In response to the Cook et.al paper, the sceptic movement is going into a tailspin of denial. They’ve also started their desperate attempts to wave away the evidence.
Anthony Watts and Steve Miloy over at JunkScience.com are leading the sceptic charge in trying to discredit the paper.
According to our intrepid duo, only 32.6% of the papers surveyed by the Cook paper made a positive statement that climate change was human induced. In Watts word the maths is “borked”.
Everyone take a deep sigh…
[Sigh]
First the methodology is very clear.
To quote from Skeptical Science:
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn’t express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn’t surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There’s no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?
This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists
“…generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees”
However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.
The reason all those thousands of papers do not need to make a positive or negative statement is that it is assumed climate change is happening.
Why restate the obvious? How many papers in astronomy start with “As many people know, the Earth orbits the sun….”
Some things are just that obvious – the same here.
Those pushing the “But it’s only 32.6% thus no consensus!” argument are failing to understand a methodology routinely applied across multiple disciplines – not just in this paper.
This is not hard stuff: this is basic statistics. Basic science. And well, just basic.
Like at the early-high-school level. It is not hard to understand unless you really, really don’t want to understand.
Anyone claiming to have any degree of numeracy above the level of basic addition will appreciate this methodology.
But I suspect Steve and Anthony know this: they’re not dumb.
But it is an intellectually dishonest argument.
Take a good look in the mirror sceptics: ask yourself just how badly you don’t want this fact be true.
To what depths does one has to go in order to deceive a) themselves and b) others.
Watching the Deniers 
Assuming that every paper which does not mention anthropomorphic climate change is in the “consensus” camp is as ridiculous as assuming every paper which does not mention anthropomorphic climate change is in the “denier” camp.
Suggesting its “just happening” is a statement of faith. This kind of faith based underpinning of alarmism is what makes the movement anti-scientific.
Yes Eric, You make a very good point. Another example: if a paper on atomic energy doesn’t clearly state up front “We have found evidence that atoms exist” they it’s fair to assume they might not ‘believe’ in atoms.
Same goes for a paper on genetics. Without a clear statement that they ‘accept’ DNA and RNA etc, they might not even ‘believe’ in genetics.
I’m sure you have other examples of your own.
Yes – the fathers of modern Statistics, people like Ronald Fisher, who assumed humanity faced an imminent Eugenics crisis, and didn’t bother to check whether in fact we did. Its not much of a stretch to suggest they actually developed modern statistics, to further their research into their Eugenic obsession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher
The one thing the giants of early 20th century Statistics didn’t do, was question whether their Eugenics “crisis” was in fact the issue they all believed it was.
Sheesh, not that old line again. Climate science, oceanography, marine science, atmospheric physics, ecology, agricultural science, geology, paleoclimatology etc etc etc are all finding the same thing. A few errant eugenecists over a few short years aren’t a patch on the huge multidisciplinary area built up over two centuries, which is captured within the generic term “earth systems science”.
Sounds like Goddard’s Law is in play.
Shorter Eric:”…and EUGENICS!!”
Eugenics is an excellent example of how scientists relying on statistical methods got it horribly wrong – a lot like the methods your alarmist mates rely on.
Wait for it ….1…..2…..3…..ULCERS! What about ULCERS?
Now a strawman. Climate science doesn’t rely on ‘statistics’ any more than any other science does.
Here’s a handy primer (don’t read it or if you do, don’t accept it. It’s ideologically unsound because it’s based on facts, science, reason and logic, all of which are anathema to paranoid conspiracy theorists.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
17 mentions of water vapour in your link Sou.
CO2 by itself only produces a climate sensitivity of 1c / doubling or so. To produce a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling of CO2, climate scientists assume CO2 warming increases the water vapour levels in the atmosphere.
But water vapour is not behaving as the models predict – the model prediction, the signature of water vapour amplification, is the equatorial tropospheric hotspot. That hotspot does not exist – so neither does the water vapour amplification.
Without water vapour amplification, you’ve got nothing. 1c / doubling is not a crisis.
Climate science does not rely only on statistical methods,Eric. WV and CO2 are not the only factors in CS estimation.
Water vapor is behaving as predicted with rise in average GT. WV ‘amplification’ is observed everywhere…have a look at processes in the Arctic atmosphere, the broadening of the tropics,water related changes in weather events…too many papers to cite.
The predictability of Eric’s replies actually suggest I may have been correct in thinking his recent silence has been to do with creating a troll app to save him oodles of time in his efforts!
WV ‘amplification’ is observed everywhere…have a look at processes in the Arctic atmosphere, the broadening of the tropics,water related changes in weather events…too many papers to cite.
There seems to be a cap on it. The hottest places in the world are not near large sources of water, they’re in the deserts, usually far from water.
Wet tropical temperatures are capped around 35c – much hotter than this and storms appear.
And then it STOPS GETTING HOTTER.
Storms are very efficient cooling systems – they convect hot air from the surface to the top of the troposphere, where it can radiate its heat into space, unimpeded by the bulk of the Earth’s greenhouse gasses.
The alarmists who created the models never noticed their greenhouse blanket was full of holes.
If there’s a ‘cap’ on it,Eric,then you’ll have to abandon any arguments using ‘it was hotter in the past’. Why didn’t the Goldilocks ‘self-moderating-but-not-Gaian-of-course’ Climate Cap keep everything loverly?
Not so – If Svensmark’s GCR theory is correct, if solar activity’s main influence on global climate is to shift the probability of cloudiness, this is a direct effect on the “cap”.
Svensmark’s theory has been investigated,and torpedoed by CERN and numerous recent studies. It has never been less likely. You cannot ignore this…GCR contribution to nucleation [and that’s a long way before cloud formation] is a tiny player.!
“Svensmark’s theory has been investigated,and torpedoed by CERN ”
It has? Where?
I thought that we were here to debate you kemo sabi , not have to educate you
start here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/
Bottom line
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been ( Gavin
The assertion, Tonto, was “Svensmark’s theory has been investigated,and torpedoed by CERN”.
And this is your evidence?
Well I guess in world where things are true if you want them to be true, this article from RC is all the evidence you need. Meanwhile in the grown-up world….
Even the RC article says:
“The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb.”
How does it feel out there in that limb?
Bottom line
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been ( Gavin
so the claim by Svensmark that the majority of the current warming has been due to GCR’s is well and truly torpedoed.
and that is not out on any limb
You cannot be this stupid
you take this
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
change it to this
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb.”
when it actually refers to
. One would need to demonstrate:
… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
okay then you can be this stupid
Fair dinkum John, this is so tiring. The question was how did CERN disprove Svensmark. Answer, it hasn’t. Do try to keep up.
FYG Gavin isn’t CERN
Because it confirms Nick’s comment
Svensmark’s theory has been investigated,and torpedoed by CERN and numerous recent studies. It has never been less likely. You cannot ignore this…GCR contribution to nucleation [and that’s a long way before cloud formation] is a tiny player.!
that has been confirmed GCR contribution to nucleation is a tiny player
my indian name is not tonto, kemo sabi, it is “argues with idiots”
Mark aka Kemo sabi aka The Black Knight.
John,
I think I’m getting a handle on you. Whenever you realise you’re wrong you descend into invective. Like now.
I’m well aware that there are quite a number of studies that purport to disprove Svensmark. Its only to be expected that the consensus would be very anxious prove him wrong.
Let’s face it, if he’s right then a lot of careers are seriously threatened and quite a few people are going to spend the next 20yrs pulling egg of their face.
But these studies on Svensmark’s theory are way less important than the CLOUD experiments where the truth of those theories will be ultimately tested. I had followed it closely and was unaware of any evidence that CERN had come out against Svensmark. So when Nick said they had, I was both sceptical and interested to see if I’d missed something.
Hence my question which specifically related to CERN. You of course completely misread the question and just reverted to the WtD playbook: someone mentions Svensmark -> show them this article.
But the article doesn’t in any way show CERN had disproved Svensmark, does it?
Mark,you are resorting to conspiratorial ideation now,and not for the first time…so you may cop a little invective,eh?
From the 2011 Real Climate piece:
CERN findings thus far torpedo Svensmark’s broad idea that GCR modulated cloud formation is significant,and any extrapolations from Svensmark that GCR mod cloud formations is significant in climate change. Combine these lab results with the attribution papers,and a simple examination of GCR count trends and correlation with climate….and ‘sceptical’ assertion that ‘It’s GCRs’ is already demonstrated nonsense,without CERN formally stating that yet.
You have the Humpty-Dumpty when-I-use-a-word thing going big time haven’t
you?
I stated “Svensmarks theory has been investigated, and torpedoed by CERN and numerous recent studies”….note the comma and the ‘and’. You elided the “…and recent studies”.CERN have not formally,in peer-reviewed publication, rejected Svensmark’s, “Fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds” …but their released data, in combination with other work do. All that’s left is mopping up.
Yes Nick, I get that you had these two things (CERN and studies) torpedoing Svensmark.
I fully agree that there are studies that purport to disprove Svensmark and I never disputed that. (Clarification: I agree the studies exist, I don’t agree they disprove Svensmark).
What I was interested in was the CERN part of your statement since I’ve not seen anything from CLOUD that suggests they’ve disproved Svensmark. Everything I’ve seen is non-committal and talking of the need to do more work. So it was only on that point that I wanted to see what evidence you had that I might have missed.
But no, nothing new. The last pronouncements from CERN relate to the conclusions of the 2011 CLOUD experiments and while I’m aware that the warmist community claims they disprove Svensmark, hopefully you are also aware that Svensmark’s supporters are of the view that they fully support (but most definitely don’t yet prove) the theory.
the money quote from CERN is :
Frankly I find it difficult to see how that can be spun as anything other than favourable to Svensmark.
But again, I wasn’t seeking to disprove what you said (although I think you’re wrong), only to elicit on what basis you thought CERN disproved Svensmark.
So do you accept or reject Svensmark’s claim that the recent warming over the past decades has been down to GCR’s ?
.
CERN
So what changes did they show as a function of the CR activity? In going from neutral (shielded) conditions to ambient CR levels typical of the lower atmosphere, the ionisation changed by a factor of 2 to 10 (depending on the temperature – colder conditions are more sensitive). However this is a much bigger change (by an order of magnitude or more) than the percentage change in CR activity over a solar cycle (i.e. ~10-20%). A rough calculation (by way of Jeff Pierce) that takes into account the square root dependence of ion concentrations on GCRs and the neutral nucleation in the CLOUD results, suggests that for average conditions the solar modulation of GCR would impact nucleation by about 1% – rising to perhaps 12% for the biggest changes in GCR seen in figure 2 at very cold temperatures. Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments, and much less important than the amount of pollutants.
In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.
Let’s cut to the chase,Mark. Svensmark’s idea that current warming [the bulk of/all/most…whatever] could be explained by GCR modulated cloud formation..therefore that an observable trend in cloud formation could be correlated to an observable count of GCRs.
Well,the observations are in,and the observations find no correlation So Svensmark’s theory about GW is caput. Even before one traipses off to a nucleation chamber to explore mechanisms…
Now you want CERN to do what? CERN results show that such GCR modulated nucleation is possible, but that is not Svensmark’s theory. That GCRs should be one potential nucleation factor is not controversial,and it’s not Svensmark’s idea [it dates from 1959],but there are more steps to take from nucleation to cloud formation,any of which could go against successful cloud devlopment…and again the whole world observations burst the GCR/AGW bubble.
In the recent solar minimum,we measured record GCR flux,and lower than average cloudiness!
