Richard Tol Fights back – with an article in the Guardian showing that Cook’s 97% consensus is actually ‘nonsensus’

Tol_GuardianConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

While I admit to being quite surprised they’d allow him equal time, I doubt he’ll win any converts as much of the readership thinks 97% consensus is a fact, and they don’t really want to hear anything different. Tol writes:

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless.

Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.

At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.

Read Tol’s essay here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

About these ads

205 thoughts on “Richard Tol Fights back – with an article in the Guardian showing that Cook’s 97% consensus is actually ‘nonsensus’

  1. What some comments are related to not regulating the coal and oil industries. Well UK did in the 1950s by not burning Anthracite (black coal) in Greater London, to stop SMOGS. And the rest of England now burns wood or oil. Gas as well I suspect. London is near the Thames, and fogs and mists keep pollution down rather than let them escape. We had a big smoke free zone here in Armidale some years ago, and when I drove down into the valley of Armidale early morning one often saw a brown line at the bottom of a white mist or fog. But in summer this was not the case.

  2. :At best they may have stumbled onto the right number???

    Stop it! They may boost him to a regular column at this rate.

  3. There never ever been a consensus of 97% scientists among scholars who knows and live up to Theories of Science.

    But what’s worse for those who still believes that academic titles no matter in what subject or a high degree or a Professor’s title show proof when and if a concensus ever happens,
    what’s worse for them is that they all show complete lack of knowledge of differences in using Fallacies in argumentation which they show above all, on one side and true facts leading up to valid arguments permitting a sound conclusions. One isn’t the other and vice versa……

  4. They’re starting to scratch each other’s eyes out now.
    When a single discordant note is heard in that hallowed choir that is The Guardian, you sense that end times are nearing for CAGW!
    Siberian Hussey and Rusty Bed-springs won’t like the dissent, they won’t like it one little bit!

  5. This is Dana Nutticelli responding in the comments to Tol’s Guardian Article!

    “Of course he wrote it himself, along with the rest of our co-authors. And we couldn’t get it peer-reviewed because the journal only allowed us 1000 words to respond. That wasn’t enough to even scratch the surface of the blunders in Tol’s error-riddled, Gremlin-infested joke of a paper.
    Take it up with Energy Policy. We tried to get them to peer-review the whole thing and they refused to giev us more than 1000 words. Tells you something about the journal, doesn’t it”

    You can tell that the Warmist Brethren are furious possibly even recursively so!

  6. A while back at Nottingham University’s – Making Science Public project:

    Prof Mike Hulme contributed his thoughts on Cook and Nuccitellis’ 97% paper..

    Hulme:
    “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” – Mike Hulme

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401

    Mike Hulme expanded on his thoughts we he was questioned about them..

    Hulme:
    my point is that the Cook et al. study is hopelessly confused as well as being largely irrelevant to the complex questions that are raised by the idea of (human-caused) climate change. As to being confused, in one place the paper claims to be exploring “the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW” and yet the headline conclusion is based on rating abstracts according to whether “humans are causing global warming”.

    These are two entirely different judgements.

    The irrelevance is because none of the most contentious policy responses to climate change are resolved *even if* we accept that 97.1% of climate scientists believe that “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW” (which of course is not what the study has shown).

    And more broadly, the sprawling scientific knowledge about climate and its changes cannot helpfully be reduced to a single consensus statement, however carefully worded. The various studies – such as Cook et al – that try to enumerate the climate change consensus pretend it can and that is why I find them unhelpful – and, in the sprit of this blog, I would suggest too that they are not helpful for our fellow citizens.” – Mike Hulme

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182771

    I put the above in a comment at the Guardian, reproduced here lest it disappears (as happens on occasion under Dana’s articles)

    http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/36646747

  7. Why should we listen to Dr. Tol? He’s not a climate scientist.

    Is a /sarc off tag needed?

  8. Sandi says:

    June 7, 2014 at 12:38 am

    The real scientists are the ones who knew better than to reply to Cook’s survey.

    They are the cowards that allow the scam to continue.

  9. “Stephen Richards says:

    June 7, 2014 at 1:08 am

    They are the cowards that allow the scam to continue.”

    There is nothing like free gravy. Gravy can make anything, even crap, taste wonderful!

  10. Why have I got this feeling that Dana and The Guardian will part ways in the not too distant future?

  11. Dana Nuccitelli is trolling the heck out of the comments section, and I believe I detect Cook running a sock puppet there too.

  12. Hushbunny said

    “What some comments are related to not regulating the coal and oil industries. Well UK did
    in the 1950s by not burning Anthracite (black coal) in Greater London, to stop SMOGS.
    And the rest of England now burns wood or oil. ”

    Actually the clean air act of 1956 was aimed at preventing the burning of lignite or brown coal within designated smoke control areas. Outside those mainly urban areas you could burn anything you liked. Anthracite and coke largely replaced brown coal until natural gas from the North Sea came along in the early 70’s. The burning of solid fuel, oil and wood is pretty much restricted to rural areas where gas is not available. Anthracite is.s still an approved fuel in smoke control areas.

  13. Tol : “In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.”

    Well that takes out 97% of climate “science”.

    I wonder what the correlation of the remaining 3% is with the 3% that did not agree with Nutterchelli and cartoonist Cook’s parody of the scientific process.

  14. The 9% claim is BS form the top to the bottom , it fails so badly it cannot even met basic requirements of logic nor maths . In any other area of science would be consider that evidenced that is equal to ‘nine out of ten cats prefer ‘ would be an unacceptable joke. But in climate ‘science’ its consider unquestionable truth.
    The only good news bring that such a joke of an area must be easy to get degrees in , as long as you make sure you support ‘the cause ‘ , so at least its students get an easy life. Although in the future when the ‘the cause ‘ falls they got no hope of getting any other type of work in science perhaps they could try to be party clowns?

  15. Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

    And for everyone one of those instances, there are many, many more where everyone agreed and everyone was right. This quotation from Bertrand Russell sums it up:

    There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. …. Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.

    A good discussion of real skepticism here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/how-to-be-a-real-sceptic/

  16. Tol neglected to point out how old a lot (most?) of these papers were. Like who cares what
    someone believed 20 years ago? Not even the IPCC still believes what it used to.

  17. Cook is cartoonist by trade. What do cartoonists do with a subject.

    They take oddities and defects, distort and exaggerate them to create a caricature of the subject, usually to comical effect.

    This is what Cook has done with climate science. His work is a parody of climate science.

    As such is it probably insightful and amusing.

    What is rather troubling is some feeble minded individuals seem to mistake for the real thing, completely missing the cutting satire intended by the artist.

  18. Also important to keep in mind remarks from Tol’s conclusion in his paper:

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

    91% or 97%, even in Tol’s eyes it is still a consensus that is probably correct, despite the examples from history where “everyone agreed and everyone is wrong”.

  19. arthur4563 says:
    Tol neglected to point out how old a lot (most?) of these papers were. Like who cares what
    someone believed 20 years ago? Not even the IPCC still believes what it used to.

    Don’t jump to unwarranted conclusions. If you actually read papers of that age they were often still attempting to do real science at that time.

  20. Tol neglected to point out the lack of credibility of a survey designed and conducted by a keenly interested (and biased) individual, as well as Cook’s bizarre and dopey design : if you want to know the opinions of scientists about global warming, YOU ASK THEM, STUPID. You don’t rummage thru a bunch of old published papers and try to divine the authors’ opinions about things often not even mentioned in those papers.
    The needless and pointless subjectivity of this study suggests the authors wanted to manipulate the results to support their own beliefs. This isn’t science. This is PR.
    Or something.

  21. The Guardian has a nice $1Billion+ nest egg in its trust from the recent sale of the Autotrader enterprise.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/01/guardian-sells-trader-media

    So it can continue to fulminate about carbon dioxide for a long time yet, while still using profits from the internal combustion engine to cover the losses of trustafarian journalism.

    In this area I won’t expect to see much sign of the trumpeted ‘era of editorial innovation’.

  22. Leo Geiger says: June 7, 2014 at 3:43 am

    Everyone agreeing because the real-word obervations are overwhelming, has nothing to do with a consensus. In the former case, no consensus is required. A consensus is a social construct, with orthodoxy policing, which has the same social mechanisms as orthodoxy policing in religion. They typically arise within science as a response to high uncertainty plus strong policy implications. They do not (at core) represent a hoax or a delusion, and are the result of relatively well known cultural evolutionary mechanisms. Yet the social construct of a consensus has no relationship whatever to the workings of the real-world, either the climate system or anything else, so really should have no place in science, and should be resisted.

  23. Ooh. I love Bertrand Russell quotes:

    >>Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.

    >>The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.

    >>The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

  24. Richard Tol was right to dig into the matter. What he found out is important for those who might believe the scientific method is democratic; but it is not.
    Yes, ever since Galileo and even before his times, experimental proof (with data and methods) is of the essence

  25. “Well UK did in the 1950s by not burning Anthracite (black coal) in Greater London, to stop SMOGS.”

    Anthracite is actually almost pure carbon, very similar to Welsh steam coal, and not responsible for smogs, mostly used for steam raising, especially in nautical and railway applications, rarely seen in domestic use due to being in short supply and expensive.

    The types of coal mostly responsible for smogs are the bitumenous variety, sea coal and lignite.

    The first attempt to clean up the atmosphere in London was in 1272 when King Edward I banned the burning of sea coal on pain of death. One miscreant was in fact executed, after which the law was ignored altogether until the Clean Air Act of 1956 came into force.

  26. I respected Richard Tol’s finding of the IPCC’s blatant exaggeration it purposely uses toward achieving a goal of causing alarm.

    Now I am gaining more respect for Tol as I incrementally learn more about his recent paper that seems to indicate virtually no scientific method was implemented by Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook and associates in their 2013 ‘Consensus’ paper.

    Nuccitelli’s PR in The Guardian insults the community of the scientific method.

    John

  27. Seriously… Do we skeptics have our own study to counter and say, “No this study that was much more professionally done says the consensus is 55%.” I get this 97% crap has big enough holes to fly a 747 through it but do we have ANYTHING to respond with other than to say “well that study was terrible.” People need a number they don’t want to just hear the other guy did it bad. Someone give us a number. Stop researching how the other guy did it and let’s make our own and one that is done objectively and cannot be dismissed. As a fellow skeptic, give me a real number or drop it.

  28. bushbunny says:

    Catweazle is correct. House coal is bituminous coal. Anthracite does not burn on an open grate but requires additional draught. Trianco Anthracite burning boilers are still available. http://www.trianco.co.uk/products/trg-solid-fuel

    Some American locomotives were built specially to burn Anthracite, but in the UK, Welsh steam coal was favoured by the GWR for their steam locomotives. The LMS, LNER & the SR built locomotives with wide fireboxes that would consume Bituminous coals mined in the areas they served.

    http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject/TimeLine/BeaverMeadows/HopThomasMasterMechanic/Warner_DevAnthraciteLocomotive.htm

    Seacoal was coal from Northumberland, shipped down the East Coast to London.

    http://www.englandsnortheast.co.uk/CoalMiningandRailways.html

    Old Seacoal Lane joins Farringon Street & Limeburners Lane. The River Fleet, now the Fleet Sewer, runs underneath Farringdon Street to the River Thames. Prior to being built over, it was the Fleet Canal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Fleet

    Why do I know this? I worked for the British coal industry from 1962 to 1965, I am a heritage steam railway supporter & I managed a Whitbread’s pub called the New King Lud in 1967/8, very near Old Seacoal Lane . It’s very changed around there now. Everything I would recognise has been demolished.

  29. The fact that the Guardian has allowed this riposte to the 97% paper is unexpected and interesting. The Guardian has tied itself firmly to the 97% meme. Dana’s regular column is called “Climate Consensus – The 97%”. It is officially the accepted heading of every one of his Guardian articles.
    So why has the Guardian decided to accept that their headings are ridiculous?
    Perhaps it is a result of the local and Euro elections here in the UK last week. Those fascinating results included the failure of the Green Party to pick up votes from the Lib Dems. Instead the Lib Dem vote disappeared. At the last General Election the Guardian endorsed backing the Lib Dems… this has alienated many of their core readership who do not like pledge-breakers and Tories.
    So this time Guardian has been urging the Greens as the left wing alternative. But as that has failed the Guardian needs to backtrack on its eco-suicide agenda. It needs to go back to Labour and the industrial working class interests over the bored Brighton schoolteachers.
    Or it needs to push Labour away from the manufacturing classes. The Guardian has been urging this.

  30. Once again, Tol’s debating arsenal is as unsupportable as his opponent’s. Tol is basically saying that if you do it right, the thing the opponent is saying will look more like it’s supposed to look to the rest of us, not getting at all that he is putting lipstick on his opponent’s pig.

  31. Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

    Consensus can sometimes stifle research and curiosity. My hat goes off to those stubborn scientists who went against consensus. Nothing should be immune from constant testing, checking and observations, nothing.

    We used to think the world was flat. Then we found out it was spherical. Then we found out it was an oblate spheroid

  32. We had a consensus.

    IMPOSSIBLE?

    Guardian – 5 October 2011
    Nobel Prize in Chemistry for dogged work on ‘impossible’ quasicrystals
    Daniel Shechtman, who has won the chemistry Nobel for discovering quasicrystals, was initially lambasted for ‘bringing disgrace’ on his research group
    …Daniel Shechtman, 70, a researcher at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, received the award for discovering seemingly impossible crystal structures in frozen gobbets of metal that resembled the beautiful patterns seen in Islamic mosaics.

    Images of the metals showed their atoms were arranged in a way that broke well-establised rules of how crystals formed, a finding that fundamentally altered how chemists view solid matter…..

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/oct/05/nobel-prize-chemistry-work-quasicrystals

    UNHEALTHY FOODS?

