15 replies to this topic

[colion]

Thirteen thousand Liars and the twenty-four truth-tellers in the fossil fuel industry

The reference to Oreskes' is quite misleading as her study was debunked shortly after it was published. Specifically, a number of attempts to duplicate her results failed. In one study using her methodology 1,117 abstracts were found of which only 13 explicitly accepted what you call the "consensus position". In addition, 34 of the abstracts either rejected or seriously questioned whether human forcings were the principal driving force for warming over the previous half a century. More recently, alarmists arguments about global warming being driven by human activities have been rejected by over 700 scientists with the highest credentials and has been so reported by the U.S.. Senate. Now that is consensus you can believe. There is a reason few peer reviewed papers (if any) reference Oreskes' 2004 study.

What studies are you referencing? It seems odd for you to put this out there without any reference. Raises lots of questions about who's criteria for "explicitly accepted" or "rejected or seriously questioned." Let's at least see who came up with this, ah, stuff.

The Senate minority report gets no credit with me. It is essentially Sen. Inhofe grandstanding for the oil and gas industry that provides him documented $1 million plus war chests for his election runs. The claim of 700 scientist has been disputed from the beginning with their listing done without initial consent and a number of them requesting to be taken off the list. Moreover, it has been shown that only 15% of those listed have had actual publications in peer-reviewed climate-related scientific journals. Moreover, it has also been shown that the majority of those listed believe that global warming has occurred since the dawn of the industrial age and that human activity has been at least a partial factor. There disputes with the mainstream range from differences over model predictive capacities to the degree of warming to the degree of human activities being responsible - to lump them all together is akin to lumping all women together and suggesting no differences - I think the listed scientists would be as nearly offended by that stupidity as women would be of their mindless lumping - Inhofe is not one of the brighter lights in the Senate.

A fairly balanced viewpoint of the Inhofe's million dollar plus payoff report is here -

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3002211/

Oreskes' debunking was done by Dr. Benny Peiser

Who cares if you give "no credit" to the Senate report but that is not surprising given your demonstrated ideological bias.

Your attack on Inofe is not surprising. When you can't debunk the message the standard fallback positon is to debunk the messenger. Here is a clue - your comments and views about Inohofe are meaningless and do not discredit the views of the 700 but, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. By the way, if you are concerned about Inofe's political contributors you should also be concerned about who environmental groups, "clean" energy companies, stimulus funds, etc. support. I'll bet if you look you can find this information which I'm sure you would be interested in.

As for peer reviewed publications it is nonsensical to claim that without such credits an analysis is invalid and given the reports references your concern is probably baseless. I, for example, have not published in this field but am more than qualified to review and comment on the literature which I am sure most who comment on forums such as this are not. Bottom line, the 15% claim has no impact on anything and is only of importance to those who are uninformed about the scientific world.

As for climate models the problem is much greater than you portray. No climate model has been verified. In fact, as the latest draft IPCC report shows temperatures are tracking below all climate models. Until climate models are verified all claims about the amount of warming or cooling to come or the impact of human activities on such changes are BS . In addition, nobody claims that warming has not and perhaps still is happening - we can all read a thermometer. That, of course, is what happens when the earth comes out of an ice age as it has done since the 1800s. If that were not the case, the Thames would still be frozen. It is amusing to watch warming alarmists scramble as they lose public (and surprisingly even media) support, resulting in a rollback of political actions in some places, reduced priority by politicians, etc.

As for listing scientists without their consent that is more BS or perhaps you are confusing the Senate report with previous IPCC reports. Glancing through the report I do not see anybody listed without a link to a public document which is all that is needed.

Edited by colion, 25 April 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[salsabob]

Oreskes' debunking was done by Dr. Benny Peiser

Ah, sorry dude, but Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes’ survey -

http://www.abc.net.a.../ep38peiser.pdf

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." - Peiser, Benny
Thursday, 12 October 2006

I added the bold there for you, buddy, in case you might have missed it.

Who cares if you give "no credit" to the Senate report..

You obviously do.

but that is not surprising given your demonstrated ideological bias.

Well since my ideology is fact-based bias, I'm not surprised either

font="Times New Roman"][/font]Your attack on Inofe is not surprising. When you can't debunk the message the standard fallback positon is to debunk the messenger. Here is a clue - your comments and views about Inohofe are meaningless and do not discredit the views of the 700 but, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. By the way, if you are concerned about Inofe's political contributors you should also be concerned about who environmental groups, "clean" energy companies, stimulus funds, etc. support. I'll bet if you look you can find this information which I'm sure you would be interested in.

Okay, if this conversation continues, let's leave out the politics. Let's see who's head explodes first. If internet chat room history is any guide, I don't think it will be mine.

As for peer reviewed publications it is nonsensical to claim that without such credits an analysis is invalid and given the reports references your concern is probably baseless. I, for example, have not published in this field but am more than qualified to review and comment on the literature which I am sure most who comment on forums such as this are not. Bottom line, the 15% claim has no impact on anything and is only of importance to those who are uninformed about the scientific world.

You seem to think highly of your intellectual prowess, and yet you can't seem to grasp your cognitive dissonance of refuting Oreskes with your 700 scientists and then whining about peer reviewed publications. Unless, of course, your definition of a scientist is some dude on an Internet chat room bragging about his intellectual prowess. Makes sense to me.

In addition, nobody claims that warming has not and perhaps still is happening -

Well, there you go and done it. You've just put yourself on the hate list for about half of the skeptics out there.

What was it? Muller's BEST study? You do know he went further than just the warming, right?

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause

Me? I'm still open to further research - a little different than most who start threads on the subject around here, in case you didn't notice.
Where do you think you fit on that scale of openness? Self delusion tends to be a bad trait in a trader.

[colion]

salsa, Was not aware of the Peiser retraction. However, this is a consensus issue which as you know carries or should carry no weight in the scientific world. Incidently, in your Googling you missed Montford's critique of Oreskes which takes her to task for not catching a half a dozen or so key abstracts that thumbs their nose at warming alarmist such as yourself. No, I do not care what you think of the Senate report. I do my own thinking and if I listen to anybody I'm quite selective. First attack Inhofe for political contributions and then when challenged to conduct a balanced assessment by looking at who benefited from environmental groups, "clean" energy industry, etc. or administration funding with stimulus monies you want to forget the whole thing. LOL. Here's a clue to help you get started beyond the obvious examples in Washington (starting with BHO) take a look at the hockey stick wonder, Mann. My outstanding intellectual prowness aside as one who takes pride in conducting fact-based analyses, your incorrect conclusion connecting my comments on debunking Oreskes and the Senate 700 is remarkable. The 700 are just an example for the uninformed who think that consensus is important in science. There ain't no consensus about the effect of human activities on climate and that by itself debunks Oreskes unless things have turned upside down since 2004 (and they have). So, I'm on the skeptic hate list. It is difficult for me to begin to connect your illogical thoughts which lead to that statement. Are you so lost? Don't you understand that virtually everybody agrees that the earth has been warming for over a century - we all know how to read a thermometer and so can see that earth has a "fever". But there the line in the sand is drawn. The wild eyed alarmists jump to the conclusion that man is causing the warming without the required scientific evidence and that we need to switch immediately to electric cars, etc. On the other hand the scientifically based climate realists know that climate always changes but absent verified climate models there is no objective basis for the alarmists' claims. As for Muller, you are Googling again but in this case it will not cut the mustard. I am quite familiar with Muller's work and a simple Google will not be too helpful in uncovering the problems with his report. So, hold my hand and I'll show you some of the things that your fact finding overlooked: (1) Muller did not include ocean temperature data in the study although he notes that so doing would reduce the temperature rise that he reports by an IPCC estimate of 0.6 degrees C over the past 50 years. (2) Muller admits that temperatures have not risen over the past 13 years. Note given that factoid one of Muller's faculty co-authors said that the report does not provide any scientific evidence that eliminates the possibility that global warming has hit a turning point and we are now in a cooling period. Remember the 1970s when the global cooling alarmists were everywhere and eventually burned themselves out as warming alarmists are doing today. (3) Prior to publication it was pointed out to Muller that he incorrectly used urban effect/measuring station data but that was ignored. (4) One of Muller's faculty co-authors told a UK newspaper that Muller's claim that he had shown that skeptics are wrong had no scientific basis - just hand waving. (5) Muller knows the importance of verified climate models in order to make scientifically based conclusions on future temperatures and a quantitative assessment of the effect of human activities on climate. The study is based not on verified models but on correlations which some characterize as weak. As a result, the report demonstrates that temperatures have been rising for over a century (duh). Is it any wonder that after the ignorant media gave it a splash it has not turned any heads. (6) To make matters worse, in 2011 Muller wrote in the WSJ ""How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." That's correct and he could not because there are no verified models. But then Muller magically had an epiphamy and said a year later in the NYTimes "Humans are almost entirely the cause [of global warming]". And then a few lines later he said "How definite is the attribution to humans? ... These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism ... ". How's that for a rock solid study for warming alarmists to hang their hats and hopes on? When one of his faculty co-authors raises serious objections to the report is it any wonder that few in the field take the report's extrapolation to human impact on climate seriously. I certainly don't and would question the competence of anybody who did. But enough of this. Everybody is just saying the same thing over and over. A waste of time and besides it is time to open a bottle of wine for a late dinner. Man the barricades and watch for rotten eggs

Edited by colion, 25 April 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[salsabob]

..... this is a consensus issue which as you know carries or should carry no weight in the scientific world.