By the way, the researchers made no such assumption. They simply put a paper that didn’t attribute global warming to anything in the “No Position” pile. They would undoubtedly do the same if they did a study of other fields of research.
“No position” means just that. It doesn’t mean ‘reject’ nor does it mean ‘endorse’. The abstract did not indicate either way. No assumptions were made.
They did find the ‘no position’ pile is increasing – for reasons that should be obvious from my previous comment. Why keep restating “now we are going to demonstrate the existence of atoms’ in a paper on atomic physics? Or “the extra CO2 is causing global warming and comes from burning fossil fuels” every time around, when it’s damn obvious and has been for decades.
The no position pile could be increasing because scientists are afraid of bullying, either from “deniers”, or from the leaders of climate science.
For example, look how Tom Wigley felt about solar terrestrial physicists Soon and Baliunas, when they published a paper disputing the dominance of CO2 as a driver of climate change – he advocated a smear campaign, a name calling campaign, to damage the reputation of the scientists, without the inconvenience of having to answer their scientific findings.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1061300885.txt
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as … ‘oops, just a typo’)
Tom.
If I was a scientist with kids to feed, and a mortgage to pay, I’d be tempted to keep my head down, regardless of my personal views. Why risk future grants and possible tenure by wading into such a politicised controversy?
Eric’s just another paranoid conspiracy theorist ha ha ha ha. First ‘eugenecists’ fear, now ‘earth systems mafia’. ROTFL
(Lucky I wasn’t eating.)
Would you like me to fashion you a new hat – say out of tin foil, Eric?
I produced evidence that alarmist climate scientists were happy to resort to bullying when they didn’t get their way. There are other quotes I could produce – pressuring journals to prevent “deniers” from publishing, that kind of thing.
Fear of bullying could well be the reason increasing numbers of scientists are keeping their heads down, don’t want to get involved.
Shortish Eric: ” but, EUGENICS..and the ESM!!”
No need to pull out the same stolen emails as the last hundred times,buddy. They are still unsupportive of your fanciful interpretations.
” stolen emails ”
I’ve always thought of them as released without authorisation by a whistle-blower with a conscience.
You always did,Mark, yes. Always, it’s your ‘nice tidy story’ [concept trademark E. Worrall]
Who cares if the police and UEA CRU regard them as stolen? What would they know?
Stolen implies a hacker. No evidence they were hacked as opposed released by a whistle-blower.
CRU always pushed the hacker angle because if was a whistle-blower then all sorts of laws protecting the ‘culprit’ and the data would apply, not to mention that it would have required the police to look into the event much more closely than they did.
FOIA might be a hacker. Might not. No one knows. But you seems utterly convinced despite the paucity of data. Consistent.
I invite you to re-read your comment,Mark, taking special note of ‘you seem utterly convinced despite the paucity of data’…
Your second paragraph is cracking good fiction,which is a polite way of saying ‘more conspiratorial ideation’…self-serving froth.
Again, as I asked, what would the police know?
The only letter we have from FOIA implies he / she is some kind of insider – though I admit this could simply be misdirection.
“The only letter we have from FOIA implies he / she is some kind of insider”
I think it was more than an implication. But I suspect getting it from the horse’s mouth won’t carry any weight here.
which bit implies that mark, i contend that FOIA was someone who cracked the code and decided to milk you deniers for a bit of cash “please send money”
in other words you patsies have all been taken for a ride and have nothing to show for it
FOIA an insider?! Did you read his juvenile screed?! There is absolutely no suggestion he is a UEA employee, which BTW the police statement also makes clear… he claims to be non-English-as-a-first-language,and now acting alone,which could even suggest he just got given the last useless rump of emails by the real hackers and has faked his real status in order to set up the begging bowl!…there’s nothing in that self-serving tosh to intimate he has a clue about science, the work or technical output of UEA CRU,and the childish self-justifications are cringeworthy.
The horse’s mouth, my arse!
From Nick:
What you do behind closed doors, Nick, is entirely your business.
As to FOIA, I get the impression you don’t like him/her.
Not surprising really. If someone came along and demonstrated that the high priests of my most cherished beliefs were in fact a bunch of charlatans, I’d probably hate him too.
Or maybe I’d re-evaluate my views on those whose antics were revealed to be less than upright. But that was never going to happen, was it Nick?
My favoured scenario on how all this panned out is that the UEA prepared one or more zip files of all the emails that were then the potential subject of an FOI request. Why? Either preparatory to releasing them or preparatory to deleting them. Pay your money and take your pick.
FOIA was an outsider who briefly got on the inside – a visiting student, a hardware maintenance worker, a janitor etc. He stumbles across the zips and has a momentary chance to grab them. And does humanity a favour by doing so.
I assume you’ll have a slightly different view on the morality of releasing the emails.
As to the so-called begging bowl, you do appreciate that that was joke don’t you? Please tell me you didn’t misunderstand that. He was just poking fun at the article of faith of the consensus that all opponents of the consensus are in the pay of the devil.
Climate audit did not change the begging bowl request
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: [redacted for now].
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts, which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA
Bitcoin address redacted has climate audit realised that they have been stung?
begging still up at WUWT including bitcoin ac
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
wrong again kemo sabi
begging bowl bitcoin number, over 400 hits, making heaps from the deniers
john byatt,
The paragraph prior to the one you mention reads
“Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.”
Do you guys selectively quote or selectively read?.
Well,Mark,that slice of FOIA crazy is a fantasy…the characterisation of the accusation supposedly made by a renowned scientist is wrong. He never said amounts fed to astroturfers and dumb blogs were vast,simply that the backers were incredibly wealthy…which is a truth. And what is there to ‘like’ about FOIA? Bad faith actors with transparently self-serving reasoning give me the shits…
That there is co-ordination between rejectionist mouthpieces is plainly true,and is obvious with the method chosen to disseminate the stolen emails. We havealso for instance News Ltd’s liars getting their info ,and returning links,to Marc Morano and Watts. Morano is a partner in FF funded fake charitable/educational outfit called CFACT [the Orwellian ‘Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow’] set-up to generate chum for sympathetic hacks,it’s no secret. It’s legal but unethical. The sausage factory of idiocy churns out dimwitted talking points which spring up at all the usual suspects. This is hardly surprising in the internet age. But the deeper memes are from a core based around Morano, Heartland/SPPI and Michaels/Knappenberger.
As for ‘selectively reading’ you clearly have not read the Norfolk Police statement on the CRU hack. Which renders your entire position on FOIA absurdly deluded.
kemo sabi
As to the so-called begging bowl, you do appreciate that that was joke don’t you? Please tell me you didn’t misunderstand that. He was just poking fun at the article of faith of the consensus that all opponents of the consensus are in the pay of the devil.
no let me make it clear for you
“More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause.
he is begging for money and you claim it was a joke?
just how thick are you? .
And on it goes. No matter what assertions are shown to be screwy, they just move on to the next screwy assertion.
Here we had the claim that FOIA was all about the bucks and after I’d shown that that was a notion off with the fairies, we just move onto the next screwy assertion. Now it seems that there is a vast moneyed conspiracy involving Marono, Heartland and FOIA against those poor honest hard-working idealists in climate science. And somehow News gets in there too. Well what’s a good conspiracy theory without Murdoch, eh? Wow.
Nick seems mightily impressed by the police report into the UEA whistle-blower. Given that they never got to the bottom of who did it, I’d have thought that their conclusions were at best tenuous. But Nick is utterly convinced, on the basis one assumes that the police never make a mistake.
Or is it that any report that reaches the approved conclusion is by definition correct?
Mark,you are an idiot. I can not really conclude otherwise, You’ve been given plenty of rope…rather than climb it,you’ve tied yourself in knots,and affect a snot-nosed inversion of reality whenever challenged
Let’s quote the Norfolk Police: While no criminal proceedings will be instigated… the hackers successfully kept their identities untraced….the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully co-ordinated attack carried out remotely via the internet….IOW,not by an employee or security-cleared contractor within or without the Unit… There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the U of EA was involved in the crime…Individuals have been investigated,logs and timings checked,etc. It’s outsiders unknown using known blocking techniques to cover their locations. While identities are concealed, the acts,hacking procedures,targets and timings are known and all the good-faith actors have been checked out. Do you understand now how you can have confidence in this finding?
The investigation was terminated because of time [statutes of limitations] and resource constraints,not because an investigation would ultimately not succeed.
J Byatt has shown you concisely and precisely with verbatim where you are utterly freaking wrong re FOIA’s begging bowl…and you attempt another inversion!
You crap on about a scientist alleging vast amounts of money involved in astroturfing, I say you are wrong in spinning his observation. You claim I have invented a ‘vast conspiracy’ in detailing astroturf players and connections. In fact I described their actions as ‘legal..’ and ‘hardly surprising in the internet age’..IOW not a ‘conspiracy’ which is something done secretively and illegally, numpty! Their activities and connections,and a fair bit of their funding ,is public knowledge…so,what conspiracy? This active disinformation network is public [though actively using every legal method of masking its funding] and in plain sight. It is a despicable,but legal,collusion to present misleading information to advance the interest of its financiers,at the expense of the general public.
It is a fact that News bovver boys link directly to Morano…which is an outrageous ethical no-no IMO… outsourcing may be a fact of life in the media,but sources have to be reputable and their content factual.
You offer a boys-own preferred scenario for FOIA’s identity,modus and timing…a
scenario which [for the umpteenth time] the cops have utterly dismissed…!!
You ignore or misinterpret just about everything that is said to you and get called on itit happens so often….so,incredibly, you have decided to return accusations of same. Communication with you has become clearly pointless.
Nick (many posts up) “he claims to be non-English-as-a-first-language”.
Oh, I think we can do better than that – I would say with some confidence that FOIA’s native tongue is most probably a slavic language (which gels with the use of Russian servers in one of the releases). I think there are several “tells”:
Firstly, obviously European. The use of a point seperator rather than a comma in “200.000” is a gimme.
Next, he uses the unconventional phrase “for that end” in his panhandling schtick. Where most European language families make a clear distinction between “for” and “to”, in slavic languages this is something of a grey area. A non-native speaker of English as fluent as FOIA would be very unlikely to make that mistake if their native tongue was for example French or German, and these languages mostly have exact equivalents of the phrase “to that end” – à cette fin (not pour), zu diesem zweck (not für), etc. I think you will find this distinction is clear in any Germanic or Romance language.
Slavic languages are different – they have some specific words for “for” (on behalf of, for example), and to (towards, for example) but have a grey area of words (dlya in Russian and Polish, za in Czech and Serbia for example), covering both to and for equally – in these languages, the phrase “to that end” would usually be indirectly rendered into “for that purpose” (same meaning, of course, but not word for word). I think FOIA has made a minor slip on the translation of “dlya etogo” (Russian) or a similar phrase in another Slavic language.
Finally, there are a few inconsistencies in the use of definite and indefinite articles. I have worked in close contact with a number of people from different slavic groups over many years and the one consistent difficulty regardless of their fluency is with a/the, words which are effectively absent from Slavic languages.
Oh, and from some spelling and usage clues, he most likely learned his English in North America.
So, IMO the very circumstantial evidence to hand says we a have a Slav who learned excellent English in America, who is tech savvy (the choice of bitcoin is not a big deal but I thought it interesting), engaged with English and American blogs and is anti-climate change action, most vocally with regard to politically-related concerns.
One could push it minutely further and suggest names that fit that profile, but that would be probably be libellous. And, of course there are other explanations for all of these quirks. A few unusually specific typos, for example. Who knows?