    Guardian – 23 March 2014
    Why almost everything you’ve been told about unhealthy foods is wrong
    Eggs and red meat have both been on the nutritional hit list – but after a major study last week dismissed a link between fats and heart disease, is it time for a complete rethink?
    ………
    Last week it fell to a floundering professor, Jeremy Pearson, from the British Heart Foundation to explain why it still adheres to the nutrition establishment’s anti-saturated fat doctrine when evidence is stacking up to refute it. After examining 72 academic studies involving more than 600,000 participants, the study, funded by the foundation, found that saturated fat consumption was not associated with coronary disease risk. This assessment echoed a review in 2010 that concluded “there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease”……

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/23/everything-you-know-about-unhealthy-foods-is-wrong

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

    Annals of Internal Medicine – 18 March, 2014
    Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury et al
    Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

    Primary Funding Source: British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and Gates Cambridge.

    http://tinyurl.com/q3hqfvc

    The last study was actually funded by the British Heart Foundation, MRC and others.

    Science should never be settled.

  33. The upside down, anti-paleo diet Food Pyramid is indeed a perfect example of everyday madness of scientific crowds that required no grand conspiracy, just a single activist professor named Keys who like Hansen went straight to policy makers with a single bullet theory. The extreme arrogance of most of the medical profession against cholesterol hypothesis skeptics even continues to this day. It’s great news for skepticism in general that the current urban professional crowd who have yet to figure out climate fraud have already started to recognize the dietary science fraud coming from government and older doctors. Why point to Agenda 21 conspiracies that come off as paranoid rants when everyday corruption of science already has such clear precedent?

  34. Some idiot commenter at the Guardian said:

    jsam artwest
    06 June 2014 7:32pm
    Stern was commenting on economics.
    Tol comments on everything, including gremlins.

    Below is one of the reasons they kept banning me from the Guardian – contrarianism.

    LORD STERN
    Guardian – 26 January 2013

    Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’
    ……………
    “Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.”
    ===================

    Daily Telegraph – 27 May 2013
    Lord Stern
    I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience……

    Lord Stern pointed out that all these effects run in cycles or are random so warming could accelerate again soon.

    In the next five to ten years it is likely we will see the acceleration because these things go in cycles,” he warned.

    Economics! Not to mention Lord Stern’s co2 investments.

  35. There’s still the a priori (or is it historical?) argument that in a real science if one cannot do careful experiments and/or if one is dealing with a very complex system, then it is highly unlikely that nearly everyone will agree on basic causes. The basic problem is control – if you don’t have really good controls in your empirical work, then results from different investigations will be all over the map – and you will have little agreement, even on what’s what. (One example, hybridization experiments before Mendel where pure lines were not used – the results were a mess. Another example: animal nutrition and feeding experiments before well-controlled diets were available.)

    Given that in climate science, they are dealing with the entire atmosphere-hydrosphere-etc-etc, even talking about good controls is a joke. Hence, a 97% consensus must be viewed with suspicion – in somewhat the same spirit as evaluating claims about cold fusion or perpetual motion machines.

  36. My word, such sound and fury from Cook’s activist output, a goofy amateur hour study that equated boilerplate mention of man made warming in mere abstracts, akin to old books all thanking the king, to scientific support of climate *alarm*, and in Enron worthy fashion, a glossy brochure is now minted for the shareholders as a pretty smoke screen against those noisy critics:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf?f=24errors

    Piled higher and deeper, just give Cook a Ph.D. already, in social “science” indeed.

  37. Interesting. Dana must be reaching boiling point. He has had a comment removed by the moderator!

    DanaNuccitelli > Deejay830
    06 June 2014 9:21pm
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

    http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/36654894

    We are making progress. You make mistakes when you get angry I hear.

  38. @rustneversleeps:

    How many times do you need to be told that ‘consensus science’ is an oxymoron, moron??

    If ‘consensus’ matters to you, then you should know that the CO2 consensus is firmly on the side of scientific skeptics — which you certainly are not.

    The pre-Kyoto OISM Petition was co-signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers, who each had to possess a degree in one of the hard sciences. They included more than 9,000 PhD’s, and they stated that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

    I challenge YOU to come up with even 10% of that number of scientists and engineers, who are willing to state that human CO2 emissions are harmful.

    You can’t do it, chump, because no one else has been able to do it. You have no ‘consensus’, and your “97%” number is pure hogwash. You have yet to have an original thought. People like you are simply mindless tools for self-serving grant gravy train riders.

  39. Calm down, dbstealey.

    You seem to lose it every time a timid warmist dares to so much as make a peep hereabouts. What’s that all about, the “moron” stuff? Sensitive much, db?

    It was your fellow “skeptic” (also a fellow quick-to-anger type apparently) arthur4563 who said:

    if you want to know the opinions of scientists about global warming, YOU ASK THEM, STUPID.

    and I merely pointed out that Cook et al (2013) did just that.

    To your point, yes, science is not “done” by consensus, but evidence compels science to arrive at various consensuses. And one has clearly been achieved amongst climate scientists regarding AGW. The IPCC AR5 WG1 or the recent 3rd U.S. National Climate Assessment are just two recent examples of that… notwithstanding the fact that your OISM petition can haul out Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Radar O’Reilly to take your side.

    Several studies have been done – and published in the academic literature – using a variety of different methods, surveying and confirming the overwhelming scientific consensus. So it seems to me it is really more for “your” side to prove otherwise at this point.

    By the way, since consensus means so very little to you, db, why do you seem to flip out when the topic arises?

    Beautiful day here. Hope you are enjoying yours as well. best, rust…

  40. @rustneversleeps:

    More than 31,000 scientists and engineers were asked about the effect of GHGs. They responded by co-signing a statement saying that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial. They couldn’t email their statement; they had to physically sign it, then mail it in. In other words, they went out of their way to make their position known.

    Contrast that with your nonsensical 79 nobodies. Can you even name them? What, exactly, did they sign? Anything? Or has your mind been colonized by Cook’s propaganda, to the point that you are unable to even ask yourself those questions?

    I challenge you to post your mythical “studies… published in the academic literature – using a variety of different methods, surveying and confirming the overwhelming scientific consensus.” Go ahead. I’ll wait.

    To support your ‘consensus’ nonsense, your bogus ‘studies’ will have to total more than 31,000 respondents, and you will have to name each one. I have done that several times now. I can name more than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, who flat Do Not Agree with Cook’s flatulence.

    Finally, I see no such names as Ginger Spice, etc., in the OISM Petition. Where did you get that nonsense? From Cook, no doubt. And as usual, it is a flat out lie. But you believed it, so I suppose his propaganda worked on you.

  41. I find it somewhat ironic that someone who keeps saying that consensus doesn’t matter keeps pointing to a survey to show that there exists a consensus.

    I really don’t follow the blog wars closely enough to be obsessed with the OISM petition. I see they did *new* one, the better part of a decade ago. Very few domain experts in there. I will stick with what the experts are saying. Again, try the IPCC AR5 WG1, WG2, WG3 and the thrird US National Climate Assessment for starters. Unless you believe there is a giant conspiracy amongst the scientists preparing these reports… oh wait, let me guess… you do believe that? Well, then, you stick with your feisty band of truth defenders at OISM, then. Me, I will stick with what the domain experts are conclusively saying.

    By the way, dbstealey, I had a rather extensive post up that touched on Tol’s math error. Probably an hour or two ago. Anybody seen that post around?

    Anyway, gotta go to dinner. best, rust

    p.s. Anthony had asked me a question about the data needed for replication of Cook et al (2013), and the info like raterid’s, that was withheld. I may come back later with a fun story of how the efforts of Anthony and Richard Tol conspired to, regrettably, prevent much of that from being released. Own goal.

    REPLY: Why not show your cards now Mr. Morrison? If your plan is to argue that because of the many different letters and essays that were written on the subject of Cook’s failures and fabrications has caused them the be reticent to release scientific data to allow replication, then I don’t think that will fly. There’s never any excuse for real scientists to withhold data that allows others to replicate or verify a premise.

    But if you are a propagandist, then yes, withholding is an important part of the process lest they be caught out. I see from your Facebook page that you are a big cheerleader for the 97% consensus. If you believe it so much, why are you in the corner of preventing replication? Or is it that you yourself, hiding behind fake names and offering nothing substantive other than taunts, are a propagandist yourself? – Anthony

  42. These two defenders of the consensus believe they have it nailed down.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming?commentpage=1

    Fergus Brown 07 June 2014 8:37pm
    …..” I also got a 97% result. Are you claiming I concocted my work?”

    Tremelo 07 June 2014 8:40pm
    “Why do you disbelieve there is a consensus when even Richard Tol says “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role”.

  43. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    __________________
    Do you also comment here under the nom de plume. magma? There is a stylistic similarity in your words.

  44. I repeat:
    The interesting thing is that Richard Tol got to speak at the Guardian.

    He could have been ignored and the easily swayed Guardianistas (like myself) would never have known there was reason to doubt the 97% – near – certainty about the evilness of AGW doubt.

    Why try to beat them if they are offering not to fight?

  45. Alan Robertson says:
    June 7, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    rustneversleeps … Do you also comment here under the nom de plume. magma? There is a stylistic similarity in your words.
    _______________________________________
    No. rustneversleeps is the nom de plume. I’m pretty sure my real name was highlighted on the other Tol thread. In dbstealey’s taxonomy, probably just a “nobody”.

  46. When “the consensus” is softly defined enough to result in a 97% measure of it among working scientists, about 97% of climate model skeptics are also swept into the tent where indeed humans are responsible for *some* amount of enhanced warming, so the entire exercise is ridiculous.

    From Cook’s abstract: “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    What it does *not* claim is that 97.1% endorse climate *alarm*.

    He goes on: “Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening….”

    But nobody except climate “scientists” claim that climate doesn’t change naturally or isn’t changing naturally now. Not a single person on this planet claims that climate change is not happening, any more than you might find a person to claim that the seasons do not change or that cats do not meow.

    Yet rustneversleeps takes this drivel seriously enough to become an activist about it in *support* of it? Well, certainly propogranda requires activism I guess, to create enough confusion amongst the already converted not to suddenly question it.

    Dr. Tol was also immediately able to spot how Cook used the bizarre boutique search term “global climate change” instead of the standard terms of “global warming” or “climate change” in his abstract selection search, thus tossing out the vast majority of climate papers.

    The scam here is sociological, in that a false dichotomy is willfully created that is known to be deceptive, namely it slanders skeptics of the highly amplified version of the greenhouse effect as being deniers of the mild and beneficial old school textbook greenhouse effect itself, as if CO2 had zero influence on climate. That may well be so, due to negative feedbacks, but in the main the whole hockey stick team and the associated “tree house club” of SkepticalScience.com are very well aware that only a tiny fraction (about 3% indeed) of skeptics in maverick fashion construct paper tiger attacks on the greenhouse effect itself, on its warming *influence*.

    Exactly what question did Cook ask the climatologists in order to rate their paper abstracts? Was it the IPCC definition of attribution that at least half of recent warming is due to man? No, that was *not* the question, was it? In a paper that uses the word “consensus” 24 times, the term is not even defined.

    For his truly alarmist ranking of category 1 of “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming,” he found a mere 0.3% of a “consensus,” as the peer reviewed debunking of it demonstrated, but Cook’s paper deceptively combined with a much softer category that even included “implicit” endorsement in which the subject of the paper alone, without stating it at all, *assumes* man is causing warming (yes, but how much, and how can potentially *natural* warming be classified by Cook as being assumed to be man made instead?):

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

    In the era of Internet access, it’s funny to watch the melt down of would be propagandists, when real facts are free to publish. Today, rustneversleeps has motivated me to learn more about Cook’s deception so that I can better address it in the future. Defending slander against sincere critics of supercomputer model assumptions is shamefully immoral and amount to fraud to the extent that grant money is involved to academics and green economy crony capitalists, and I intend to help it all go the way of Enron who invented carbon trading in the first place.

    -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  47. Dbstealey clings to the idea that science is not done by consensus but it is done by petition. That’s a good joke. Made better by the signature of Geraldine Halliwell PhD.

    Tol’s particular shark is contained here:” Science is not a set of results. Science is a method.” So it doesn’t actually matter what the result is, it’s all about doing it right. So the forthcoming soccer World Cup will not be decided by the number of goals scored but the quality of the passing. The counting of sunspots, the measurement of temperatures, there is no point in Tol’s world. Except, of course, he is wrong about the results bit.

  48. Guardian contributor
    DanaNuccitelli > Smith1867

    06 June 2014 8:07pm

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    _______________________
    jajajaja

  49. kylezachary says:
    June 7, 2014 at 10:23 am
    “…Someone give us a number. Stop researching how the other guy did it and let’s make our own and one that is done objectively and cannot be dismissed. As a fellow skeptic, give me a real number or drop it.”
    ========
    Kyle, you are demanding the right answer to the wrong question. We need good science, not better surveys. Real skeptics know this. Surveys generally only indicate the effectiveness of the propaganda. And “dropping it” leaves the propaganda unchallenged. The skeptical approach will win in the end: show the errors and machinations in the existing consensus while promoting real science, wherever it leads.

  50. this is a fake fight. it’s the Delphi Technique. tol is here to close on Da Synthesis.
    cook says 97, tol says 95 – and it just has zero relevance but it keeps the bull chasing the cape.
    these guys are stupid but look how they outsmart their enemies.
    what’s that tell ya?

  51. @ Don says:
    June 7, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    ____________________________________________________________
    That’s actually not how “real science” works, Don.

    I will quote from a letter of support – signed by a who’s who list of leading climate economists – defending Dr, Frank Ackerman in another unfounded attack/hatchet job by Richard Tol:

    “Above all, we urge scholars with criticisms of each other’s work to pursue them through the normal channels of academic debate. If you doubt another researcher’s results, try to replicate the analysis, and then publish your findings. If you don’t like a published article, publish a better one.

    This is what we are *not* seeing from the “skeptics” of Cook et al’s 2013 consensus paper – a legitimate attempt at replication. Instead, it is just flailing slur after unsubstantiated slur.

    Tol himself admits that he can’t be bothered trying to replicate Cook’s study – too much work for old Dickie, and he already realizes the result would show consensus in the high nineties (as he is also on record saying). Instead, he chooses to simply make a “destructive” comment.


    I have three choices:
    a. shut up
    b. destructive comment
    c. constructive comment

    a. is wrong
    c. is not an option. I don’t have the resources to redo what they did, and I think it is silly to search a large number of papers that are off-topic; there are a number of excellent surveys of the relevant literature already, so there is no point in me replicating that.

    that leaves b

    But of course, as we see in the Ackerman case, Tol has prior history in choosing not to do replication work in favour of destructive sniping…

    Yes, there are times when you need to simply challenge flawed research that makes it through the initial peer review process. For instance, when Dr. Tol mixes up plus and minus signs in his economics research (see Andrew Gelman’s article in the Washington Post last month. Tol blames these embarrassing mistakes on “gremlins” mysteriously messing with his spreadsheets…)

    I will note that I had an extensive post up earlier (one of two or three apparently in moderation) on Tol’s math error, specifically pointing to Neal King’s comment on Tol’s blog showing that people are going to the effort to replicate Tol’s math. And it is wrong. Replication, not just sniping. That’s how it’s done… And it is rather delicious to do so with Tol’s current nonsense paper that our host embarrassingly keeps bringing to his readers’ attention….

  52. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    “What does that mean, Eamon.”

    That means it’s not warming. Tol vs. Nuccitelli is irrelevant. Warmist vs. Warmist. Who cares.

  53. M Courtney says:
    June 7, 2014 at 2:20 pm
    “I repeat:
    The interesting thing is that Richard Tol got to speak at the Guardian. ”

    That means that warmism is no longer key to the regime’s strategy. Regime too busy now with fighting for financial survival. (Guardian = Regime propaganda outlet)

  54. As Rustneversleeps shows, those who believe 97% in global warming are incapable of being objective about any climate data or climate research results whatsoever.

    They just believe and they need need to repeat each morning three times when they wake up …

    … Global warming is real …
    … It is happening now …
    … And it is caused by humans…
    … scientists agree 97% that this is the case…
    … We want climate justice now.

    Repeat three times.

    Quite cultish and creepy in my opinion.

  55. I particularly like the bit where Tol says “There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.”
    His words not mine.

  56. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 3:51 pm
    ————–

    “Tol’s blog showing that people are going to the effort to replicate Tol’s math. And it is wrong. Replication, not just sniping.”

    a) Replicating math calcs is not comparable to replicating data collection
    b) Ever heard of Steve McIntyre? He’s done a fair share of math replication too. Not much in the way of tree ring data collection though.

    Not being a scientist, I’m unclear on the hurdles behind data collection. I thought Tol would do far more. But, the methodology of this study is flawed anyway, so I’m not even sure what replication proves. Hey, people that write articles about baseball….like baseball, hurrah!

  57. Siberian_husky says:
    June 7, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    I particularly like the bit where Tol says “There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.”
    His words not mine.
    __________________
    Ok. Climate change is real. How much is human made? Pre- 1950 and since then? Do you just mean climate warming, or any kind of climate change?

  58. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    If you doubt another researcher’s results, try to replicate the analysis, and then publish your findings. If you don’t like a published article, publish a better one.

    This is what we are *not* seeing from the “skeptics” of Cook et al’s 2013 consensus paper – a legitimate attempt at replication. Instead, it is just flailing slur after unsubstantiated slur.
    ________________________
    Seems like there was a recent kerfluffle about Cook not releasing substantial parts of his research, which precludes replication, etc. Seems like others have mentioned that to you, as well. What do you think about that?

  59. Rust, Go back and read your link. Of the authors that wrote a paper supporting AGW (32.6% of the publications) 97.1 support AGW. Without even having to go through Tol’s paper or anyone elses, it is clear straight off the top from the beginning the 97% does not hold water/
    His follow up question poll was mundane: do you think humans have caused any climate change. Cook posted research that the researchers themselves DO NOT support AGW.
    .
    Some of the Cook papers and authors that Crook claims support AGW include the following scientists who have been very clear they do NOT support such assumptions
    Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlinby, in particular.
    .
    To call research into debate is not a slur. If it follows scientific method, the findings can be replicated. As a scientist, I am sure you agree with that.

  60. Their great mistake was blaming greenhouse gases, 95% that is water molecules. Then trying to push green energy to save the planet. There are so many variables dictating weather and precipitation patterns. Wind, ocean currents, cosmic rays, position of the sun and our orbit, these forces are so strong we cannot control them. And most of the fresh water is held up in ice, and ground water that is finite if it is tapped too much it will disappear forever. Anyway more should join him or be silenced forever.

  61. Seems like there was a recent kerfluffle about Cook not releasing substantial parts of his research, which precludes replication, etc

    I have seen comments like this several times, and it is a limited understanding of what is meant by “replication”. Replication is more than just getting someone’s data and checking their arithmetic. You do not needs Cook’s data, in fact you are better off without it. The sceptic community could easily arrange a bit of crowd sourcing and get a bunch of people to rate several thousand papers and do, and publish, their own survey. A proper scientific replication of an experiment is best if you re-investigate the conclusion by independent means, not by just reanalysing what was done before.

  62. There’s a lot of talk on this blog about replicating Cook et al’s analysis. I think that’s a fair call, although whether the figure is 97% or 91%, the conclusion is largely the same- an overwhelming consensus. To read several thousand abstracts and rate them- that’s a lot of work. If you are so concerned about the Cook et al article and the degree of consensus in the scientific community here’s a much easier task for you:
    Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming. Given the supposed lack of consensus this will be really easy to do presumably. And when i say “genuine peer reviewed scientific articles” I don’t mean books, websites, the Indian Journal of Dodgy Results or the Exxon/Heartland/CEI we couldnt get this crap published anywhere else so we made up our own journal- but proper respected scientific journals.
    What’s that crickets? A series of comments not stepping up to the challenge and instead trying to divert the issue?

  63. NikFromNYC asks rust/Morrison:

    Exactly what question did Cook ask the climatologists in order to rate their paper abstracts?

    Good question. Answer it if you can, propagandist.

    And I asked for the names of the 77 supposed ‘scientists’ who signed on to this nonsesne, and the specific statement they were agreeing to. It is nowhere in the bogus Cook paper. So give us the names, and the statement, Morrison/rustboi. Or will you just emit a cloud of pixels again and run away?

    See, we’re discussing something that hasn’t even been defined. Typical misdirection by the alarmist cult.

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

    Margaret Hardman says:

    The counting of sunspots, the measurement of temperatures, there is no point in Tol’s world.

    Psychological projection: Margaret is afflicted with it.

    In Margaret’s world, global warming is happening. But in the real world, global warming stopped more than fifteen years ago.

    The planet itself is debunking the alarmist religion. All they can do now is use ad hominem arguments, because their science arguments fail.

    Morrison and Margaret are failures. They took a position, then when the facts falsified their belief system, they didn’t do the right thing, and admit it. Instead, they keep digging their hole deeper.

    There is a reason these fools don’t argue empirical facts. Their heads would explode from the cognitive dissonance.

  64. Siberian_husky says:

    There’s a lot of talk on this blog about replicating Cook et al’s analysis. I think that’s a fair call, although whether the figure is 97% or 91%, the conclusion is largely the same- an overwhelming consensus.

    Since you also seem to know exactly what the question was that those so-called ‘scientists’ were responding to, and no doubt you know their names, why don’t you just post that information here? Then we will know what we’re discussing. Because so far, it is just a lot of baseless assertions.

    Dog continues:

    Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming.

    You are really clueless about how the scientific method works, aren’t you?

    What you did there is to try and put scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative. Nice try, but you fail. Listen up: Skeptics have nothing to prove. And the alarmist cult has failed miserably to make a convincing case.

    Instead of your endless palaver about some mysterious statement that some mysterious ‘scientists’ were agreeing to, why don’t we discuss empirical evidence?

    The reason is obvious: there is no empirical evidence that supports the belief that AGW exists. It may exist. Or not [I personally think that human CO2 emissions have a minuscule warming effect]. But where is the evidence?

    Note that scientific evidence consists of verifiable raw data. Evidence is not computer models, or pal-reviewed papers.

    The alarmist cult always avoids discussing evidence, because there is no testable, measurable evidence showing conclusively that human activity causes global warming. None at all.

    You jamokes went to the movies and watched Algore’s nonsense, and now it’s your religion. Sad, but true.

  65. I love it when the Siberian Hussey and Rusty Bed-springs pop up.
    Watching them twisting and turning and fuming and fulminating is certain proof that their beloved consensus…so brilliantly rigged by Mann, Jones and Co (see Climategate emails) is crumbling.
    Let’s face it, if SkS is sending them over here on these suicide missions you know that the end must be near!

  66. Oh, dbstealey, you are so scary and authoritative! Be still my beating heart.

    Please, sir. Can we have some more?

  67. P.S. – what ever happened to my extensive comment about Tol’s math and other topics? It must be about 6 hours now?

  68. P.P.S. – thanks to our host for his request for info in his reply to me earlier comment – I will eagerly comply! Also, thanks for creeping my Facebook page, AW! How weird are you?

    REPLY: I didn’t realize that looking at somebody’s Facebook page out of curiosity, and noticing that you have made Cook’s 97% badge your personal badge of honor by making it your profile picture was “creepy”.

    You identified yourself in some of your very early WUWT comments, so I looked.

    If you want an example of “creepy” behavior, your hero, John Cook, wins hands down for allowing pictures like this on his SkS forum, though maybe, we really should go back to calling it by its true initials “SS”, which for some reason they didn’t like.

    When you have an argument of substance the actually can challenge Tol, please let me know. – Anthony

  69. When you say I am impotent, dbstealey, are you referring to the fact that my comments are being selectively posted here? Because if that, I feel about as impotent as being prevented from being your BFF. As in not impotent at all.

    We all know this ends with me being banned.

    Why not post my comment?

    The host will be getting the data issue soon enough, tough guy.

  70. There is a similarity between creationists and evolutionists. Long live Darwin. I mean you had Sarah Palin who could have been your vice president some years ago. She stated ‘humans walked with dinosaurs’ Must have viewed Jurassic Park movie. It wouldn’t be hard to convince creationists that humans do or can change climate and weather patterns. As humans were not around millions of years ago, and their belief in the literal meaning in Genesis, of six days etc., how do they even think that 6,000 years ago when God started the creation everywhere, the dinosaurs were well and truly absent. Don’t you think the whole AGW consensus is much like some medieval concept of the world and that we are so powerful we can change the weather.

  71. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    “We all know this ends with me being banned. ”
    ________________________
    It looks to me as if you have gone out of your way to be as serially obnoxious as you can be. One could deduce that you really want to get banned so that you can run home to SKS and point fingers back at WUWT. The only thing you’ve brought to this discussion is distraction.

  72. The ignorance shown by alarmists is staggering. At one time many years ago, (listening Rusty et al) people believed in magic, and being possessed by demons or the devil, that witches flew on broomsticks, had sex with the devil, and could change the weather. Then it was other beasts, and now being taken by aliens to be experimented on. UFOs, and the second coming. They are all myths, without any scientific reasoning or rationality or evidence. And some are the products of unsound minds and attention seekers with hidden agendas. Good Hollywood material of course. Blair Witch movie that made millions for the students who produced it. My son then only a teenager was sucked in, and I was studying film at UNE at the time. ‘Son – did you read the disclaimer at the end of the film’
    It clearly announced it was a fictional piece! ‘ Well gud luck to the film makers, but I turned it off after the first 10 minutes.
    And you Rusty and your mates have been gullible and easily conned. Still believe in magic? But you won’t get any consensus of your particular form of science here. Although it may make you feel better by rubbishing some of our more learned scientists and posters on this blog. There are no fools here, …..most times.

  73. Uh, no, Alan.

    I don’t hang out here because I think it is pathetic. And that goes for comment sections pretty much everywhere. So banning me, who cares?

    But it is wholly wrong to say all I brought on my special visit was “distractions”. Ignore everything else I said – where is the long, multiple-link comment I made (almost) yesterday about Tol’s math and other issues? No one curious about that?

    Certainly nobody responding to that, obviously. Wonder why?

    REPLY: Multiple link comments are automatically sent to the SPAM filter by wordpress.com, our host, as is their policy. We don’t have control over it. They are indistinguishable from SPAM by Akismet. Post it again, then make an immediate note that you posted it, and we’ll see if we can find it. We get thousands of SPAM comments a day, as do most wordpress.com blogs. There’s a whole cottage industry doing that sort of thing, trying to elevate commercial websites by posting blog comments – Anthony

  74. bushbunny says:
    June 7, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    There is a similarity between creationists and evolutionists.

    Do tell, bbunny. They both use ATP, the Krebs cycle, that sort of thing?

  75. Because bbunny is special – neither a creationism NOR an evolutionist! Special.

  76. Rusty, I am definitely an evolutionist. I don’t understand your comment at 8.37pm. Please explain. You do sound very young still in high school?

  77. You go look in your spam folder, then. Why are you withholding my comment? Release the data! You have my permission! Release the data! What are you hiding?

    [Ain't nuthin' dere boss! .mod]

    REPLY: Verified, nothing there from you. SPAM gets deleted regularly. Like I said post it again, and give an immediate notice you’ve done so, and we’ll look for it. – Anthony

  78. Siberian_husky says:
    June 7, 2014 at 7:47 pm
    ———–
    “Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming”

    What is with using this method as a means to prove anything? Go find me 10 articles that explicitly rule out martians. Sheesh, Is this really the way science works? Even most skeptics on here don’t “explicitly rule out” anything.

