Register to Comment
Page 4119 of 4507 FirstFirst ... 3119 3619 4019 4069 410941174118411941204121 4129 4169 4219 ... LastLast
Results 41,181 to 41,190 of 45061
Like Tree9191Likes
  1. #41181
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
    Since this has come up before I added another rebuttal to the list.

    Criticism: 97% of the climate science literature disagrees with the list.

    Rebuttal: No 97% study exists that shows 43,950 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. The largest study to date, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11 ,944 abstracts (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 66% (7930) held no position. Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

    Anyone else want to try next?
    Sure, why not?

    Only those abstracts expressing an opinion can respond to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that 66% of abstracts surveyed provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...

    Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW...
    Last edited by barry schwarz; 15th May 2014 at 08:16 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #41182
    Poptech Poptech is offline
    Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    231

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    They didn't survey 43,650 papers, nor did they say so. Whay do you want that many?

    Poptech, are you one of the critics who reject warming from greenhouse gases?
    I was responding to ireallyshouldknowbetter who claimed my list represented the 3% of the bogus 97% consensus talking point. If this was true, there would be 43,650 papers endorsing AGW.

    I am agnostic on the amount of warming that CO2 can produce.

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    Only those papers expressing an opinion can give meaning to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that this number provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...
    I am well aware of what the paper actually says but that is not the propaganda that just about everyone who cites the study when using the bogus 97% talking point believes.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #41183
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,956

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    Sure, why not?

    Only those papers expressing an opinion can give meaning to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that this number provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...
    Professor Richard Tol, who has published criticism of Cook's methodology, does not dispute the core finding.

    Blogger And Then There's Physics sums it up:

    At least Richard seems to have acknowledged that the scientific literature does indeed indicate that a vast majority of publications indicate that humans are the dominant driver of warming over the last half century.

    So, his issue appears to only be with the method and his suggestion is that Cook et al. have failed to prove a consensus despite getting a result that is likely consistent with the strength of the consensus. Need I say more?


    Meanwhile, the other main protesters are a roundup of the usual (denier) suspects - Idso, Scarfetta etc. They would say anything to deny Cook's result, wouldn't they?

    Tol goes emeritus Stoat
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #41184
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,956

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    David Appell has a good piece on Bengtsson here Quark Soup by David Appell: What Did Bengtsson and GWPF See In One Another?. It does seem likely that Bengtsson did not know what he was getting into. And, did not know how to get out of it without appearin foolish.
    Appell cites several of Bengtsson's papers that put him squarely within the climate science consensus:

    This 2011 paper found "that the models have a minor systematic warm bias in the upper troposphere."

    In this 2013 paper, Bengtsson finds a lower bound for transient climate sensitivity of 1.5 0.3C, and for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 0.5C. Those are lower bounds, mind you. That puts him squarely in the AGW camp.

    A 2002 paper on which Bengtsson was a co-author finds "...that anthropogenic forcing is a likely explanation for the observed global ocean warming over the past five decades."

    This 2002 paper finds significantly fewer hurricanes in a greenhouse-warmed climate.

    Nothing radical there. Other scientists would dispute every one (some a bit more, some a bit less), but so what?


    Other climate scientists would also dispute his comments about models, but Bengtsson seems to have no doubt about where teh future development of temperature is going.

    Bengtsson, clearly, agrees that our CO2 emissions are creating a lot of change, with serious consequences. With his own estimates for the lower bound of climate sensitivity, he can hardly say otherwise.

    He then says (in the Spiegel interview) it's very hard to see all the societal changes in the next 100 years (OK. So what?), and:

    Bengtsson: No. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we'll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe.

    This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs.


    I have posted similar comments here myself! That's "alarmism" according to deniers. As Appell says "Too sensible for GWPF".

    Quark Soup by David Appell: What Did Bengtsson and GWPF See In One Another?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #41185
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,956
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #41186
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    Collapse of Parts of West Antarctica Ice Sheet Has Begun. Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt =>
    Yes, we've heard about that and are preparing for what may happen in 200 to 1,000 years.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #41187
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Professor David Archer on why the temporary collapse of some ice sheets during the last Ice Age is still inexplicable...
    Two reasons spring to mind.

    1. Tectonic plate movement.

    2. Gravity.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #41188
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    pablum

    (also pabulum /ˈpabyələm/)

    Bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.; pap.
    Hmm, pablum doesn't feature in my OED, although pabulum does.
    pa'bulum n. Food (esp. fig., mental pabulum) [L (pascere feed]
    I suggest you avoid the use of obscure words that most people don't even bother to check the meaning of.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #41189
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,857

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    They didn't survey 43,650 papers, nor did they say so. Why do you want that many?

    Poptech, do you reject the notion of warming from greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere?
    That is your straw man. We are not debating that.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #41190
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,857

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    Hmm, pablum doesn't feature in my OED, although pabulum does.


    I suggest you avoid the use of obscure words that most people don't even bother to check the meaning of.
    It's slang. It is actually the name of a brand of baby food.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment