+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 84

Thread: A Convenient Fiction

  1. #51
    Trusted Member g hall is just really nice g hall is just really nice g hall is just really nice g hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    On the Beach
    Posts
    9,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    I'm not really sure you understand, old bean.
    To conclude anything, I'd rather have the real data than some third hand opinion from a hack producing copy for a popular daily/weekly. But that seems to be the kind of source you use for the plethora of links you submit. That's fine as long as you factor in that such writers' main objective is to sell copy rather than necessarily be scientifically accurate or objective. The stories running up the start of the LHC operation are examples of that.
    An interesting observation you have made there but when I have pointed out that some MMGW scientist might be "overegging" their position it didn't seem such a concern and yet for them thier livlihoods and professional reputation could alsio be at stake especially if MMGW theories are proven incorrect
    "That government is best which governs least."
    "This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
    "To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
    TANSTAAFL
    TANJ



  2. #52
    Trusted Member Besoeker is doing well Besoeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Where did you suddenly spring from Besoeker?
    Suddenly????

  3. #53
    Trusted Member Besoeker is doing well Besoeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by g hall View Post
    An interesting observation you have made there but when I have pointed out that some MMGW scientist might be "overegging" their position it didn't seem such a concern and yet for them thier livlihoods and professional reputation could alsio be at stake especially if MMGW theories are proven incorrect
    Well, of course they could, and given the number of contributors, either directly or by reference, to say, the WG1 AR4 report, it would be absolutely astonishing if they were all without some bias.

  4. #54
    Trusted Member Besoeker is doing well Besoeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    7,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poptech View Post
    There is extensive Peer-Reviewed papers skeptical of AGW...

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    (International Journal of Climatology, 5 Dec 2007)
    - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
    - Beck, Ernst-Georg

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
    - David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
    - R. S. Courtney

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
    - C. R. de Freitas

    Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
    (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
    - Richard S. Lindzen

    Climate Change - A Natural Hazard
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 215-232(18), May 1, 2003)
    - W. Kininmonth

    Climate change and the world bank: Opportunity for global governance?
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-50(24), January 1, 1999)
    - S. A. Boehmer-Christiansen


    "The Wernerian syndrome"; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
    (Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
    - Lee C. Gerhard

    Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
    - Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm

    Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?
    (Science, Vol. 318, no. 5850, pp. 629 - 632, October 2007)
    - Gerard H. Roe, Marcia B. Baker
    Do you actually read any of them?
    Links 1 & 3 - Fred Singer
    Link 4 cites an abstract only.
    Link 5 Fig 5 shows temperature increasing. Figure 8 shows a correlation between population and temperature. More people, more use of power….more emissions……
    Link 6 – another abstract but search the controversial Lindzen
    Link 7 – yet another abstract
    Link 8 – yet another abstract

    Your posts seem to indicate that you have the ability to collect such stuff without much regard for the substance.

  5. #55
    Uber Member Clippo is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    3,972

    Default

    Re Besoeker’s post 49 & 54 concerning Poptech’s post 48:-
    To conclude anything, I'd rather have the real data than some third hand opinion from a hack producing copy for a popular daily/weekly. But that seems to be the kind of source you use for the plethora of links you submit. That's fine as long as you factor in that such writers' main objective is to sell copy rather than necessarily be scientifically accurate or objective. The stories running up the start of the LHC operation are examples of that.
    &
    Your posts seem to indicate that you have the ability to collect such stuff without much regard for the substance.
    Hear hear !!

    I counted about 76 so-called papers, excluding the widely debunked rubbish by Monckton.
    I was also going to do an expose of them but I only got as far as:-
    (NB the following figures are approximate)

    31 are from Energy & Environment – ‘nuff said
    6 are from arXiv.org – not peer-reviewed.
    10 at least from non - climate journals which may or may not be peer-reviewed
    17 from known contrarians (without overlap in the others)
    a number from obscure east European & foreign journals
    Several may be books.

    I gave up then

    Within the approx 17 from known contrarians in peer-reviewed climatology journals, I would draw your attention to the papers by Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas (both on the take from Exxon - allegedly ). One of these, & I can’t cross check now, is ‘famous’ in the literature in that the editor of that particular journal over-rode peer review objections from 3 sub editors. When published, the serious flaws in the paper were exposed and Soon & Baliunas couldn’t back up their claims. The 3 sub editors resigned, forcing the main editor to rsign and it took several years for scientific confidence in that journal to be restored.

    I further noticed that 2 links in the list by Richard Linzden are dated 1990 & 1997

    I have to say that scientific knowledge has moved on a tad since then.

    Bottom line is your so-called ‘references aren’t really worth a carrot. You should stick to Wiki in the first instance ;lol:

  6. #56
    Senior Member Jeff has some supporters
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    970

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Suddenly????
    Yes,suddenly,like out of the blue riding to the rescue of Clippo again.

    Were have you been on this thread for more than a day?

  7. #57
    Trusted Member Poptech is doing well Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    OK. Perhaps you could expand on your understanding of the mathematical tricks?
    You can program a model to do anything you want. You can pick and choose equations you like and leave out ones that produce output you don't. If you want a certain outcome from a model you can get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    So Mann averaged out older temperatures. Hardly a random input. Specifically choosing to highly value certain tree ring proxies is not random. Duplication or making up data sets is not random.
    What are you talking about? Nobody said Mann was using random input data. It is when his model was tested against random input data that it still produced a Hockey Stick Shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    I'm not really sure you understand, old bean.
    To conclude anything, I'd rather have the real data than some third hand opinion from a hack producing copy for a popular daily/weekly. But that seems to be the kind of source you use for the plethora of links you submit. That's fine as long as you factor in that such writers' main objective is to sell copy rather than necessarily be scientifically accurate or objective. The stories running up the start of the LHC operation are examples of that.
    Good luck getting the real data! McIntyre has spent years trying to obtain this using freedom of information requests from various sources, some success - others not so. If their science is so sound why are the scientists refusing to release the code and data for analysis?

  8. #58
    Trusted Member Poptech is doing well Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    298

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Do you actually read any of them?
    Of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Links 1 & 3 - Fred Singer
    Yes that would be: S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Link 4 cites an abstract only.
    Many papers are not freely available online and the links I've found go down frequently so linking to official journal abstracts are reliable. This is a meaningless comment as I am simply proving these papers exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Link 5 Fig 5 shows temperature increasing. Figure 8 shows a correlation between population and temperature. More people, more use of power….more emissions……
    Yes many, many scientists are simply skeptical of the doomsday predictions and the need to enact economic crippling policies beyond the shrill AGW Alarmists. Being skeptical of AGW does not mean you believe that man in no way can contribute to the environment but that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver and the effects man has will not be catastrophic. As is clearly stated in this paper:

    "Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe that catastrophic change is underway. The Earth’s surface has warmed slightly, but floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes have not changed for the worse. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 °C, and probably less, in the next 100 years."

    The far majority of believers even in AGW are not doomsdayers but the positions are broad and there are many skeptics who believe man can have a non-catastrophic effect to natural climate cycles. It is like saying that throwing a rock in the ocean has an effect on wave patterns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Link 6 – another abstract but search the controversial Lindzen
    Yes that would be: Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Link 7 – yet another abstract
    Many papers are not freely available online and the links I've found go down frequently so linking to official journal abstracts are reliable. This is a meaningless comment as I am simply proving these papers exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Link 8 – yet another abstract
    Many papers are not freely available online and the links I've found go down frequently so linking to official journal abstracts are reliable. This is a meaningless comment as I am simply proving these papers exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    Your posts seem to indicate that you have the ability to collect such stuff without much regard for the substance.
    My posts seem to indicate that I am able to support all my positions with real sources whether you like them or not. People can judge for themselves on the substance. Peer-Reviewed papers skeptical of AGW exist and I have proven this point. The lies about this point can now cease.

  9. #59
    Trusted Member Poptech is doing well Poptech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    298

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    I counted about 76 so-called papers, excluding the widely debunked rubbish by Monckton.
    You stating this as so does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    31 are from Energy & Environment – ‘nuff said
    Excluding journals you do not like is one of the tactics of the alarmists. These papers exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    6 are from arXiv.org – not peer-reviewed.
    arXiv is being used more and more for pre-prints of papers, prior to peer-review and it has been a reliable source for the full paper, not just abstracts. The papers still exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    10 at least from non - climate journals which may or may not be peer-reviewed
    Not proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    17 from known contrarians (without overlap in the others) a number from obscure east European & foreign journals
    Several may be books.
    Irrelevant. You opinion of the author has no bearing on the existence of the paper. Again you like to pick and choose journals to censor the existence of papers. Which is a nice propaganda tactic, as hand waving can dismiss anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas (both on the take from Exxon - allegedly ).
    Pure lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    One of these, & I can’t cross check now, is ‘famous’ in the literature in that the editor of that particular journal over-rode peer review objections from 3 sub editors. When published, the serious flaws in the paper were exposed and Soon & Baliunas couldn’t back up their claims. The 3 sub editors resigned, forcing the main editor to rsign and it took several years for scientific confidence in that journal to be restored.
    AGW believers are very emotional and controlling the release of papers is essential to promoting the propaganda. Interesting that only some of the editors resigned and not all of them. Your spin on this is typical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    I further noticed that 2 links in the list by Richard Linzden are dated 1990 & 1997
    Yes - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT and the date of a scientific paper is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
    Bottom line is your so-called ‘references aren’t really worth a carrot. You should stick to Wiki in the first instance ;lol:
    Pretend they don't exist in your mind all you want, except now you cannot spread the propaganda to others that they don't.

  10. #60
    Uber Member Clippo is just starting out
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    3,972

    Default

    Poptech wrote:-
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clippo
    Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas (both on the take from Exxon - allegedly ).

    Pure lies.
    On NO NO sunshine – you are very, very wrong

    Logical Science

    A very short extract of tons of condemnation (including the paper I referred to earlier):-

    Soon is a paid consultant and Baliunas is a senior scientist for the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank partially by Exxon Mobil, Olin Chemical, Gulf Oil Corporation, and the White Star Oil Company.
    &
    Yes - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT and the date of a scientific paper is irrelevant.
    Yes, this same Lindzen no doubt :-
    Richard Lindzen | Logical Science's skeptic rundown

    I’ve never seen such a mega-destruction of a scientist such as this before. Once again a very small extract:-
    Does he have any conflict of interests?

    Lindzen recieved $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.1 Lindzen has lectured at numerous Cooler Heads Coalition meetings. The Cooler Heads Coalition is funded by CEI which is in turn funded by Exxon Mobil. He has also given talks for the George C. Marshall Institute which is also funded by Exxon Mobil.
    As for the date of papers being irrelevant is plainly stupid. Science is an evolving discipline, building on what has gone before. He may have been correct then (although if you see the critique he certainly wasn’t), but even he may have done subsequent research to change his mind. (which he didn’t & hasn’t). The point is the principle that later research builds upon or breaks down earlier theories. In this case a lot of water, (from melting glaciers no doubt ) has gone under the bridge.

    Out for the count again Poptech .

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts