Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Howzabout playing the ball Ms trash talker?

The irrefutable fact is that the survey is junk. You just can't get around that.

Yes, tained by the self interest of oil companies, coal producers and governments who excercise full constraints over what scientists are allowed to say and publish.

We most certainly know where the hysteria lies Mr waynel

 

[wayneL]

Now you're a conspiracy theorist plod?

- - - Updated - - -

Come on ladies, if you are interested at all about scientific integrity, you have to admit the truth, That survey is junk.

 

[basilio]

Truth stings doesn't it Wayne ?

You have zip credibility/integrity in any area of this discussion. Thats why we don't waste any energy talking with you.

 

[wayneL]

Truth stings doesn't it Wayne ?

You have zip credibility/integrity in any area of this discussion. Thats why we don't waste any energy talking with you.

That's nothing but a tedious straw man argumentative fallacy basilio.

My credibility is not relative to the point at hand, the substantive point is the integrity of the survey and John Cook's mendacious design of the same.

You ladies attempting to defend it, albeit only tacitly by shooting at (and missing wildly) the messenger, reeks of your own credibility chasm.

So instead of once again playing the man and not the ball, I'd like to hear you either admit it is junk, or make a fool of yourselves by denying that the survey is a piece of crap.

 

[explod]

You ladies attempting to defend it, albeit only tacitly by shooting at (and missing wildly) the messenger, reeks of your own credibility chasm.

So instead of once again playing the man and not the ball, I'd like to hear you either admit it is junk, or make a fool of yourselves by denying that the survey is a piece of crap.

So this is suddenly from the left side ole Pal. Bash the ladies if all else is failing. A standover oil and coal man does seem to fit the profile of the domestic basher to some degree.

On topic; even Abbott today at the Press Conference concedes a global warming problem. So olepal you ought surely concede that concern for man made climate change is no hysterical whim anymore.

 

[wayneL]

Plod you are still avoiding the point at hand (and still ignoring my 'in print' position on CC). The point is the integrity of Cook's "survey", which has shown to be corrupt.

Cook's survey is a politicized piece of rubbish which ignores actual range of proper science out there. What must be particularly irritating for you ladies, is that Cook has been called out by his own side.

Now please, tell us whether you think Cook et al is bona fide science or, as Tol, Lomborg et al has shown, a piece of toilet paper.

 

[wayneL]

http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland
Dear Professor Høj,

I was struck by a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters with John Cook, a University of Queensland employee, as the lead author. The paper purports to estimate the degree of agreement in the literature on climate change. Consensus is not an argument, of course, but my attention was drawn to the fact that the headline conclusion had no confidence interval, that the main validity test was informal, and that the sample contained a very large number of irrelevant papers while simultaneously omitting many relevant papers.

My interest piqued, I wrote to Mr Cook asking for the underlying data and received 13% of the data by return email. I immediately requested the remainder, but to no avail............................

 

[wayneL]

The doo-doo gets deeper for Cook et al:

via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...w-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

bolds mine

Also in the same post, latest Cook & Nuticelli paper taken out with the garbage.

That Cook and his minions are advocates not remotely interested in proper science, is now beyond doubt.

 

[wayneL]

It's still a bit cold up there apparently

 

[Knobby22]

Some reporter obviously mucked up or talked to a crank to get a headline.

The arctic won't be mostly ice free for another 30 years and won't be completely ice free till the turn of the next century. it will be ice free enough however for shipping which is why the Chinese are building ships suitable for this to transport coal from Canada.

I'm with Rupert.

Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.
Rupert Murdoch

I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.
Rupert Murdoch
Read more at http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/rupert-murdoch/quotes.htm#4b8CrVZJAvr5xclQ.99

 

[Sdajii]

Some reporter obviously mucked up or talked to a crank to get a headline.

Nice summary of the entire issue of climate change you have there!

 

[basilio]

Wayne you really peddle and believe in such absolute rubbish on climate change and the scientific research around it.

For weeks now you have quoted all sorts of obscure gibberish from protagonists whose life work is to undermine any/all research that connects human generated activity with substantial changes in our climate.

However if we stand back and look at the body of peer reviewed scientific research on climate change the overwhelming body of work accepts there is evidence of rapid climatic change. In the research that looks to the causes of this change again the overwhelming body of work identifies the excessive human produced CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution (and particularly the last 50 years) as the main (but not sole) culprit.

Cooks research is not the only piece of work in this area. As you know there have been at least 4 other examinations along similar lines which demonstrate just how broad an agreement there is amongst the scientific community of this issue.

What all the huffing and puffing attempting to debase this work does is remind of us of the way the tobacco lobby and their pet doctors spent decades steadfastly denying the connections between smoking and cancers. (meanwhile deliberately burying every scrap of evidence that pointed in the wrong direction).

It also reminds of of the way some people kept trying to say the world temperature records are dodgy /adjusted/misread - anything to avoid acknowledging that global temperatures have actually risen by .8c in the past century.

(Hell I can still vividly remember one particular Forum member who still expressed that view after the BEST report finally backed up what climate scientists had been saying for 40 years)

Does overwhelming consensus on a position offer total and absolute proof ? Of course not. But in the real world where there are very few absolute certainties we depend on the strong balance of probabilities to make our decisions.

For anyone else interested in looking at big picture of this issue checkout the following.

http://theconsensusproject.com/

Links to the following papers can be found at the above URL.

