Consensus 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
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.
[snip feel free to resubmit that without the name calling – Anthony]
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. 🙂
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
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.
“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.
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.
@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.
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.
Thankyou Mr Poptech- I will dutifully examine and get back to you. Woof. 🙂
@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.
“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?
@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.
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.
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.
“Cream Bourbon says:
June 8, 2014 at 1:40 am”
Oh dear!
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’
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.