Noted Climate Change Skeptic Reverses Stance.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Religionists? What even...? Can anyone parse this?

This is the also old old denialist move that claims that proponents (and yes even the scientists involved) use religion and not science on this subject.

This is even more silly when one realizes that this is also a favorite move by woo proponents and deniers of science of any kind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...eptic-religion

I'm sure Hoggart is being truthful when he says he does not know who is right about climate change, but if he wanted to apply the same standards of knowledge to other areas he would have to admit he is not sure who is right about the link between smoking and cancer – the medical establishment, or the discredited hacks who spent years providing dodgy research to the tobacco companies. He can argue that wind turbines look ugly, but to argue that they have "no apparent effect" is to dismiss reams of independent evidence to the contrary, not least the energy meters attached to any wind turbine recording the power being fed into the grid.

People who suggest climate change might not be happening are not heretics, but they are guilty of a quite staggering lack of intellectual rigour and those who suggest green is a religion, including the estimable James Lovelock, are guilty of a remarkable category error.

You can call environmentalism an ideology, a political movement, even a lifestyle; but it sure as hell isn't a religion.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

What is really funny is that several years ago the sun was already looked at and dismissed as the cause of the current warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm


Indeed, this idea is what creationists would be proud to continue to peddle, no matter how often it shows to others how wrong they are. It is like when creationists talk about irreducible complexity, they do not care that the old idea being pushed was debunked hundreds of times already.

A PRATTfall ought to be funnier.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

It is actually better to forget your embarrassment but since you need a cite:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...6&postcount=82

This has been typical, requesting cites like even casual people who are aware of the issue do not know that already.

You quote simply shows that Heartland and other evil deniers get about 3 million bucks.
It denies nothing. You do not compare it to, let's say, The Climate Project's budget or the IPCC's.
When you compare TOTAL ammounts between deludeds (CAGW belivers) and deniers, then shall your quote be important.

[/quote]As the BEST case showed it was funded by a denialist institution, turns out they could not deny the evidence.[/quote]

You mean the non-peer-reviewed BEST.
Even so, it'd show that deniers are truthful.

Sorry, when we are dealing with fake skeptics it is a valid term, it is actually a sign of a losing side that they had to cry foul for the use of a term that matches their modus operandi.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07...denier-denier/

You love quoting others to say what you don't dare.
I couldn't care less if you (especially you)call me a denier, being yourself a deluded, but such a term never foster a good debate even when they are true; it's Debating 101.
Call me a denier, grow web-cojones, see if I lose a nanosecond of sleep.

[tomndebb]

GIGObuster and Ají de Gallina, the use of "denier" and "deluded" is now off-limits in this discussion. Knock it off and stick to arguing the merits of your positions without getting trying to insult your opponent.

[ /Moderating ]

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

You quote simply shows that Heartland and other evil deniers get about 3 million bucks.
It denies nothing. You do not compare it to, let's say, The Climate Project's budget or the IPCC's.

As pointed before the scientists at the IPCC contribute their time for free.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

When you compare TOTAL ammounts between deludeds (CAGW belivers) and deniers, then shall your quote be important.

You pointed at a group that gets virtually $0 for contributing to that effort, and then compares it to one that gets paid to seed FUD.

Your say so here is worthless.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

You mean the non-peer-reviewed BEST.
Even so, it'd show that deniers are truthful.

And of course they confirmed that guys like Watts do not now what they are doing, and they remain fake skeptics. As pointed before, BEST has just confirmed what many other scientists have reported in the last 20 years.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

You love quoting others to say what you don't dare.

Piffle, as usual you do still thing that deprecating a poster in a message board is better than dealing with what even conservative scientists think about the fake skeptics.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I couldn't care less if you (especially you)call me a denier, being yourself a deluded, but such a term never foster a good debate even when they are true; it's Debating 101.
Call me a denier, grow web-cojones, see if I lose a nanosecond of sleep.

You will have little problem, just hide these discussions from your descendants.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

As pointed before the scientists at the IPCC contribute their time for free.

