The Climate Change Debate Thread

[jcdf]

Good point rhonda15! If the planetary temperature increased then big admitters of CO2 things like decomposition would increase.

So what does the AGW crowd have to say about this?

[rhonda15]

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Global Warming Science: A Cross Examination

relegate AGW to the status of "junk-science" where it belongs

[ibis]

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Global Warming Science: A Cross Examination

relegate AGW to the status of "junk-science" where it belongs

Hm...no, but a nice try by the author of the article. The professor is commenting not on the science itself, but on the "climate establishment" portrayal of the science, which paints a more certain picture than the real science.

The phrase there - "climate establishment scientists" - does not appear in the abstract, although it is presented as a direct quote. The phrase in the abstract is as follows:

A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change.

The difference is interesting - the author of the article you have quoted from from has engaged in a little rhetorical sleight of hand there themselves, to make it appear that the comment is on the science, rather than the portrayal of the science in the public debate. The science, according to the cross-examination, remains sound, if characterised by greater uncertainties than are visible in the public presentation of it - but that is, I'm afraid, consistently the case with the presentation of science.


and

[myksav]

University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics?

Economics? Yup, the worlds economy is in such good shape and everything that has occured in economics was clearly predicted by economists.

Ooooo, Carbon Tax.

[Tombo]

Your posts are singularly uninformative on this subject I find. Full of the crap I see above mostly.

If you don't know what is wrong with the chart above, or dispute ther eis anything absurd about it, then you are not equipped to partake of this discussion.

[sharper]

If you don't know what is wrong with the chart above, or dispute ther eis anything absurd about it, then you are not equipped to partake of this discussion.

The graph in question was produced by Wieslaw Maslowski who has a PhD in Physical Oceanography, you're going to have to a little better than "That's so wrong I don't even have to say why it's wrong and if you don't know why you're too dumb to understand it anyway".

[Tombo]

The graph in question was produced by Wieslaw Maslowski who has a PhD in Physical Oceanography, you're going to have to a little better than "That's so wrong I don't even have to say why it's wrong and if you don't know why you're too dumb to understand it anyway".

You're easily impressed. You must get fleeced regularly.

[sharper]

You're easily impressed. You must get fleeced regularly.

I didn't say I was impressed or comment one way or the other on the graph. JCR pointed out your comment was extremely uninformative was part of a pattern of uninformative posts made by you. He's entirely correct since all you've posted is "Obviously wrong!!" followed by "You're too stupid to know the answer" when challenged.

[owedtojoy]

Excellent summary of the evidence for APW coming from diverse sources, and the scams deniers use to attack each one.

The denier strategy is to claim that every single scrap of evidence for APW is either wrong, fabricated or an error. Odd, that. All of it, without an exception? Remember the borrowed kettle?

"When are you returning that kettle you borrowed?"
"I never borrowed any kettle!. Besides, it had a leak".

With deniers it is variations of:

"The globe isn't warming! Besides, it's not a problem"

How climate skeptics mislead

"Our understanding of climate doesn't come from a single line of evidence. We use multiple sets of measurements, using independent methods, to further our understanding. Satellites find similar temperature trends to thermometer measurements. .... Prominent skeptic Roy Spencer (head of the team that collects the satellite data) concluded about the HadCRUT surface record:

“Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we’re not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway"
Our climate is changing and we are a major cause through our emissions of greenhouse gases. Considering all the facts about climate change is essential for us to understand the world around us, and to make informed decisions about the future."

[Cassandra Syndrome]

DENIERS, DENIERS, DENIERS

Jaysus lot of emotive rage coming out there Owed.

Being exposed as a climate change tourist hurt you yesterday? I mean not knowing the history of the climatology of the dark ages is not very good, especially when you think you have the prerogative to use a derogatory term as "denier" for people who are sceptical about the degree of human influence in climate change.