Skeptical Science kidz channel Inigo Montoya in new ‘consensus’ paper

All you can do is laugh.

Brandon Shollenberger writes at Lucia’s about the new Fuzzy Math consensus “proof” paper from the ever entertaining John Cook at Skeptical Science, rated with the help of 27 of the SkS kidz club. The method is simple:

“Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.”

With a simple premise like that, what could go wrong? Well for starters, they don’t seem to understand what the word “independent” means. Shollenberger continues:

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

That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that people would make topics in the SKS forum like:

Does this mean what it seems to mean?
second opinion??
how to rate: Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change…

That’s right. The “independent” raters talked to each other about how to rate the papers. This must be some new form of independence I’ve never heard of. I’m not the only one thrown off by this. Sarah Green, one of the most active raters, observed the non-independence:

But, this is clearly not an independent poll, nor really a statistical exercise. We are just assisting in the effort to apply defined criteria to the abstracts with the goal of classifying them as objectively as possible.
Disagreements arise because neither the criteria nor the abstracts can be 100% precise. We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow.

One must wonder at the fact an author of the paper calls the work independent despite having said just a year earlier, “we would never be able to claim” it is independent. Perhaps there is some new definition for “never” I’m unaware of.

And it gets even more hilarious. Read it all at Lucia’s.

For those who don’t know Inigo Montoya:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ridiculae and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Skeptical Science kidz channel Inigo Montoya in new ‘consensus’ paper

  1. DirkH says:

    The cartoonist would have become a great social scientist.

  2. Mark Nutley says:

    Inconceivable

  3. Balazs says:

    This is disputing the wrong question. There is no doubt about that the scientific literature is dominated papers that accept global warming. The question that scientists should have been asked if there was consensus on the magnitude of the needed action. Is it indeed sufficient to eat tofu, drive Toyota Prius and vacation in space (http://business.iafrica.com/worldnews/858696.html) once a year or it will need more? Perhaps cutting back our living standard to the level of the Pennsylvania Amish. If it is the later, would the danger of global warming warrant that level of sacrifices.

  4. Riki says:

    I do not think that word means what you think it means….

  5. Mycroft says:

    Sorry but when I saw the words “independent” and “John Cook” “Skeptical Science ” I couldn’t help but laugh out loud.He’s a tryer you’ve got to give him that at least LOL.. trying ever ones patience with this clap trap.

  6. AnonyMoose says:

    I’m waiting for: “I’m not skeptically-oriented”.
    (Swordfight scene)

  7. David Ball says:

    C’mon Sarah Green, you’ve made the first step. Now, if your willing to go a little further,….

  8. David Ball says:

    your -> you’re

  9. Don says:

    Perhaps the quality of Cook’s studies could be improved by the use of simple objectivity enhancing tools we all learned about in grade school. For example:

  10. MarkW says:

    The fact that they choose their “reviewers” exclusively from the readers of a warmist propaganda site also argues against the “independance” of the reviewers.

  11. davidmhoffer says:

    Beyond the blatantly contrived nature of this “study”, lurks another issue. Even if the data was 100% fairly assessed, it would still be wrong.

    Science doesn’t stand still. Papers are published to either confirm those that came before them, or to bring forward new information that might change the interpretation or even debunk entirely previous papers. More recent papers carry more weight (or should) than do older papers because they are predicated on additional information that the older papers didn’t have available at time of writing.

    My understanding is that this study was done on papers ranging in time from 1991 to 2011. Let’s put that in a more meaningful context. In 1991 most people had never heard of e-mail, much less used it. How valid would a paper written in 1991 about the influence of postal unions be today? There were many books and papers written in 1991 about the information age. I challenge anyone to find a single one that predicted the existence of Google or blogs and is remotely relevant in today’s technical environment. Leading edge thought on the information age in 1991 is not only irrelevant in the context of modern technology, most of it would seem rather laughable today.

    By the same token, papers from 1991 are simply not relevant. Temps were, in fact, increasing at that time. They didn’t peak until 1998. The fact that they had peaked and were starting to fall wasn’t really obvious in the data for a good ten years after that. In brief, the bulk of the papers in this study have insufficient data to be relevant in the current context, and many of them are just as laughable today as articles in the early 1990′s about the continued power of postal unions, and how corporations may one day have the ability to store as much as a gigabyte of data for less than $50,000.

  12. KNR says:

    Orwell brought us, in 1984, the notion of the allowing only good or double-good has possible opinions on Big Brothers acts or words . These guys just follow on in that tradition , and has in 1984 its sign of weak arguments and the overuse of BS that they have to resort to it in the first place.

  13. Shevva says:

    Nothing like picking your own jury.

  14. vladimpala says:

    What’s truly hilarious is that it takes their expert categorizers quite a while to collude on what they will claim is the “correct” rating of each paper. However the gullible victim is only allowed to view the abstract without reading the paper to get the same information.

    “What number am I thinking of? Sorry, wrong! As a bonus for me, your mistake proves you are an ignorant conspiracy-theory knuckle-dragging scoffer who LAUGHS AT TEH SCEINCE!!1!”

  15. Hot under the collar says:

    OK slightly off topic, except for the laughs….
    The Force was with Star Wars fans at the University of East Anglia…
    The Police Force that is.

    It seems rival Doctor Who and Star Wars fans had a rumble at the UEA.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22542222

    Finally proof that its all science ‘fiction’ at the UEA.
    I wonder how many participants were from the ‘climate’ department?

  16. Christopher Hanley says:

    ‘ … Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters … ‘.
    ======================
    Cook’s capers wouldn’t bug me so much if I wasn’t forced to pay for them, ditto Lewandowsky.

  17. Ian H says:

    You know you must be on the right side of the question when you discover you are hanging out with a bunch of other Princess Bride fans.

  18. Harry says:

    Being a scientist (Plant Molecular biology), I am very jealous with this Mr Cook, who does a completely off limits internet survey, and gets his results published before the period of questioning is finished. I do experiments in the lab, every day, and I have to struggle to get two publications accepted/year, sometimes after severe opposition from the referees, who want entire sets of experiments repeated. Climate science does not qualify for me as science, it’s just humbug. Or a scam.

