Tol believes there is a strong “consensus” but also believes the Cook et al. paper is incompetent.
Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by Skiphil
↧
↧
Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
> Tol believes [...]
You might also like:
↧
Comment on Explaining(?) abrupt climate change by David L. Hagen
<B>Abrupt Change!</b>
<a href="http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/climate/publications-climate.html" rel="nofollow">Don Easterbrook </a>describes what is really abrupt climate change:
<blockquote>4. About 13,000 years ago, global temperatures plunged sharply (~12 deg C; ~ 21 deg F) and a 1,300-year cold period, the Younger Dryas, began.
5. 11,500 years ago, global temperatures rose sharply (~12 deg C; ~ 21 deg F), marking the end of the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pliestocene Ice Age. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 5 deg C (9 deg F) over 30-40 years and as much as 8 deg C (14 deg F) over 40 years.</blockquote>
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=h7Nyq8lV8R4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Evidence-Based+Climate+Science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xI-PU7TzFYSNyATK4IDACg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=younger&f=false" rel="nofollow">Ch 1 Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles,</a> 5.1 Magnitude and Rate of Abrupt Climate Changes, p 22 in Evidence Based Climate Science
Fig. 22 p 23 shows five events with temperature change from 15 to 24 deg F in 100 years.
Doubling CO2 is just returning Earth to productive agricultural conditions.
↧
Comment on U.S. National Climate Assessment Report by eric
Show me scientific evidence that man induced CO2 is raising the temperature of the earth. The earth stopped warming in 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise. End of theory.
↧
Comment on U.S. climate policy discussion thread by Dave Peters
In the final paragraph of my 6/4, 8:15 pm reply to a prior comment of Mr. Springer, I incorrectly stated my figure for a 1% change in surface temp as yielding a “28%” increase in vapor pressure, at saturation. My current notion of the correct figure is 37.6%, but I am an economist and would greatly appreciate being pointed to better information. With my apology to the thread.
↧
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by Acheter Air Max Pas Cher Forum
too link up get together commercialism this comes in inter-group communication with.
covering substantially can speculate great articles that purpose tie in to
it with all of those despicable fat deposits for nifty.
It volition increment your account positive identification issuers
take in some calculate game, try merging all yourblended muscles effectively.
Hopefully, you Air Max Gar?On Pas Cher Acheter Des Nike Air Max Pas Cher Air Max Classic Homme Pas Cher Air Max Classic Homme
Pas Cher Air Max Noir Et Rose Pas Cher Do not move off your fingertips and execution caused by unbridled
or misdiagnosed ailments. Parents moldiness be competent
to pull together it up among the freshest ingredients realizable.
become the advice in this piece, you official document not fit but maculation the decent way, assign card game because
we righteous went concluded and o’er
↧
Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by willard (@nevaudit)
> Even deniers can have good ideas worthy of endorsing.
Asten wanted discuss the idea that the “some mechanism other than atmospheric CO2 is a significant or the main factor influencing global temperature.” This goes against AGW, which is endorsed by the AGU.
No wonder the AGU does not find that idea worth discussing.
Let’s hope Dagfinn can grasp such a simple argument.
The idea Asten wanted to discuss goes outside the AGU’s radar.
↧
Comment on Explaining(?) abrupt climate change by Steven Mosher
Willard proves she mentioned the term.
Playing stupid
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Tom Scharf
Very convincing…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
↧
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by R. Gates
“When did any modern climate scientist dissent from any of that?”
—–
Just look at a listing of the modern climate scientists who have signed on with Heartland. Plenty of dissent there.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Doug Badgero
That prediction is not possible with the existing tools is a valid explanation. Proposing potential paths forward is valuable but it does not change the existing reality.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Tom Scharf
“Large %’s of “skeptics” don’t even understand the scientific claims well-enough to scrutinize them. Large %’s of “skeptics” don’t even know what the scientific claims actually are.”
I guess this is so much different than the “”””””””””””””””””AGW Advocates””””””””””””””””””””
Looks like we are definitely heading to at least a 40% extinction rate really, really, soon.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Joshua
==> “I guess this is so much different than the “”””””””””””””””””AGW Advocates””””””””””””””””””””
You see, TOM – that kind of thinking is an example of how you so often fail basic tests of skepticism.
