Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[SirRumpole]

Or are the standard deviation calculations beyond your simple mathematical comprehension?

Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?

 

[notting]

Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.

Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!

Why? Because all the genuine scientists who actually know what they are talking about and use scientific methodology to conclude that climate change can be man made and if it were man made this is how it would be occurring and will continue to occur. These are the scientifically validated cause and effects resulting from such things as greater carbon particles saturation and methane gas etc in the air.
The petty fringe arguments you have chosen to dismiss on the basis of there being other possible causes of climate change is utterly untenable. There is no evidence that these, your alternative naturally occurring climate change causes are happening or causing it over and above the validated causes present that are man made.
Your clearly irrational and untenable positions evidence pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and only show you have no bipartisan respect for statistics what so ever.

Your like a person who is covered in melanomas and asked a medical student what the spot on your arse is and she tells you it's a freckle. So you latch on to that and throw out the rest and say the rest of blotches and grotesque spots all over your body are most likely freckles, despite the fact that your limbs a falling off and your sh1tting out your mouth.

Why you disagree with the massive majority of unbiased or Exxon paid QUALIFIED scientists and well established scientific research and DATA is not a rational or statistically based position at all in the broader picture.
Rather than relying on unqualified hack maths, fringe anomalies and irrelevant un established hypothesis to dismiss man made climate change you should man up and and go live in Caribbean and be sure to take your family because the chance of there being another hurricane like that again in another 100 years are, according to you, utterly improbable. Be sure to take a diesel generator and a few cows.

 

[wayneL]

Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.

Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!

Why? Because all the genuine scientists who actually know what they are talking about and use scientific methodology to conclude that climate change can be man made and if it were man made this is how it would be occurring and will continue to occur. These are the scientifically validated cause and effects resulting from such things as greater carbon particles saturation and methane gas etc in the air.
The petty fringe arguments you have chosen to dismiss on the basis of there being other possible causes of climate change is utterly untenable. There is no evidence that these, your alternative naturally occurring climate change causes are happening or causing it over and above the validated causes present that are man made.
Your clearly irrational and untenable positions evidence pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and only show you have no bipartisan respect for statistics what so ever.

Your like a person who is covered in melanomas and asked a medical student what the spot on your arse is and she tells you it's a freckle. So you latch on to that and throw out the rest and say the rest of blotches and grotesque spots all over your body are most likely freckles, despite the fact that your limbs a falling off and your sh1tting out your mouth.

Why you disagree with the massive majority of unbiased or Exxon paid QUALIFIED scientists and well established scientific research and DATA is not a rational or statistically based position at all in the broader picture.
Rather than relying on unqualified hack maths, fringe anomalies and irrelevant un established hypothesis to dismiss man made climate change you should man up and and go live in Caribbean and be sure to take your family because the chance of there being another hurricane like that again in another 100 years are, according to you, utterly improbable. Be sure to take a diesel generator and a few cows.

Pffffft,

Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.

 

[SirRumpole]

Pffffft,

Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.

I suppose you listen to the great scientist Malcolm Roberts ?

 

[cynic]

Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?

Because I am not the one boldly claiming that statistical analysis of an insufficiently small data population has anything meaningful to say about the apocalyptic climate religion!

Furthermore, it should already be perfectly obvious why it is important that people complete their own homework, rather than expecting others to complete it for them!

 

[PZ99]

I love global warming threads like this... everyone gets to vent their superior knowledge on a subject that even the qualified experts can't agree on

Just did a search for the words "facts" and got 200+ results. LOL

 

[wayneL]

I suppose you listen to the great scientist Malcolm Roberts ?

Thanks for your high level input Horace

 

[cynic]

Notting, please take the time to read all of my posts, to all climate related threads on this forum, before making your hasty accusations!

Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.

You mean like Cook et. al did, when the unadulterated results of their study, indicated that, of the approx 30K paper abstracts examined, only 35ish% appeared to be endorsing an AGW viewpoint.

Anyway, I would be very interested to know what your definition of "qualified scientists" actually is!

Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!

Before boldly accusing me of disrespect for a branch of mathematics that I happen to view with some admiration, please show me some statistics, that can objectively demonstrate that, anthropogenically caused, climate change is occurring. In doing so please remember, that opinion polls of scientists are not valid substitutes for the objective and rigorous practice of science!

Why? Because all the genuine scientists who actually know what they are talking about and use scientific methodology to conclude that climate change can be man made and if it were man made this is how it would be occurring and will continue to occur. These are the scientifically validated cause and effects resulting from such things as greater carbon particles saturation and methane gas etc in the air.

So it's "genuine scientists" now then is it!
So who exactly is it that decides which scientists, are sufficiently "genuine" and/or "qualified" to have a valid opinion, and what the heck has opinionation got to do with the true practice of objective science, anyway!
I suggest you examine the dictionary definitions of the words hypothesis,proof, science, fact, and opinion. My reason for saying this is that from your post I am concerned that you may have overlooked some essentially important distinctions.

The petty fringe arguments you have chosen to dismiss on the basis of there being other possible causes of climate change is utterly untenable. There is no evidence that these, your alternative naturally occurring climate change causes are happening or causing it over and above the validated causes present that are man made.
Your clearly irrational and untenable positions evidence pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and only show you have no bipartisan respect for statistics what so ever.

Actually, based upon your post, I strongly suggest you clean up your own backyard before boldly condemning mine.

Show me some impartially collated statistical analyses, supportive of your stance on this issue, which can be seen to objectively demonstrate my skepticism as being totally unwarranted, or stop FTSEing presuming the right to preach your FTSEing religion at me!

Your like a person who is covered in melanomas and asked a medical student what the spot on your arse is and she tells you it's a freckle. So you latch on to that and throw out the rest and say the rest of blotches and grotesque spots all over your body are most likely freckles, despite the fact that your limbs a falling off and your sh1tting out your mouth.

Again, I strongly suspect that your backyard is in more dire need of attention than my own!

Why you disagree with the massive majority of unbiased or Exxon paid QUALIFIED scientists and well established scientific research and DATA is not a rational or statistically based position at all in the broader picture.
Rather than relying on unqualified hack maths, fringe anomalies and irrelevant un established hypothesis to dismiss man made climate change you should man up and and go live in Caribbean and be sure to take your family because the chance of there being another hurricane like that again in another 100 years are, according to you, utterly improbable. Be sure to take a diesel generator and a few cows.

I tried to find their research on the net , (about a year or two ago using google scholar), and all the search seemed to come up with was page after page of other people's papers with headlines boldly betraying their intent to demonise the oil industry.

If instead of ranting at me, you can post the original papers of this "massive majority" of "qualified scientists" here, so that I might examine them, I would be most appreciative.

 

[notting]

Pffffft,

Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.

Pfffft is clearly all you have.

As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure.

The weight of that is irrefutable!

If you have a larger echo chamber then perhaps you can introduce me to it. We'd all love to see your hand!

Further, I was first introduced to the 'greenhouse effect.,' as it was then called, in 1979 by SCIENTISTS expert in that field, and in those days, there were NO such Exxon backed beat up counter positions. It was as plain as day - common sense so to speak.

There was little evidence it was effecting the climte at that time and the scientists accepted that too at the time. The scientists, then, were simply warning that if we continue it will start to happen and that is exactly what is happening 40 years later.

Even when the Ozone layer become "newsworthy" these same scientists and the broader scientific community said, back then, that although the 'greenhouse effect' was not showing evidence of harming the planet at that time, the greenhouse effect was something they were far more concerned about. Than the Ozone layer which was a problem and was addressed as well as we could, due to no dick heads making up bullsh1t to fudge the facts.

There was no dispute and no idiot Exxon strategists needing to plot against the science because it did not effect and would not effect them in their own time!! The only reason climate change is disputed today is because alternate fuel sources will be developed and put a lot of fools off their thrones. The disputes have nothing to do with science and even less with statistics.
So dumb

 

[cynic]

Pfffft is clearly all you have.