  19. Genghis says:

    Can anyone say confirmation bias?

  20. J. Fujita says:

    To borrow from the scene in which Wesley is revived…

    Miracle Max: He probably owes you raw data huh? I’ll ask him.
    Inigo Montoya: He’s independent. He can’t spin.
    Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY independent. There’s a big difference between mostly independent and all independent. Mostly independent is slightly skewed. With all independent, well, with all independent there’s usually only one thing you can do.
    Inigo Montoya: What’s that?
    Miracle Max: Go through his e-mails and look for the sheep..

  21. DesertYote says:

    Rodents of unusual size DO exist!

  22. Ebeni says:

    Ian H at 3:18. Inconceivable!!!!

  23. philjourdan says:

    I posted this over at Lucia’s site. But it bears repeating:

    You have “too” wonder about the competency in WRITING when the reviewers cannot pass basic English: ” an abstract to hard to classify, ”

    Gee, was that TOO hard for them?

  24. Malcolm says:

    A survey of 10,000 letters to Santa Claus found that 97% of authors accepted that reindeer pulling a sleigh is the most common means of Christmas present transport around the globe.

  25. Poptech says:

    Get the list of papers.

    They only counted 78 papers as “Rejecting AGW” that means they counted papers authored by Skeptics as either “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position”.

  26. mandas says:

    You’re correct Anthony – all you can do is laugh.
    And I am rolling around laughing at just how ludicrous you and all you worshippers sound, as you slide further and further into irrelevance.
    If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish.

  27. Patick says:

    “mandas says:

    May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish.”

    Quote of the week?

  28. markx says:

    The fact that they feel the desperate need to ‘prove’ a consensus, and the lengths to which they will go to do so are very revealing regarding the stage of this whole debate.

  29. Poptech says:

    All you have to do is ask Cook,

    “Did you categorize any papers as “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position” that were written by skeptics?”

  30. policycritic says:

    mandas says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    [...]
    If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish.

    Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one.

    Behind some of the vanilla monikers here are real scientists (atmospherics, physics, geophysics, geology, climate, etcetera) doing real research work at real science institutions. Some have been doing it for decades. They teach, and present papers.

    Isn’t Skeptical Science’s Mr. Painter a former police cop with a “hobby” in climate change he picked up 6.5 years ago in 2006? Or John Cook who got a Bachelors in physics in the 90s then spent 10 years running cricket and cartoon blogs and worked as a web programmer until he got climate change religion three years ago in 2010?

    So don’t you waltz over here waving your sparkler like some effeminate cruise director who doesn’t realize he got on the wrong cruise. There’s more science discussed on this blog than Skeptical Science knows exists. You seem incapable of realizing it yourself.

  31. Poptech says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516

    “Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”

  32. policycritic says:

    Poptech says:
    May 15, 2013 at 6:45 pm
    Get the list of papers.

    I agree. Get the list of papers, so we can verify their work. (Like watching paint dry, mind you….)

  33. policycritic says:

    Who bankrolls Skeptical Science? Rockefeller Brothers Fund?

  34. markx says:

    Ya gotta feel a bit sorry for Cook … he threw away a career in cartooning, to urgently and nobly save the world.

    Now it is starting to appear that the world does not need saving, at least not right now, and even if it later does, we have time to do it properly.

    I think you will find Mr Cook will only get noisier from now on.

  35. Poptech says:

    All the news sites where this is being posted are censoring dissenting comments.

  36. markx says:

    mandas says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    “…If you want to make yourself relevant again, you can join in the debate on the best approach to deal with climate change. But while you keep denying that it is happening, you just make yourself look foolish…”

    You silly man das ( pun deliberate! :-) …. you need to read a little more and ramble a little less.

    The debate is about how much the climate is warming, and whether this is likely to be catastrophic, and how much man contributes to that warming, and how it (climate) is regulated.

    You would do yourself a favour by joining in the debate, rather than taking the simplistic approach that all is known and running around telling us we are doomed.

    But, I predict you will come back with the standard non informative content free riposte: “… you think it is a conspiracy!…” and “…well funded oil lobby…” and “…catastrophe… its already too late…..!”.

  37. Streetcred says:

    Poptech says: May 15, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    ROFLMAO!!!!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
    “Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”
    ——————-
    GOLD !! I always had a nagging suspicion that Scooter was a ‘she’.

  38. Patrick says:

    “markx says:

    May 15, 2013 at 9:16 pm”

    Not only did he bin his cartooning career, he gave up studying actual science beforehand?

  39. James from Arding says:

    The ABC (Australian BC) had this on the radio news bulletin this afternoon while we were driving home from Sydney to Arding (600km). Cook was interviewed and I didn’t catch what he said because I was falling about laughing too much. This is an all time low for the ABC. I now have clear evidence of their complicity in this fraud (CAGW). I look forward to when the current federal government is no longer in power and hopefully there are some funding cuts to this overblown mob of windbags. But I don’t suppose they will get the message even then :-(.

  40. mandas says:

    Polycritic says:
    “……Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one…..”

    Wow! That’s just…….. wow!

    If any of you truly think that there are people who comment and post here who do not believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it, then you are living more in denial than I thought. How about you read some of the comments before putting your fingers to the keyboard next time.

    If the debate here was truly about how much the climate is changing, and what to do about it, then I would be 100% behind everything that goes on. But its not.

    There are a staggering number of posts that make all sorts of nonsensical claims about things like a coming ice age, or cosmic rays, or sunspots, or its all natural (ENSO, AO, etc), or its all based on flawed models, or its a conspiracy to install a socialist world government, etc, etc. Then there is the cheer squad, which is happy to criticise actual scientific papers without ever having read them. And if you truly think that is not the case, then you have not been paying the slightest bit of attention to what goes on.

  41. Shevva says:

    @mandas – answer the question first then have your rant.

    Name one person here who denies that the climate changes. One. One name. Just name one?