As pointed out I asked for the IPCC's budget. Thanks for the non-response

You pointed at a group that gets virtually $0 for contributing to that effort, and then compares it to one that gets paid to seed FUD.

Are you saying that all deludeds work for (almost) free?

Your say so here is worthless.

Whatever gets you through the night, sweetie. However worhtless you still can't let a single letter go (badly, miserably failing) unchallenged.

And of course they confirmed that guys like Watts do not now what they are doing, and they remain fake skeptics. As pointed before, BEST has just confirmed what many other scientists have reported in the last 20 years.

But it is still non-peer reviewed, is it?

Piffle, as usual you do still thing that deprecating a poster in a message board is better than dealing with what even conservative scientists think about the fake skeptics.

When your responses are mostly other people's words, it's hard to know if you are doing somthing more than cutting and pasting.

You will have little problem, just hide these discussions from your descendants.

Why hide that I constantly kick your ass?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Are you saying that all deludeds work for (almost) free?

You will stop using the word "deludeds" in this thread.
Final note.

[ /Moderating ]

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

As pointed out I asked for the IPCC's budget. Thanks for the non-response

The point was made regarding what the scientists are getting paid, for the IPPC efforts it is a volunteer effort, separated for the research they do.

Unless you have evidence that is not the case what you are implying is still baseless.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Are you saying that all deludeds work for (almost) free?

The fact is that you mention the IPCC in relation to a conflict of interest, the experts actually have to do less of their research when they have to contribute to the document that congregates the best research done all over the world.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Whatever gets you through the night, sweetie. However worhtless you still can't let a single letter go (badly, miserably failing) unchallenged.

Actually no evidence was posted by you.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

When your responses are mostly other people's words, it's hard to know if you are doing somthing more than cutting and pasting.

As pointed many times before, and you still choose to ignore, when there is mountains of evidence out there regarding a subject, the best opinion is still the educated one. I see no reason why I should dismiss what the experts are telling us.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Why hide that I constantly kick your ass?

As the link in GQ and that thread showed, there was no evidence whatsoever brought by you even there.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

GIGObuster and Ají de Gallina, the use of "denier" and "deluded" is now off-limits in this discussion. Knock it off and stick to arguing the merits of your positions without getting trying to insult your opponent.

[ /Moderating ]

But "denier" is a completely correct and accurate descriptive. There is simply no better word for those who reject good science, save for the strongly related "denialist". Would there be similar objections if we called creatards deniers?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

But "denier" is a completely correct and accurate descriptive. There is simply no better word for those who reject good science, save for the strongly related "denialist". Would there be similar objections if we called creatards deniers?

There is already a discussion of this point in ATMB.

[ /Moderating ]

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Why hide that I constantly kick your ass?

In what universe? Certainly not in this thread.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Oh Aji...

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/07/...id-for-of-not/

At least 61 Million. And that's just from these two guys.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You will stop using the word "deludeds" in this thread.
Final note.

[ /Moderating ]

I'm so sorry. I didn't see the previous warning.
I will comply.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

The point was made regarding what the scientists are getting paid, for the IPPC efforts it is a volunteer effort, separated for the research they do.

Unless you have evidence that is not the case what you are implying is still baseless.

You can make the point you want, but it still doesn't answer the question, i.e., what is the budget of the IPCC?
I'll accept, without doing any research about it, as to the volunteer work of many/most scientists at the IPCC; therefore that point (their volunteer work) is over.

The fact is that you mention the IPCC in relation to a conflict of interest, the experts actually have to do less of their research when they have to contribute to the document that congregates the best research done all over the world.

I don't think anyhting I have mentioned points to a conflict of interest at all. I apologize and take back any word pharse whatsoever that point to a conflict of interest.
However, funding people/institutions to help you in your stated goals is not a conflict of interest.

Actually no evidence was posted by you.

As pointed many times before, and you still choose to ignore, when there is mountains of evidence out there regarding a subject, the best opinion is still the educated one. I see no reason why I should dismiss what the experts are telling us.