    Its flat embarassing that we have polls on almost everything daily in politics….meanwhile some “scientists” are sitting around gathering opinions from articles people write and its supposed to mean something.

  79. So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper. Thought that would be the case. Woof.

  80. Siberian_husky says:

    So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper.

    You have no clue, do you? Trying to get skeptics to defend a negative is a loser’s game, loser. Grow up.

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

    @Morrison:

    When you say I am impotent, dbstealey, are you referring…

    I am referring to your limp response. You never post scientific facts. Never. All you post is ad hominem nonsense.

    Try posting scientific facts for once, and we can debate that. Otherwise, you lose the debate, chump.

  81. Siberian_husky says:
    June 7, 2014 at 10:12 pm

    So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper. Thought that would be the case. Woof.
    ___________
    I gave you a link with over 1,000 papers. Catch up.

  82. You gave me a link that cited opinion pieces and a whole load of economic papers. I want hard data. Ten publications surely isn’t too much to ask given all that supposed uncertainty in the community. Oh yeah, from the last couple of years would be nice too.
    And Mr Stealy I asked you to disprove my assertion that GW was due to anthropogenic influences. That is disproving a positive- not a negative. It’s how Science works. :-)

  83. Siberian_husky says:
    June 7, 2014 at 10:12 pm
    So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper. Thought that would be the case. Woof.

    My apologies, here are your ten that you requested:

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, September 1997)
    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    Is the additional greenhouse effect already evident in the current climate?
    (Fresenius’ Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Volume 371, Number 6, pp. 791-797, November 2001)
    – E. Raschke

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
    – S. Fred Singer

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, pp. 899-910, August 2006)
    – L. F. Khilyuk, G. V. Chilingar

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 275-364, January 2009)
    – Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
    (Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp. 1207-1213, September 2009)
    – G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. F. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

    Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences
    (Geoscience Canada, Volume 38, Number 1, pp. 41-48, March 2011)
    – Norman R. Paterson

    Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
    (Energy Sources, Volume 33, Issue 21, pp. 1985-1992, August 2011)
    – Xiaobing Zhaoa

    Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact
    (Natural Science, Volume 3, Number 12, pp. 971-998, December 2011)
    – Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

    Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2
    (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1-20, May 2014)
    – François Gervais

  84. Siberian_husky says:
    June 7, 2014 at 11:25 pm
    You gave me a link that cited opinion pieces and a whole load of economic papers.

    Why are you lying? None of the papers on the list are opinion papers and the economic papers are but a small fraction of the list. I suggest reading the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section:

    Criticism: Papers on the list are commentary or editorials.

    Rebuttal: Every counted paper on the list is a peer-reviewed research or review paper. Certain scholarly journals that do not focus on primary research such as, Trends in Parasitology include research-related ‘Opinion’ articles that are peer-reviewed. These scholarly works should not be confused with general commentary or editorial pieces that appear in magazines and newspapers.

    Criticism: Papers on the list are not physical science papers.

    Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.

  85. “It looks to me as if you have gone out of your way to be as serially obnoxious as you can be.”

    @Alan

    By any objective examination of the postings people have been a lot more obnoxious towards this person than he has been back to them. He has stayed quite polite considering the insults thrown at him.

    “All they can do now is use ad hominem arguments, because their science arguments fail.”

    @dbstealey

    As you have been the leading poster of ad hominem comments perhaps you should reflect on the quality of your science arguments. You are very quick to call people morons or dummies with no provocation. I think a bit of self-awareness is in order.

  86. Cream bourbon, I think you are just mixing it up. You don’t think. Or look. As a first poster here I consider you just one of those trolls who want to have a go at people since your mates have just failed to impress. Before you make ignorant assertions you have not gone to the trouble of finding out whom you are quoting and what are their qualifications to make a justified comment on this blog. And for your own interest, ‘we’ve heard it all before’! No provocation? Geesus. Husky and Rusty sound like teenagers whose parents won’t let them borrow a car. Ain’t the real world something you haven’t woken up to yet. And a hint, the real world gets harsher the older one gets.

  87. @bushbunny

    Well, plenty of unsubstantiated assertions there bushbunny. How about addressing the points I actually made that rustneversleeps is far more sinned against than sinning? And he has tried to make some reasonable points about Tol’s paper which have not been debated.

  88. He hasn’t displayed or posted anything but crap so far. He was invited to resend his analysis again, as he asserts it went to spam and wasn’t posted. Debates are debates and all he has submitted are not reasonable points – so far. We await with bated breath but he hasn’t sent anything in. Got lost in the mail perhaps or it was never sent.

  89. @bushbunny

    Describing his contributions as crap is just an opinion. How about some proper refutation? And that has been the level of most of the responses.

    I would guess that rustneversleeps could contribute a whole lot better if anyone here actually made some reasonable points but the level of real, honest, connecting interaction on these two Tol threads has been very poor.

    The fact is most of the replies to rustneversleeps have been slagging him off. Not addressing what he has been saying.

  90. “Cream Bourbon says:

    June 8, 2014 at 12:59 am

    The fact is most of the replies to rustneversleeps have been slagging him off. Not addressing what he has been saying.”

    So when someone, like me, who posts in blogs like WUWT the accepted scientific fact that changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temperatures by some 800 years is also “slagged” off by posties like you and others is equally “not addressing what is being said” is OK by you and others that support your PoV?

  91. @Patrick

    Posties like me? OK by me? My PoV? A lot of assumptions being made by you.

    Oh, look, a rabbit!

    Try sticking to the actual point of whether rustyneversleeps is being treated evenly and fairly on this forum.

  92. Keith, I lived and worked in London in the 1950s, until early 1960. When I returned from Cyprus in 1963 in February, restrictions where already there, no smoke, but people were still burning coke. They had smoke inspectors and they patrolled and if they saw smoke coming from a chimney they warned the inhabitants to burn something else, and if spotted a second time, they were fined two hundred pounds, that was a lot then. Then smokeless fuels came in, but I moved to Lincolnshire, where black coal was graded, and what that meant you got bigger blocks, that lasted longer and had no slack in it. But now, as far as I know, central heating is either oil or gas, and coal lite that we used is no longer used.
    No doubt black coal is still used but mate, it was dear then 5 pounds a cwt. Two cwt didn’t last you long either if you had a night burning fireplace. Battersea burned coke. It cost $10 pounds generally every three weeks.

  93. Bourbon, by crap I mean he hasn’t posted any analysis at any time, blaming the moderator who has someways deliberately not posted it. I asked him/her to submit it again. And he/she has not done so. His points therefore remain illusive. Has can we determine if there is any credibility in his opposing argument if we can not read it.

  94. Cream Bourbon Oh, look, a rabbit!

    now that is ironic given rustneversleeps and their little friends purpose was to derail the subject of the post by some smear and troll approach, rather than deal with its facts . To be fair they managed to do it too.
    Do you think they get a medal form the SS kiddies for their ‘good work’

  95. bushbunny says:
    June 8, 2014 at 4:56 am

    __________
    It’s hard to refrain from responding to these trolls, but why bother with a futile effort? Two of them clearly have personality disorders while a third is very practiced at misdirection and obfuscation, although approaching zero credibility, having too often ladled cream on a turd while trying to pass it off as strawberries.

  96. Alan, I agree, there are many teachers on this blog, and I am sure they have heard the excuse, ‘The Dog ate my homework’ Anyway, I’m off to bed, tomorrow is another day.

  97. Mr Poptech it seems that article number one on your list “The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, September 1997)
    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis”
    has been thoroughly debunked in the same journal- Wigley et al. 2000:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL011611/pdf

    Legates et al made a series of embarassing schoolboy howlers. Here’s a copy of the Wigley et al. conclusion (which I might add was published in the very same journal 2 years later and so you might say is tacit endorsement by the editors and the journal that the original Legates paper was a pile of rubbish- oh, and even more telling, there is no reply by Legates et al, although if my ass was handed to me on a plate like this, Id probably be making myself scarce too):

    “We have addressed L&D’s main criticisms in detail and find them to be
    without substance. Their criticisms arise in three ways:
    through a failure to note that the standard method used to
    assess the statistical significance of R(t) is to use control-run
    climate model data and stochastic methods to generate null hypothesis
    sampling distributions (rather than employing
    simple parametric tests, as L&D erroneously assume);
    through the use of an unrealistic and contrived example; and
    through an incomplete analysis and erroneous interpretation
    of R(t) results from this example. L&D do make other
    criticisms, but these are also ill-founded. For example, they
    state (without giving any specific examples) that papers
    employing pattern correlation methods confuse correlation
    with causality. In fact, none of the papers cited by L&D have
    fallen into this elementary trap. The standard procedure is to
    rigorously test hypothesized human effects on climate against
    alternative explanations, such as natural climate variability;
    and the literature on the subject has been assiduously careful
    not to over-interpret pattern correlation results. Pattern
    correlation methods remain, therefore, a robust and powerful
    tool in climate-change detection and attribution studies”.

    Ouch!

    I believe that is what is commonly referred to as a “smack down”.

    I might read paper number two tomorrow although the fact that your first set of authors don’t understand a relatively simple statistic and then completely trash their reputation writing about it for all to see is not exactly a good start for the sceptic’s case.

    Woof.

  98. NikFromNYC says: June 7, 2014 at 11:42 am

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf?f=24errors

    Look at the 24-point document it is not even in a scientific format but in some sort of pamphlet form like you would find with Scientology trying to sell you on their Gish Gallop. I’ve read many scientific rebuttals before and none have ever looked like this promotional material.

    The title is not even in proper scientific format for a rebuttal “Reaffirming the 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming” – what is this need for this promotion? It is almost as if they are afraid you are going to forget about their talking point while reading the title.
    Then you have authors originating from a website?

    John Cook 1,2,3,
    Dana Nuccitelli 2
    Rob Painting 2
    Rob Honeycutt 2

    2 Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    The paper claims the website is located in Brisbane but Host Virtual does not have any data centers in Brisbane let alone Australia.

    Look at this desperation, claiming Dr. Tol’s opinion on “polarisation” is a critical error?

    24. False claim of polarisation

    ROFLMAO! Are they serious?

  99. Siberian_husky says: June 8, 2014 at 7:35 am
    Mr Poptech it seems that article number one on your list …has been thoroughly debunked in the same journal.

    Ah yes, now you are going to try to criticize the papers in some desperate flailing to save face after bragging that none could be produced. You appear to be massively confused, I specifically selected these papers because you did not believe 10 papers existed arguing effectively no anthropogenic influence – no other reason, least of all that I wished to waste my time debate them with you. FYI, Legates and Davis (1997) was still cited over 20 times after Wigley’s 3 year late rebuttal. I could bother Dr. Legates for a rebuttal but this is just not worth his time.

    At least you learned your lesson not to try such juvenile call outs here again.

  100. Siberian_husky says:
    June 8, 2014 at 7:35 am
    ___________________
    Congratulations. You actually got someone to bite on your demand for papers. Well, turnabout is fair play. Here’s a simple request and all you need to do is cite one paper, which clearly shows a CO2 signal in the modern temperature record.

  101. Alan Robertson says:
    June 8, 2014 at 7:59 am
    _________________
    Hey Siberian_husky- forget about trying to find a “paper”. I’ll make it even easier for you. All you need do is cite a modern temperature data set which clearly shows a CO2 signal.

  102. Siberian_husky says:

    You gave me a link that cited opinion pieces and a whole load of economic papers. I want hard data.

    Excellent! Now we can debate hard facts instead of Nazi SS uniforms and whiny complaints about some missing comment.

    You say you want hard data? No, you don’t. Because all the hard data supports the skeptics’ argument, and none of it supports your alarmist nonsense.

    For example, see here. CO2 is steadily rising, while T is flat to negative. Any rational person who is not emotionally involved would conclude that CO2 does not have the warming effect that you claim.

    Here is another chart, showing that ∆CO2 follows ∆T. I have similar charts going back hundreds of thousands of years. Every one of them shows that changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2. I have never been able to find a chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. If you can find such a chart, please post it here.

    The warming effect of CO2 is minuscule at current concentrations. There is no human “fingerprint” on global warming. The reason is because CO2 has a much smaller effect than what is claimed. That’s what the ‘hard data’ shows.

    Now, post any hard data, if you can find any that supports your catastrophic AGW beliefs. I look forward to deconstructing your AGW claims.

    Next, you posted the following critique:

    L&D do make other criticisms, but these are also ill-founded. For example, they state (without giving any specific examples) that papers employing pattern correlation methods confuse correlation with causality.

    I posted solid, data-based evidence above, showing causality. You might want to retract your “Ouch!” now, because the only causality shows that ∆T causes ∆CO2; not vice-versa.

    How about that ‘hard data’, dog? You wanted it, you got it. And it debunks your religion. The whole ‘carbon’ scare hoax is a complete false alarm. That’s what the hard data shows.

  103. Re: dbstealey says: June 8, 2014 at 8:46 am

    “Here is another chart, showing that ∆CO2 follows ∆T. I have similar charts going back hundreds of thousands of years.”

    Jeez! Have you never watched the Pot Holer?

    I presume you’re well aware that Al Gore isn’t a climate scientitst?

  104. fewJim Hunt says:

    Jeez! Have you never watched the Pot Holer?

    What a time sink. “Could…” “Might…” “Possibly…”, etc. That video is pure propaganda with a sciency veneer.

    “The computer models had been right all along.” Really? Where did you get that guy from? A different planet? He is an ace cherry-picker, using only talking points that support his climate alarmism. But the one Authority that is falsifying his beliefs is the only authority that counts: Planet Earth. The planet is making a laughinstock out of the alarmist clique — and providing the rest of us with much amusement.

    This guy tries to sell the ‘positive feedback’ argument. Trouble is, there are few verifiable examples of positive feedback [and to hear him say "mee-thane" makes it hard for me to take him seriously]. He states that “meethane” is an example of positive feedback, never admitting that “meethane” was leveling off for many years. So that can’t be ‘positive feedback’.

    Is this the same ‘potholer’ who does all the ad hominem attacks on Monckton? If so, he has no more credibility than the folks in this thread who believe that doing ad-homs on Dr Tol are making a science argument. All they are really doing is showing the world that they have no science to support their beliefs.

    And where are the dog and rusty? Alan Robertson, Poptech and I have all posted verifiable facts, and asked pointed questions. So rusty and the pooch will either have to try to refute the facts and answer the questions, or they lose the debate. The ball is in their court now.

  105. Oh, hey, dbstealey! Cheers!

    I know I have been generously assigned two to-do’s by the readers here and our host. Namely, retype my comment on Tol’s math, and AW’s request for details on how he and Dr. Tol were largely responsible for preventing the anonymized raterid info from being released.

    That latter one probably deserves more profile than way down at the bottom of a WUWT thread, so I will see what I can do to get it published elsewhere and then linked back here. But I will get to it, and the retype of the math thing. I do have things to do like sleep and have a life as opposed to be on 24-hour call here.

    But you seem to be quite keen to repeatedly assert your “fact” that temperature drives CO2, that the increasing CO2 in our atmosphere has not been due to our burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. Is that correct?

    Because, oddly enough, I think I have read that that argument is one of the “Top Ten Stupidest Skeptic Arguments:”. I also read that it “border(s) on the ludicrous”.

    Here’s exactly what I read specifically about that “stupid, ludicrous” argument as part of the “Top Ten Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water”:

    7. WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is 100 times as fast as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 200 times as fast! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think.

    Where exactly did I read that it is one of the Top 10 stupidest, most ludicrous arguments, dbstealey?

    Why, on a post href=”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/01/top-ten-skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/”>right here at WUWT! Just last month. Courtesy Dr. Roy Spencer.

    Cheers! I will try to get to the other two points in the next 24 hours or so, time permitting! best, rust

    • @rustneversleeps

      Dear Mr. George Morrisson.

      Since you are part of the SkS team and on the Cook paper as a rater, I’m going to insist you post under your real name henceforth. That’s not going to be negotiable.

      People need to know who they are dealing with, and since you are a member of Cook’s team the right thing to do is to use your name when you post critiques here. If that’s not acceptable to you, then please don’t post under “rustneversleeps” or any other fake names. As you probably know, I take a dim view of the behind the scenes shenanigans that the Cook team is famous for, and I won’t tolerate any of that here. If you have a valid critique, post it, put your name on it and stand behind it.

      Thank you for your consideration.

      Anthony Watts

  106. Aw, shoot, I messed up the html tags.

    Anyway, where I found that your argument, dbstealey, was called one of the Top 10 Stupidest Skeptic Arguments was right here at WUWT! Just last month. In a guest post by Dr. Roy Spencer.

    His description of it, not mine.

    Sorry again for messing up the html tags.

  107. Morrison says:

    … you seem to be quite keen to repeatedly assert your “fact” that temperature drives CO2, that the increasing CO2 in our atmosphere has not been due to our burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. Is that correct?

    Wrong, but no surprise there.

    I think that human CO2 emissions have caused a rise in [harmless, beneficial] carbon dioxide. “Deforestation” has lots of causes. You are probably unaware that the U.S. has a lot more forest cover now than it did a century ago. Since you don’t seem to care about deforestation in other countries, I’ll leave it at that.

    I know it tortures you, but is is a fact that T leads CO2. There are mountains of empirical evidence proving that ∆T causes ∆CO2. You are incapable of accepting that for one reason: if you admitted it, your whole “carbon” argument would fail. So you lie about it. That’s about all you can do, faced with all the irrefutable real world evidence.

    The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better. You are trying to demonize a compound that is as essential to life on earth as H2O. Why? Because you are a propagandist.

    I keep asking you, or anyone else, to post a chart showing that a rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming. Not an overlay; that is only a short term corellation. Rather, try to find a cause-and-effect relationship, where CO2 causes global warming. YOU are the one making that assertion. But you cannot back it up with evidence. Thus, you assert baselessly. Fail.

    Next, I read the article you linked to, and there is not one mention of CO2. It is about glaciers and the Younger Dryas. What do you do, post any old article, then claim it makes my comment ‘stupid’? So far, you have never answered a single question I’ve asked. You do nothing to try and refute any of the facts I post. And now you link to a 5 year old article that has nothing to do with the facts I posted — and then declare that I’m making ‘stupid’ arguments. Really? Are you really that devious?

    Your problem in a nutshell: you have causation backward. You base your AGW/global warming premise on the notion that a rise in CO2 causes measurable global warming. But you are unable to provide any testable, measurable evidence to support your belief.

    In reality, ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 — not vice-versa. You got your initial premise wrong, so necessarily your conclusion is wrong. Faced with all that contrary evidence, an honest person would acknowledge that the real world does not reflect your wrong conjecture, then you would set out to try and fix the conjecture. But not you.

    You have been living in a bubble of alarmist blogs, where skeptics’ arguments are censored out. Thus, you become just another one of the head-nodders. But right here is the real world: WUWT. This site allows and encourages discussion. All points of view are posted, and the truth gets sifted from the propaganda.

    You are the propaganda. You will not debate facts, and you post no evidence that skeptics are wrong. You make assertions, and you believe them after a while. But your Belief is contradicted and falsified by Planet Earth. Cognitive dissonance is the only thing that keeps your head from exploding.

    Try to answer some of my questions for a change. Your assertions mean nothing. Post verifiable, measurable, testable evidence. It would be a first for you.

  108. Mr Poptech

    It’s true, Legates and Davis were cited circa 20 times after 2000 as you state- so about once a year- not exactly a ringing endorsement. If you’d bothered to actually look at any of these citations of their article you’d find that a decent proportion of them smack them down also. Here’s an extract of one of these from Thorne et al. (Legates & Davis is article 154):

    “Several studies compared HadRT data from 1958
    onwards to GCM output.31,149–153 They all found
    strong evidence for a greenhouse gas fingerprint; some
    also found evidence for volcanic151–153 or solar150
    influences. Responding to criticism that the asymmetry
    in trends between the troposphere and stratosphere
    dominated formal detection and attribution
    studies,154 Thorne et al.151,152 examined the troposphere
    in isolation and still detected a greenhouse
    gas signal. Trends in the newer HadAT observational
    analyses were found to be outside model estimates
    of natural variability, and anthropogenic effects were
    required to explain the observations.32″

    Seriously dude, you would have more credibility if you just came clean, put your hand up and said, you know what, that’s a crap article, my bad, scrap that one from the list.

  109. pooch, try saying this:

    Seriously dude, we would have more credibility if we just came clean, put our hand up and said, you know what, planet earth is falsifying our alarmist belief system. None of our alarming predictions have come to pass. Not even one!

    Batting 0.000 is a pretty good indicator that we’re wrong about “carbon”. Let’s get back on the right track. I know we can do better.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Try it. Telling the truth is catharsis.

  110. Siberian_husky says: June 8, 2014 at 3:23 pm
    Mr Poptech

    It’s true, Legates and Davis were cited circa 20 times after 2000 as you state- so about once a year- not exactly a ringing endorsement. If you’d bothered to actually look at any of these citations of their article you’d find that a decent proportion of them smack them down also. Here’s an extract of one of these from Thorne et al. (Legates & Davis is article 154):

    Any citation can be an endorsement. Here is one from Singer (2011):

    “Legates and Davis [1997] have provided a more fundamental critique of the underlying
    statistical methodology of the pattern correlation coefficient of Fig. 13. They assert that
    any increasing agreement between the model prognostications and the observations, as
    derived from a ‘centred pattern correlation coefficient,’ is flawed because of biases in the
    statistic. In particular, they showed that one could take two fields that were initially
    identical, make them diverge over time, and if chosen properly, the ‘centred pattern
    correlation coefficient’ would show an increase in correlation!”

    And Yang et al. (2014):

    “The pattern correlation is calculated as the spatial correlation between the observed and simulated precipitation, as defined by Legates and Davis (1997).”

    Both clear endorsements.

    Seriously dude, you would have more credibility if you just came clean, put your hand up and said, you know what, that’s a crap article, my bad, scrap that one from the list.

    Papers are not removed because alarmists don’t like them, if this was the case there would be no papers on the list! I suggest learning to read more carefully as you have already demonstrated to make false claims. The Criteria for Removal is explicitly clear:

    Criteria for Removal: Papers will only be removed if it is determined by the editor that they have not properly met the criteria for inclusion or have been retracted by the journal. No paper will be removed because of the existence of a criticism or published correction.

  111. Re: dbstealey says: June 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    You evidently still have much to learn. Surprising at may seem, English was invented in England. How do you pronounce the word “me” wherever you reside on the planet? How about the word “thane”? Did you by any chance study the Scottish play in your youth?

    If you don’t much care for videos, then how about the IPCC AR5 WG I Technical Summary instead? I quote from TS.3.7:

    “Snow and ice albedo feedbacks are known to be positive.”

    Is that enough for you to be going on with?

  112. Jim Hunt,

    Cherry-picking one instance doesn’t get you anywhere. The planet is clearly telling us that negative feedbacks predominate.

    How do you pronounce the word “me” wherever you reside on the planet?

    I pronounce it ‘tomato’. How do you pronounce it?

  113. @dbstealey – I’m not cherry picking. You said “there are few verifiable examples of positive feedback”. The IPCC and I disagree, and I provided you with a verified example of one.

    The planet is telling us nothing of the sort. As the IPCC AR5 WG I SPM puts it:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

    You can’t get any clearer than that.

  114. Yes, warming of the climate system is unequivocal. It has been happening since the LIA. Naturally.

    Planet Earth is the ultimate Authority in this matter. It is telling the alarmist clique that they are flat wrong. Global warming has stopped, and mere assertions to the contrary are inadequate. I provide verifiable data. That trumps assertions.

  115. kylezachary says: June 7, 2014 at 10:23 am
    Seriously… Do we skeptics have our own study to counter and say, “No this study that was much more professionally done says the consensus is 55%.” I get this 97% crap has big enough holes to fly a 747 through it but do we have ANYTHING to respond with other than to say “well that study was terrible.” People need a number they don’t want to just hear the other guy did it bad. Someone give us a number. Stop researching how the other guy did it and let’s make our own and one that is done objectively and cannot be dismissed. As a fellow skeptic, give me a real number or drop it.

    We really have much bigger issues here if you think this is the problem. There is no practical way to poll the world’s scientists to determine an objective consensus,

  116. Mr Poptech

    So let me get this straight, instead of giving a valid reason why Legates & Davis is not a pile of steaming you know what, or saying Thorne et al is incorrect because of xxx, your entire argument is, Legates & Davis is valid because a handful of other studies indirectly cite to it? Don’t be ridiculous.

    If you’d actually bothered to read the Kang et al. study (it’s now patently clear to myself and everyone else following this thread that you DON’T read the primary articles) you’d see that it is NOT endorsing Legates et al either implicitly or explicitly, but rather citing how they (and many others) have calculated a pattern correlation.

    Singer et al. 2011, cited a whopping 5 times (twice by himself) in that prestigious journal Energy and Environment with an Impact Factor of 0.319 and ranked 90th out of 93 Environmental Journals, doesn’t mention the Thorne et al. rebuttal- probably because the venerable old guy isn’t aware of it.

    If you cite articles trying to bolster your case, I expect you to have read them first.

    You’ve wasted my time and everyone else’s on here too that actually gives a damn about the science.

  117. Siberian_Husky, you have already moved the goal posts and invented a debate on an issue where none existed, out of embarrassment. Your initial challenge was that these papers did not exist, once proven wrong, you are now flailing around trying to discredit the papers to save face for your embarrassment. Your entire argument is that since a criticism exists, Legates and Davis (1997) is invalid, so please stop being ridiculous. The only proper way to debate the paper is for the authors to be heard and they are not here so this is a meaningless exercise.

    You seem to continue to be confused that I care about debating each paper or was presenting them for any other reason then to embarrass you (which I did). I am well aware of the context that it was cited in. Obviously Yang et al. (2014) is citing Legates and Davis (1997) in a neutral way. A neutral way is not negative. Citing something in a neutral way is an endorsement of the usefulness of the paper as they are not criticizing it. It most certainly does not support your idiotic and juvenile claim of “a series of embarassing schoolboy howlers”.

    Trying to spin this into a smear that I do not read the papers I cite is rather desperate and pathetic. In this case especially, I had no reason to read the entire paper but just enough of the section surrounding the cite to get the correct context and correctly determine it was not negative.

    Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
    – The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times
    – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
    – Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
    – Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
    – Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
    – EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

    Impact Factor is a subjectively devised determination of popularity not scientific validity, that is widely abused and manipulated.

    Stop crying about being embarrassed for shouting out nonsense you got called on and own up. Be a big boy and accept that ten anti-AGW peer-reviewed papers exist.

    You appear to be an amateur at this, I suggest heading back to Skeptical Science for more Crusher Crew training.

  118. @Siberian Husky,

    In my comment of June 8, 2014 at 8:46 am above, I directly responded to your request for ‘hard data’. I gave you plenty. I thought we were going to have a discussion based on facts, instead of reverting to your own steaming pile of ad-homs.

    But I guess you are incapable of refuting my points. Whenever the comments stray into verifiable fact territory, you alarmists tuck tail, run, and hide out.

    If you want to discuss facts, I am here, ready and waiting. But if you only want to make assertions, you’re doing just fine.

  119. Siberian_Husky appears to be some sort of amateur who wondered in here missing about seven years of the debate. Either that or he is a sock puppet as the only record of him anywhere is posting here starting around January 2014.