....... missed Montford's critique of Oreskes which takes her to task for not catching a half a dozen or so key abstracts....

Is it or is it not a numbers game that you want to play? I'm okay either way, but could you stay put on the rules that you want to impose?

No, I do not care what you think of the Senate report. I do my own thinking and if I listen to anybody I'm quite selective.

Dude, you're the one who brought it up. See my question above.

........ warming alarmist such as yourself....attack Inhofe for political contributions.... who benefited from ...... administration funding... stimulus monies.... examples in Washington

then

you want to forget the whole thing. LOL.

Dude, do you not want the politics or do you??? I told you that I understand that leaving it out would likely make your head explode; I'm okay if we leave it in. I'm also okay with us leaving it out. As with the number of scientists on the head of a pin, can you just make up your mind on whether we leave it in or take it out?
Man, you guys are slippery.

My outstanding intellectual prowness aside as one who takes pride in conducting fact-based analyses, your incorrect conclusion connecting my comments on debunking Oreskes and the Senate 700 is remarkable. The 700 are just an example for the uninformed who think that consensus is important in science. There ain't no consensus about the effect of human activities on climate and that by itself debunks Oreskes unless things have turned upside down since 2004 (and they have).

So consensus is not important except for when you want to show that there is no consensus??? That must be some 'outstanding intellectual prowess' that I just can't keep up with. Slip, slip, slippery around here!

So, I'm on the skeptic hate list. It is difficult for me to begin to connect your illogical thoughts which lead to that statement. Are you so lost? Don't you understand that virtually everybody agrees that the earth has been warming for over a century - we all know how to read a thermometer and so can see that earth has a "fever".

I am quite familiar with Muller's work

Really?

Let's see what Muller himself said about his study -

"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming." - R. Muller 8/2012

and what would cast doubt on the very existence of global warming? Let's go back to the mouth of the man himself -

"We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off)." - R. Muller 8/2012

Maybe we're talking about different Mullers - mine's the one that has published in peer-reviewed climate-related scientific journals; yours might be some unknown unpublished likely-not-a-climate-scientist Muller dude that's one of Inhofe listed 700. That's okay with me, such confusion can happen to any Internet chat room intellectual prowess dude. We just need to clear that up.

Or maybe it's that 'slippery thing' - census in, census out; politics in, politics out; why not the convenience for you of forgetting about any controversy over whether actual warming has been occurring? Makes sense to me.

Just note, I don't think others are so quick to have forgotten. Betrayal is perhaps the strongest of human emotion. Who starts your car for you in the morning? How well do you really know him?

[colion]

Maybe we're talking about different Mullers - mine's the one that has published in peer-reviewed climate-related scientific journals; yours might be some unknown unpublished likely-not-a-climate-scientist Muller dude that's one of Inhofe listed 700. That's okay with me, such confusion can happen to any Internet chat room intellectual prowess dude. We just need to clear that up.

Or maybe it's that 'slippery thing' - census in, census out; politics in, politics out; why not the convenience for you of forgetting about any controversy over whether actual warming has been occurring? Makes sense to me.

Just note, I don't think others are so quick to have forgotten. Betrayal is perhaps the strongest of human emotion. Who starts your car for you in the morning? How well do you really know him?

The URL that you posted is for a physicist at Berkley. He is the one who had the conversion. That's the one we are both talking about.

The rest of your comments are just stirring the pot BS. Enjoy.

[salsabob]

Maybe we're talking about different Mullers - mine's the one that has published in peer-reviewed climate-related scientific journals; yours might be some unknown unpublished likely-not-a-climate-scientist Muller dude that's one of Inhofe listed 700. That's okay with me, such confusion can happen to any Internet chat room intellectual prowess dude. We just need to clear that up.

Or maybe it's that 'slippery thing' - census in, census out; politics in, politics out; why not the convenience for you of forgetting about any controversy over whether actual warming has been occurring? Makes sense to me.

Just note, I don't think others are so quick to have forgotten. Betrayal is perhaps the strongest of human emotion. Who starts your car for you in the morning? How well do you really know him?

The URL that you posted is for a physicist at Berkley. He is the one who had the conversion. That's the one we are both talking about.

The rest of your comments are just stirring the pot BS. Enjoy.

Slipping away, hey?

Like I said, you guys sure are slippery, even with just the slightest tad of friendly pushback.

Too bad; take away the politics, what is science, all the conspiracy stuff, pointing fingers at 'evil', yadda, yadda, we're actually not that far apart - as you said, global warming has been occurring (shhh, don't tell Stocks! ).

The questions are anthropogenic? Continuing? And what's with this 'pause?'

Where we most likely disagree is whether you or I are qualified to figure those things out - we're not.

My understanding of that allows me to remain open minded and await more research; oh, and point out the slipperiness of those who think they have the answers, but actually don't.