Reply With QuoteSuddenly????Originally Posted by Jeff
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
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
Suddenly????
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.
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.
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.
Hear hear !!Your posts seem to indicate that you have the ability to collect such stuff without much regard for the substance.
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6 are from arXiv.org – not peer-reviewed.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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
Of course.
Yes that would be: S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
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.
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.
Yes that would be: Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
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.
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.
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.
You stating this as so does not make it so.
Excluding journals you do not like is one of the tactics of the alarmists. These papers exist.
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.
Not proven.
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.
Pure lies.Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas (both on the take from Exxon - allegedly
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.
Yes - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT and the date of a scientific paper is irrelevant.
Pretend they don't exist in your mind all you want, except now you cannot spread the propaganda to others that they don't.
Poptech wrote:-
On NO NO sunshine – you are very, very wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas (both on the take from Exxon - allegedly ).
Pure lies.
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, this same Lindzen no doubt :-Yes - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT and the date of a scientific paper is irrelevant.
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:-
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 doubtDoes 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.
Out for the count again Poptech .
Bookmarks