  120. Actually, I’m just analyzing the very first study you sprayed at me boys and found it to be a pile of rubbish. I’m still waiting for a reply on the tecnical points, but you studiously keep avoiding the issue. I haven’t got onto the papers yet partly because I suspect I’m going to be wasting my time.

    So in a nutshell you have nothing intelligent to say about the veracity of Legates et al? Could it be because you have little training in statistics or any sort of expertise in the climate sciences?

    What a pleasure it’s beenspending my weekend chatting in circles to middle aged men with questionable social skills and little scientific training.

  121. Anthony nothing has changed has it. Once one points to the alarmists faulty science they get on the blog to defend themselves or a hypothesis. I’m bored of defending our look on AGW. don’t they know their physics.

  122. dog,

    You are still avoiding any discussion of the “hard data” that you requested, and which I delivered to you in spades. Your comments are merely evidence-free assertions that really should be made at the cartoonist’s blog, not here.

    You said you wanted hard data. I gave it to you, good and hard. Now you’ve chickened out, and you won’t discuss it. That shows everyone that you lost the science debate. All you have is your SS nonsense. That is one big fail.

  123. “Jim Hunt says:

    June 8, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    You evidently still have much to learn. Surprising at may seem, English was invented in England.”

    Surprisingly English, as we know it today, was not invented at all.

    BTW, the IPCC AR5 WG I SPM is not a scientific document.

  124. dbstealey says:
    June 7, 2014 at 1:14 pm …

    db, I believe you have confused Doran (2009) with Cook et al. (2013). Cook and gang read abstracts from 12,000 papers written over at least a couple of decades and then conflated that time span into what they say scientists believe “now.” Doran OTOH sent out 31,000-odd surveys, received 30% response, and then winnowed the response down to the “important” figures who publish in peer reviewed journals and do half or more of their research looking into problems of climate change. That left him with 79 respondents, and three of those did not share the consensus view. Basically Doran found that “The Team” thought AGW was real and significant.

  125. Poptech says:
    June 8, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    We really have much bigger issues here if you think this is the problem. There is no practical way to poll the world’s scientists to determine an objective consensus …

    Not to mention that polling scientists for consensus is pointless to begin with.

  126. Boys, you’ve been called out on this thread for all to see and no amount of carrying on or trying to obfusticate the issue is going to change that. You clearly don’t read papers, have no substantive training in statistics or the climate sciences and are just embarrassing yourselves now. Why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence listen to anything you have to say?

    Mr Robertson, here’s a paper for you as requested. I don’t expect you to understand it, but it’s in a nice big shiny journal called Nature, not some third tier low level rag that no one takes seriously, let alone bothers to read.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    I’ll even print the abstract for you:

    The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

    Now go back to school.

  127. Siberian_husky, are you in some sort of parallel universe where you are not comprehending why I specifically choose those papers? Hint: it sure as hell was not to waste time attempting to debate them with some who thinks the existence of criticism means the criticism is automatically valid. Also it was not “boys” but merely I who provided the list for one reason only – to call your bluff that they do not exist. You have now moved the goal posts to papers that YOU will accept as valid (excuse me while I laugh hysterically), as this is an impossible goal to meet, since you can say you don’t like any of them perpetually regardless of any debate. I’ve played this game many, many times and it gets old fast.

    So yes, I have no interest in debating any of those papers without input from the author. Least of all with someone who pretends to be a dog and makes disturbing animal sounds, believing himself to be witty.

    What a pleasure it’s beenspending my weekend chatting in circles to middle aged men with questionable social skills and little scientific training.

    The break down begins – now you are resorting to psycho-babble as a personal attack. This is how I know losing the argument is smashing your fragile ego, as this is the final stage when your opponent who thought himself intellectually superior breaks down having to accept his arguments went up in flames and he is a complete failure. While we all site around and laugh at the amateur.

    I will keep track of your failures for you as they are stacking up at a record rate:

    1. Believed my list contained opinion articles = FAIL
    2. Believed my list was mostly economic papers = FAIL
    3. Thought that no one could provide ten peer-reviewed papers that rule out anthropogenic influences on global warming = FAIL
    4. Did not think anyone would still cite a paper you deemed no good = FAIL
    5. Attempted to attack a journal cited by the IPCC = FAIL
    6. Believed Impact Factor is a meaningful metric = FAIL
    7. Attempted to use psycho-babble as a personal attack = FAIL
    8. Though no one would call you out on your bullshit. = FAIL

    Just remember we are laughing at you not with you.

  128. Duster
    ‘Not to mention that polling scientists for consensus is pointless to begin with.’
    not to mention there not even a agreed definition of what a ‘scientists’ is
    97% claim is rubbish form the top to the bottom.

  129. They are not Scientist ,They are all investers in China and seek to run the jobs over to China .I wonder what they are going to do when all the jobs are in China and no jobs here.How will someone purchase their crud .I think they will go broke and cry for their own stupidity.Their Comunist ways will see themselves into the Sea.What a day that will be ,Hurray for the Republic.

  130. Siberian_husky says:
    June 8, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    Siberian doggy, you might think that the timing of the research data of the article that you chose to point was clever for your purposes (just just before the hiatus started when there were no clouds above the CAGW-camp) but that is the way of the misinformers. It just happens that one of the scientific articles referencing your chosen article comes to another conclusion:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/104/2/29001/

    “EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 104 Number 2

    Alfred Laubereau and Hristo Iglev 2013 EPL 104 29001 doi:10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001
    On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming
    Alfred Laubereau and Hristo Iglev”

    which according to the abstract seems to pull the rug under your feet:

    “The growing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is often considered as the dominant factor for the global warming during the past decades. The noted correlation, however, does not answer the question about causality. In addition, the reported temperature data do not display a simple relationship between the monotonic concentration increase from 1880 to 2010 and the non-monotonic temperature rise during the same period. We have performed new measurements for optically thick samples of CO2 and investigate its role for the greenhouse effect on the basis of these spectroscopic data. Using simplified global models the warming of the surface is computed and a relatively modest effect is found, only: from the reported CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere from 290 to 385 ppmv in 1880 to 2010 we derive a direct temperature rise of $0.26\pm0.01\ \text{K}$ . Including the simultaneous feedback effect of atmospheric water we still arrive at a minor CO2 contribution of less than 33% to the reported global warming of ${\sim}1.2\ \text{K}$ . It is suggested that other factors that are known to influence the greenhouse effect, e.g. air pollution by black carbon should be considered in more detail to fully understand the global temperature change.”

    In the language of your camp fellows one could say that your article is “debunked” although I would prefer to call this a scientific debate with no clear conclusion, at least for the time being. Your tricks do not play quite as well here as amongst the less informed CAGW-camp fellows.

  131. Re: dbstealey says: June 8, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    The lower troposphere is a very small part of “the climate system”, which you admit is warming. Please provide scientific evidence that snow and ice albedo feedback is not a positive feedback, rather than yet more unsubstantiated assertions.

    Re: Patrick says: June 8, 2014 at 9:48 pm

    BTW, for anyone prepared to due their due diligence the IPCC AR5 WG I SPM leads to a vast array of scientific papers in peer reviewed learned journals.

    “(see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4) {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2-4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5-5.6, 13.2}

  132. Bwahahahaha!!! Excellent, excellent… I love it when you guys post this stuff and either don’t read the article or don’t understand its contents. So since you’ve posted the article Mr Pethefin I will assume that this is implict endorsement of its contents. In case you hadn’t noticed the authors take the following position:
    (1) The earth has warmed by 1.2 degrees over the last century
    (2) Anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to around 30% of this warming
    (3) Sunspots do not explain the warming
    (4) The authors think the discrepancy is most likely due to “Black carbon”- you know, the stuff produced by burning fossil fuels.

    I’m glad that we are both in agreement then, the earth’s got hotter over the last century and anthropogenic CO2 has played a significant role. I’d argue that CO2 has played a far greater role than this, but it was very kind of you to mann up and agree with me on the basic premise that the earth’s got hotter and at least a third of this warming is due to anthropogenic CO2. Well played sir.

  133. Jim Hunt says:

    Jeez! Have you never watched the Pot Holer?

    I really thought you were being sarcastic. potholer was booted from this site for his endless, scurrilous ad-hom attacks on Lord Monckton. As for his video, that is easily deconstructed alarmist propaganda. You don’t really believe that, do you? I certainly hope not. That would put you squarely in the swivel-eyed lunatic camp. The problem with all alarmists is that the real world is debunking their religious belief.

    +++++++++++++++++++

    dog sez:

    Boys, you’ve been called out on this thread for all to see and no amount of carrying on or trying to obfusticate the issue is going to change that.

    Well, that is about the clearest cas of psychological projection that I’ve ever seen. The pooch asked for “hard data”, which I provided in numerous links. Hard data. But now Fido tucks tail and runs off yelping, rather than discussing the hard data, which shows that the CAGW scare is complete nonsense. Dog is obfuscating the issue, thus: projection.

    Keep in mind that scientific evidence consists of testable, measurable hard data. Neither pal-reviewed papers [the Appeal to Authority fallacy] nor computer models [always wrong] are scientific evidence. Like the dog, they are only tools.

    Any time the canine wants to discuss ‘hard data’, I am here to educate him. I am ready, willing, and very able to post mountains of ‘hard data’ that deconstructs the “carbon” scare. But doggie won’t debate the data. He wishes now that he would have never mentioned ‘hard data’, which he avoids like the plague.

    It is ever thus with the nutso alarmist clique. They know that Planet Earth is debunking their nonsense, so they always fall back on their appeals to corrupt authorities, and their always-wrong computer models. That’s all they have. Because all available data shows conclusively that there is no catastrophic, runaway global warming. And without that scare, they’ve got nothing but their baseless assertions.

    Skeptics don’t do that, because skeptics have nothing to prove: the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show — using measurable, testable hard data — that they can quantify the degree of global warming directly attributable to human CO2 emissions. But they can’t do that, because there is no such hard data.

    Their entire argument is based on vague assertions that cannot be validated using hard data. In other words, all they have is a conjecture, which the planet is busy falsifying. Thus, their argument fails — as Planet Earth has been clearly telling them via hard data.

  134. @dbstealey – You’ve somehow neglected to answer my main question, so I’ll repeat it for you:

    Please provide scientific evidence that snow and ice albedo feedback is not a positive feedback, rather than yet more unsubstantiated assertions.

  135. dog asserts:

    (1) The earth has warmed by 1.2 degrees over the last century

    Yes. Naturally, for the most part. See Occam’s Razor, and the climate Null Hypothesis.

    (2) Anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to around 30% of this warming

    Pure assertion. There is no testable, measurable hard data that supports that conjecture.

    (3) Sunspots do not explain the warming

    Hey, a Strawman just popped up!

    (4) The authors think the discrepancy is most likely due to “Black carbon”- you know, the stuff produced by burning fossil fuels.

    Who cares what the authors believe? You wanted “hard data”. I supplied hard data in spades, but now you run and hide out from discussing the only thing that matters: testable, measurable scientific evidence. Hard data. So stop the bogus appeals to your corrupt authority, and post verifiable measurements that quantfy the degree of global warming due directly to human activity. If you can do that, you will be the first.

    The entire catastrophic runaway global warming scare is based on a repeatedly falsified conjecture. There is zero evidence that CAGW is happening. The whole notion is a giant head fake, with no hard data to back it up. It is a false alarm, nothing more.

    Planet Earth is telling everyone that the alarmist clique is flat wrong. So, who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or the lunatic alarmist contingent? Because they cannot both be right.

  136. Jim Hunt:

    You are avoiding reality. Snow and ice feedback? Quantify it, with testable measurements. Otherwise, that is just an assertion. See, skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you.

    Those may in fact be positive feedbacks. But as I’ve told you, the net effect is that positive feedbacks are swamped by negative feedbacks. If that was not the case, then we would see global warming. But global warming stopped many years ago. Now do you understand? You are trying to argue that the planet is wrong. Good luck with that.

    Sorry your Belief system is taking such a hit. But Planet Earth trumps what you believe.

  137. @dbstealey – We’re agreed that snow and ice albedo feedback is a positive feedback! Hooray, let’s move on.

    Personally I prefer the term “global heating”, but nonetheless “global warming” did not “stop many years ago”. To rephrase another one of my questions slightly:

    According to a long list of Planet Earth’s leading climate scientists “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. What scientific evidence can you provide to refute that assertion, if any?

  138. Global warming is now “global heating”?? Wow. Let’s just progress to the Orwellian ‘Thermogeddon’.

    You are deluded, sorry to say. Really, it’s sad to see someone go off the deep end. You say:

    According to a long list of Planet Earth’s leading climate scientists “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.

    Well, that is one fine assertion, and a big appeal to a corrupt authority. But it is flat wrong, unless they were talking about 12 – 15 years ago. That’s about the time that global warming stopped.

    Before that, there is plenty of evidence, supported by the never falsified Null Hypothesis, that the warming steps since the 1880’s were the result of the planet’s recovery from the LIA.

    I know you do not want to hear facts like that, but even über-alarmist Phil Jones shows that warming steps both before and after the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2 were almost identical. It takes real cognitive dissonance to believe that the first 2 steps were natural, but the 3rd step is due to human emissions.

    Next, you say:

    What scientific evidence can you provide to refute that assertion, if any?

    To refute the assertion [correct term, BTW] that global warming is continuing, here are several widely accepted data bases. All of them show that global warming has stopped.

    I understand that nothing I post will make the least impression. CAGW is your religion. You are as much a true believer as the most intense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. You will go on believing in runaway global warming despite the mountains of contrary evidence. I am posting these charts to keep other readers from being swayed by the catastrophic AGW nonsense. As we see, there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented in the current climate. It has all happened before, many times, and to a greater degree. Thus, your conjecture fails.

  139. Jim, really? Those same climate scientists you are referring to recognize the current global temperature pause. That pause means they cannot detect increased warming at the moment. Their assertion is now based on models and speculation related to the missing heat, not observations. So while they admit the models are not following direct observation and speculations have no basis in observations, they tell you to believe their models and speculations, not observations.

    Talk about flat earthers. Geesh!!!!

  140. Pamela Gray is exactly right: observations are rejected in favor of [always wrong] models and baseless conjectures.

    On the Sensitivity thread, rgbatduke wrote:

    …the only statistically significant warming of the last 75 years occurred in a single fifteen year stretch from the 1982/1983 ENSO to the 1997/1998 ENSO. Note that means that statistically significant warming has occurred in a single span of time consisting of roughly 1/5 of the entire “post-industrial CO_2″ record, the period over which it went from 300 ppm to 400 ppm in round numbers, It is isolated on the left by mostly flat, a bit of warming and a bit of cooling, from 1940 to 1983 (with some violent bobbles around the ENSO event a few years to either side) and from 1998 to the present on the right (with some violent bobbles around the ENSO event a few years to either side). AR5 actually contains a box that tries to explain the latter — too bad that they didn’t think to try to explain the former, or why its models completely erase (on average) the other major temperature variations in the 20th century, especially from 1900 to 1940.

    And that 15 year stretch was only corellation; it does not show causation. You can see the trendlines here. How do they [or Jim Hunt] explain the 1940’s? That chart pretty much debunks the entire “CO2 causes runaway global warming” narrative.

    The IPCC simply ignores facts that don’t support its narrative. That is not science, that is advocacy. And as usual, the alarmist crowd is being led by the IPCC nose ring. They never think for themselves. If they did, they would decisively reject the CAGW nonsense, which is a complete false alarm based on cherry-picked ‘facts’, always wrong computer models, and pal-reviewed assertions. The Scientific Method is completely missing.

  141. Siberian doggy, you truly are misinformed. Most skeptics agree that there has some warming, the genuine dispute has always been about the amount of warming due to CO2. You really should try to understand the people you are arguing with rather than creating strawmen, but then again misinformers like you build their alternate realities around such illusions. By the way 33 % of the zero warming during the past 17 years equals to failure of your favorite CO2-theory, what’s your explanation?

  142. “Jim Hunt says:

    June 9, 2014 at 1:23 am

    (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4) {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2-4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5-5.6, 13.2}”

    You’re joking, right?

  143. Re: dbstealey says: June 9, 2014 at 9:13 am

    You’ve wasted a seemingly infinite supply of words, but you haven’t debunked anything. Firstly let me repeat myself yet again:

    The lower troposphere is a very small part of “the climate system”, which you admit is warming.

    Secondly I took one of your seemingly infinite supply of cherry picks from woodfortrees and removed all apart from the first two series. This is what I finished up with:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/trend

    The green line looks a lot like an upward trend in the temperature of the lower troposphere to me. How about you? How about Patrick? How about Pamela?

    Talk about flat temperatures? Geesh!!!!

  144. Jim Hunt,

    Whatever happened to your alter ego, “Snow White”? I recall that she was serially debunked here, and disappeared. You are on the same track. But then, you’re the same person, no?

    You are cherry-picking again, I see. I could post a graph from the LIA a couple hundred years ago and show a rise in T. That does not obviate the fact that global warming has stopped. Or, I could pick a shorter time frame, and show what is happening. Then I could also pick a longer trend line, and show you that there has been no acceleration in global warming — a central prediction of the alarmist crowd, which Planet Earth has decisively falsified. In fact, none of your alarmist predictions have come to pass. All of them have been flat wrong. Why should anyone believe a word you say?

    What you are doing is picking an arbitrary zero line, instead of correctly using a trend line. You can see the devious nature of that trick here. When a trend line is used, the scary acceleration disappears. NASA and NOAA do that all the time. It’s scary — but it is also thoroughly dishonest. Global warming is not accelerating. In fact, it has stopped.

    Next, it was specifically your alarmist cult that chose 1997 as the starting point. Skeptics didn’t pick that year, climate alarmists like Trenberth did. It was stated that warming would resume within 15 years of that year. Guess what: they were wrong. Again. Global warming stopped, and it has not resumed.

    That has been discussed endlessly here. As we see here, global warming stopped. I understand your consternation with that fact. But you need to deal with it, because it is a verifiable fact, agreed to by even NASA/GISS.

    Next, as I said, I am seting the record straight here, therefore I am wasting nothing. I prefer to have readers see both sides of the debate, and then make up their minds. From the looks of the comments, you have very little support. You are losing the debate because the real world is falsifying your CAGW beliefs and predictions.

    Next, you keep saying: The lower troposphere is a very small part of “the climate system”, which you admit is warming.

    I never said the lower troposphere was warming. In fact, I posted empirical evidence showing that your models are wrong. I can understand you being confused, it is easy to see in all your comments. But when you are corrected, and still keep putting words in my mouth, I can only conclude you are lying. Why? Have you sunk so low that you are fabricating quotes? As Willis says: quote my words.

    Troposphere warming was another failed prediction. it was predicted to show the “fingerprint of AGW.” Well, guess what? It failed. In fact, no CAGW prediction has ever happened. When someone is always wrong, 100% of the time, reasonable people will conclude that their original premise was wrong. They were wrong about the effect of anthropogenic CO2, which causes no measurable, verifiable global warming. Honest folks will admit it when proven wrong over and over again. But not you.

    Finally, whenever I post empirical evidence like this, you avoid discussing it. Confirmation bias is a hallmark of the alarmist cult, closely related to cherry-picking. You only accept facts that you believe will support your narrative. But of course, that is not science.

  145. Bwahahaha! Comedy gold! I love these guys who reference scientific papers to try and look knowledgeable and then back track faster than the National Review supporting Mark Steyn when you pont out what the contents of said papers actually say. But but… they splutter… there’s been no statistically significant warming of the lower troposphere for 15 years… splutter splutter so global warming can’t be true… splutter splutter. Seriously, if you honestly think that this invalidates the basis of AGW you need to go back to school. This is why nobody in the scientific community listens to you. Bwahahaha!

  146. @Alan – Try increasing the time period instead of decreasing it. I’m sure I read somewhere you need at least 30 years before you can call something “climate”.

    @dbstealey – Anthony told my alter ego in no uncertain terms that cross dressing is frowned upon in this neck of the woods. For all the sordid details see:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/snow-white-is-actually-a-cowardly-cross-dresser/

    Now you’ve gone and wasted another few screenfuls of purple prose. I’ve never mentioned any “models” or “alarmist cults”. Apparently you can’t understand English as well as being unable to pronounce it properly. Let me quote the IPCC again for you:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.

    The lower troposphere is important to humans because that’s where we happen to live. However as far as your beloved Planet Earth is concerned it is of rather less significance. Here’s another dumb question for you. Have you ever studied physics? A one word answer will suffice.

  147. Jim Hunt asks:
    June 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm
    Here’s another dumb question for you. Have you ever studied physics? A one word answer will suffice.

    Yes.

    And, apparently, much more heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid flow, metallurgy, nuclear particle reactions and radiation and rad health and mathematics and finite element analysis and electrical and electronics and controls and structural and controls analysis and liquid metal and magnetic/dynamics and plasma and particle radiation and computer/program testing and debugging … a few other things.

  148. Jim Hunt says:
    June 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Hmmmn.

    So – Please, show me exactly
    (1) why you are worried about Arctic sea ice minimums
    (2) are ignoring the all-time Antarctic sea ice extents record-breaking highs last October?
    (3) the ever- increasing Antarctic sea ice extent daily anomalies over the past 40 years?

  149. Siberian_Husky says:
    June 9, 2014 at 2:38 pm
    Seriously, if you honestly think that this invalidates the basis of AGW you need to go back to school.

    OK. I’ll ask: What evidence over what period of time actually does validate your chosen religion of CAGW caused by man’s release of CO2?
    Global average temperatures any time prior to 1850? No.
    Global average temperatures 1850-1870? No.
    Global average temperatures vs CO2 ppmv 1870 – 1915? No. Temps down, CO2 up a little bit.
    Global average temperatures vs CO2 ppmv 1915 – 1945? No. Temps up sharply, CO2 up a little bit.
    Global average temperatures vs CO2 ppmv 1945 – 1975 No. Temps down, CO2 rising substantially.
    Global average temperatures vs CO2 1975 – 1996 Yes! (Finally, but only 21 years of evidence.)
    Global average temperatures vs Co2 1996 – 2014? No. CO2 up sharply, temps steady and down

  150. @RACookPE1978 – Can I take it that you’re not in fact just dbstealey in disguise?

    I’m not quite clear why you’re answering his question for him, but since you’re here you seem like the ideal person to explain the Stefan–Boltzmann law to all and sundry, and dbstealey in particular.

    If you’re referring to my alter ego’s blog, then I’m instructed to inform you that its focus is mass media misrepresentation of the facts about Arctic sea ice. For some strange reason David Rose’s editor at The Mail on Sunday also insisted on mentioning the Antarctic:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/new-mail-for-the-mail/

  151. Jim Hunt says:
    June 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    @Alan – Try increasing the time period instead of decreasing it. I’m sure I read somewhere you need at least 30 years before you can call something “climate”.
    ___________________________
    Oh, OK.

  152. Re: RACookPE1978 says: June 9, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    I know you posed this question to somebody else, but I’ve already answered it several times. I thought you said you understood physics?

  153. I understand both nuclear physics and radiation physics … and a few other things.
    But I don’t understand any part of your apparent answer above: Try answering this question in your own words:

    What is the specific evidence for man’s release of CO2 affecting the climate the past 70 years?

  154. Jim Hunt says:
    June 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm (replying to)

    @RACookPE1978 – Can I take it that you’re not in fact just dbstealey in disguise?

    I’m not quite clear why you’re answering his question for him, but since you’re here you seem like the ideal person to explain the Stefan–Boltzmann law to all and sundry, and dbstealey in particular.

    Well, certainly! Now, What part of “Antarctic sea ice extents maximum of 33 Mkm^2 are much more important than the little bit of 3Mkm^2 remaining at Arctic sea ice minimum in mid-September” do you need help with?

  155. RACookPE1978 says:
    June 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    _______________
    There’s that pesky albedo thing… mwahahaaa

  156. The Guardian cowards locked the comments making sure it appeared that I could no longer respond.

    This is the only way they can pretend to win debates.

  157. Alan Robertson says:
    June 9, 2014 at 4:15 pm (replying to)

    RACookPE1978 says:
    June 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    _______________
    There’s that pesky albedo thing…

    Yeah. Go ahead and “explain” that albedo thing to me for the edge of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents in mid-September for each hour of the day on each day of the month, would you please?

    I’m interested in what function you chose to use for Air Mass as a function of solar elevation angle, what clarity index you chose for the clear sky, what percent clear-sky/cloudy-sky you chose (and why), and what the correction factor to the measured open water albedo as a function of solar elevation angle under wind speeds below 10 knots you believe is correct. Most important, what percent transference do you use for indirect (diffuse) sunlight in September and August, and what paper did you use a a reference?

    Oh, by the way, what function do you prefer to determine the latitude of the edge of sea ice as a function of day-of-year?

    See, if you use the actually factors accurately, you might end up finding out that the Antarctic sea ice reflects 2-3-4 times more energy than the Arctic absorbs (depending on which day in September you check.)

  158. RACookPE1978 says:
    June 9, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Yeah. Go ahead and “explain” that albedo thing to me for the edge of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents in mid-September for each hour of the day on each day of the month, would you please?
    ______________________
    Seriously, RC? You know how it works… In September, Antarctic sea ice extent (anomalous, or in any context,) is X number of times the size of Tejas, just when the ice/solar incidence/reflectance matters the most. I’m guessing that you thought that I wasn’t merely emphasizing your point.

  159. Jim Hunt says:

    Now you’ve gone and wasted another few screenfuls of purple prose.

    No, that was you and your doggie. I posted verifiable facts. Lots of them. But you have never discussed the links I posted, not once. You posted your opinions and baseless assertions. There’s a difference. My links can be verified — whereas you only emit opinions, and appeals to corrupt authorities.

    Next, you ask:

    Have you ever studied physics? A one word answer will suffice.

    Yes.

    And in that one answer, I have replied to more questions than you ever have, when I’ve asked questions. You are terrified of getting into a discussion that is limited to empirical, measurable facts — and everyone here can see it in your irrelevant responses. Blowing smoke isn’t answering questions.

    Next you say:

    Apparently you can’t understand English as well as being unable to pronounce it properly.

    You have never heard me speak, so chalk that up as just one more baseless assertion.

    Next:

    Let me quote the IPCC again for you:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.

    Which says exactly nothing. I’ve really tried to educate you, but your mind is closed tighter than a submarine hatch: the planet has been warming since the LIA. That is unequivocal. The warming is natural, unless you are claiming that the first two step changes are natural, but the third one isn’t. No rational person would make that preposterous assertion.

    As I’ve repeatedly pointed out: there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence quantifying the degree of global warming that can be attributed specifically to human activity. The climate Null Hypothesis shows that human emissions do not make any measurable difference in global T. But so far, that hasn’t sunk in. I seriously doubt that at this point you are capable of understanding the Null Hypothesis.

    Next, Hunt says:

    @RACookPE1978 – Can I take it that you’re not in fact just dbstealey in disguise?

    Desperate, aren’t you? No, RACook and I have never met, except in these threads. But let me note once again that neither Hunt/Snow White, or his pooch, ever answered RACook’s straightforward questions. As always, they obfuscate, and make ad-hom attacks, and make baseless assertions, and appeal to corrupt authorities, and to always wrong computer models, and they editorialize. But answer questions? Never. They are wary of the trap of getting into a discusion with skeptics regarding verifiable, measurable empirical evidence. Because they have nothing that would stand up to even mild scrutiny.

    Next, Hunt/White says:

    If you’re referring to my alter ego’s blog, then I’m instructed to inform you…

    What?? Does he/she have any idea how psychotic that sounds? Leon Festinger would have had a field day with that guy/gal. Earth to Hunt: Mrs Keech’s flying saucer is due any day now. Have patience, it will take you to a better place.

    Next, RACook asks:

    What is the specific evidence for man’s release of CO2 affecting the climate the past 70 years?

    I have been asking essentially the same question repeatedly: post scientific evidence — based on hard data — that quantifies the global temperature rise putatively caused by human CO2 emissions. Make sure it is evidence, and not pal-reviewed assertions, or always-wrong computer model predictions. ‘Evidence’ means testable, measurable raw data. If Snow White can post such evidence, she will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. Because there is no such data. Baseless assertiona are all the alarmist crowd has.

    Finally, RACook asks Hunt:

    Go ahead and “explain” that albedo thing to me for the edge of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-September for each hour of the day on each day of the month, would you please? I’m interested in what function you chose to use for Air Mass as a function of solar elevation angle, what clarity index you chose for the clear sky, what percent clear-sky/cloudy-sky you chose (and why), and what the correction factor to the measured open water albedo as a function of solar elevation angle under wind speeds below 10 knots you believe is correct. Most important, what percent transference do you use for indirect (diffuse) sunlight in September and August, and what paper did you use as a reference? …what function do you prefer to determine the latitude of the edge of sea ice as a function of day-of-year?

    That is amusing, because Snow White or Hunt — I forget which — stated upthread that positive albedo feedback is “a fact”. But of course, such a simple-minded question can’t be a ‘fact’ because as RACook makes clear, there is far more to albedo than Hunt’s simpleton question.

    I almost never make predictions. But here’s an exception: I predict that neither Hunt nor his canine pal will answer a series of questions based on testable, measurable data. “Hard data”, as the dog made the mistake of suggesting. Because the alarmist clique always avoids fact-based answers, which can be verified or deconstructed. With them, it’s assertions all the way.

    But if I’m wrong, great! I have my questions all ready.

  160. dbstealey says:
    June 9, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    “Finally, RACook asks Hunt:

    Go ahead and “explain” that albedo thing…”
    _______________
    I hope that he was addressing JH and just happened to use my post heading by accident… (see above:)
    ——————–
    @ Jim Hunt: I checked the link you provided last, wherein you said: “Perhaps the ‘elephant in the room’ is in fact increasingly “extreme and/or high impact weather?”
    ——————–
    If you really believe that, then I would suggest that you rethink your information sources.

  161. Alan Robertson says:
    June 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Seriously, RC? You know how it works… In September, Antarctic sea ice extent (anomalous, or in any context,) is X number of times the size of Tejas, just when the ice/solar incidence/reflectance matters the most. I’m guessing that you thought that I wasn’t merely emphasizing your point.

    Nah. 8<)

    You got your units off there: On May 8 this year, the excess Antarctic sea was 97% the size of Greenland. (Texas ain't big enough any more.)

  162. Jim Hunt says:
    June 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    A few pictures are worth a million words:

    http://econnexus.org/a-conversation-between-sceptics/

    So, catastrophic global warming (during a period when the average measured global temperature anomalies are not actually heating up) is somehow causing a series of “comments” about the weather to be written? What evidence about your theory/religion are you trying to show with that link?

  163. Alan Robertson,

    The way I took it, RACook was responding to Hunt. It was a little confusing, but from your other comments, it’s clear that you and Mr Cook are on the same page.

    Regarding the latest Hunt nonsense about extreme weather, see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here [I have more]. Extreme weather events are all declining — debunking yet another series of failed alarmist predictions.

    Hunt and the dog refuse to discuss any real world observations like that. They truly are part of a religious movement, so they can’t think straight. But they know enough to avoid any discussion where they would have to answer some questions, and explain their answers using hard data.

    It’s always like this. The alarmist crowd lost the scientific argument a long time ago, and they lost it decisively. So now they use off-topic ridicule, like Fido does, or like Hunt/Snow White, they argue endlessly without addressing any facts, or answering any questions.

    That’s why none of them will agree to any fair, moderated debates any more. They lost every past debate for the same reasons — and the YouTube videos of those debates are still available. I have at least a half dozen alarmist/skeptic debates saved. The alarmists like Mann, Schmidt and others got slaughtered in every one of them. So now they hide out, and refuse to debate the science.

    At this point all they have left is propaganda. There is zero science on the part of the alarmist crowd — as we see here in the comments by Hunt and doggie.

  164. rustneversleeps says:
    June 7, 2014 at 11:52 am
    arthur4563 says:
    June 7, 2014 at 4:38 am
    if you want to know the opinions of scientists about global warming, YOU ASK THEM, STUPID.

    Cook et al (2013) did just that. They emailed 8,457 authors to solicit their assessment of their research. Of those responding (~1200):.“Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.”

    Such self-selection of respondents only approx. 14% would not be tolerated in any professional political opinion poll survey for example. Even telephone based ones versus face-to-face are regarded as inferior or less reliable in political polling circles as a certain level of biasing can occur. All you could take from that information above is there probably is a high level of consensus among scientists of AGW but a near 97% figure could not be asserted with any confidence on the basis of that information alone.

  165. So much for the 24-errors….

    http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-errors.html

    Cook and co (C14) have a glossy document claiming that I made 24 errors in my recent comment on their work (C13).

    Here are some responses. More in a few days:
    1. See forthcoming rejoinder. Healey (2011) undermines C13.
    2. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample.
    3. Consensus is irrelevant in science. Cook’s alleged consensus, that humans played some part in the observed warming, is irrelevant in policy.
    4. I indeed cited Legates.
    5. The raters knew each other, and frequently discussed their ratings with one another.
    6. There are various ways to interpret C13. One is that it was a survey of Cook and his mates by Cook and his mates. Cook himself uses this interpretation, “a survey of human subjects”, in his argument that the raters are entitled to their privacy (see 7).
    7. The requested data are for verification and audit rather than replication.
    8. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample.
    9. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample.
    10. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample.
    11. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample. They forget that the onus is on them to demonstrate representativeness. I gave a number of examples of over- and undersampling.
    12. C14 do not dispute the key claim: non-representativeness of the C13 sample.
    13. Andy S complained about rating so many abstracts that he couldn’t tell them apart anymore. I think that is a sign of fatigue.
    15. In 7, C14 argue that the raters are interviewees entitled to privacy. In 15, C14 argue that the raters are interviewers.
    16. C14 contradict the data of C13.
    17. I indeed used a small, selective sample as an illustration.
    18. I indeed cited Montford.
    19. C14 do not dispute the key claim: C13 failed validation test.
    20: C14 do not dispute the key claim: impact and policy papers in C13 contain no evidence on the causes of warming.
    21: Implicit endorsement is in the eye of the reader.
    22: C14 do not dispute key claim: C13 mistook trend in composition for trend in endorsement.
    23: C14 do not dispute key claim: C13’s results are dominated by papers that contain no evidence on the causes of warming.
    24. C14 refer to public opinion whereas I referred to the climate debate.

  166. Siberian doggy, your frostbites are getting serious. You did not answer my simple question, which of course is business as usual for misinformers like you. You should read the articles you reference to. First you referred to an article which clearly stated that there were many uncertainties in relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases: “…But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood”. The actual results of your article of choice concluded that the greenhouse effect has significantly increased during the research data period (that is before the 17 years plus pause/hiatus) but did not point finger at CO2 only but a number of greenhouses gases. You were the one who interpreted the article as a defense of your claim of CO2 being the cause. I pointed out that your claim has even been refuted by an article that referenced your article of choice, Nowhere did I endorse that article, the only reason referencing you to it was to point out your silly little game of cherry picking. You did not respond to me pointing out that you had been caught with cherries in you hands, nor did not answer my questions why the CO2 seems to be on a very long vacation from the “global heating” job. You have thereby shown that you are a tool, using the old method of your trade and I am not going to feed you anymore.

  167. Re: dbstealey says: June 9, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    That was a lot more than one word!

    Great. If you understand physics then ask @RACookPE1978 to explain the Stefan–Boltzmann law to you.

    BTW – Extreme weather events are increasing in my part of the world.

  168. Re: RACookPE1978 says: June 9, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Anecdotal evidence of the effects of recent extreme weather events on the infrastructure in my part of the world, amongst other things.

    Please explain the Stefan–Boltzmann law to @dbstealey.

  169. Jim Hunt says:
    June 10, 2014 at 1:39 am

    Re: RACookPE1978 says: June 9, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Anecdotal evidence of the effects of recent extreme weather events on the infrastructure in my part of the world, amongst other things.
    ______________
    I doubt that is even true. Prove it! Why don’t you give us details and cite examples? More hurricanes, tornadoes, what? Record cold winters and heavy snows? Many studies disprove your words, why don’t you know that, or do you know it and come here blathering nonsense, anyway? There is no part of the whole “climate disruption” scare which holds up to scrutiny. I see that you ignored the graphs I’ve shown you. The reason is simple- the only leg you had to stand on was “the 97% consensus” and that pegleg has been yanked out from under you..

    [Note to those confused by the above: Robertson is replying to Hunt's criticism of an earlier RACook answer to a previous question from Hunt. 8<) .mod]

  170. @Alan – Did you bother to read the article I linked to, or the information available at any of the links, or elsewhere on the site for that matter?

    Given your response I can only assume not. The Met Office is within cycling distance of here. They’ve been saying things like:

    “It has been the wettest winter in the long running England and Wales Precipitation (EWP) series going back to 1766″

    and

    “Winter 2014 was an exceptionally stormy season, with at least 12 major winter storms affecting the UK. When considered overall, this was the stormiest period of weather experienced by the UK for at least 20 years. An analysis of pressure fields by the University of East Anglia suggests this winter has had more very severe gale days than any other winter season in a series from 1871.”

  171. Jim Hunt says:
    June 10, 2014 at 5:53 am

    @Alan – Did you bother to read the article I linked to, or the information available at any of the links, or elsewhere on the site for that matter?
    ____________________
    Did you even bother to put up a link? Oh, the link that identifies you as a crossdresser?
    No, I didn’t read that.

    Trollin, Trollin, Trollin’
    Keep them doggies trollin’

    Through rain and wind and weather
    They’re dressed in straps of leather
    Wishin’ nature was on their side….

  172. Jim Hunt says:
    June 10, 2014 at 7:09 am

    @Alan – Not that link, this link:
    ______________________
    Now I see what you’re on about. You are here to promote traffic to your own site.

    You’ve placed that link here several times. I specifically stated I’d been there and you know that, having specifically responded to my post, yet you maintain a pretense which allowed you to post your link again. Too bad that you don’t yet realize that by that effort and your own words, you have revealed your fundamental dishonesty in this conversation. Give ‘em enough rope…

    Trollin, Trollin, Trollin’
    Keep them doggies trollin’

  173. Jim Hunt says:

    That was a lot more than one word!

    It was exactly one (1) word, no more, no less: “Yes.” Look it up, it’s right upthread. Why you try to misrepresent everything is something I don’t understand. You have been wrong about everything regarding scientific facts and empirical evidence. As I wrote:

    “The alarmist crowd lost the scientific argument a long time ago, and they lost it decisively. So now they… they argue endlessly without addressing any facts, or answering any questions.”

    Next, Hunt says:

    BTW – Extreme weather events are increasing in my part of the world.

    What planet are you from?? I gave seven sources showing conclusively that extreme weather events have been steadily declining. Hurricane activity is at its lowest in recorded history. Tornado deaths and damage are likewise very low, and still declining. And so on.

    This is solid evidence that Jim Hunt is mentally unbalanced. I have more measurements showing that extreme weather events are all in decline, but why bother? Hunt believes Mrs Keech’s flying saucer will appear any time, and there is no more hope of convincing him that reality debunks what he believes than there is hope of convincing a Jehova’s Witness that they are wrong, and more than a little nuts.

    Hunt cannot understand that, as he says, “Anecdotal evidence of the effects of recent extreme weather events” is not science. Global measurements debunk that sort of fake argument.

    Hunt continues:

    It has been the wettest winter in the long running England and Wales… Winter 2014 was an exceptionally stormy season, with at least 12 major winter storms affecting the UK. When considered overall, this was the stormiest period of weather experienced by the UK for at least 20 years.

    The discussion is over global warming. Your local weather strawman examples are meaningless. You really don’t understand how silly and desperate your cherry-picking of local weather events sounds??

    As Alan says, you are revealing your fundamental dishonesty.

    Finally, I note that Hunt still has never answered a single question. The reason is because he will be easily and thoroughly debunked. Alarmists always lose the debate when it comes down to real world data. Hunt is no exception.

  174. @dbstealey – Actually the discussion was originally about Richard Tol and the “97% consensus”. See the title. To quote Prof. Tol’s latest “short communication” in Energy Policy once again:

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change over-whelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

    Meanwhile my helpful comment over in the Arctic sea ice forecast thread has been “snipped” in its entirety. Supposedly I’m “thread-jack[ing] again”. Geesh!!!!

    REPLY: No it wasn’t helpful to push your favorite ice volume hobby horse on your website in a forecasting exercise about sea ice extent (ARCUS makes this clear) and yes, you thread-jack. I’m not here to drive traffic to your web-site, especially when you title things like “Debating skeptics is like mud wrestling with pigs” So since that is your attitude (yet you persist here, mainly for disruption) I’m going to put you in the semi-permanent troll bin. Take a 72 hour time out. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony

  175. To quote Prof. Tol’s latest “short communication” in Energy Policy once again:

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change over-whelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

    Why are you quote mining Dr. Tol’s paper? Lets see the key findings of the paper:

    Abstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

Comments are closed.