As pointed many times before, and you still choose to ignore, in a forum I prefer debating people that actually participate in the forum and not Jim Hansen or Pachauri who are only present via quotes. That would hold true even if everything yopu posted was 100% true. I cannot ask Hansen about his research in this thread. I can ask you what you personally on your own make of it.


[/quote]As the link in GQ and that thread showed, there was no evidence whatsoever brought by you even there.[/quote]

I said "more" and you didn't post a comparison. That's my W and your L.

Originally Posted by John DiFool

In what universe? Certainly not in this thread.

First of all this thread is about if I changed my mind.
Second, I asked for a comparison and I didn't get one, only one side of the equation.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Oh Aji...

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/07/...id-for-of-not/

At least 61 Million. And that's just from these two guys.

"For years..." How many years?
Cite for the 61?
But, it's not important. I fully and unreservedly accept that people/institutions for their own good/nefarious reasons fund people/institution who strive to find flaws in the currently accepted models of GW/AGW/CAGW/CC. We can drop that part.
I'm interestd in total ammounts and comparisons.

[Ají de Gallina]

USGCRP 2011 budget: 2.5 billion, that's like 40 Kochs.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

As pointed many times before, and you still choose to ignore, in a forum I prefer debating people that actually participate in the forum and not Jim Hansen or Pachauri who are only present via quotes. That would hold true even if everything yopu posted was 100% true. I cannot ask Hansen about his research in this thread. I can ask you what you personally on your own make of it.

It is interesting how you can find more ways to spectacularly miss the point. Requesting someone's opinion of a poster on an anonymous message board is the equivalent to kill the messenger when plenty of scientific evidence is telling us what the educated opinion is.

You are demanding that I come up with a different opinion from what one can get from the experts on the field, and as you continue to miss it, that is my opinion on this subject, there is no need to invent a different point of view when the evidence is telling us what is taking place. I will look at the ones that know better, and in this case there is plenty of evidence that the ones you rely for information are being paid to seed FUD, and the worst thing is that history shows that most of the same false experts that are coming with that FUD also started as false experts for another industry that needed to make millions on profit before the regulations came to diminish it, the tobacco industry.

http://grist.org/article/from-tobacc...-science/full/

[wevets]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

As pointed out I asked for the IPCC's budget. Thanks for the non-response

The IPCC's budget in 2007 was around 17.5 million Swiss francs, or approximately $15 million US dollars in 2007. Cite in PDF

Are you saying that all deludeds work for (almost) free?

There is considerable confusion about this: The IPCC only has a staff of about a dozen permanent positions:

Originally Posted by http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#.UCPp3qC8GSo

Their work is supported by a central IPCC Secretariat, whose role is to plan, coordinate and oversee all IPCC activities. The IPCC has a core staff of 12 officials.

The thousands of authors who contribute to IPCC reports generally are paid by other institutions, for example Bjorn Lomborg gets paychecks from the Copenhagen Business School and Michael Mann gets paychecks from Pennsylvania State University. Work they do at those institutions may be contributed to an IPCC report, but is not paid for by the IPCC. As you can see, the IPCC has no money to pay for all this work.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

It is interesting how you can find more ways to spectacularly miss the point. Requesting someone's opinion of a poster on an anonymous message board is the equivalent to kill the messenger when plenty of scientific evidence is telling us what the educated opinion is.

You are demanding that I come up with a different opinion from what one can get from the experts on the field, and as you continue to miss it, that is my opinion on this subject, there is no need to invent a different point of view when the evidence is telling us what is taking place. I will look at the ones that know better, and in this case there is plenty of evidence that the ones you rely for information are being paid to seed FUD, and the worst thing is that history shows that most of the same false experts that are coming with that FUD also started as false experts for another industry that needed to make millions on profit before the regulations came to diminish it, the tobacco industry.

http://grist.org/article/from-tobacc...-science/full/

If I ask "Who is better Hendrix or Malmsteen?" and then you quote "Guitar World's Greatest Guitarrists", "Modern Guitar's Top 100", and "Guitar Magazine's 15 guys for eternity" and then nothing else, you didn't particiapte in the thread.

