Take a look at the behavior of the activists in charge of the committees devoted to writing climate change position statements for the APS and the AGU in the last year or so. Contrarians were sidelined highhandedly. The people on the CC committees are volunteers. And who volunteers?–Warmists. That pattern is likely found worldwide. And/or they decided to trust IGPOCC and rubber stamp its position.
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by rogerknights
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Don Monfort
It’s an acquired taste, aaron. When I started drinking at 13 the fortified wines were the best bang for the buck. Gallo was the dominant brand around the liquor store. Thunderbird or Wild Irish Rose to get the evening started and the port style wine-can’t get well without Muscatel-was for dessert. That stuff was aged for about 3 days, in transport. I have a friend who lives in Portugal and Brazil who sends me a case of 30 year old porto vinho whenever he is on the continent. I drink a little now and then to be polite. And it goes in my wife’s fruit cakes. She’s not allowed to get near my Scotch.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by HAS
“But, it is very problematic as a political counter soundbite. ”
It isn’t a serious statement, so in politics the mistake is to deal with it seriously. It requires an equally outrageous response. Preferably a complete non sequitur. Move the debate to the process rather than the content.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Don Monfort
You are probably right about that, willy. And I just realized that I slighted you in my previous comment to the dummy. I should have said I prefer to waste my time on yimmy and willy.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by ilma630
The problem with such hearings is that most senators give mini speeches then ask only those who agree with them if they agree with them, ignoring the others. The recent “Data or Dogma” hearing (which I watched live) was a classic example in which only Mark Steyn was brave enough to push back and demand that he and Dr Curry be heard, especially when Dr Curry’s integrity was maligned.
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by drjohngalan
The scientific or factual basis of the 97% figure is irrelevant. The “97% consensus” meme has gained considerable traction in the main stream media over the past couple of years.
Consensus is not a valid concept in science. However, you need to stop and think to appreciate the point. The vast majority of people have neither the time nor the inclination to stop and think.
The Cook et al paper, although junk science, was a triumph of propaganda.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by mosomoso
Whoa! 1910 to 1940! Every time I see that graph I wonder what gramps was up to.
Maybe gramps was in the pay of Big Paraffin. Archduke Ferdinand threatened to blow the whistle on the climate destroyers who were undermining renewable whale oil. Then some Serb with a loaded FN Model 1910 just happened to spot Ferdinand’s cortege. Yeah, right.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Russell Seitz
Given that most expressions of agreement with the physical reality of radiative forcing by anthropogenic gases is rarely explicitly quantified, a more accurate usage might be “everybody in their right mind.”, albeit that<a href="http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/12/militarizing-microagression-for-climate.html". seldom adds up to 97%.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by beththeserf
” The Importance of Being Frank.”
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by agnostic2015
Nick Stokes: “To express something as a fraction of a total makes sense if you are adding positive things. Otherwise not. What if they add to zero?”
I understand your argument but the zero sum game works both ways. If you don’t know enough to know that the natural component was negative you don’t know enough to say that it doesn’t account for most or all of the warming.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by beththeserf
Ye serfs of the field find
predictions of CO2 un-
precedented-positive-
feed-back-warming non-
alarming, puzzling e’en,
considering from w-a-a-y
back those see-saws of
warm and cold, warm and
cold, o-o-o-h, a-a-a-h, so
clever of ol’ homeostasis Mother
Naychur , do you know or care
weather warming’s au naturel
or made by Mann?
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by anng
This is just messing around with computer models which are bound to be inaccurate purely because of the way computers are able to handle numbers and timescales.
How sad that science should have reduced down to this.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by PA
JCH | December 21, 2015 at 9:32 pm |
We demonstrate that the combination of lower estimates of the 20th century GMSL rise (up to 1990) …
You are claiming that 2 < 1. Bull. From 1965 to 1998 the average was slightly more than 2. Since 1998 the average has been less than 1.
Nice try. The earth is slowing less than it used to when the earth was warming more..
Further your study ends at 1990, where the green arrow ends and the red arrow, less slowing, thus less sea level rise, begins.
↧
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by PA
Jim D | December 21, 2015 at 9:50 pm |
Yes, but this is specifically about the consequence warming in the pipeline has for attribution percentage.
There is no pipeline into the sky. The warming is either:
1. Obvious and measurable.
2. Not happening and rejected into space.
The warming isn’t getting stored anywhere. Going by LOD it isn’t happening much anymore. The “global warming boogy-man is growing and will attack us in our sleep” story is fine for scaring children but adults know better.
Late 2016, and 2017, will be dark days for warmunists.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by willard (@nevaudit)
On December 21, 2015 at 9:17 pm, Brandon writes:
<blockquote>
His [RT's] actions have allowed John Cook and his associates to pretend to address the criticisms of their paper by addressing weak arguments by Richard Tol (and Christopher Monckton, and a couple others) while <strong>ignoring the central issue which this post focuses on</strong>.
</blockquote>
On December 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm, Brandon writes:
<blockquote>
Dana Nuccitelli and others criticized me [...]
</blockquote>
when Brandon discussed the very same "central issue."
No wonder then that Brandon can say that he agrees <em>with what this post is saying.</em> Except for the fact that this post recycles RT's 3% point. We have enough evidence to believe that Brandon may not agree about that.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Jim D
The surface temperature either immediately responds to the forcing (n0) or is partially delayed by thermal inertia (yes). TCR is not equal to ECS, and no one claims it is (except perhaps Monckton).
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Ragnaar
Let’s assume Schmidt’s number is 110% of the cause. I still want to get back to a total of 100%, so everything else would be -10%. What is -10% of the cause? Say Schmidt’s number was 90%, that would leave 10% for everything else. What are the differences between -10% and 10% of the cause?
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by angech
Take home message
” Cowtan and Way (2014) , Kriging can also create a spatial pattern that bears no resemblance to known phenomena, like their El Niño that runs diagonally, from the northwest to the southeast across the eastern tropical Pacific.”
Thanks Bob.
I would like every denizen to paste this comment whenever they comment on Cowtan and Way for the next year [2016].
That should get Nick Stokes attention, maybe even Zeke.
There should be Skeptics out there doing their own Kriging to show what a sorrowful set of “perfect ” modelling has been attempted by the Skeptical science boys.
Mind you they did it to bust the pause as well and first.
Funny that they wasted their time when their mates found another method.
33+ explanations for the pause each accounting for half a degree rise of temp that did not occur.
Why not call them to account Judy?
We should be 16.5 degrees warmer by this logic.
[usual caveats T to 4th power etc]
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Jim D
It is much harder to explain a missing positive forcing than a missing negative forcing (like aerosols).
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by PA
TCR is not equal to ECS
Well… the only empirical measurement over 11 years should be close to the TSR and it is only about 1/3 of the TSR. It is only 2/3 of the IPCC direct forcing.
The global warmers have to explain why the empirical measurements of forcing are so low.
The empirical measurements would seem to refute the no-warming theory. But they aren’t a ringing endorsement of CAGW either.
The warmers at this point can’t construct a realistic scenario of problematic warming.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
