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
I presume people here know that rustneversleeps was rater for Cook et al.
@Jan Christoffersen
yes, confirmed
Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
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?
http://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo?t=6m20s
I presume you’re well aware that Al Gore isn’t a climate scientitst?
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.
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”:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://youtu.be/h–HR7PWfp0
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?
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?
@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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.