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,087
    Please cite where I dismiss science based on "personalities". I dismiss climate models and their catastrophic predictions when their predictive qualities are proven by actual observation to be false. And despite their lack of veracity so far, we are still told to trust their forecasts for 2050 and beyond.

    Regarding complexity, the complexity that is routinely overlooked is the vanishing complexity of the global climate system itself. Does anyone really think the models are close to replicating the operation of that system?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. wygator
    Online

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,087
    I'd ask you to demonstrate which of the statements in Gore's documentary misrepresented the research on which they were based.
  9. sappanama
    Offline

    sappanama VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,633
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +230
    bet you he doesn't return those inconvenient DOLLARS$$$$$$$$$
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. dangolegators
    Offline

    dangolegators Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    7,659
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +754
    I think you dismiss science based on 'ideology'. You disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is warming and it is caused in some part by human activity. Fine. But let's not pretend that you have any scientific background or basis for your disagreement. It is purely ideological.
  11. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,295
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    Perhaps I will...after you first explain your sweeping statements. :)

    Even while many scientists found the movies to be generally accurate as, there were plenty of specific criticisms too of his movie, a movie I might add that I didn't see.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2014
  12. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,922
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,650
    That jet doesn't run on wheatgas
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,452
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +331
    Holy Quano Batman!

    I can't believe you of all people are accusing people of "cherry picking a peak".

    You are the one who loves to post "no warming in X years" where your year starts in 1998.

    Here this one goes back to 1970.

    [​IMG]

    The fact that you understand the impact of cherry picking a peak makes it clear you are not being honest in your argument against global warming. Sad, very sad.
  14. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,452
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +331
    And WHOOP there it is ... just a mere page after accusing others of doing the same. Sad.
  15. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,779
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,079
  16. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,779
    Likes Received:
    2,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,079
    It proves that the UN's Kyoto Treaty/Accord/Protocol is pure BS!
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2014
  17. jimgata
    Offline

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,034
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,203
    The United Nations has now said that by 2050 the climate will be hell.
    Of course they have been wrong on summer predictions for 11 of the last 12 years.
    Take 2050 prediction for what it is, guess work and BS.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    and you??
  19. wygator
    Online

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,087
    When you're as old as I am, you are skeptical of dramatic and calamitous predictions because you have seen so many such claims fail to materialize over the years. I'm not skeptical of APGW predictions because of ideology...I'm skeptical because their models have been wrong. My point of view is supported by the studies and graphs I post, not by ideology. The "consensus" isn't as broad as we are led to believe. It's just that skeptics either are ignored, or even worse, threatened.

    The FACT is that the earth was in a warm period about 1,000 years ago, likely warmer than today. Then the earth cooled for hundreds of years, the sun the suspected culprit. Sometime in the 1800's, warming began again, long before CO2 would have been considered to be a factor. The warming of the past hundred years is about the same as that of the previous 100 years. The temp record of the past hundred years shows a much tighter correlation with a variety of natural factors than it does with CO2...Pacific Decadal Oscillations and solar activity to name two.

    Dr. Roy Spencer is head of the satellite temp program. He suggests that ideology is a factor, among the warmists. He knows a heck of a lot more about climate science than I do...I don't know your background, nor do you know mine, so don't jump to conclusions. I watched and Inconvenient Truth and have read numerous books on the topic by both sides of the aisle. I'm not a scientist, but I play one on blogs:)

    NASA Meteorologist and Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer

    I predict that the IPCC experience will end up being the worst case of scientific malpractice in history…. If the new President and Congress are not careful, the resulting “sub-prime science meltdown” we are headed for will have caused carbon dioxide regulations which will make the current financial crisis seem puny by comparison.


    As does this fellow:

    MIT meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen

    "How can a barely discernable, one-degree F. increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

    The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. Indeed, the success of scientific alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion (per year) today. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

    Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon you control life… One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things (carbon taxes, etc.) will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact?

    Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/

    I edited this post: I originally credited Lindzen quote to Spencer...copy and paste error
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2014
  20. wygator
    Online

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,652
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,087
    Posting different time frames is about context, unless the "cherry-picking" is intended to mislead. That's why I asked the question about the arctic ice graph. The answer made perfect sense because it was representing the period of satellite observations...one consistent measurement regimen.

    In the context of our discussion, it makes perfect sense to review what is happening with temps the past 15 to 20 years since that is about 80% of the time since Hansen's first pronouncements about catastrophic man-caused global warming. CO2 concentration has been steadily increasing through this time of "paused" warming.

    But let's go ahead and take a longer view...much longer. The history of the earth as recorded by climate, is change. It doesn't support the APGW position:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

Share This Page