You must, at the very minimum, explain why you think those quotes helped form you opinion. I'm asking for you to go check every thermometer in the world, but to explain why you personally think that a specific set of readings is better than other, not why Dr. XYH says so.

Originally Posted by wevets

The IPCC's budget in 2007 was around 17.5 million Swiss francs, or approximately $15 million US dollars in 2007. Cite in PDF

Many thanks for the info. That's what I was looking for.









There is considerable confusion about this: The IPCC only has a staff of about a dozen permanent positions:



The thousands of authors who contribute to IPCC reports generally are paid by other institutions, for example Bjorn Lomborg gets paychecks from the Copenhagen Business School and Michael Mann gets paychecks from Pennsylvania State University. Work they do at those institutions may be contributed to an IPCC report, but is not paid for by the IPCC. As you can see, the IPCC has no money to pay for all this work.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

If I ask "Who is better Hendrix or Malmsteen?" and then you quote "Guitar World's Greatest Guitarrists", "Modern Guitar's Top 100", and "Guitar Magazine's 15 guys for eternity" and then nothing else, you didn't particiapte in the thread.

And that is why I specified that this is applicable only when the scientific evidence is coming out like a fire hose.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

You must, at the very minimum, explain why you think those quotes helped form you opinion. I'm asking for you to go check every thermometer in the world, but to explain why you personally think that a specific set of readings is better than other, not why Dr. XYH says so.

And I do it too, the reality is that the explanations are short and can be quoted as even you have shown. Once again, you are demanding what creationists do, and use, when science is against a cherished belief. The real objective is to get diverse opinions in discussions to undermine what the science says.

[GIGObuster]

This is also a tactic to avoid dealing with the inconvenient science that is brought forth into a discussion, it is also a maneuver to not deal with the clear spectacular failures that many skeptics have run into recently.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/...about-nothing/

Comic relief comes courtesy Anthony Watts, who announced a new “paper” which he claims “shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial,” and which Pielke the elder calls “seminal” and a “game changer.” Some consider it hypocritical that Watts should make such a big fuss, including a “press release,” about a paper which isn’t yet even submitted for publication, let alone peer reviewed or accepted for publication, after he so scathingly criticized Richard Muller for doing pretty much the same thing some time ago with the initial results of the Berkeley study. Apparently, for Watts it’s OK to trumpet unpublished work which agrees with his ideology, but it’s a mortal sin when it disagrees with him.

What Watts has shown is that he can get a lower warming trend for the continental USA than others get. All you have to do is systematically eliminate the data you don’t like, while ignoring things like station moves, instrument changes, and recording data at different times of day. Don’t you dare correct for known biases (unless of course doing so would make the estimate of global warming smaller)! And if the satellite data should be in better agreement with others than with yourself, don’t breathe a word about that.

The irony is that Watts is doing exactly what he accuses others of: tilting every aspect of the data and analysis to suit his ideology. The joke is that he actually thinks this is “science.”

Since his original chest-beating, it seems that even some of his co-authors (one can’t help but wonder, did they all even know they were listed as co-authors?) take exception to his methods. Alas, it looks like important details are missing which are required for those who want to check his results. I certainly didn’t find any links to the data or computer programs used. Doesn’t Anthony want to be audited?

It’s the latest move in Watts’ grand plan to minimize the amount of global warming we’ve witnessed. He would never claim that the earth isn’t warming, any more than he would say the earth is flat — just that it’s only half as round as the so-called “experts” claim.

Boredom arrives from the Berkeley team itself, with a new (but again, as-yet unpublished) paper about the Berkeley global land-only temperature estimate. Temperature-wise, the numbers are updated through November 2011 and the overall picture is pretty much unchanged. What’s new is that they have subjected the results to some analysis, concluding that recent global temperature increase is due to human activity (greenhouse gases) and that volcanic eruptions also influence global temperature. Good job catching up with climate science — circa 1980.