  42. Tim says:

    Mandas,

    You’ve moved the goal posts with “and that humans are responsible for it”. There are many articles and comments on this site which show that natural processes account for various changes in the earth’s climate. Many others that take the IPCC position but redo the calcuations (frequently coming up with a much lower CO2 sensitivity – one that is more in line with actual temperature data). By taking the un-proven hypothesis that climate change is caused by human action as fact unfortunately leads to actions detrimental to human life and frequently causes more harm than good. If you don’t get the science right first you end up looking foolish and creating a solution to a problem that does not exist – often creating more problems via the rule of unintended consequences.
    As to critcism of “scientific papers” – this is how science works. And as to the concensus; to paraphrase Einstein: No number of papers will prove me right, it only takes one to prove I’m wrong.

  43. Sparks says:

    Surly scientific papers are judged by quality over quantity.

  44. Bill Illis says:

    After reading lucia’s thread, …

    It is truly shocking that we are letting people like this dictate important public policy and our energy usage.

    I mean we can laugh at the antics that went on behind the scenes here, but these PR exercises produced by dedicated cult-like AGW believers are actually changing how human society is managed.

  45. Henry Galt says:

    Bill Illis says:
    May 16, 2013 at 4:30 am

    Yep. Head of nail, meet ball of pein.

    Note also, as Poptech points out upstream, that everywhere this muck is being spread they are not allowing anyone to filter it. Disturbs the meme old chap. We can’t have that.

  46. Txomin says:

    There is a fundamental lack of basic understanding at play.

  47. It’s that all too convenient ’97%’ figure being bandied about.
    What is it with warmists and their addiction to the ’97%’ meme?

  48. izen says:

    No amount of scorn poured on the methodology of this meta-analysis of climate research is going to change the fact that less than five percent of the published research calls AGW into question.

    That relegates the many here who would dispute the AGW theory as fellow-travellers with the tiny minority of scientists involved in the field who express doubts.

    No credible scientific research outright rejects AGW, the argument, as with the actress and the bishop, is over how much it will cost.

  49. fadingfool says:

    @izen,

    argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad auctoritatem in the one comment. Any more logical fallacies you wish to add?
    Don’t you think it is slightly odd that given the non-correlation of temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 increase that there are not more “published” papers calling AGW into question?

  50. izen says:

    @- fadingfool
    “argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad auctoritatem in the one comment. Any more logical fallacies you wish to add?”

    The argument from authority is only a logical fallacy if there is no expert consensus and the authorities cited are not legitimate experts.
    In this case both those criteria are met.

    As for the argumentum ad populum, i am NOT claiming that because less than five percent quibble about the reality of AGW it is therefore ‘True’. There are many good scientific reasons why AGW is an accurate explanation of recent climate change. I am simply pointing out that the posters here that reject or doubt AGW are part of a small, and shrinking, minority amongst the scientifically informed.

  51. fadingfool says:

    @izen,

    Not true – Argumentum ad auctoritatum is also a logical fallacy if the authority is biased (climategate emails can attest to this) .
    Your assumption that the posters here “that reject or doubt AGW are part of a small…. minority amongst the scientifically informed” also does not fit the facts. I could quote recent studies showing the growth of doubt in AGW and link to the survey that concluded that the more scientifcally literate the greater the doubt but I’m philosophically adverse to surveys. Instead I’ll leave you with a simple thought: The AGW meme – Cui bono?

  52. izen says:

    @- fadingfool
    “…Instead I’ll leave you with a simple thought: The AGW meme – Cui bono?”

    Well in the over century and a half that the AGW meme has become the scientific mainstream I would say that human understanding of the way the climate works has benefited.

    But to turn the question around, who benefits from pretending there is much more doubt or uncertainty than is evident from the published research?

  53. fadingfool says:

    And like a defective gene it corrupts the next generation. AGW does a very poor job of explaining how the climate works, if anything it hinders our understanding of the earth (if you removed the CO2 hypothesis you wouldn’t need to re-invent it to explain our climate) . But as to who benefits from doubt – directly no one (try selling doubt on the stock exchange) – indirectly the human race as mitigation techniques are killing the elderly with cold and increasing food prices for the poorest.

  54. Sparks says:

    Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet, anymore than other natural factors warm the planet, Anthropogenic factors are dwarfed by natural factors and there is not going to be any kind of catastrophe at all what’ so ever that will ever be be caused by carbon dioxide.

    There is no such thing as a carbon dioxide induced tipping points, runaway greenhouse effect or anthropogenic global warming.

    Cooling and colder winters are not caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, anthropogenic global warming or any other kind of tipping point fantasy.

    There is absolutely NO such thing as “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, “Global weirding”, “Global disruption” or any of the ridiculous variants.

  55. BA says:

    But the Cook et al. team also surveyed authors of those papers, asking them to self-rate. Among papers whose own authors said they expressed a position on AGW, 97% said they endorsed the proposition that humans are causing global warming. This 97% (Cook team) and 97% (authors) looks like good agreement.

    If you don’t agree about the 97%, can you find many recent peer-reviewed papers that say humans are not causing global warming? Sure there are some; 3% of that sample is about 360 papers. But can you pick up recent copies of Science, Nature, GRL, EOS, BAMS, etc. and find stacks of them? I can’t.

  56. Sparks says:

    Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet, anymore than other natural factors warm the planet, Anthropogenic factors are dwarfed by natural factors and there is not going to be any kind of catastrophe at all what’ so ever that will ever be caused by carbon dioxide.

    There is no such thing as a carbon dioxide induced tipping point, runaway greenhouse effect or anthropogenic global warming.

    Cooling and colder winters are not caused by human carbon dioxide emissions, anthropogenic global warming or any other kind of tipping point fantasy.

    There is absolutely NO such thing as “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, “Global weirding”, “Global disruption” or any of the ridiculous variants.

  57. AnonyMoose says:

    Pacific Standard swallowed it hook, line, sinker, and boat.
    http://www.psmag.com/environment/climate-study-consensus-still-means-consensus-57917/

  58. graphicconception says:

    The “survey” and many posters are asking the wrong question in my view. Let’s assume that the last 250 years are somehow significant and then ask ourselves how much of that warming is natural and how much is man-made.

    Can the warming be split into the same ratio as the proportion of man-made greenhouse gasses to natural ones? Is half the warming man-made or 75% or 1%? Unless we can assign some numbers we are all just arm waving.

  59. policycritic says:

    mandas, you made my day. I hereby nominate you as the WUWT mascot for climate change advocacy. If this isn’t the most illustrative statement of what ails climate change advocacy, I don’t know what is.

    mandas says:
    May 15, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    There are a staggering number of posts that make all sorts of nonsensical claims about things like a coming ice age, or cosmic rays, or sunspots, or its all natural (ENSO, AO, etc), or its all based on flawed models. . . .

    F A C E P A L M

  60. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet, anymore than other natural factors warm the planet, Anthropogenic factors are dwarfed by natural factors and there is not going to be any kind of catastrophe at all what’ so ever that will ever be caused by carbon dioxide.

    OK, that declares what you believe. But most of the scientists who have studied this topic believe differently, based on their research.

    graphicconception says:
    The “survey” and many posters are asking the wrong question in my view. Let’s assume that the last 250 years are somehow significant and then ask ourselves how much of that warming is natural and how much is man-made.

    The Cook article actually does address that question. Most of the papers they survey are not attribution studies, but many exist and some are included.

  61. mojo says:

    NEVER go up against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!

  62. Mark Bofill says:

    mojo says:
    May 16, 2013 at 9:49 am

    NEVER go up against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!

    —————–

    I’ve spent the last few years developing an immunity to iocane powder.

  63. YEP says:

    Ha anyone seen the Guardian article on a paper by Nuccitelli? The old 97% trope again?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/16/climate-research-nearly-unanimous-humans-causes?guni=Network front:network-front main-3 Main trailblock:Network front – main trailblock:Position1

    Doesn’t it deserve a story, or did I miss it?

  64. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 16, 2013 at 8:52 am

    “OK, that declares what you believe. But most of the scientists who have studied this topic believe differently, based on their research.”

    Any so-called scientist who believes that a catastrophe will happen or can even occur from a miniscule amount of carbon dioxide locked in an a biological cycle with life on earth, in an atmosphere with a composition of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.9% argon, is not studying hard enough or is a total nitwit.

    The facts I mentioned in my comment up thread also show; that I believe that these so-called scientists, that “believe differently” make up fantasies and apply terminology such as “Global weirding” to spin their belief with an emotional plea and distort the meaning of what the term “climate change” actually means (Inigo Montoya).

    “It is difficult to say what truth is, but sometimes it is so easy to recognize a falsehood.”
    ~Albert Einstein.

  65. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    [i]Any so-called scientist who believes that a catastrophe will happen or can even occur from a miniscule amount of carbon dioxide locked in an a biological cycle with life on earth, in an atmosphere with a composition of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.9% argon, is not studying hard enough or is a total nitwit.[/i]

    Again, you declare your beliefs (though I saw you shift that goalpost, from “not warming up the planet” to “a catastrophe”). Thousands of real, not so-called, scientists have studied this, I think much harder than you have, and almost all of them (it seems) believe CO2 is warming the planet.

    As for catastrophes, the Earth has been through many in the distant past. For at least some of those it seems the reason probably does involve what you call “a miniscule amount of carbon dioxide….” Like the grand-daddy of extinction events, the Permian-Triassic.

  66. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 16, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Again, you declare your beliefs (though I saw you shift that goalpost, from “not warming up the planet” to “a catastrophe”).

    To be fair, it was anthropogenic global warming proponents (who are alarmist of an impending catastrophe) that have declared their beliefs, I as an accomplished Engineer and programmer, qualified horticulturist, amateur astronomer and a highly educated person do NOT agree with these beliefs, get over it and respect my opinion, as for moving goal posts drivel? your original statement “…you declare your beliefs” did that.

  67. Patrick says:

    “BA says:

    May 16, 2013 at 1:03 pm”

    Are you suggesting CO2 is DRIVING that warming (And remember its just the “airborne fraction”, the ~50% of the ~3% (aCO2) of 390ppm/v as the AGW hypothesis states)? If you are then your “belief” is wrong as we know changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temperatures by ~800 years as well as any “warming” potential of CO2 is largely saturated out by 250pp/v.

  68. izen says:

    @- fadingfool
    ” AGW does a very poor job of explaining how the climate works, if anything it hinders our understanding of the earth (if you removed the CO2 hypothesis you wouldn’t need to re-invent it to explain our climate) . ”

    If you really have a credible explanation for the surface climate that did not require the role of CO2 in converting outgoing longwave photons to thermal energy within the atmosphere you would overturn more than just climate science. The first two Laws of thermodynamics would fall as well.

    CO2 is required for simple energy balance since Plass et al worked out the radiative transfer equations in the 1960s. You certainly need the CO2 hypothesis to understand the climate on Venus and Mars. Without CO2 increasing the temperature gradient from the surface to the tropopause it is likely that most of the water vapour would condense out from the atmosphere resulting in a snowball Earth.

    Claiming that the AGW theory, developed over the last century and closely integrated into most of the rest of modern science is some kind of Lysenkoist conspiracy is not even slightly credible.

    @- “But as to who benefits from doubt – directly no one (try selling doubt on the stock exchange) – indirectly the human race as mitigation techniques are killing the elderly with cold and increasing food prices for the poorest.”

    If the stock exchange was convinced that fossil fuels could no longer be used at present rates because of political regulation I think a lot of people would be trying to sell oil and coal companies.
    While cold and increasing food prices may be killing the elderly the cold and the increasing food prices are only marginally effected by mitigation techniques. Climate change is the main factor impacting food prices and extreme winters.

  69. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    To be fair, it was anthropogenic global warming proponents (who are alarmist of an impending catastrophe) that have declared their beliefs, I as an accomplished Engineer and programmer, qualified horticulturist, amateur astronomer and a highly educated person do NOT agree with these beliefs, get over it and respect my opinion,

    I thought this thread was about a study in which a large majority of research papers that expressed a position about current global warming or climate change, attributed it mainly to human activities. I did not see “catastrophe” anywhere in the paper, nor in your declaration that “Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet.” So when I mentioned that the surveyed scientists and papers disagreed with your declaration, and you shifted to “a catastrophe will happen,” I call moving goalposts.

    Patrick says:
    Are you suggesting CO2 is DRIVING that warming (And remember its just the “airborne fraction”, the ~50% of the ~3% (aCO2) of 390ppm/v as the AGW hypothesis states)? If you are then your “belief” is wrong as we know changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temperatures by ~800 years as well as any “warming” potential of CO2 is largely saturated out by 250pp/v.

    Personally I don’t know, I haven’t done those studies, but it seems that a great majority of the active researchers do believe that CO2 is driving warming. That’s what this study found, anyway. As for your “800 year gap” you’d find a different story if you looked for recent research by the experts who are studying ice core and other proxies to figure out just what happened in those glacial/interglacial transitions.

    Likewise, I don’t think you could find many recent papers that accept the “warming potential of CO2 is largely saturated” argument. Though surely there are some, out there in the 3%.

  70. Patrick says:

    “BA says:

    May 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    That’s what this study found, anyway. As for your “800 year gap” you’d find a different story if you looked for recent research by the experts who are studying ice core and other proxies to figure out just what happened in those glacial/interglacial transitions.

    Likewise, I don’t think you could find many recent papers that accept the “warming potential of CO2 is largely saturated” argument. Though surely there are some, out there in the 3%.”

    Study, at Sks? Another laugh tipping point it seems. You seem to “know” there are new studies that refute the ~800 year lag I state and the “warming potential” of CO2. Care to post links to these studies?

  71. BA says:

    Patrick says:
    Study, at Sks? Another laugh tipping point it seems.
    The study is in Environmental Research Letters. You can laugh, but do you think their basic conclusion, high agreement among current researchers that humans are changing the climate, is wrong?

    You seem to “know” there are new studies that refute the ~800 year lag I state
    Why the scare quotes around “know”? Such studies aren’t hard to find. Here are abstracts from two new ones. Apart from the details of their analysis, both offer clear explanations for why figuring out timing of CO2 and temperature estimates from the same ice core has been tricky; and on the difference between global (CO2) and partly regional (temperature) signals in ice cores.

    “Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.”
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.short

    “The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    and the “warming potential” of CO2. Care to post links to these studies?

    For that I could go no further that this blog (although there are hundreds of published studies).
    http://www.pagewash.com/nph-index.cgi/010110A/uggc:/=2fjnggfhcjvgugung.pbz/2013/05/11/gur-fcrapre-punyyratr-gb-fynlrefcevapvcvn/

  72. Cynical Scientist says:

    BA says: If you don’t agree about the 97%, can you find many recent peer-reviewed papers that say humans are not causing global warming? Sure there are some; 3% of that sample is about 360 papers. But can you pick up recent copies of Science, Nature, GRL, EOS, BAMS, etc. and find stacks of them? I can’t.

    You fail to understand the nature of scientific publishing. You very seldom see papers published which state that other people’s theories are wrong even when the general consensus behind the scenes is that the theory is a load of crap. Asking to see such papers is completely unrealistic. I could name a whole bunch of completely worthless papers in my area which have never been explicitly refuted in print but which everyone working in the area knows are rubbish. Bad science usually dies by being ignored into oblivion rather than being explicitly refuted in print.

    There is a strong bias in science towards papers which put forward explanations. The criteria for publication require that a paper add to our understanding. Subtracting is a type of addition but this is not an easy argument to make to a publisher. It is a struggle to get a paper published which simply says that some other guy’s paper is wrong unless you put forward an alternative. Sceptics tend to put forward few alternative climate models of their own as most believe that our current state of knowledge of this chaotic system is insufficient to allow it to be modelled.

    For an example of what a dying scientific theory looks like, take a look at supersymmetry. The theory has made no verifiable predictions and there is no experimental evidence to support it. It is now in the process of withering on the branch. Yet you won’t find very many papers in the literature that state supersymmetry is wrong. Meanwhile there are a bunch of supersymmetry experts out there still publishing and reviewing each other’s papers because academics have to publish to eat. The field will persist as an active area of research until these people retire. I have sympathy for them. It isn’t their fault that the idea they chose to build their careers on didn’t pan out. It looked promising and was worth investigating. So even though the whole field really deserves to be buried under a crossroads with a stake driven through its heart, I am not going to argue with them. I just ignore them.

  73. BA says:

    Cynical Scientist says:
    You fail to understand the nature of scientific publishing.
    Maybe I understand a different part of the elephant. In the fields I follow, plenty of arguments get published.

    But regarding climate research, I don’t think your “dying theory” and supersymmetry analogy works at all. Across dozens of journals, there seem to be new findings by different teams every month. Subjectively (I haven’t counted, but someone probably has) it looks to be drawing more interest than a few years back.

  74. Patrick says:

    “BA says:

    May 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm”

    First link seems to be behind a pay-wall, contains only an abstract and apparently disproves ALL other studies. Second link seems to be behind a pay, contains only an abstract and refers to computer simulations. Third link takes me to WUWT and the “The Spencer Challenge to Slayers/Principia” thread. Can you find any post I have made where I have stated CO2 is not a “GHG” and that there is no GHG effect?

    In the meantime, have a look here;

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/

    As you can see “heating” effects/potential above 250ppm/v are negligible, and with all the “noise” in the system would likely not be measureable. The points I have made are that the AGW hypothesis claims the ~50% (The airborne fraction) of the ~3% (Human contribution) of ~390ppm/v CO2 is causing warming AND driving climate to change in a bad way. There is no evidence for that all.

  75. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Izen and BA

    Simple question — were either of you two involved in the Cook study as “raters” or in any other way?

    Eugene WR GAllun

  76. Poptech says:

    This study cannot claim to be scientific if it is not reproducible. So how do you reproduce a study using a database that is dynamically updated?

  77. izen says:

    @- Eugene WR Gallun
    “Izen and BA
    Simple question — were either of you two involved in the Cook study as “raters” or in any other way?”

    Not me.
    Why, do you think it would significantly alter the reality that AGW is acknowledged as the correct explanation of recent climate change by all but a tiny fringe in the scientifically literate?

    @- Poptech
    “This study cannot claim to be scientific if it is not reproducible. So how do you reproduce a study using a database that is dynamically updated?”

    You have mistaken what reproduce means in the scientific method. The study methodology can be followed with different raters and a different database and that would be reproducing the study.
    What you are claiming is that the study could not be exactly REPEATED, but that is true of almost all scientific research.

  78. Poptech says:

    izen, if the study is not reproducible because the database contents change how can we know it is valid? What is or is not included in the Web of Science database at any given time is at the discretion of Thompson Reuters and scientifically meaningless when quantified.

    So if someone builds a database that only has 100 papers in it that meet this criteria and you get the same results that would be scientific confirmation?

    Using this logic doing the same study on the Poptech database would be scientifically valid.

  79. Poptech says:

    Izen, does the Web of Science include every peer-reviewed papers and journal? If not how can you determine consensus?

  80. Tim says:

    Izen said “If you really have a credible explanation for the surface climate that did not require the role of CO2 in converting outgoing longwave photons to thermal energy within the atmosphere you would overturn more than just climate science. The first two Laws of thermodynamics would fall as well.”
    H2O. Water cycle and state changes of H2O. If anything it’s the “back radiation” theory that stretches the second law of thermodynamics. The oceans and H2O in the atmosphere are the control of the earth’s climate. Whilst CO2 might be the control of Venus (given the amount) even that is debateable as i suspect its more to do with the sulphur dioxide cycles.
    Step back a moment – do you know anything about alternative geometries (such as spherical or taxi) in mathematics (as opposed to euclidian)? If you change a premise you can create logically consistent universes with its own proofs and laws. If that premise does not reflect reality though these proofs are little more than mental exercises. Now take a look at Hansens projections of temperature and CO2. The closest match to reality is the non-increasing CO2 projection. In any other field would not the premise be questioned?

  81. izen says:

    @- Poptech
    “Using this logic doing the same study on the Poptech database would be scientifically valid.”

    No, because it does not contain a representative sample of the published research, which the other databases used do.

    But you raise and interesting point. Your own work using a wide definition {often disputed!} of research papers that ‘doubt’ aspects of AGW strongly supports the findings of this research. You claim around a thousand papers NOT supporting AGW from a total of many, many thousands over the time period you cover. That is obviously a tiny percentage of the papers published in this field every month. So your own collection of ‘skeptical’ papers confirms that they are a very small, <5%?, of the total papers published. The vast majority of which either implicitly or explicitly endorse AGW.

    Your own work shows this research is consistent with the findings of every survey of the literature. It is vastly and overwhelmingly endorsing the mainstream understanding of the climate which includes the potentially disruptive effects of climate change from rising CO2.

  82. Poptech says:

    Izen, please provide an objective criteria for determining if a database has a representative sample of “the published research”.

    You are not making much sense, if over a thousand papers are published in this field every month how come the cartoonist only found 11,000 for 20 years?

    How many papers in the cartoonist’s “study” explicitly endorse AGW?

    Why is the cartoonist lying that they surveyed of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

    When their paper explicitly states that when you eliminate non-peer-reviewed papers and ones that are not climate related you only have 11,991 papers.

    The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers

    Surely the cartoonist can do basic math?

    You also have not answered this question – Does the Web of Science include every peer-reviewed papers and journal? If not how can you determine consensus?

    I will wait while you seek council from the crusher crew.

  83. izen says:

    @- Tim
    ” If anything it’s the “back radiation” theory that stretches the second law of thermodynamics. The oceans and H2O in the atmosphere are the control of the earth’s climate. ”

    The 2nd LoT is actually integral to the explanation of how downwelling LWR slows the cooling rate of the surface increasing the temperature gradient between the surface and the tropopause.

    @-”… If that premise does not reflect reality though these proofs are little more than mental exercises. Now take a look at Hansens projections of temperature and CO2. The closest match to reality is the non-increasing CO2 projection. In any other field would not the premise be questioned?”

    And it is questioned in this field. The answer turns out to be that the energy imbalance that is adding heat to the climate system is not in doubt. But the way in which that energy is distributed between the atmosphere, oceans and the surface has resulted in more energy going to cause a small temperature rise in the oceans and less heating of the atmosphere.
    So the ‘question’ raised by the discrepancy between Hansens’s projections of surface temperature in the 1980s and the present trajectory is answered by the increased amount of energy entering the deeper oceans.

    Since the fifties many have tried to find alternative theories to explain the observed energy changes and rising temperatures of air, surface and oceans. But as the post here that BA links to in a previous reply that has Roy Spencer challenging the ‘skydragons’ indicates, nobody has come up with anything credible.

    If you want to understand the role of CO2 in the climate energy balance I would recommend working through the Science of Doom site link on the right and the ‘CO2 an insignificant trace gas’ posts. Its very comprehensive and you will need to revise your basic calculus but it does explain the basic physics and deals with the failure of the various alternative hypothesis put forward to explain the empirical observations.

    @- Poptech
    “You also have not answered this question – Does the Web of Science include every peer-reviewed papers and journal? If not how can you determine consensus?
    I will wait while you seek council from the crusher crew.”

    No need to wait, I need no council from whatever a crusher crew might be.

    I doubt the Web of science includes EVERY peer reviewed paper and journal associated with this subject. But I also doubt that it omits a significant percentage that would change the basic finding of many studies and meta-analysis of the literature that finds that less than five percent are explicitly or implicitly rejecting the mainstream understanding of the climate.

    From what database, and total number of papers {peer reviewed and otherwise} did you draw your list of papers expressing skepticism of AGW or its effects? Are you really able to credibly claim that there are NOT twenty papers endorsing AGW and its effects for every paper in your list?