Actually, I don’t even care. CG3 was not even a zephyr in a demitasse. Its just that I read FOIA’s email for the first time and thought “that sounds just like (slavic colleague)”.
Thanks,Frank for that insight…
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the U of EA was involved in the crime”
Well apart from the direct word of the ‘perpetrator’….but what would he know?
Its all very futile to be arguing over who got access to those emails. Hopefully one day we’ll get a ‘Deep Throat’ moment and the world can thank him properly. In the meantime, we can just be thankful that who ever it was, took whatever opportunity presented itself to reveal to the world the truth behind how the Hockey Team, and their supporters really operate. This man (or was it a women…now that would be fun), this man was instrumental in helping the world dodge a bullet at Copenhagen, and deserves whatever accolades he gets.
“…Dodge a bullet…”. That sounds pretty alarmist to me Mark. So tell us what catastrophic economic over-reaction (CEOR for short) would have occurred but for our heroic janitor’s (LOL – as if) deeds?
Mark’s narrative is about as believable as a second rate midday movie. But please continue – I’m sure the straight-to-DVD market always needs fresh material.
Alarmist? well that’s what this blog is all about, n’est pas?
worse case scenario out of Copenhagen was that we got what the climate activists and UN rent-seekers wanted ie a legally binding agreement for the west to reduce emissions to some level determined to avoid climate hell. That agreement would have required the west to spend around $500 billion each and every year between 2012 and who knows when to allow us to reduce emissions while moving $gazillions to the underdeveloped world (minus the UN’s usual admin fees) to encourage them to remain undeveloped.
$500billion was the official ‘guess’ but others put the number at orders of magnitude higher.
FOIA played his part in helping us to avoid that, although other things were more important: mainly the fact that no western govt was going to ask its citizens to pay these sort of sums in the middle of an economic downturn. It also helped that the whole thing got snowed in. The irony appeared to be missed by the delegates. (I also understand the kids in Copenhagen were very perplexed by this stuff falling out of the sky but Mr Viner set them straight).
Mark, FOIA does not claim to have been an insider. Read his screed. What direct word is there that he is an insider? I’ve read it several times and see nothing,direct or oblique,of any weight…
Are you riffing off this line,perhaps?
“The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did not garner my trust in the state of climate science..”
Are you thinking he was literally ‘inside’ because of that? The ‘first glimpses’ were his first takes on the material he had hacked. Is that not obvious?
The police checked out everyone ‘inside’ who accessed the server.
Eric – you made a comment about eugenics and the value of statistics. This is clearly a non sequitur: it does not follow the personal beliefs of this individual scientist negate statistical methodology. I will remind you of WtD community standards:
I draw you attention to the following guideline:
“Some discussion of other subjects is permitted, provided there is some general relevance to the discussion at hand (for example drawing on historical incidents as parallels in a discussion)…”
******Thus I am forced to issue a formal WtD warning*******
This is 1 of 3 – see guidelines for more details. You are NOT banned – there is a fair, and transparent process.
Please try and make your comments more relevant: I appreciate you comment here frequently, have engaged in a civil tone with me and others.
As everyone appreciates I operate a very open door – but standards must apply.
I’d also ask other posters to NOT comment on Eric’s warning: the warning system exists for people to engage in self reflection, to protect other readers and focus conversation.
Eric is equally deserving of respect.
Mike @ WtD
Mike, I will continue to mention Eugenics in this context, because I believe it is highly relevant when defending myself against accusations of believing in “tin foil hat” conspiracies.
I am not suggesting statistics is not useful. The reason I raise the connection between the giants of 20th century statistics and Eugenics is to demonstrate that even the best scientists can get it horribly wrong, for a sustained period of time.
The Eugenics “crisis” did not simply represent the personal opinions of a handful of scientists, it consumed enter academic departments, and entailed the deep involvement of people who made outstanding contributions to statistics and genetics.
I believe the example of Eugenics demonstrates you don’t need “conspiracies” or accusations of deliberate fraud to explain climate alarmism. Eugenics was, as far as I can tell (and we shall never know the full story), a widespread episode of mass hysteria in the scientific community, which deceived even the best – which is what I believe has also happened to the Climate Science community.
The handful of people who objected to Eugenics were very much in the minority, for a very long time – the “deniers” of their day.
Ronald Fischer, for example, was described by Richard Dawkins as one of the greatest researchers into genetics who ever lived – his contribution to statistics, to the study of heredity, makes him one of the giants of science. Yet he was an ardent Eugenicist.
The following book – hundreds of pages of abstracts and presentations, prepared by teams of scientists from institutions across the world – shows just how widespread belief in this crisis was, and how much scientific effort it consumed.
Click to access decadeofprogress00inte.pdf
And yes, Ronald Fischer is mentioned in the book – he was very much a part of the process which created it.
If you want to explore the mass hysteria idea,you need IMHO to stick to examining the IPCC reports their methodology and their holistic approach to the evidence,as well as how science as a collective effort has developed over a century and a half. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence…how is the IPCC process and product vulnerable to a mass hysteria,and how does the science and society of the late 19th-early 20th C compare with todays?
Mike
As you are well aware, there is an ugly denialist meme whereby “greens” are compared to eugenicists (sometimes Nazi eugenicists). This is often extended to include “climate scientists” who are casually conflated with “greens” with typical false equivalence.
Eric is engaging in calculated word placement here. He places the word “eugenics” in the context of “climate science” routinely. He has been doing it for years. See Dumb Scientist’s archive. It is a revolting and unacceptable smear:
You ask that others do not comment on Eric’s warning but not only is he taking the piss behind a screen of “politeness” his immediate response to you was this:
Since Eric throws your warning right back in your face, I will take the risk of commenting on that warning even though you have requested silence on this matter.
I do so because I really do not appreciate people continuallyinsinuating that climate scientists are the next thing to eugenicists and mass murderers and that IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR.
Consider the touchy issue of biofuel subsidies.
None of you support biofuel subsidies, as far as I know. The Australian Green Party repudiates biofuel subsidies, according to a link John supplied a while ago, because of the appalling damage they are doing to third world living standards. Yet biofuel subsidies continue nevertheless – concern for CO2 emissions spawned them, yet now they have taken on a life of their own.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/14/environment-un-rights-food-dc-idUSL1490977120070614
I doubt any of the people who created the document “A Decade of Progress in Eugenics”, the document I quoted previously, wanted to gas their fellows, though given the number of German delegates, there must have been some people at the conference who had an idea of what was happening. There is a curious passage buried in the book, suggesting Eugenics should be voluntary, and should not be imposed by force – perhaps a pang of conscience from people who knew something very ugly was brewing.
Yet the scientific policies of the Eugenicists were used to justify horrible policies, forced sterilisation in America, and mass murder in Germany.
I don’t think you are murderers – I believe you are motivated by a greater than average share of concern for your fellow humans. Just as the Eugenicists were.
To bury your head in the sand, and not consider the lessons of the past, is to invite disaster.
“To bury your head in the sand, and not consider the lessons of the past”
Rich coming from you.
Mike, how much more?
I thought you might be incapable of shutting up, Eric. And here you are again, still ladling the disingenuity as cover for the vilest wingnut lie of them all, the lie that climate science = eugenics.
You expressed yourself more forthrightly in the past. For example in comments on this blog in December 2012:
People who dispute the consensus are in fact disputing that humans are causing global warming.
eric by his comment is one of those disputing that humans are the cause of global warming
Watts accepts that humans are the cause, Nova accepts that humans are the cause, even monckton accepts that humans are the cause, yet these retards who do not accept the consensus even when it comes in part from their own blogs maintain that there is no consensus? weird
Don’t be ridiculous. Watts and Nova accept we contribute to global warming, just as I do. What we dispute is whether our contribution to climate change is significant enough to be alarmed about it.
It’s significant enough to act on. Who gives a stuff if you or Codling figure out whether you’re ‘alarmed’ or not?
+1 John, Looks as if you’ve got another to add to your list – Eric’s offering himself to you on a silver platter (after he puts on his tin foil hat and gloves).
Yawn. Let me know when anthropogenic CO2 emissions start to drop.
You accept the consensus but claim that the science does not have a consensus
as I stated, weird
note the consensus is that humans are the cause of global warming
“note the consensus is that humans are the cause of global warming”
Yep and the sceptic view is that humans are a cause of global warming. There is a world of difference in those articles.
They seem to accept that the sceptics are all on board with the consensus but not that the science has the same consensus,
some were interested
http://www.mpg.de/6776082/negative_absolute_temperature
The achievement of the Munich physicists could additionally be interesting for cosmology, since the thermodynamic behaviour of negative temperature exhibits parallels to so-called dark energy. Cosmologists postulate dark energy as the elusive force that accelerates the expansion of the universe, although the cosmos should in fact contract because of the gravitational attraction between all masses. There is a similar phenomenon in the atomic cloud in the Munich laboratory: the experiment relies upon the fact that the atoms in the gas do not repel each other as in a usual gas, but instead interact attractively. This means that the atoms exert a negative instead of a positive pressure. As a consequence, the atom cloud wants to contract and should really collapse – just as would be expected for the universe under the effect of gravity. But because of its negative temperature this does not happen. The gas is saved from collapse just like the universe.
I don’t know much about Milloy except that he breaks embargoes and denies science.
As for Tony, don’t give him too much credit for numbers. Remember how much trouble he had trying to figure out what a temperature anomaly is?
He also has a tendency towards conspiracy ideation – despite denying it. He reckons there’s a humungous mafia of umpteen thousand scientists of all disciplines, journal editors, research institutions, governments and whoever all else, all intent on one thing. Stopping people from publishing papers.
He won’t admit that even his paper got published. Probably because the result wasn’t what he wanted. Or that oodles of good papers get rejected every day. Let alone that sometimes appallingly bad papers slip through (think Scafetta, McLean, Soon, McIntyre and McIttrick etc) I doubt too many people would buy his story these days. Only the ideological diehards and paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Eric, I guess in the scientific papers I have published on plant pathogenic fungi, I probably should have mentioned that fungi attacking the roots of tropical fruit trees reside in the soil, just so anyone out there who deny the scientific consensus that tropical fruit trees grow in the soil can know unequivocably that that is the case?
What you fail to understand is that scientists publishing in scientific journals write primarily for other scientists, not the general public. It is then up to the organisations of the various disciplines, through their media wings to disseminate the information to the general public and anyone else who wants to know in a format and at a level suitable for non-experts. Hence there is no need for scientists writing about the effect of global warming on a system or species or whatever, to attribute the cause of the warming when it is accepted, based on the thousands of lines of evidence already published, that it is indeed athropogenic. Every major scientific organisation accepts it based on this overwhelming evidence…that also includes your favourite, the solar physicists division of the American Astronomical Society, the peek body for solar physicists of which the vast majority of solar physicists are members.
You have prompted me however to do my own search of the literature based on the term “gravity” to see how many attribute gravity to relativity. I suspect that when the vast majority of papers fail to attribute gravity to relativity we can all have silly tantrums about gravity being caused by something else.
Now I know you will resort to attributing the consensus to “faith”and whatnot but to do so is to show the weakness of your argument. You cannot produce any evidence that global warming is caused by anything other than humans and so have to use fallacious arguments or better still resort to using the raft of already debunked canards you have on the tip of your tongue. Which one will it be? I’m going with “flatlining for n years” since you can’t seem to get enough of that one.
You can’t produce evidence that the majority of 20th century warming was caused by humans – one of the key predictions of models based on high CO2 forcing is the missing equatorial tropospheric hotspot. All you can produce is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a few dodgy assumptions.