As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure.

The weight of that is irrefutable!
...

Okay! I think I can now see how we have come to different opinions on the merits of this matter!

Just how much weight do you require before deeming the matter irrefutable?

Weren't Dr Soon's research findings enough to, at the very least, raise a credible challenge, to the wisdom of those boldly claiming the irrefutability of the AGW hypothesis?

...The disputes have nothing to do with science and even less with statistics.
So dumb

I would agree that this, the last sentence of your post, definitely has great relevance, to so terribly many of the alarmist claims, I have witnessed to date.

 

[wayneL]

Pfffft is clearly all you have.

As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure.

The weight of that is irrefutable!

If you have a larger echo chamber then perhaps you can introduce me to it. We'd all love to see your hand!

Further, I was first introduced to the 'greenhouse effect.,' as it was then called, in 1979 by SCIENTISTS expert in that field, and in those days, there were NO such Exxon backed beat up counter positions. It was as plain as day - common sense so to speak.

There was little evidence it was effecting the climte at that time and the scientists accepted that too at the time. The scientists, then, were simply warning that if we continue it will start to happen and that is exactly what is happening 40 years later.

Even when the Ozone layer become "newsworthy" these same scientists and the broader scientific community said, back then, that although the 'greenhouse effect' was not showing evidence of harming the planet at that time, the greenhouse effect was something they were far more concerned about. Than the Ozone layer which was a problem and was addressed as well as we could, due to no dick heads making up bullsh1t to fudge the facts.

There was no dispute and no idiot Exxon strategists needing to plot against the science because it did not effect and would not effect them in their own time!! The only reason climate change is disputed today is because alternate fuel sources will be developed and put a lot of fools off their thrones. The disputes have nothing to do with science and even less with statistics.
So dumb

Oh I've got a lot more than pfffft.

But In the face of unreasonable and biased belligerence, it's about all I'm willing to expend.

I have more interesting and productive fish to fry with my time than trying to reason with zealots

 

[Tisme]

Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?

First we have to find the probability of Lies, Damn Lies and Damn Truth.

 

[Knobby22]

Weren't Dr Soon's research findings enough to, at the very least, raise a credible challenge, to the wisdom of those boldly claiming the irrefutability of the AGW hypothesis?

Dr Soon has no evidence (and actually there is evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed) but the money goes a long way especially in Malaysia, that highly regarded hub of scientific research.

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research"

Once again, follow the money. When you believe in something with no proof it must be faith.
You can't fool all the people all the time but you can fool some of the people some of the time. That is all it takes to slow change.
As Notting said, the greenhouse effect was considered non controversial back in the 1970s.

 

[cynic]

Dr Soon has no evidence (and actually there is evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed) but the money goes a long way especially in Malaysia, that highly regarded hub of scientific research.

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research"

Once again, follow the money. When you believe in something with no proof it must be faith.
You can't fool all the people all the time but you can fool some of the people some of the time. That is all it takes to slow change.
As Notting said, the greenhouse effect was considered non controversial back in the 1970s.

Follow the money says knobby!

Okay! Let's follow the money on climate research then!
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/23/measuring-bias-in-the-u-s-federally-funded-climate-research/

In the meantime, whilst you're following the money and working out which (if any) of your acclaimed climate scientists still merit your faith (based upon your proposed "follow the money" methodology), perhaps you could take just a moment to point me in the direction of this "evidence stating the opposite" to which you refer in your rebuttal of Dr Soon's research. In so doing, be sure to include references to all sources of funding of the associated research, because, (Climate forbid!) we wouldn't want to be fooled by any scientist bold enough to accept funding for their continued research, now, would we?! We simply cannot have that now, can we, because it just wouldn't be Climate!

 

[Knobby22]

He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
you can read the evidence there.

He isn't qualified.
Soon attended the University of Southern California and obtained a Ph.D in aerospace engineering in 1991.

 

[wayneL]

He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
you can read the evidence there.

He isn't qualified.
Soon attended the University of Southern California and obtained a Ph.D in aerospace engineering in 1991.

I wonder if Schmidt, Hanson, Cooke, Gore, et al, etc and the rest of the crooks and liars appear on that Crooks and Liars site?

I wonder why?

Instructive?

Bias?

Crooks and liars?

 

[Knobby22]

The famous Climate hustler, Marc Morano is in trouble. He was paid a huge salary to sow doubt and he was very good at it, able to lie on TV with a straight face.

Will the Climate Hustler Go Down with ExxonMobil?


The future for Marc Morano and the rest of the cast of climate deniers is uncertain. The New York Attorney General issued a subpoena (link is external) to the oil giant, initiating a process that could eventually implicate people like Marc. Congress (link is external) and presidential candidates (link is external) alike already have their eyes on ExxonMobil, which could lead to more unearthed evidence that Exxen knew it was deceiving the public in a false manner.

If we bump into Marc in Paris this December, for the next round of global climate negotiations, we'll be sure to ask how he feels about the unfolding lawsuits.

 

[cynic]

He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
you can read the evidence there.

My, oh my! What a find!

Geez! If only I had done my fact checking against the "crooksandliars", political news blog, website!

I could then have saved myself the embarrassment of expressing belief in research that was purportedly performed in accordance with the principles underlying the scientific method!

How kind of you knobby, to so promptly correct me for my act of heresy!

I now recognise that nobody, other than those still blinded by their faith in the scientific method, need bother to look further than a political news blog website (e.g."crooksandliars"), when factchecking a scientist's actual research findings!

But before we part, can you help me just a little further here!

Amidst all those opinions expressed on your esteemed "crooksandliars", political news blog website, I cannot seem to espy, or otherwise discern, the scientific "evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed".

Are you quite certain, that there actually exists, any reliable scientific evidence, amidst all the opinionated submissions that one typically finds on blogs dedicated to the selective representation of political news?

I am still eager to examine that evidence(presuming, of course, that such evidence does exist).

So, can I expect to see the evidence any time soon?

And whilst we're at it, can you clarify exactly what it is that you believe Dr Soon "isn't qualified" to do and/or be?

 

[orr]

My, oh my! What a find!

Geez!



Are you quite certain, that there actually exists, any reliable scientific evidence,

I am still eager to examine that evidence(presuming, of course, that such evidence does exist).

?

Are you blind to the dissapppearing Arctic Ice Sheet...?
Are you blind to Global sea rise and it's accelerating rate?
Are you blind to documented global temperature rise?
Global diminishing glaciation?
These are incontestable.
Queenslanders never deserved the Great barrier Reef anyway...
Are these things some sort of concocted aberration in your mind and nothing to do with theorised result of determinations of those with insite in atmospheric science developed over 150 years ago and have only been reaffirmed all inquiery since?

You can...
Of course that's option is your choice...
But I have trouble finding any postive with a completly unsubstituted position.
painted face red nose big shoes & lukewarm....

 

[cynic]

Are you blind to the dissapppearing Arctic Ice Sheet...?
Are you blind to Global sea rise and it's accelerating rate?
Are you blind to documented global temperature rise?
Global diminishing glaciation?
These are incontestable.
Queenslanders never deserved the Great barrier Reef anyway...
Are these things some sort of concocted aberration in your mind and nothing to do with theorised result of determinations of those with insite in atmospheric science developed over 150 years ago and have only been reaffirmed all inquiery since?

You can...
Of course that's option is your choice...
But I have trouble finding any postive with a completly unsubstituted position.
painted face red nose big shoes & lukewarm....

Incontestable! Spoken like a true zealot!

Now let me guess!

If someone were to agree with some, or all, of these things you claim here, you'll next be telling them that you somehow know that none of them would be happening in the absence of those "polluting" CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of that "dirty" fuel stuff that's marketed to "denialist" humans by that "corrupt" oil industry! (Am I right?)