The scientific consensus on climate change
(Naomi Oreskes, 2004)

Examining the scientific consensus on climate change
(Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)

Expert credibility in climate change
(William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)

The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong?
(Naomi Oreskes, 2007)

 

[wayneL]

Basilio, once again you create a fraudulent straw man around which to create your fallacious arguments.

1 I have no desire to take down climate science. I fully support climate science and the study of anthropogenic effects on climate. I have always been on record for this as I must state for the millionth time. I do not support the advocacy of an unsupported catastrophic scenario for political or psychological reasons. This is why I rail against doom mongers such as yourself and advocates such as Cook.

2 The takedown of Cooks fraud is based on the facts and in fact now peer reviewed. It is now part of the scientific record and you can't spin it otherwise. It's junk pure and simple.

That is the fact of the matter.

 

[basilio]

Wayne your takedown of Cooks analysis will not stand any inspection.

The simplest questions are
1) Do the vast majority of climate scientists accept that we have significant warming ?
2) Is human activity a substantial cause of this warming.?

These questions were directly asked by Cook of the scientists whose work was reviewed. 97% agreed with the questions How much clearer do you want this position to be ?

Cooks work as well as the other three reviews back up this position.

As I said the efforts to cast doubt on the overwhelmingly agreement by researchers in the field on the above points is just a repeat of the serial distortions used by lobbyists in the tobacco industry and other health/science fields where action is demanded in the name of public health. (Consider asbestos issues, effects of lead in paint and cars.)

Again if anyone with an open mind wishes to see just how black can be turned white check out the following.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

 

[burglar]

... how black can be turned white check out the following.

Michael Jackson Black or White Lyrics:

It doesn't matter if you're black or white

: Sorry, couldna help myself!

 

[wayneL]

Wayne your takedown of Cooks analysis will not stand any inspection.

Will you please stop using fallacy.

via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...w-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

Abstract

Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

bolds mine

Also in the same post, latest Cook & Nuticelli paper taken out with the garbage.

That Cook and his minions are advocates not remotely interested in proper science, is now beyond doubt.

I have not taken down Cook at all, however, Tol, Curry, those mentioned in quotes and others have done. Once more, the take down is peer reviewed.

Yet you still parrot Cook's line, fingers stuck in ears, singing alalalalalalalalal.

Laughable really.

 

[basilio]

Simply simple simple Wayne. So simple even someone like you might possibly be able to follow .

Have look at those authors of your quoted takedown papers.

Willie Soon was investigated over his work on climate change research and 13 scientists ripped his paper apart.. (Lord) Christopher Monckton is a serial liar. Proven and reproven. There is almost nothing he can't corrupt with a bit of graph fiddling, cherry picking, misleading analysis.

David Legates is a strident critic of anthropogenic global warming.

No one in the climate science field would accept any papers they wrote without some excellent independent corroborative evidence.

2003: Climate Research controversy
Main article: Soon and Baliunas controversy

In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[19]

Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[20][21] There were three main objections: 1. Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; 2. they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and 3. they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[20][21] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these claims.[22]

After disagreement with the publisher and other members of the editorial board, Hans Von Storch, Clare Goodess, and 2 more members of the journal's 10 member editorial board, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[23][24] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[25]

Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[26][27][28][29

How about finding someone who might be so neutral and doesn't just make up stories to defend their position ? Or don't they exist?
http://www.desmogblog.com/realclimate-reveals-willie-soon-s-scientific-sleight-hand

 

[basilio]

For anyone interested in understanding how totally distorted Waynes paper was check out the analysis on Skeptical Science. There is a particularly excellent discussion on how the master dissembler Christopher Monckton managed to show that only .3% of Climate scientists supported the idea of human caused global warming.

Truly only Monckton would have the chutzpah to come up with that line.

I thought it was also instructive to see the quote from Richard Tol who has also been quoted in his attacks on the paper.

Tol's Rejected Comment

Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

Wayne you and the rest of the climate denial industry are just quoting rubbish.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html

 

[wayneL]

It's still peer reviewed, therefore valid. It still exposes the survey's fatal flaws, whether you do an ad hom on the authors or not.

And you have forgotten Curry, Tol et al.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a filthy liar basilio, because you have once again referred to objective viewpoints as denial.

There is no denial, however you miss the point that the survey is still junk, rubbish, trash, spucatum tauri, camel dung, whatever.

This has been shown, it is on record, Cook's credibilty at an all time low.

- - - Updated - - -

...and you have the temerity to quote SkS? Please, find something which credibility is not in tatters.

Cook has lost his skin in this came luvvy.

 

[Calliope]

It's still peer reviewed, therefore valid. It still exposes the survey's fatal flaws, whether you do an ad hom on the authors or not.

And you have forgotten Curry, Tol et al.

- - - Updated - - -

You are a filthy liar basilio, because you have once again referred to objective viewpoints as denial.

There is no denial, however you miss the point that the survey is still junk, rubbish, trash, spucatum tauri, camel dung, whatever.

This has been shown, it is on record, Cook's credibilty at an all time low.

- - - Updated - - -

...and you have the temerity to quote SkS? Please, find something which credibility is not in tatters.

Cook has lost his skin in this came luvvy.

Wayne, don't let this guy provoke you. He (she?) is only trolling. He (she?) couldn't possible be dumb enough to believe all the nonsense he (she?) posts.