So to get back to the subject, I agree with jshore (who is a scientist BTW), Muller in essence did only confirm what was known for more than 20 years, the value for this discussion remains the fact that the BEST research was deemed by Watts and other fake skeptics of being the one that would demonstrate that they were correct as it was funded by people that are actively looking to push FUD.

Oh well, the BEST plans of mice and men...

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

And that is why I specified that this is applicable only when the scientific evidence is coming out like a fire hose.

And I do it too, the reality is that the explanations are short and can be quoted as even you have shown. Once again, you are demanding what creationists do, and use, when science is against a cherished belief. The real objective is to get diverse opinions in discussions to undermine what the science says.

Evidence? You mean like "97% of climate scientists agree with AGW" ended up being 75 guys?

The fact that you yourself are convinced by your own arguments, does not make them true.

I don't get your last sentence. Are you saying that trying to get diverse opinions to undermine the other side in a debate is somehow immoral?

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

This is also a tactic to avoid dealing with the inconvenient science that is brought forth into a discussion, it is also a maneuver to not deal with the clear spectacular failures that many skeptics have run into recently.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/...about-nothing/


So to get back to the subject, I agree with jshore (who is a scientist BTW), Muller in essence did only confirm what was known for more than 20 years, the value for this discussion remains the fact that the BEST research was deemed by Watts and other fake skeptics of being the one that would demonstrate that they were correct as it was funded by people that are actively looking to push FUD.

Oh well, the BEST plans of mice and men...

I don't get you obsession with Watts. You have even stated that you wouldn't accept information form him until he apologised or something like that. Your problems with him, are yours, not mine.

I have no fear of inconvenient truths, stop saying/implyng that. I can read, and have read, most of the websites you quote; I know and fully understand their informtation. The point of a debate is discussion between people. I you can't debate, then simply say so, post a collection of links and say nothing else, if that is all you can contribute. You are not debating if 75% of what you post is someone's stuff. Do, of course, bring data to the table, but if that's all you can do, you still don't get debate.

Science is, of course, data-based and rational. Can you imagine giving a press conference about discovering the Higgs Bosson and saying "good morning, I've sent e-mails with the readings of our machines, thank you, good day".
You'd be giving the scientific information but not debating or explaining.

[Ají de Gallina]

Sorry for double posting

Still no response on BEST being non-peer-reviewed. Since in many places you discard anything that isn't peer-reviewed I don't see why I should accept it.
If you do accept their own reasoning about peer reviewing, then it shall apply to others too; not only when you want it.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Evidence? You mean like "97% of climate scientists agree with AGW" ended up being 75 guys?

The fact that you yourself are convinced by your own arguments, does not make them true.

What was demonstrated there was you have no idea how polls work, as pointed out several other polls showed that they were on the money, so I have no idea where are you getting this.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I don't get your last sentence. Are you saying that trying to get diverse opinions to undermine the other side in a debate is somehow immoral?

I base my opinion here on the fact of what they did to scientists like Phil Jones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPLXSwQNMc

Demanding a different opinion separated from the facts found by the scientists is really silly, even more so in a message board that looks for the best evidence out there.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I don't get you obsession with Watts. You have even stated that you wouldn't accept information form him until he apologised or something like that. Your problems with him, are yours, not mine.

Well no, as it seem that you are only an ignorant of one of the most influential skeptics out there that is not a scientist. A few of the biggest names from the right in this message board have relied on articles from him in the past to make points that are shot like fish in a barrel, the point here is that if he or many others that claim to be skeptics were indeed that they claim, they would already had dropped many of the discredited points they made. In other words, I ask them to demonstrate progress. But what we are getting is a doubling down of the misleading information.

And as it was made clear in the recent senate hearing, Watts' unpublished and debunked paper in less than 24 hours, was still used as a cite to get yahoos like Senator Inhofe to continue the delay on doing anything about the issue.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

I have no fear of inconvenient truths, stop saying/implyng that. I can read, and have read, most of the websites you quote; I know and fully understand their informtation. The point of a debate is discussion between people. I you can't debate, then simply say so, post a collection of links and say nothing else, if that is all you can contribute. You are not debating if 75% of what you post is someone's stuff. Do, of course, bring data to the table, but if that's all you can do, you still don't get debate.