  84. BA says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    Izen and BA

    Simple question — were either of you two involved in the Cook study as “raters” or in any other way?

    Simple answer: no

  85. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    “…I did not see “catastrophe” anywhere in the paper, nor in your declaration that “Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet.” So when I mentioned that the surveyed scientists and papers disagreed with your declaration, and you shifted to “a catastrophe will happen,” I call moving goalposts.”

    Alarmists proponents of Man Made global warming have produced a paper with an intention to impose an artificial consensus on the subject, It’s a devious and misleading tactic and very unscientific. At every turn, you have been inferring that I am unaware of the topic we are discussing and you are suggesting that I pulled the term “catastrophe” out of my hat, as if to exaggerate an opposing argument for my own benefit, This is untrue and again, deceitful (a trend is emerging), within the context of this publicity stunt, a blatantly obvious attempt to promote the creditability of Alarmist papers you may not have read the term “catastrophe”, and it proves how dishonest the terminology used actually is, a simple internet search can demonstrate this point by using the term “list of global warming catastrophes”.
    Notice how the majority of search results are from Anthropogenic global warming proponents, all promoting papers and new studies by various scientists, research groups etc… who’s results suggest that Human carbon dioxide emissions are causing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures (which again, is untrue, there is precedence) Notice how the reoccurring term “catastrophe” is used in context with the subject of Anthropogenic global warming, You may also notice a complete set of alarmist terminology being used along with lists of attributed disasters and effects from “scientific studies” ranging from “Alien invasion” to earthquakes, volcanoes, super-storms and every other form of disaster imaginable. All of this alarmist rhetoric is backed by “so-called science” and their research into human emissions of carbon dioxide.

    How can you defend a paper promoting a consensus on this “so-called science” and pretend to have any credibility or demonstrate that you have a good sense of judgment, or even remain grounded in reality for that matter.

    Also, to directly answer your question about how you noticed I didn’t make “a declaration that Human carbon dioxide emissions are not warming up the planet”.

    My view is clear, Human carbon dioxide emissions, a fraction of the total composition of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere, which is a gas, Warms and cools with the rest of the earths atmosphere including the oceans and the land surface, It does not “cause” the warming or cooling. Any trace contribution made by human’s is beneficial and necessary for the earth to maintain a healthy “carbon cycle” which biological process need and have evolved to take advantage of over millions of years.

  86. BA says:

    Patrick says:
    First link seems to be behind a pay-wall, contains only an abstract and apparently disproves ALL other studies. Second link seems to be behind a pay, contains only an abstract and refers to computer simulations.

    There are other studies, I just cited a couple of recent ones from the two leading journals, Science and Nature. The temperature/CO2 relationship, in Antarctic ice cores and elsewhere, is important and has been widely studied — these new pieces do not “disprove ALL other studies.” Where did you get that idea? Like most science, they build on what is already known, such this 2012 paper:
    “Antarctic ice cores provide clear evidence of a close coupling between variations in Antarctic temperature and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 during the glacial/interglacial cycles of at least the past 800-thousand years. Precise information on the relative timing of the temperature and CO2 changes can assist in refining our understanding of the physical processes involved in this coupling. Here, we focus on the last deglaciation, 19 000 to 11 000 yr before present, during which CO2 concentrations increased by ~80 parts per million by volume and Antarctic temperature increased by ~10 °C. Utilising a recently developed proxy for regional Antarctic temperature, derived from five near-coastal ice cores and two ice core CO2 records with high dating precision, we show that the increase in CO2 likely lagged the increase in regional Antarctic temperature by less than 400 yr and that even a short lead of CO2 over temperature cannot be excluded. This result, consistent for both CO2 records, implies a faster coupling between temperature and CO2 than previous estimates, which had permitted up to millennial-scale lags.”
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html

    In the meantime, have a look here;
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can

    I see why we disagree. I read new research articles by scientists who are studying these topics. You dismiss scientists without knowing what they’ve written, and cite bloggers instead.

  87. Poptech says:

    Brandon’s argument is a waste of time. No one will care nor will it persuade anyone arguing over the “independence” of the raters. It is like arguing that Oreskes was biased.

  88. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    My view is clear, Human carbon dioxide emissions, a fraction of the total composition of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere, which is a gas, Warms and cools with the rest of the earths atmosphere including the oceans and the land surface, It does not “cause” the warming or cooling. Any trace contribution made by human’s is beneficial and necessary for the earth to maintain a healthy “carbon cycle” which biological process need and have evolved to take advantage of over millions of years.

    Your views expressed here are chaotic rather than clear, although it’s clear that you believe them quite strongly. On the other hand, most scientists who study these topics believe anthropogenic CO2 can and does warm the planet, not by creating heat but by slowing the loss of solar heat back to space. Many studies suggest the consequences will be more harm than good. And absolutely nothing has evolved over millions of years to take advantage of a CO2 rise this rapid.

  89. BA says:

    Poptech says:
    Brandon’s argument is a waste of time. No one will care nor will it persuade anyone arguing over the “independence” of the raters. It is like arguing that Oreskes was biased.

    Yes, I agree on the futility of both arguments. More interesting is whether their basic conclusions are true.

  90. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 17, 2013 at 7:15 am

    …most scientists who study these topics believe anthropogenic CO2 can and does warm the planet
    The sun warms the planet, which includes carbon dioxide and all the other liquids and gases.

    “Many studies suggest the consequences will be more harm than good”
    Yes they do, I agree, they are alarmist and based on nothing more than fantasy and an over hyped representation of the facts.

    “…absolutely nothing has evolved over millions of years to take advantage of a CO2 rise this rapid.”
    Again, more dishonest twisting (what a surprise), Any trace contribution made by humans is beneficial and necessary for the earth to maintain a healthy “carbon cycle” which biological [processes] need and have evolved to take advantage of over millions of years.

    by which I mean; carbon dioxide in general is beneficial and necessary for all the biological processes which have evolved to take advantage of it, over millions of years (anthropogenic or not). Mole fractional fluctuations in carbon dioxide or a “rapid rise” as you put it, is irrelevant to biological processes which sequester it as a mechanism to produce sustenance and where more carbon dioxide is beneficial.

