15 replies to this topic

[*JB*]

They call this a consensus "Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable. Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

Edited by *JB*, 22 April 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[diogenes227]

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

[*JB*]

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

I let the chart/article you linked above go by the first time -- but I'm getting tired of your cr@p and ad hominum attacks.

It is the LEFTISTS that are the liars.

The "author" of the article and pie chart -- James Powell -- purposely ignores that the 'Web of Science' database -- where he did ALL of his "analysis" -- does not have a "peer-reviewed" only filter.

In the article --

1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in the results was never determined (would not pass scientific muster!!)

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic" -- the term ALL scientific studies would use for man made global warming/climate change.

3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed -- AGAIN -- as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

4. The article includes a VERY FALSE argument (i.e. LIE) that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

[colion]

Consensus and science are not joined at the hip: " ... Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a "scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus science." --- James Schlesinger, " ... consensus is the stuff of politics, not science." --- Prof. Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur, Paris

[salsabob]

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

I let the chart/article you linked above go by the first time -- but I'm getting tired of your cr@p and ad hominum attacks.

It is the LEFTISTS that are the liars.

The "author" of the article and pie chart -- James Powell -- purposely ignores that the 'Web of Science' database -- where he did ALL of his "analysis" -- does not have a "peer-reviewed" only filter.

In the article --

1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in the results was never determined (would not pass scientific muster!!)

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic" -- the term ALL scientific studies would use for man made global warming/climate change.

3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed -- AGAIN -- as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

4. The article includes a VERY FALSE argument (i.e. LIE) that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

I don't see your argument as valid.

Are you suggesting that a "peer-reviewed" filter would only lower the 13 thousand plus 'liars' and have no impact on the 24 'truth-tellers'? That seems pretty far fetched, but even if so, you'd have to go out pretty far on significant figures for the ratio to see much difference - the fact of 'liars' far far outweighing your 'truth tellers' would remain. You see that fact repeated often enough on any skeptic’s blog as proof of conspiracy, evil govt scientists, yadda, yadda, yadda so why are you trying to undermine that particular skeptic's meme?

I looked at his linked mythology, it's pretty clear what his search criteria were - "global warming" or "global climate change.". You can suggest different/better criteria but you can't say he didn't have them … and they were applied in the "context" of his selected data base. What else do you want (other than a different answer)?

As far as "anthropogenic," the author states in his methodology - "Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations. " Admittedly that is pretty sparse explanation of what he actually did, but have you done something yourself to actually refute his result and shown that his "human-caused" filter is faulty? I sort of doubt it.

That also applies to your interpretation that he believes skeptics see no warming at all. His filter, as he indicated, was "rejects human-caused" not "rejects any warming."

You've lost a lot of credibility with me on the other thread by posting the highly-discredited PSI and their interpretation of the NASA SABER report. The actual NASA report referenced makes not a single mention of global warming. Moreover, PSI's out-of-the-blue interpretation is based on their highly-discredited Posta model (one of those skeptics who has NEVER published a peer-reviewed climate science paper in any legitimate science journal). Essentially, PSI is trying to say that if an umbrella keeps the rain off your head that is proof that there is no water in the oceans. Folks who suck up and turn around a spew that kind of nonsense aren't worth a lot of attention – except as examples of the consequences of not attending one’s 8th grade physics class.

[*JB*]

You've lost a lot of credibility with me on the other thread by posting the highly-discredited PSI and their interpretation of the NASA SABER report. The actual NASA report referenced makes not a single mention of global warming. Moreover, PSI's out-of-the-blue interpretation is based on their highly-discredited Posta model (one of those skeptics who has NEVER published a peer-reviewed climate science paper in any legitimate science journal). Essentially, PSI is trying to say that if an umbrella keeps the rain off your head that is proof that there is no water in the oceans. Folks who suck up and turn around a spew that kind of nonsense aren't worth a lot of attention – except as examples of the consequences of not attending one’s 8th grade physics class.

Please, you're breaking my heart ;-). Er, when have you ever posted that you thought me credible. It seems that, like others, you ignore what you don't counter...like how "consensus" led to the death of 10s of millions from Malaria from the banning of DDT -- that consensus then refuted after the needless holocaust.

I posted that article, without comment, because of one thing: NASA report not (in my view) in support of a James Hanson's point of view. I respect your efforts to explain your POV, that is healthy debate and welcome.

However, I would challenge you to show how any of the sources you call "highly discredited" are in fact -- other than they don't support the AGW "catastrophication" -- highly discredited.


Cheers

[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.


A basic requirement for anybody to claim that human activities are the main cause for global warming, as opposed to natural factors, is the existence of a verified model of warming that includes human forcings or else the scientific veracity of such claims is without merit. The bottom line is that no such model exists and so it is not possible for any model or anybody to even assign a semi-quantitative figure to the effect of human activities on global warming.

[colion]

Are these guys liars or truth tellers?

[salsabob]

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/

[salsabob]

You've lost a lot of credibility with me on the other thread by posting the highly-discredited PSI and their interpretation of the NASA SABER report. The actual NASA report referenced makes not a single mention of global warming. Moreover, PSI's out-of-the-blue interpretation is based on their highly-discredited Posta model (one of those skeptics who has NEVER published a peer-reviewed climate science paper in any legitimate science journal). Essentially, PSI is trying to say that if an umbrella keeps the rain off your head that is proof that there is no water in the oceans. Folks who suck up and turn around a spew that kind of nonsense aren't worth a lot of attention – except as examples of the consequences of not attending one’s 8th grade physics class.

Please, you're breaking my heart ;-). Er, when have you ever posted that you thought me credible. It seems that, like others, you ignore what you don't counter...like how "consensus" led to the death of 10s of millions from Malaria from the banning of DDT -- that consensus then refuted after the needless holocaust.

I posted that article, without comment, because of one thing: NASA report not (in my view) in support of a James Hanson's point of view. I respect your efforts to explain your POV, that is healthy debate and welcome.

However, I would challenge you to show how any of the sources you call "highly discredited" are in fact -- other than they don't support the AGW "catastrophication" -- highly discredited.


Cheers

The NASA article says nothing about climate change let alone anything specific about James Hanson's point of view. How do you get from their article on upper atmosphere radiant reflection of exceptional sunspot activity to either Hanson's most known work of surface temperatures (essentially confirmed by former skeptic Muller's BEST results) to even his circulation models? While these things all seem to be under the same rubric to most layman, they are miles (pun intended) apart in actual scientific research endeavors. But feel free to have a go at linking them -- with, of course, any actual references to published papers attempting to do so. I'm looking for something more than the usual pulling something out of one's uninformed postier.