Piffle, every time there is a thread very few agree with your assessment. What you are doing is in reality is just avoiding dealing with the facts as it is more convenient to demonstrate that a poster on a message board is wrong.

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Science is, of course, data-based and rational. Can you imagine giving a press conference about discovering the Higgs Bosson and saying "good morning, I've sent e-mails with the readings of our machines, thank you, good day".
You'd be giving the scientific information but not debating or explaining.

And here you demonstrate how out of it you are, scientists had a huge debate, 50 years ago. Now the issue is finding how big the problem will get as it is clear that the delays are ensuring that the troublesome scenarios will become a reality.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ics-are-wrong/

A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:

On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.

The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Sorry for double posting

Still no response on BEST being non-peer-reviewed. Since in many places you discard anything that isn't peer-reviewed I don't see why I should accept it.
If you do accept their own reasoning about peer reviewing, then it shall apply to others too; not only when you want it.

There it was in the quote I made in post 70 so pay attention:

"Boredom arrives from the Berkeley team itself, with a new (but again, as-yet unpublished) paper about the Berkeley global land-only temperature estimate. Temperature-wise, the numbers are updated through November 2011 and the overall picture is pretty much unchanged. What’s new is that they have subjected the results to some analysis, concluding that recent global temperature increase is due to human activity (greenhouse gases) and that volcanic eruptions also influence global temperature. Good job catching up with climate science — circa 1980."

Most scientists are only amused at Muller and BEST, precisely for that unpublished bit (and IIUC only one of the 3 previous papers was published) , once again, any usefulness from that research is on the fact that it was mostly funded to discredit the science made so far. That it failed on that is just another item added into the spectacular lists of recent failures from the skeptics to get evidence for their arguments.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

What was demonstrated there was you have no idea how polls work, as pointed out several other polls showed that they were on the money, so I have no idea where are you getting this.

It's not my fault that you don't remember, as has been pointed out to you many times, that the number 97% comes from 75 out of 77 scientists in a poll with 10000 recipients and 3000 answers. Or that the question were not really sprecific like "do you beleive that CO2 feedback is more than X?", no no no, they were (and you must reember because it has been demosntrated to you on several occasions)
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
and super-turbo-gigantic majortiy of skeptics will agree on 1 and, depending on what "significant" is taken to mean, a great majority will say yes in 2.


[/quote]I base my opinion here on the fact of what they did to scientists like Phil Jones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orPLXSwQNMc

Demanding a different opinion separated from the facts found by the scientists is really silly, even more so in a message board that looks for the best evidence out there.[/quote]

I'll cut the middleman, then.

Well no, as it seem that you are only an ignorant of one of the most influential skeptics out there that is not a scientist. A few of the biggest names from the right in this message board have relied on articles from him in the past to make points that are shot like fish in a barrel, the point here is that if he or many others that claim to be skeptics were indeed that they claim, they would already had dropped many of the discredited points they made. In other words, I ask them to demonstrate progress. But what we are getting is a doubling down of the misleading information.

And as it was made clear in the recent senate hearing, Watts' unpublished and debunked paper in less than 24 hours, was still used as a cite to get yahoos like Senator Inhofe to continue the delay on doing anything about the issue.

You continue your classical "debate generic guy" stuff.
You bring him up because you want.
I cannot, at the same time, NOT know who he is AND be a pawn in his nefarious game of eco-evil-destructionism.

Piffle, every time there is a thread very few agree with your assessment. What you are doing is in reality is just avoiding dealing with the facts as it is more convenient to demonstrate that a poster on a message board is wrong.

You still don't get it that I DO get the facts.

[/quote]And here you demonstrate how out of it you are, scientists had a huge debate, 50 years ago. Now the issue is finding how big the problem will get as it is clear that the delays are ensuring that the troublesome scenarios will become a reality.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ics-are-wrong/[/quote]

I'll cut the middleman again.