You ignore other correlations, such as the abnormal peak in solar activity in the late 20th century, because you don’t like them.
If one of Einstein’s predictions, e.g. his prediction of gravitational lensing, had been falsified in this way, his theory of Relativity would not have survived, at least in its current form.
But unlike climate alarmists, Einstein made predictions which could be checked – and so far, his theory has done a remarkable job of predicting phenomena which were later observed by observation.
But thats what you would expect, when your theory is correct.
Yes, Eric, ‘we’ can. You just won’t accept it. That’s a completely different thing to it not being there, because it is. You’ve been offered it over and over but refuse to accept it. Go buy another tin foil hat and worry about the conspirators plotting.
Guess what Eric? Trees grow in soil…just thought you should know.
great,. claims that most of the warming was caused by solar output and in the same thread claims that it is not warming because of some missing, what he terms a hot spot in the tropical troposphere,
Guess what Uki – the world stop warming over a decade ago. And none of you are willing to risk ridicule by making even a vague prediction of when surface temperatures will rise again.
Because, deep down, you know there is a risk I am right.
Relying only on the land surface temperatures which haven’t actually stopped increasing while ignoring the oceans which make up 70% of the Earth’s surface is a simplistic and stupid argument you continue to raise despite being shown the evidence in the peer reviewed literature to the contrary. Just repeating the same garbage over and over and over again doesn’t make it true. This broken record act of yours is tiresome and makes me want to remove my eyeballs with a spoon. The continued facepalming you induce is giving me a headache but I actually have stopped caring. I know deep down that any lurkers here know you for what you are.
‘The world stopped warming over a decade ago’…blue in the face denial starves the brain of oxygen.
Ever heard of the broadening of the tropical zone ,Eric?
I take such claims with a grain of salt.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0907975032.txt
Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of
tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree
line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the
same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably.
During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying
not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km
near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during
1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been
noted during 750-1450 AD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during
last century.
…
Best regards,
Rashit Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
And in response to my question,Eric?
Sorry, I should have explained myself a little better.
How many claims have we heard of alpine environments being challenged by encroachment from warm ecological zones, due to rising temperatures?
Yet Rashit Hantemirov, who is clearly a reputable enough expert on dendrochronology that Briffa and Mann used his services, indicates that the polar timberline has not moved in the 20th century, despite claims that the arctic is warming faster than other regions, and despite evidence that the polar timberline moved substantially in response to previous climate shifts, such as the Roman warming and the Medieval Warming.
So when I hear about broadening of the tropical zone, or unprecedented warming in polar regions, I wonder what changes Rashit Hantemirov is observing?
There are literally tens of thousands of species undergoing AGW induced range shifts. Cherrypicking individual examples that allegedly support your ridiculous position is intellectually dishonest. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/links-to-papers/
If you want to discuss tree-line shifts you need a meta-study, not a brief note from Hantemirov about one region.
And in response to my question? There’s a sub-tropical and temperate zone between my question and your air-swing.
+1
I have a theory that seems to be supported by ample evidence, that Eric thinks if he repeats his denial often enough and quickly enough, CO2 and H2O will lose their physical properties and he can start denying something else for a change.
Wish he’d move onto creationism or 911-truths or faked moon landings and get off his climate conspiracy merry-go-round.
Normally when a theoretical prediction disagrees with observation, such as the missing Equatorial Tropospheric Hotspot, the theory is discarded, or at least heavily revised.
Signs of the Hot Spot are there Eric…and then you could give time to considering all the unambiguously observed realisations of AGW predictions,couldn’t you? Any time now.
You’ve been taking too much notice of your conspiracy theorising pals, Jo and David.
Try this if it’s not too much to cope with (anyone – does Eric ever give an indication he reads stuff or is he just the organ grinders monkey on a gish galloping merry-go-round?)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/
“anyone – does Eric ever give an indication he reads stuff or is he just the organ grinders monkey on a gish galloping merry-go-round?”
He doesn’t read anything that disagrees with his position. He once managed to offer a critique of a 20 minute video less than 2 minutes after being sent the link. I couldn’t be bothered tracking down the post I did on that but its at my place somewhere.
Fair enough. Thanks, unknowispeaksense. I figured as much. (I wonder if Eric knows what the “tropospheric hot spot” actually refers to? Guess not or he wouldn’t have made such a silly statement.)
found it….. It was a 1/2 hour video and he replied within 4 minutes. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/denier-comment-of-the-day-november-15-2012/
How many papers in astronomy start with “As many people know, the universe is expanding….”
but that doesn’t mean everyone buys the big bang theory.
I personally think the evidence supports the big bang theory – but the bang is stranger than anyone realised.
Consider the acceleration of the expansion of the universe which has been observed, driven by “dark energy” (a placeholder for whatever is causing it).
Or consider the gravitational behaviour of astronomical bodies on a large scale, which indicates large amounts of unaccounted mass (dark matter) accumulating around massive bodies such as stars and galaxies.
Settled science it isn’t.
“Settled science it isn’t.”
there’s a lot of that going around 😉
““dark energy” (a placeholder for whatever is causing it).”
dark energy – a force that pervades all existence and without which the universe makes no sense and couldn’t exist.
I’ve often pondered whether is a placeholder for God.
Placeholder for god?
not for me
http://www.mpg.de/6776082/negative_absolute_temperature
The achievement of the Munich physicists could additionally be interesting for cosmology, since the thermodynamic behaviour of negative temperature exhibits parallels to so-called dark energy. Cosmologists postulate dark energy as the elusive force that accelerates the expansion of the universe, although the cosmos should in fact contract because of the gravitational attraction between all masses. There is a similar phenomenon in the atomic cloud in the Munich laboratory: the experiment relies upon the fact that the atoms in the gas do not repel each other as in a usual gas, but instead interact attractively. This means that the atoms exert a negative instead of a positive pressure. As a consequence, the atom cloud wants to contract and should really collapse – just as would be expected for the universe under the effect of gravity. But because of its negative temperature this does not happen. The gas is saved from collapse just like the universe.
The Big Bang *is* settled science. That’s the point. The basic, was there a bang, is settled. How, how much, what happened before, during, after – all that is to be explored. Gravity *is* settled science – and people still study it. AGW *is* settled science.
Eric, there is a subtlety though. If you go and talk to a cosmologist (and I do) they will accept that this science isn’t settled. Most think that dark matter is the most likely explanation for the gravitational behaviour of astronomical bodies on large scales. But, there are still credible scientists working on models of modified gravity who are taken quite seriously by the community. Dark energy is a less certain. The evidence for it is not as strong as that for dark matter.
My understanding of the climate science community is that there is much stronger consensus about AGW. If you spoke to a large group of climate scientists, I suspect very few would suggest that the science around AGW is not settled. I’m not suggesting that they believe it’s completely settled, simply that there is a general agreement about the fundamentals.
So, what’s the difference. Are cosmologists somehow more honest than climate scientists? I see no evidence for this. Is it maybe that the science around AGW is more settled than the science around dark matter and dark energy?
So, what’s the difference. Are cosmologists somehow more honest than climate scientists? I see no evidence for this. Is it maybe that the science around AGW is more settled than the science around dark matter and dark energy?
I strongly recommend you read Lee Smolin’s book, “The Trouble With Physics”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
Lee Smolin is a credible, high profile physicist, who has worked on string theory and other variations, such as Quantum Loop Gravity. His book tries to analyse what has gone wrong with physics – why, after the breakthroughs of the early 20th century, progress seems to have ground to a halt.
Many of the suggestions he makes are disturbing – for example, if you want to find a post working on a theory of cosmology other than String Theory, you are taking a serious risk with your career. String theory is so dominant, that people who question it are often dismissed as cranks, which has the unfortunate effect of discouraging people from questioning the still unproven fundamentals.
Smolin also presents evidence that there are serious problems with the string theory view of the Universe – for example, it uses a background dependent view of the world, which violates the assumptions of General Relativity.
Lets just say I found it a very interesting read – there’s another obvious field which I believe might have suffered a similar deterioration in scientific quality.
It’s possible to find any one of a small number of idiots who’ve written a book. Where’s your peer reviewed evidence Bozo?
Even better! The faux sceptics are justifying their nonsense position as the headless chicken party of “question all science”. I look forward to their repeal of the laws (actually just settled science) of thermodynamics. It’s not often one sees true buffoonery on display. We’re not a little loopy and to demonstrate that we’ll show you how we;re really, really loopy. Woo hoo! Murdoch will lap it up.
The field that’s suffered most from deterioration? Scepticism.
The likes of Watts and Nova have stolen a useful word from the likes of Dawkins and Randi and turned it into a belief system. Eric isn’t a sceptic, much as he claims he is. He is just a conspiracy theorist, where “the other side” practices poor science, believes socialism and are all aspiring eugenicists. The faux sceptics’ political views have driven their anti-science positions.
Let me guess. You have an alternative to the big bang theory? Galileo eat your heart out.
eric has an alternative for everything, comes from existing in an alternative reality
It was God what dunnit.
Let me guess…..you are unaware that there is a small but, apparently, increasingly influential group of scientists who don’t buy the story that the universe started with a bang.
Citation required.
BTW Fred Hoyle died a while ago.
The fact that a small number of scientists in any particular field don’t buy something is a “so what” of the first order.
Eric, you’re not really addressing the point I was making. Cosmologists will openly accept that much of the science isn’t settled. There are some very senior and credible researchers who work on and suggest alternatives. The point I was making is that if the science of cosmology isn’t settled and the science of climate science isn’t settled, why will cosmologist accept this (or least when I speak to them they due) while climate scientist – supposedly – don’t. I should add that we do need to be careful what we mean by settled though. I mean that most climate scientists endorse AGW. They may not all agree on climate sensitivity though (for example).
According to Google, none.
This is the paper
A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming
sceptics, we accept that humans are causing global warming but we do not accept that there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming
did i get that right ?
Oh, now I get it. John is saying that because “Skeptical Science” did the survey that supported the consensus, that means that sceptics support the consensus.
OMG that’s too funny.
Can someone please explain to him what a dill he is. It’d be too cruel if I did it.
Kemo sabi, you are beyond help,
How long will this take ?
the paper finds that 97% of scientists accept that humans are causing global warming
now jo nova, monckton, watts and nearly every other sceptic on earth apart from the “slayers” also accept that humans are causing global warming,
yet these same sceptics do not accept that 97% of scientists even agree with them, that humans are causing global warming.
it is a stupid, illogical claim kemo sabi
Yes but as I tried to explain to you before there is a world of difference between thinking that man is THE cause (Mann, Jones Gore) and thinking that man is A cause (Watts, Nova, etc).
If you are saying that anyone who thinks that man causes even 1% of the warming is part of the consensus then yes, there is a consensus. Woohoo!!
Again the consensus is that humans are causing global warming,
every paper would have different sensitivities and projected outcomes, the consensus question does not ask those things it only asks are humans causing global warming
the effing answer is that 97% of scientists accept that and that most sceptics accept that but have this absurd idea that the scientists do not even accept what they themselves accept and write twaddle posts to deny the paper,
me very patient person even with morons .
So let me get this straight. Your view is that the only people not in the consensus, that other 3%, are people who think that man has played absolutely no part in the 20th century warming. Is that what you’re saying?
the question was “are humans causing global warming”
anyone who says yes or has a paper to that effect or the conclusions of the paper support that, are part of the consensus question.
so you monckton nova watts eric all agree with that consensus
You have said yes , no qualification is required, we are either causing warming or we are not
well done kemo sabi
So your’s is an entirely useless consensus
Just to be clear please confirm that….
“Your view is that the only people not in the consensus, that other 3%, are people who think that man has played absolutely no part in the 20th century warming.
This is the sort of crap you go on with
>If you are saying that anyone who thinks that man causes even 1% of the warming is part of the consensus then yes, there is a consensus. Woohoo!!
if you want to have some credibility then link to a paper that claims only 1% of warming is due to humans,
or put up one that claims only 3% or even only 25%
Well John I suspect you’ve talked yourself into a corner and are trying to find an exit that doesn’t make you look too silly. But let’s pursue this a bit more.
To make things a little simpler for you let’s look at one person who is generally considered part of the sceptic group but who, under your definition, is part of the consensus.
John Christy is well know as someone who disputes that man is the main cause for the warming, while agreeing that man has caused some warming.
eg he has said
But he has also said
So is he, under your definition, part of the consensus?
Christy
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]
so when he says “nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.”
he is not confirming that he believes that some of the warming is due to human CO2,
he is simply refuting claims that most of the warming ( as stated in the literature)
is due to humans
So is he part of the consensus as you understand the term?
read the comment again, you cannot be this thick,
ok, maybe you aren’t pretending to be stupid.
“read the comment again, you cannot be this thick,”
Well obviously from your screwy definition he is part of the consensus…but I’d just like you to say it, for future use;).
Christy does not accept that the warming is due to CO2 , he believes that it is just natural variation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
When he refers to most of the warming he is citing the IPCC claim of most of the warming
I do not think that you have been following climate change for more than a few months, you did not even know of the Slayers,
telling lies for god?
If he says he doesn’t think most of the warming is caused by man, he is obviously saying that some of the warming is caused by man. Logic?
Can we keep this conversation going, its fun watching you tie yourself in knots trying to find a way to back out of your original screwy definition.
As to the slayers, if you think this extreme fringe group makes up 3% of the total cohort of those scientists who have expressed a GW view, might I suggest a remedial maths course. On the other hand it might be easier to announce that you are reconsidering your screwy definition.
Meanwhile, in related climate news, that well known member of the AGW consensus, Christopher Monckton, has opined as follows:
“The climate scam is a series of connected scientific frauds perpetrated by organized crime and calculated to enrich the few at the expense of the many by tampering with data and faking results to turn a likely modest and beneficial warming into a bogus Apocalypse.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/the-lefts-immorality-is-killing-america/#zgeYdVx94prqW6Pi.99
We are still waiting to hear that Michael Mann concurs with the views of his consensus colleague.
Dear oh dear.
Logic fail
christy is refuting this statement from the IPCC
. “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely”
he has stated that the warming is natural, see about fifty comments ago
You may not be following other thread so
john byatt says:
May 19, 2013 at 4:09 am
Question for Mark
were you being dishonest with this comment or is that how you read the actual para
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.”
you even removed the actual points that were written and referred to in the para
how can anyone expect logical debate with you if you just resort to telling lies and think that deception is legitimate?
the reason i ask is that I have only ever come across that before when debating creationists,
“telling lies for god”
again he cannot give an answer
Mark,Re: Mann and Monckton in the same room… it’s about common ground,which,amazingly, they do share on the narrow issue of CO2’s radiative properties. Of course they utterly diverge elsewhere…amazingly!
Then put Monckton in the same room as the Dragon Slayers,and they excoriate him! hahahahhaha… for daring to allow CO2 a reality as a GHG…. the sight of O’Sullivan ,who lies about his legal qualifications,upbraiding Monckton,who lies about being a scientist when he is confident he can get away with it, is like two gimps wrestling in a sack: bizarre,sad and irrelevant.
” Of course they utterly diverge elsewhere…amazingly!”
Well yes,that’s what I’ve been trying to explain to John. Amazingly it seems to be a difficult concept.
Well, I’ve never given the slayers a second thought after first reading their views, find Monckton entertaining but not exactly informative, while Mann is the personification of all that is wrong with the AGW industry.
so now you claim that monckton does not accept that humans are causing warming
of course he does, he claims low sensitivity
you cannot claim low sensitivity to CO2 and deny that it is warming the planet at the same time,
Monckton also claims there is no consensus regarding how much warming increased atmospheric CO2 will cause – the climate sensitivity.
you have not been following this long have you, you do not even know the position of the false sceptics
John,
“so now you claim that monckton does not accept that humans are causing warming”
I am? where?
John, from the outset of this silly detour you went down I’ve been saying that the overwhelming majority of sceptics accept that man is causing some proportion of the warming. The difference between a sceptic and a warmist is the amount each attributes to man as opposed to natural forces.
well the IPCC puts it as most (more than 50% by definition of the word
where do you sit, you may even agree with the IPCC as most of the warming
do not worry i know that you will not commit, it is a denier thing just to deny everything
eric ” one of the key predictions of models based on high CO2 forcing is the missing equatorial tropospheric hotspot. All you can produce is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and a few dodgy assumptions”
eric is rejecting the existence of a negative feedback and therefore claiming that the models will underestimate the warming .
eric “CO2 by itself only produces a climate sensitivity of 1c / doubling or so. To produce a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling of CO2, climate scientists assume CO2 warming increases the water vapour levels in the atmosphere.”
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=increase+atmospheric+water+vapor&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm
Interestingly the equatorial tropospheric hotspot is still MIA – so there is still something very wrong with the way current generation models handle the water vapour response to CO2 forcing.
I tend towards the “blanket with holes” theory – water vapour might trap heat, but it is also responsible for punching holes in the greenhouse blanket, by forming thunderstorms, hurricanes and cyclones.
You live in Queensland John – if you want really hot temperatures, you have to travel to the far West, far from sources of water vapour. Near the coast, increased insolation heats the surface up to a point, but the accumulation of water vapour creates storms which prevent further warming, by dumping excess heat at the top of the troposphere.
eric read about how the heat from any surface warming travels up the air column and escapes to space, now the atmospheric water vapor bit is happening
as per the papers so the planet is warming.
you again are claiming that a negative feedback is not occurring
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=moist+adiabatic+lapse+rate+tropical+troposphere&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
I meant increased insolation in Summer (vs Winter) :-).
Ask a climatologist eric , this bloke did
Karen #2 thanks for clarifying.
Joel #5. But if you don’t know the magnitude of evaporation effect on lapse rate how can one expect to accurately model TOA fluxes, let alone surface temps? Evaporation/Precipitation is not affected by CO2 levels. If Evaporation/Precipitation is increasing it will “short-circuit” CO2 warming, right?
I have been looking for an interactive site with GCMs where once can plot projections of many paramters, Evaporation/Precipitation being one of them. My assumption is the model show Evaporation/Precipitation pretty much flat. This because a 5% increase in the 80 W/m^2 number in the Trenberth diagram of energy fluxes would completely conteract the total forecasted effect for CO2 doubling including positive feedbacks.
[Response: there is model output of this sort on the GISS website (look at datasets/modelE simulations etc). But you will find that your assumptions are wrong – evap and precip increase at roughly 2% per degree C warming. Your confusion is in associating changes in the surface energy budget with the TOA radiative forcing. The former are generally substantially larger than the latter because of the water vapor and other feedbacks. – gavin]
And once again, despite correction, Eric repeats nonsense:
What the hell are you on about Eric? There are no “holes” at TOA. You simply don’t understand the difference between the convecting troposphere and the effects of GHG absorption/re-radiation above it, at TOA. Hence this TRIPE you keep on repeating about blankets.
Worse than that, despite repeated correction on this point you still haven’t acknowledged your basic errors but instead continue to repeat them incessantly in a public forum.
This stuff matters, Eric. Stop misleading people. STFU and go back to the basics with a properly open mind and READ.
Nonsense BBD, storms can only exist when water vapour rises to a point where it can dump its heat of vaporisation, and re-condense as rain.
The transport of vast quantities of water vapour to the cold upper troposphere carries heat away from surface, and dumps it above the bulk of the Earth’s atmosphere, including GHG.
The only effect TOA greenhouse effect would be to slightly increase the height of the storm column, until the point is reached where the water vapour can condense.
Not even wrong,Eric…wow.
I thought that eric claimed to give links to science papers which back his absurdities,
waiting waiting
You don’t understand that there are no “holes” in the TOA. Your conception of a tropospheric “GHG blanket” confined to the convecting troposphere is fundamentally incomplete.
You don’t understand what the term “adiabatic” means. You don’t understand why GHGs at TOA increase the altitude of effective emission *causing* the entire climate system to heat up until a new radiative quasi-equilibrium is reached at TOA.
Every time you comment on this topic you demonstrate your confusion and unfitness to set yourself up as a “sceptic” of the mainstream scientific position.
eric “climate scientists assume CO2 warming increases the water vapour levels in the atmosphere.”
so now you change your mind and accept that CO2 warming increases water vapor levels in the atmosphere ?
has eric not previously claimed that increased water vapor will be a negative feedback ?
now he refutes ” climate scientists assume CO2 warming increases the water vapour levels in the atmosphere”
did not eric also claim that when he makes absurd statements that he backs it with a link?
he needs an app for his short term memory loss
Water vapour creates high albedo clouds – so it may well be a net negative feedback.
too stupid , ignore
Bullshit.
“As the planet warms, clouds become fewer, higher, and thicker, and global mean net cloud feedback is positive in all but one model and results primarily from increased trapping of longwave radiation.”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00555.1
You’re confusing current climate models with a scientific procedure which has predictive skill, and real world applicability.
Foolishly wrong Eric. Learn more about models before commenting,eh?
TOA equilibrium
read Karen’s comment # 2 as well
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-ii-constraining-cloud-feedback-without-cloud-observations/
as usual eric you are talking nonsense
Meanwhile…
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
James Hansen.
Oh for goodness sake you buffoon. Stop conflating atmospheric temperature with the entire climate system. We’ve been through this already and yet here you are – again – repeating an irrelevance. Over 90% of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system since the mid-C20th is in the oceans. A slight increase in the efficiency by which energy diffuses into the ocean is amply sufficient to reduce the rate of surface warming temporarily.
You are being intellectually dishonest and IMO pushing the absolute limits of what is acceptable on a non-denier blog. Again.
Weasel continues the proud tradition of deniar selective quoting, “The five-year mean [surface] global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of net climate forcing.” I added the implied “surface”. He could even read the original paper, instead of quoting from the bonkers echo chamber, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
Or is that casting pearls before weasels?
Cluster munitions.
From the Hansen article selectively micro-quoted by CW but only actually *linked* by John Havery Samuel – who clearly has nothing to hide:
I highly recommend John Nielsen-Gammon’s demonstration that Hansen is largely correct to point to La Nina as the predominant cause of the recent slow-down in surface warming.
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
Big deal. Global surface temperature trended slightly down for the decade from 1987 to 1997.
…which was part of the period that Douglass,Pearson and Singer seized on in the first act of ‘ It Hasn’t Warmed Since Year X ‘ in 2004. Everyone has forgotten we’ve been through the charade before,coughing up fake papers back then,using the dud Christy and Spencer sat analysis.
Even though many of the denier bloggers themselves claim to accept that humans are causing global warming they do not want the public to believe that there is a scientific consensus on the matter
WHY?
Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.
However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,
“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”
This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories “balanced” with a “skeptic” perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve “balance”, the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what’s causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.
this is the basic reason for their idiotic attacks on John’s paper.
“The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories “balanced” with a “skeptic” perspective.”
So can you name some of the people providing this sceptic perspective?
two weeks ago for a start,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-debate-heats-up-while-experts-warn-of-a-coming-ice-age/story-e6frg6xf-1226634874185
you can by pass the paywall by googling debate heats up while experts warn of a coming ice age
how many more would you like ?
here is another three days ago.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/14/2008601/false-balance-lives-bloomberg-news-gives-equal-weight-to-climate-disinformer-and-scientists/
john byatt says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 18, 2013 at 4:17 am
two weeks ago for a start,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-debate-heats-up-while-experts-warn-of-a-coming-ice-age/story-e6frg6xf-1226634874185
you can by pass the paywall by googling debate heats up while experts warn of a coming ice age
how many more would you like ?
here is another three days ago.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/14/2008601/false-balance-lives-bloomberg-news-gives-equal-weight-to-climate-disinformer-and-scientists/
Lets know when you have enough
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/14/444820/false-balance-lives-at-the-new-york-times/
But But….
Taking just the Bloomberg link, they talk about Morano being one of these sceptics.
Yet, since Morano accepts that CO2 has some effect on climate, he is, by your screwy definition, part of the consensus.
Indeed I can’t think of who might be in the 3% of non-consensus scientists/activists. I don’t recall ever reading of anyone who thought CO2 had no effect on climate.
They call themselves the slayers kemo sabi
VIv Forbes in Australia is one
http://www.stanmorecoal.com.au/corporate_directors_and_management.aspx
Jo Nova has post on the slayers,
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-discussion-of-the-slaying-the-sky-dragon-science-is-the-greenhouse-effect-a-sky-dragon-myth/
find some in the comments
If you have been following the debate for as long as you claim then you would know that the sceptics have shifted over the years from
AGW is not occurring
to
DAGW is not occurring
and now to
CAGW is not occurring
simply trying to maintain some credibility, during this process many have been left behind in the “AGW is not occurring” category
Also many have moved on to claiming that we are warming the planet but it will be good ,
then many others such as the Climate sceptics party who will bounce around with all three claims within the one week
We’ll that is simply wrong. Most of the sceptics that I followed in the 1990s were very firmly in the camp that increasing CO2 will have some effect but that the effect will be somewhere between minor an beneficial.
You also need to try to understand that there isn’t a group called sceptics. In the same way as there is a spectrum of warmists from “we’ve got a problem but we’ve got time to fix it” through to “we’ve got 100months to fix it”, there is a spectrum of sceptics. Generalising that sceptics think this or warmists think that, is as unproductive as asserting that there is one approved way that religious devotees think.
1 Apr 12, 2013 – Andrew Montford is a prominent global warming sceptic and the author ….. And ‘being reported’ more often is not proof of ‘occurring more often’. …… find out about scepticism of CAGW from sceptics
Carter always refers to CAGW now
in the past he only referred to DAGW
http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/knockknock.pdf
by RM Carter – 2008 – Cited by 14 – Related articles
This is an economics journal, and as a scientist I am clearly not the … The issue of dangerous human-caused global warming is a complex one. ….. it is claimed that ‘more than 2000 scientists’ have participated in or approved the IPCC’s …
and his view before that was
yep
AGW not happening
By Bob Carter12:01AM BST 09 Apr 2006Comment
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem.
“Generalising that sceptics think this or warmists think that, is as unproductive as asserting that there is one approved way that religious devotees think”
I do not know how you religious devotees think but i do know that sceptics have no trouble believing numerous opposing views at the same time.
you can never get a denier to confirm what they fully believe , which is why you do not answer questions such as do you believe that the warming over past decades is due to GCR’s
go on, try to give an answer .
Mark asks “..name some of the people providing this sceptic perspective?” RU4real? While you figure that out, News Ltd have hosted many AGW rejecters in their op-ed pages: Jo Nova, Bill Kininmonth, Bob Carter, economist Don Aitken,Jennifer Marohasy,Chris Monckton, Richard Lindzen ,the IPA,and more,all singing from the same hymn book. The Australian runs AGW opinion pieces at 85/15 anti/pro….Plimer got to plug his book at The Oz,IPA backing and all
And just to remind you of the broken,stupid ,dishonest and unimaginative bullshit cycle that passes for ‘skepticism’,Mark,you might like to recall the paper by Douglass,Pearson and S.Fred Singer from 2004,declaring no global warming from 1979-1996,using satellite data as proof…of course they cherry-picked by truncating the data at 1996,and they used the uncorrected Christy/Spencer data.
Re :AGW sceptics in the 1990s…yes,who were they,and what were they thinking then?
Not many of them… S. Fred Singer,the late Fred Seitz. These guys were well credentialled but sadly unethical opinion for hire,firstly by the tobacco industry. They initially claimed there would be no warming. In the 1980s,Sherwood Idso started the ‘CO2 is plant food the more the better’ mantra…he is still payed to spin to this day…
And of course in the US,via News Corp, various shills like Pat Michaels and James Taylor from Heartland have had copious op-ed space in the WSJ and others.
Morano gets aired via WSJ and Fox as a go-to bullshitter….and you do realise that he peddled the same shite directly paid for by the public as Senator James Inhofe’s in-house shill?
Prominent columnist George Will held up one end of the circus with his denialist idiocy,his seniority cowing his editors.
Pat Michaels gets Congress and Senate ‘inquiry’ time,too. He’s an old-school professional disinformer from the 1990s.
Yeah,Mark, the dissenting voices are only now being heard [sarc]
Yes Nick, I agree that these people are sceptics and are advancing the sceptic view. But if you read back through the thread, John holds that these people are part of the consensus. So I’ve been trying to find out who he thinks isn’t part of the consensus, hence my question. According to John, Nova, Morano etc are part of the consensus, hence they must be pushing the consensus view, not the sceptic view.
I thought that it was you who claimed they must be part of the consensus,
if they do not have a paper on the subject then how could they be part of the consensus?
they can however agree with the consensus if they agree with the IPCC statement that most of the warming is caused by humans
still have not found one sceptic who can state a position on that
and the continued and tiresome idiocy in here from larry moe and curly
Mark says:
May 18, 2013 at 3:25 am
John,
I think I’m getting a handle on you. Whenever you realise you’re wrong you descend into invective. Like now.
I’m well aware that there are quite a number of studies that purport to disprove Svensmark. Its only to be expected that the consensus would be very anxious prove him wrong.
Let’s face it, if he’s right then a lot of careers are seriously threatened and quite a few people are going to spend the next 20yrs pulling egg of their face.
But these studies on Svensmark’s theory are way less important than the CLOUD experiments where the truth of those theories will be ultimately tested. I had followed it closely and was unaware of any evidence that CERN had come out against Svensmark. So when Nick said they had, I was both sceptical and interested to see if I’d missed something.
Hence my question which specifically related to CERN. You of course completely misread the question and just reverted to the WtD playbook: someone mentions Svensmark -> show them this article.
But the article doesn’t in any way show CERN had disproved Svensmark, does it?
His theory that GCR’s are a major player has been disproved by CERN
they are only a bit player but to even have any effect at all you would still have to show
… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
and what part of this are you having trouble with understanding?
” Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been ( Gavin
and you have the dam hide to change a whole paragraph as below
you take this
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
change it to this
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.”
most would think that you are being dishonest with that change but I believe that you may have a fundamentalist ideology and it just seemed correct to you.
I find that a lot from creationists
Question for Mark
were you being dishonest with this comment or is that how you read the actual para
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.”
you even removed the actual points that were written and referred to in the para
how can anyone expect logical debate with you if you just resort to telling lies and think that deception is legitimate?
the reason i ask is that I have only ever come across that before when debating creationists,
“telling lies for god”
again he cannot give an answer
John,
I don’t know how many different ways I can say this, but my only concern here was with Nick’s assertion that CERN had torpedoed Svensmark. I wasn’t and am not concerned about his additional note that various studies have purported to do the same since I’m well aware that such studies exist and don’t dispute that. What I disputed or was unsure of was whether indeed CERN had issued more announcements since the last I’d seen in 2011 which might have justified the claim that it had disavowed Svensmark’s theory.
So my only interest was CERN. I wasn’t interested in arguing the merits or otherwise of Svensmark because I think that’s futile until all the science is in. So just CERN
Now if that’s too hard for you to follow, then just hit “reply” now and unload the invective.
OK, so let’s take the next baby step. Since I was only concerned about the CERN part of the issue, when I quoted that now infamous paragraph from RC, I only quoted the part concerned with the CERN data. (still with me?). To paraphrase, RC was basically saying the CERN hadn’t done enough yet to prove or disprove Svensmark but other studies had done so. My only concern was with the CERN part of that so I quoted the part concerned with CERN.
I didn’t doctor he quote, I picked out the part that was relevant to what I was discussing. (still there?).
Now I appreciate that all of you are very anxious to trot out all the stuff that purports to disprove Svensmark at the very mention of his name.After all, his theory is a direct affront to all you consider good and true. But I’m not playing that game. I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong and I’ll wait to see how the actual experiments pan out.
This is a different sort of science to that which the climate community is used. This is science as it used to be done and is still done everywhere other than in the climate community. This is someone proposing an hypothesis and then checking it in the lab with replicable experiments. Its very different to some guy sitting in front of a PC, working out which paleo data he needs to cherry-pick in order to get a pre-ordained graph.
This type of science can take years to resolve and I won’t be either promoting or defending it until then.
No you did not quote it you changed it so I ask you again
Question for Mark
were you being dishonest with this comment or is that how you read the actual para
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.”
This was the original
1… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points
you even removed the actual points ( added above) that were written and referred to in the para
how can anyone expect logical debate with you if you just resort to telling lies and think that deception is legitimate?
the reason i ask is that I have only ever come across that before when debating creationists,
“telling lies for god”
again he cannot give an answer
Now point 2 was even mentioned in the para, you removed the points and the fact that point 2 was mentioned
that is not being honest
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
I don’t know what to tell you John. I quoted directly and accurately from the RC article. I didn’t doctor anything. Now its true that I left a whole bunch of stuff out that you would have preferred to have been left in because they were relevant to what you wanted to address. But I left then out because the were irrelevant to what I wanted to address.
I don’t know how else to explain this to you. I tried to use Google translator to convert it to gibberish but it couldn’t do it.
Actually I’m wondering if you are being deliberately thick here so as to draw attention away from the even sillier spectacle you made of yourself over what comprises a consensus scientist. Monckton in the consensus …who’d have thunk it.
“Now its true that I left a whole bunch of stuff out that you would have preferred to have been left in because they were relevant to what you wanted to address. But I left then out because the were irrelevant to what I wanted to address.”
Quotemining 101. However you want to phrase it, it is dishonest and not only have you been caught out but you have now arrogantly admitted to it as if there’s nothing wrong with it. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.
what you claimed was the quote
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.
and the actual quote
1… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).
the bit you added
[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven],
which is not even a logical assumption when even the points are referred to
“that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied”
are you a retard?
keep digging
This is your quote, see above
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points[concerning how, in their mind, Svensmark can be proven or disproven], and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way
out on a limb.”
oops, John has slipped into the invective (“are you a retard?”) indicating even he now knows he’s wrong.
He now seems mightily upset that I added something to the quote. The thing I added was with brackets [ ] which generally indicates that the bit within is not part of the quote but added to give some context which has been lost in the extraction. Oh well, I’m told grammar isn’t taught in schools these days so we can’t really blame John for his ignorance.
What’s your first language Mark? It obviously isn’t English.
mark Mark says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:51 am
I don’t know what to tell you John. I quoted directly and accurately from the RC article. I didn’t doctor anything.
“He now seems mightily upset that I added something to the quote”.
you are so easy
ahhhh, so you did misunderstand the use of brackets [ ]. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ya know.
So to summarise:
1. Nick suggested that CERN had disproved Svensmark although later he advised that that wasn’t quite what he meant, relying more on other studies instead.
2. I asked where CERN had done this.
3. John provided a RC article which he thought provided these evidence.
4. In fact however the article specifically said that CERN hadn’t disproved Svensmark although it hastened to add that indeed many other studies had placed large questions around the GCR theory.
5. I advised John of this and provided the money quote concerning CLOUD and Svensmark.
6. John then spent the next 30 or so posts trying to assert that even though the article had specifically not said that CERN had disproved Svensmark, since it had mentioned other studies that disproved Svensmark, this proved that the article had said that CERN disproved Svensmark even while saying the opposite!
7. Search parties have been dispatched to try to find the logic of that. Hopes for success are not high.
the particles found were too small to do what was claimed they would do even under the best of conditions as proposed
too small by orders of magnitude
Officious pettyfogging from Mark! Now he’s a gatekeeper,a stickler for protocol…wow. We must wait for paper on the CERN results thus far to be published specifically addressing Svensmark’s every claim before we can say Svensmark is a dead parrot,apparently. I will make sure you are consistent in maintaining that threshhold.
CERN preliminary results–which I stated were such– give a constraint estimate to real world GCR mediated nucleation potential. I’m not obliged to be as professionally cautious as the RC scientists. The calculation in the cited extract gives useful figures, Svensmark is not in the slightest assisted by them,[and again,GCR initiated nucleation is not Svensmark’s idea] if he insists that GCR cloud relationships are responsible for current warming or are able to take their place as a forcing of any significance.
Svensmark and supporters are the ones that have pushed that CERN is/will be the proof,not the scientific community,who are aware of the real strength of the other material. Which proves that the idea is crap.
Remember, a count of GCRs and measures of cloudiness–actual observations– already provide information absolutely contrary to Svensmark’s contention.
Occam’s razor,Mark.
Nick,
I’m not entirely sure what you’re on about here. Where did I suggest we needed to await for some paper or other to be written. As far as I’m aware all paper(s) concerning the initial results have issued.
What we are waiting on is the results of the next experiments. For example, in the first experiments aerosol nucleation rates didn’t match real world results because , it was thought, they didn’t have sufficent volatile organic compounds in the chamber. As I understand it, this is part of the next phase of testing. So lot’s more to be done.
All the while an even bigger experiment is taking place, if the sun continues in its decline to Dalton minimum levels. Then things could get really interesting.
In the meantime, Svensmark seems to be moving in other directions. Its always been known that the level of GCR is determined not just by the strength of the sun but also by the varying amount of rays passing by. Svensmark seems to have been able to show that quantum of life on earth is related to near-by supernovae.
Occam’s razor? Yep agreed. The simplest answer seems to be that that big yellow thing has something to do with the warming.
well if you still want to hang onto to something that is devoid of any correlation
“Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been”
ho hum
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/
first comment
chris asks why do a study when it can be worked out on the back of an envelope,
as it can be
Chris Colose says:
19 Jun 2011 at 11:15 PM
With all due respect, the main conclusions of the Feulner and Rahmstorf study seem not only self-evident, but something that can be worked out on the back of an envelope, at least to a good first approximation (especially when placing it in the context of a warming signal an order of magnitude greater by end century). For example, the Total Solar Irradiance around solar minimum is ~1360 W/m2 (Kopp and Lean, 2011), and estimates of the solar decline toward Maunder Minimum are of order ~0.1%, so the associated radiative forcing is 1360*0.001*(0.7/4) ~ 0.24 W/m2, which even at equilibrium is about 0.2 degrees C for a reasonable climate sensitivity. There’s no way to make that competitive with CO2 by end century even with [probably] unreasonable amplification factors.
Another interesting question concerning a new Maunder Minimum would be the impacts on decadal-scale prediction, where both internal variability and changes in TSI are competitive with changing greenhouse gases
so a lousy negative .2 or .3Degc on a possible 2 to 6DegC rise due increasing CO2
Mark,the stuff at CERN is published,but a paper from CERN using CLOUD data absolutely addressing Svensmark’s personal arguments does not exist…if such a paper is being drafted,it’s not needed.
And what Dalton Minimum?
So when you said I was waiting for the paper to be written up, you meant to say that the paper had already been written up and I hadn’t said any such thing. Good. apology accepted.
As I understand it, CLOUD continues to check its data and run experiments (although these seem to be delayed due to some issue with the LHC) with the issue of volatile organic compounds being high on the list of things to resolve. The people at CLOUD seem to be very cagey about what they’re doing, presumably because they don’t want to be drawn into the interminable AGW arguments inherent in doing anything that might be considered heretical. Anyone outside the field who saw what happened to poor Wegman would tread very carefully. The Hockey Team don’t play nice when threatened.
As to a new Dalton, we’ll just have to wait and see. If you compare current with previous cycles you do tend to see the potential for a Dalton. But then, since we understand so little about the sun, who knows.
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/dalton-minimum/
Mark,first paragraph…no. I did not say a paper on Svensmark specifically, had been written up. And of course no apology. After all, I won’t get one from you for your relentless unconsciousness. You’re the guy who said: I had followed it closely and was unaware of any evidence that CERN had come out against Svensmark... to which I reasonably, if also a little facetiously, concluded that you insisted on waiting for a formal paper on Svensmark,because you so respected RC’s warning that the results they presented were not that paper.
Second para: conspiratorial ideation noted re CERN fearing The Teams inquisitorial visit.
Question: What happened to Wegman that the lazy-ass plagiariser didn’t have coming? He got a slap over the wrist from his employer for something that someone with a lower status would have gotten sacked for.
Folks [not the Team] find out that he took McI’s rigged analysis at face value, and that he did not supervise his interns adequately,hence the extensive plagiarism.
Re: Dalton,yes it is a baffling sun,but if you read through the link,there is a bit on the dissimilarities of this cycle with the Dalton cycles.
he puts up an opinion piece from a blog?
try a peer reviewed paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract
Well Nick, I wasn’t really expecting an apology. I have a feel about how this site works – make silly claims and/or assertions and if you get bounced on it then just make more silly claims and/or assertions without taking a second breathe.
“conspiratorial ideation”? You guys have fallen in love with that term ever since the ‘interesting’ Lowendowsky paper,haven’t you? But no conspiracy. Just an observation that CLOUD have been extra careful to not upset the Team.
Re Wegman “Question: What happened to Wegman that the lazy-ass plagiariser didn’t have coming?” Yes that’s what I meant. Here’s a nice old chap, stellar career, no agenda, checks things out and finds that MBH is as bad as M&M had always said, not knowing that to do so was to invite the type of spittle-laden invective you just displayed. Plagerised?…yep. Minor and inconsequential? …yep. Affect the results?…nup. Used as a way to discredit the results? ….you betcha.
It’s no wonder you are a denier given that you accept plagiarism as a legitimate means of communicating ideas. Your standards are clearly very low.
“he puts up an opinion piece from a blog?
try a peer reviewed paper”
You talking to me or Nick. We both put up opinion pieces.
BTW your peer-reviewed piece was completely irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the likelihood of a Dalton minimum while that piece was about the potential effects of such a minimum. I’d try and explain the difference to you, but…well….
With [cough] respect,Mark…you have posted the amateur opinion of a Swedish engineering management consultant…while I have linked you to the Solar Influences Data Centre and the qualified opinion of Dr Frederic Clette,who demonstrates there are no Daltonesque characteristics in the current cycle,and disclaims any heralding of an extended grand minimum…of course he may be proven wrong,but he’s the one who will have to do the serious explaining,not your chap.
Conspiratorial ideation is a fun couplet and a sadly relevant behavior! You reject indulging in it..then you repeat your ideation! Did you notice you did that? ‘No conspiracy.Just an observation [plucked from your ass,the source of most of your material] that CLOUD have been extra careful to not upset the team’ There , I read it back in case you forgot.
And you’ll have to do better than that with Weggers,because he did not ‘check things out’ as you claim. McI claimed to have reproduced MBH methodology,but did not. Others did,not Wegman….and the plagiarism dominated his report. As for the laughable social network analysis,dripping with ‘significance’…funny thing is that Weggers own social network saved him from total oblivion!
You really are perfect with Bolt…you both get everything ass-backwards
Mark says:
May 20, 2013 at 8:58 am
“he puts up an opinion piece from a blog?
try a peer reviewed paper”
You talking to me or Nick. We both put up opinion pieces.
BTW your peer-reviewed piece was completely irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the likelihood of a Dalton minimum while that piece was about the potential effects of such a minimum. I’d try and explain the difference to you, but…well….
good lord does not even read his own link, your link talks about the effects (cooling)
the peer reviewed paper shows that it would have very little effect on the warming from AGW
why do you just try to lie your way out of everything?
did he read his own paper, no
he will lie again though so , from his link
and so is the likelihood that we will see 2 – 3 decades of global cooling. It is more likely that for the next 20- 30 years this Landscheidt Minimum will resemble the Dalton Minimum period, but if SC25 is a very small cycle then we may even approach the conditions of the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum. Landscheidt’s prediction was that this minimum would last from 2000 to 2060 and the global temperature stand-still for the last 15 years gives greater credence to his forecasts.
“we may even approach the conditions of the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum”.
which is complete nonsense
Mark says:
May 19, 2013 at 1:27 am
But But….
Taking just the Bloomberg link, they talk about Morano being one of these sceptics.
Yet, since Morano accepts that CO2 has some effect on climate, he is, by your screwy definition, part of the consensus.
Indeed I can’t think of who might be in the 3% of non-consensus scientists/activists. I don’t recall ever reading of anyone who thought CO2 had no effect on climate.
john byatt says:
May 19, 2013 at 1:30 am
They call themselves the slayers kemo sabi
and then
Mark says:
May 19, 2013 at 6:59 am
” Of course they utterly diverge elsewhere…amazingly!”
Well yes,that’s what I’ve been trying to explain to John. Amazingly it seems to be a difficult concept.
Well, I’ve never given the slayers a second thought after first reading their views, find Monckton entertaining but not exactly informative, while Mann is the personification of all that is wrong with the AGW industry.
1 “I don’t recall ever reading of anyone who thought CO2 had no effect on climate”.
2 ” Well, I’ve never given the slayers a second thought after first reading their views”
is he for real?
Do you mean is he arguing in good faith?
No. He’s a troll. But he’s a real troll (as opposed to a spambot, even though the output is much the same).
my bet is that he is a creationist, here telling lies for god which is why he comes across as having never read anything substantial on the subject, just parrots watts etc as he said,
Mark “my work here is nearly done” The lone ranger (kemo sabi ) quote
What film does the phrase “my work here is done” come from …
answers.yahoo.com › All Categories › Entertainment & Music › Movies
Jul 9, 2008 – … Western show that started on radio called “The Lone Ranger.” Every week, the Ranger would declare his work here was done and slip away.
“1 “I don’t recall ever reading of anyone who thought CO2 had no effect on climate”.
At the time we were talking about climate scientists and who made up the 3%. Elsewhere you’re always whining that your brethren are being taken out of context by those evil ‘deniers’ (whoever they are), but we see that, when you’re on the loosing end of a discussion, you haven’t the slightest compunction against taking things out of context.
You linked to O’Sullivan, who Watts calls “leader of the Principia cult” of Sky Dragon Slayers.
You did this before the SkS study was released. A few days later, you said:
If you remain determined to only hear or consider views from approved sources, it easily explains how you end up with such utterly screwy ideas such as BBD’s idiocy that sceptics don’t know that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat.
Again, this was before the SkS study was released.
And again, O’Sullivan and his Slayers dispute the fact that CO2 has any effect on climate because they dispute the fundamental thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect, blankets, etc.
for goodness sake there are papers at E & E which claim that CO2 had no effect of on climate
like eric you believe your own ignorance is a rebuttal
and then after you say you believe that we were talking about 3% of papers then go on to claim that even people like yourself must be part of the consensus if you accept any warming due to CO2 . Anyone who believes that humans have caused more than 50% of the warming are not part of the consensus but they agree with the consensus, they are people like monckton and nova and watts, who then write nonsense which in effect states that while they agree with the consensus position they do not believe that scientists do
go and ask nova what percentage of the warming she believes is due to CO2. bet she does not give an answer
OK I admit defeat…I’ve got absolutely no idea what your talking about.
First I found out that, contra everything I thought, people like Monckton, Nova, Watts and Christy weren’t sceptics but were instead part of the consensus.
Now I find out that “Anyone who believes that humans have caused more than 50% of the warming are not part of the consensus but they agree with the consensus”. So Mann, Gore, Jones etc aren’t part of the consensus but Lindzen, Spencer and McIntyre are.
Somewhere in there, I guess, there’s an internal consistence but it eludes me.
Re O’Sullivan, imagine me letting out a frustrated sigh since I’ve already been down this road.
I linked to a story that happened to be on O’Sullivan’s site. I just wanted a quick link to one of the myriad stories showing Mann’s Nobel claims were bogus. I just picked the first one Google gave me. I didn’t and don’t care who the messenger was, only the story. I still don’t care about O’Sullivan but I guess if he upset the alarmist brigade, I’d best do a bit of reading on him.
baby steps
1 there are papers that support the claim that humans are causing warming
2 there are papers which claim that humans are not causing warming
97% of papers support the claim that humans are causing warming
that is the consensus
I accept that as per the IPCC most of the warming is due to humans, I agree with the consensus
most equals = more than 50%
do you agree that more than 50% of the warming is due to humans ?
how can a denier claim that they accept the greenhouse effect, accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, accept that on its own 2X CO2 equals about 1.2degC of warming, accept that a 1.2DegC increase in global temperature results in a higher level of atmospheric water vapor, accept that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas and then deny that at least half of the current warming is due to human CO2
what say you kemo sabi ?
“do you agree that more than 50% of the warming is due to humans ?”
No
John,
I can see that you are now trying to backtrack on this. At the very outset of this discussion I said that those in the consensus believed man was THE cause of the warming and sceptics thought man was A cause. Now you are accepting of that with your 50% cut-off but somehow turned it inside out.
(Incidentally, I notice that Cook’s survey uses the same criteria: if the paper says CO2 causes more than 50% of the warming then its in the endorsement pile, but if it says less than 50% its in the rejects-AGW pile.)
I’m sorry but I can’t continue with this. Your view is just too screwy for me. Any notion that Gore isn’t part of the consensus but McIntyre is, is just too hard for me to get my mind around.
I said that those in the consensus believed man was THE cause of the warming and sceptics thought man was A cause.
exactly . you said
If Cook agrees with me because of the IPCC “most of the warming” then possibly it is you who do not get it
Abstract
View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research
You agree with the statement that humans are causing global warming, albeit less than 50%
see how silly you look when you try to have it both ways, accepting that CO2 increases temp but then claiming that it is less than half the current warming without having any logical explanation for the rest ?
Well not just me….Cook as well used that criteria.
and someone in this group was heard to say “note the consensus is that humans are the cause of global warming”
Cook’s criteria was that any study that specifically said the CO2 was responsible for less than 50% of the warming wasn’t part of the consensus. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
You seem to be now coming around to that view as well although, in a classic two-bob each way scenario, you also think that those who think that CO2 causes more than 50% are also not part of the consensus.
Hence my confusion (and presumably yours) over what what you really think. I guess its possible that you just think you can have it both ways and therefore never be wrong.
Well what you have been saying all along then is wrong
why don’t you read the paper
you missed two levels of endorsement
Level of endorsement Description Example (this is the over 50% one mentioned )
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming ‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
and again
We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming
Yet again you selectively quote.
Mike? How much more dishonesty do we have to endure?
put the whole lot up
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming ‘The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission’
Just because it says something you’d prefer to be not true, doesn’t make it selective. And how does adding the example phrase change anything?
You just answered your own question. Well done.
and of course the one you do not want to know about
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’
why would we not want it to be true ?
they are papers which reject humans are causing 50% of warming for numerous reasons
how can john claim that the non quantified papers accepting human caused are all above the 50% level if they do not state that specifically
just shows how rigorous the paper is
“and of course the one you do not want to know about”
Why don’t I want to know about it? I don’t care what their criteria are. I think the papers BS.
But you obviously like it, so I was simply pointing out that one of their criteria is that people who think man causes more than half the warming accept AGW and those who think that man causes less than half, reject it.
This is quite contra what you were asserting t’other day although you now seem to be backtracking on that. Previously if you thought man caused any warming, you accept AGW (according to you). Today you are suddenly enamoured of the 50% cut-off although you are very confused about who is on which side of the cut-off. Tell me again, people who say that man causes more than 50% of the warming, reject AGW? Wow, what a mess.
It does seem to be beyond your understanding
“It does seem to be beyond your understanding”
Well I don’t understand your thinking. Somehow people who think man causes less than 50% of the warming, accept the consensus, while “anyone who believes that humans have caused more than 50% of the warming are not part of the consensus”.
I admit…its a mystery.
And now, for an encore, Mark is going to calculate for us the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.
(7) those papers rejecta human cause and claim that man is causing less than 50%
the example given was a paper that does not understand the conservation of mass
(2) those papers are part of the consensus they endorse the position that humans are causing global warming but do not quantify the amount of warming.caused
you do not know what percentage of warming they attribute
I do not know what percentage of warming they attribute
john does not know what percentage of warming they attribute
but they all agree that humans are causing global warming
Is it possible for some to claim that they accept that CO2 is greenhouse gas and at the same time deny that at least 50% of the current warming is due to humans increasing the atmospheric level ?
apparently
so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions
so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years
so what is it kemo sabi ?
come on we all need a good laugh again
stunned silence
I’ve got to admit I’m amazed. I really thought I’d come in today and find that John had written something – anything – that would try to walk-back yesterday’s bloopers. But alas no. So the notion that “Anyone who believes that humans have caused more than 50% of the warming are not part of the consensus” remains out there. Gore,Hansen, Mann remain outside the consensus?
Beats the hell outta me.
The patience of a saint
john byatt says:
May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions
so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years
so what is it kemo sabi ?
come on we all need a good laugh again
Your comment rests on the deluded assumption that there were bloopers.
Feel free to be amazed. We’d hate to spoil your fun.
I assume they’re bloopers because the alternative is that John is completely bonkers.
john byatt says:
May 21, 2013 at 3:32 am
The patience of a saint
john byatt says:
May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions
so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years
so what is it kemo sabi ?
come on we all need a good laugh again
I could have sworn you said you’d had enough of that conversation and wouldn’t comment further yet here you are again….a man of your word.
Mark baby, every time you comment here the above will be the reply
hows them apples
why not just get it off your chest
John, since you apparently think that the AGW consensus excludes those people who think that man causes more than 50% of the warming, I see no real benefit in trying to talk to you about the things like causation. I have no understanding of your view and why you doggedly want to stick to something that appears, to me, to be bonkers.
john byatt says:
May 21, 2013 at 5:02 am
john byatt says:
May 21, 2013 at 3:32 am
The patience of a saint
john byatt says:
May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions
so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years
so what is it kemo sabi ?
come on we all need a good laugh again
Seems I acquired my own stalker. I’d hoped for better.
Don’t flatter yourself. The fact that Mike puts up with morons like you requires the rest of us to continually have to rebutt your nonsense to remind any lurkers that you are moronic beyond belief.
your credibility is already shot, go back to pushing creationism,
I’m a creationist, now? I’d assumed that you weren’t willing to admit your error because of false-pride. But perhaps you really are bonkers.
So is Hansen still outside the consensus? What a giggle.
you certainly act like one
john byatt says:
May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions
so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years
so what is it kemo sabi ?
come on we all need a good laugh again
Just answer the bloody question for once. You are far too evasive. You do not answer questions. It is blatant bad faith.
[…] However, rather than accepting the research they’ve resorted to denial – see here for Anthony Watt’s particularly amusing response. […]
well you did admit it
Mark says:
May 21, 2013 at 9:10 am
I’m a creationist,
note the full stop, does not want to lie so puts now? after the fullstop
been there done that mark
comma?
same deal innit?
Well given you even struggle to read punctuation, we really can’t hold out too much hope, I suppose. But I find it all very comical, the lengths you’ll go to to avoid admitting what could have originally be construed as a minor misunderstanding. Its also very interesting the way the one-liner cheer-squad in the bleachers (zoot, uknow_etc, et al) have managed to avert their eyes from your error.
let me fix it for you.
I’m a creationist now?
and you still believe that the consensus is a show of hands
it is not, the consensus comes from the peer reviewed literature.
I agree with the consensus as does Mann, Hansen Gore
and you do not even know what is contributing to the warming but somehow know that it is not AGW,
Where did the comma come from?
we both know that
you are one dumb creationist
glad to see you worked out the punctuation.
“and you still believe that the consensus is a show of hands”
Do I, ? Where have I said that?
“I agree with the consensus as does Mann, Hansen Gore”
Yes, according to you they agree with it but aren’t part of it. I’m not quite sure what the difference is but anything that has Mann as not part of the consensus is a screwy notion in my view.
“you are one dumb creationist”.
By creationist I presume you mean, Young Earth Creationist. That I’m not, but you won’t accept that.
For your further elucidation, I’m agnostic on the idea of Old Earth Creationism and agnostic as to the existence of a deity.
By agnostic I mean, there is insufficient data to make an informed decision.
This person wrote for years in the local paper trying to put over a scientific rebuttal of AGW,
never once revealed her true nature.
http://justgroundsonline.com/main/search/search?q=elizebeth+flower+false+religion
“By agnostic I mean, there is insufficient data to make an informed decision”.
so you are agnostic towards unicorns, spaghetti monsters, fairies, gnomes, ghosts, etc etc
No, gnomes are real…I have one in my garden.
What’s a spaghetti monster? Have you seen one?
google pastarfarian
I’ll give you a quick run-down on the difference between unicorns and a deity in terms of beliefs. As far as we can tell, ever since there have been people there has been a belief in a deity of some sort or other. Tens of billions of people have existed who believed in and/or believed they had personal experience of a deity.
While it is true that I have no personal experience of a deity, it would be arrogant in the extreme to simply dismiss the views of those vast others that they have. Thus I remain agnostic, leaning toward a view that their is no deity but unprepared to pronounce certainty.
Unicorns are in a different category. While many people may have, in the past, believed in unicorns, vanishingly few would claim to have personal experience of them. So here I’m prepared to pronounce with certainty.
“While it is true that I have no personal experience of a deity, it would be arrogant in the extreme to simply dismiss the views of those vast others that they have” Why?
and of course would you be arrogant to dismiss those who have personal experience in communicating with the dead ?
and arrogant to dismiss those millions who believe in astrology ?
““By agnostic I mean, there is insufficient data to make an informed decision”.
there is huge amount of data re unicorns
just recently http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/north-korea-finds-secret-unicorn-lair_n_2219289.html
.