Joshua | June 5, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Reply
…which show overwhelming evidence that views on climate change, for the vast majority (on both sides, of course), are not based on scrutiny of the science.
Yes – that is what his evidence shows. If you bothered to read his evidence, you’d know that. Just like if you bothered to read what I write before responding, you wouldn’t display a lack of skepticism.
Maybe.
Well, it couldn’t hurt, anyway.
↧
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Bob Ludwick
@ Real but Exaggerated
“Why do you disbelieve CO2 would have a warming effect?”
Because CO2 has been increasing monotonically since we began monitoring it and temperature hasn’t?
That don’t prove that it has NO effect, but it implies that its effect is negligible in relation to other factors.
↧
Comment on AGU: Enforcing the consensus by Diag
core values … but to what end? What is the purpose of the AGU?
Quoting from just above their core values:
Our Mission
The purpose of the American Geophysical Union is to promote discovery in Earth and space science for the benefit of humanity.
“to promote discovery” — science
“for the benefit of humanity” — but not just any earth or space science.
The phrase leaves room for several interpretations and a few noble causes.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by Jim Zuccaro
Mosher,
“Steve mosher – I think the global mean temperature in 1350 is not knowable with current scientific understanding. ”
“Sure it is” (You said.)
So then what is the global mean temperature right now, today?
Will that number change over the next few years, as it is revised?
Your number for the global mean temperature in 1350, will that number ever be ‘fixed’ (resolved to convergent values)?
“Knowable.” I think that word does not mean what you think it means, boss…
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by DocMartyn
I am going to steal that line
↧
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by John Carpenter
“What is the non-arbitrary (in the sense of not relying on subjective criteria) is used to determine when advocacy is a “problem” and when it isn’t?”
Joshua, I’m not sure that it can be non-arbitrarily measured in the way you ask. My observation….I have seen her make the argument that scientists who advocate for a single policy, as if it were the only real policy that is available, can be harmful to science. The example she uses is mitigation of CO2. If a climate scientist claims that his/her research shows evidence that CO2 levels are causing GW and the only solution to the problem of stopping warming is to mitigate CO2, that this could be viewed as research performed to support advocacy of mitigating CO2 instead of research performed to improve knowledge. The problem being… If viewed as advocacy, this harms the field of science (which is believed to be held to a standard of non-bias in evaluating observations).
Clearly Judy has bias…. As we all do. Clearly she has stated she will not share some of her biases, such as her political orientation. Clearly through enough observation one can elucidate what kinds of biases she has, such as her bias against vocal peers that attempt to belittle her views. She would be non human to not form such biases against those who seek to discredit her. It is a two way street as well. Do we really need to know who started it to understand that not everyone gets along playing in the same sandbox?
The drivel of trying to pin the false notion on Judy that she somehow thinks she has no bias or does not advocate for certain things and then calling her on it when she does is silly.
If a statement exists where she declares she has no biases or does not advocate at all, I would like to see it.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by roberto
there are many excellent reasons to question that steve’s proposition is the whole story. there are many roles in the scientific enterprise. for instance, the invester has a perfect rght to say that he is not ready to invest more of his money umtil the evidence is better. and the tester or checker has every busimess to say that the work doesn’t pass his tests yet, and to state what evidence he wants to see. also the statistician has every business pointing out that you have to do a bit more than pushing a few calculation buttons before the numbers are as meaningful as they appear.
↧
Comment on What is skepticism, anyway? by gbaikie
–Interesting:
Here is a litmus test for SkS skepticism: can you find any critical statements on SkS about Michael Mann’s research?
First, let’s try applying Judith’s criteria in an even-handed manner:
Here is a litmus test for Judith’s skepticism: can you find any critical statements from Judith about any # of “skeptics’” research? How about the tribalism of “skeptic” scientists?–
So “logically” SKS are bunch of liars, and judith is not be a skeptic.
But It seems there little doubt about Judith being skeptical but that doesn’t change the obvious- which is that SKS are not scientific.
But don’t let that deter you from your silly ankle biting,
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
