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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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}
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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?
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.
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!!!!
Pamela Gray is exactly right: observations are rejected in favor of [always wrong] models and baseless conjectures.
On the Sensitivity thread, rgbatduke wrote:
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.
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?
“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?
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!!!!
Jim Hunt says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:10 am
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/trend
____________________________
Isn’t this fun?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend
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.
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!
@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.
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.
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?
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
@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/