    Why are you refusing to understand or acknowledge this point.

  91. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    The sun warms the planet, which includes carbon dioxide and all the other liquids and gases.

    Of course it does, but that’s not what AGW is about. In quoting me you snipped that part of my sentence, going from this:

    “On the other hand, most scientists who study these topics believe anthropogenic CO2 can and does warm the planet, not by creating heat but by slowing the loss of solar heat back to space.

    to this:

    “On the other hand, most scientists who study these topics believe anthropogenic CO2 can and does warm the planet”

    Why are you refusing to understand or acknowledge this point.

    What I understand about your points is that they are declarations of your own very strongly held beliefs, which happen not to be supported by logic or science. Sure, CO2 is necessary to life. So is water. That does not mean that more is always better.

  92. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 17, 2013 at 9:05 am

    “What I understand about your points is that they are declarations of your own very strongly held beliefs, which happen not to be supported by logic or science.”

    When did you stop beating your wife?, despite the Logical Fallacy of your argument, I will reply in kind, Carbon dioxide is beneficial, this is a logical declaration and it is demonstrated by science to be true.

    Sure, CO2 is necessary to life. So is water. That does not mean that more is always better.

    In the context of our planet more is better, carbon dioxide is a necessity and is beneficial at much higher levels, regardless of what relationship it has with earths variable temperature, is this not logical and backed up by science?

  93. BA says:

    Sparks says”
    In the context of our planet more is better, carbon dioxide is a necessity and is beneficial at much higher levels, regardless of what relationship it has with earths variable temperature, is this not logical and backed up by science?

    No, it is neither logical nor backed up by science. In fact, your declaration is not even internally coherent. How can something be beneficial “regardless of what relationship it has with earths variable temperature”?

    If temperature warms or cools, that will change length of seasons. How the wind blows, where the rain falls, and much else. Forests can’t move very fast to get out of the way. Are they drought, insect and fire-proof, where you live?

  94. Sparks says:

    BA says:
    May 17, 2013 at 11:26 am

    How can something be beneficial “regardless of what relationship it has with earths variable temperature”?
    Carbon dioxide in general is beneficial for life which sequester it as a mechanism to produce sustenance even tho temperature is variable.

    If temperature warms or cools, that will change length of seasons. How the wind blows, where the rain falls, and much else.
    Temperature does not change the length of a season, the length of a season is determined by the earths axis as it rotates around the sun, also, there are cycles of activity on the sun that can determine how warm or cold a season can be and there are tidal forces caused by the moon that effect the weather.

    Forests can’t move very fast to get out of the way. Are they drought, insect and fire-proof, where you live?
    Forests where I live have evolved to take advantage of insects and fires caused by dryer times. Trees are not fire-proof, but they have evolved a resistance to fire.

    In fact, the forests where I live are so evolved, that every-time a “carbon neutral” power company orders some “carbon neutral” wood. The trees must see the logging company coming because they always disappear. /jk

  95. BA says:

    Sparks says:
    Carbon dioxide in general is beneficial for life which sequester it as a mechanism to produce sustenance even tho temperature is variable.

    The fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising shows that we are pumping it out faster than all natural sources combined can absorb.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    And much of what is absorbed naturally is not getting sequestered by plants, but going into the oceans where it is raising the pH which is tough for many shell-forming animals and whatever likes to eat them.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806085240.htm
    http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/3/414.abstract

    In the past, rising ocean pH played a role, maybe a starring role, in mass extinction events.
    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/prehistoric-mass-extinction-042710.html

    Forests where I live have evolved to take advantage of insects and fires caused by dryer times. Trees are not fire-proof, but they have evolved a resistance to fire.

    Where are these forests? Must be very different from those I know in the western US, where the frequency of large and destructive fires has been rising,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm

    and millions of acres are infested by insects.
    http://www.fs.usda.gov/barkbeetle

  96. Poptech says:

    Contrary to Brandon’s nonsense looks like I was right again, skeptic authored papers are being classified as either “Endorse AGW” or “No AGW position”.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/nir-shaviv-one-of-the-97/

    Also,

    Why is this paper not listed in the SS database – “What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?”?
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117797004997

    It was published between 1991 and 2011 (1997), includes the search phrase “global warming” and the journal is indexed in the Web of Science (Science Citation Index);

    http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0273-1177

  97. Patrick says:

    “BA says:

    May 17, 2013 at 6:11 am

    There are other studies, I just cited a couple of recent ones from the two leading journals, Science and Nature.”

    If you can provide links that are not behind a pay-wall so that we can all read the science rather than the abstract, which is what the Cook study has done, that would be a start. Otherwise you are wasting time.

    “I see why we disagree. I read new research articles by scientists who are studying these topics. You dismiss scientists without knowing what they’ve written, and cite bloggers instead.”

    I guess you didn’t read who was the source in the graphs. Talk about dismissing scientists.

  98. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    Izen and BA

    i asked if either of you were involved in the Cook paper. My reason for asking was i was hoping you were so you could provide some inside information about the processes of the study. But i guess not. Thank you for answering.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  99. Poptech says:

    At least this explains why the handful of posts I have seen from Brandon Shollenberger were a waste of time – he is an ITT Tech student! No wonder alarmists make fun of us.

  100. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    I often find that the little things a person says and does are always very telling about that person’s personality.and predictive of his other behaviors.

    11,991 papers were used in the study.

    Cook-The-Books says over 12,000 papers were used in the study.

    The correct statement would have been ALMOST 12,000 papers were used in the study.

    A small thing? Yes, but very telling. At the very least Cook-The-Books likes to garnish his facts. i strongly suspect that all his claims about the “virtues” of his study are exaggerations.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  101. Poptech says:

    Eugene, I tried pointing this out to the ITT Tech student and he just wanted to argue with me about it.

Comments are closed.