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

There it was in the quote I made in post 70 so pay attention:

"Boredom arrives from the Berkeley team itself, with a new (but again, as-yet unpublished) paper about the Berkeley global land-only temperature estimate. Temperature-wise, the numbers are updated through November 2011 and the overall picture is pretty much unchanged. What’s new is that they have subjected the results to some analysis, concluding that recent global temperature increase is due to human activity (greenhouse gases) and that volcanic eruptions also influence global temperature. Good job catching up with climate science — circa 1980."

Most scientists are only amused at Muller and BEST, precisely for that unpublished bit (and IIUC only one of the 3 previous papers was published) , once again, any usefulness from that research is on the fact that it was mostly funded to discredit the science made so far. That it failed on that is just another item added into the spectacular lists of recent failures from the skeptics to get evidence for their arguments.

"So pay attention", are you my 2nd grade teacher?
Still non responsive to my point: BEST is non-peer-review, if you accept it it means that not being peer reviewed doens't make it wrong.

[GIGObuster]

Nope, still telling others that you do not get what polling is doesn't make a good argument, neither is to assume that others will miss that you are ignoring that other pools that confirmed what most climate scientists are reporting, the fact is that if that was not the case then you would not see the same skeptical climate scientists popping up in senatorial hearings invited by Republicans. One can count with their fingers the number of "serious" current skeptical climate scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwR...ailpage#t=498s

You are also clueless in insisting that I'm accepting the BEST results as science, when I said pay attention it was to point out that the use of that Muller research (except the previous paper that they did publish) is only useful in the context of demonstrating that lots of money from fossil fuel companies or conservative outfits is going into money pits that gets them the opposite of what they demand; this is just because, shucks, they actually hired scientists to check the data and the evidence told them that many others were right. And as BEST demonstrated before they will follow trough with publication, then it will also be added to the mountain of evidence that we already have on the subject.

And BTW I'm a teacher, not of language arts, as I'm aware of my limitations.

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Nope, still telling others that you do not get what polling is doesn't make a good argument, neither is to assume that others will miss that you are ignoring that other pools that confirmed what most climate scientists are reporting, the fact is that if that was not the case then you would not see the same skeptical climate scientists popping up in senatorial hearings invited by Republicans. One can count with their fingers the number of "serious" current skeptical climate scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwR...ailpage#t=498s

You are also clueless in insisting that I'm accepting the BEST results as science, when I said pay attention it was to point out that the use of that Muller research (except the previous paper that they did publish) is only useful in the context of demonstrating that lots of money from fossil fuel companies or conservative outfits is going into money pits that gets them the opposite of what they demand; this is just because, shucks, they actually hired scientists to check the data and the evidence told them that many others were right. And as BEST demonstrated before they will follow trough with publication, then it will also be added to the mountain of evidence that we already have on the subject.

And BTW I'm a teacher, not of language arts, as I'm aware of my limitations.

Still avoiding, still avoiding.
Did the 97% come for 75 out 3000 scientists? (Hint: the answer is yes)

If BEST is not science, but simply backfiring FUD, then I take back saying that you said it was science.
Since I don't care what others do for their personal purposes, I won't comment on it; we'll only comment on science.
This is however, not a GW thread.

[GIGObuster]

And again, a complete lack of understanding how polls and surveys work.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Oreskes and Peiser

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Simple logic would say that if those polls are not showing where the scientific opinion is, then we shroud have thousands of climate scientists telling us the diverse ways the evidence should be interpreted, instead the opposite is seen: the same few skeptical faces that not only are becoming less prominent, but willing to use ideology to get egg in their peer reviewed faces:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...raswell-paper/

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

And again, a complete lack of understanding how polls and surveys work.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Simple logic would say that if those polls are not showing where the scientific opinion is, then we shroud have thousands of climate scientists telling us the diverse ways the evidence should be interpreted, instead the opposite is seen: the same few skeptical faces that not only are becoming less prominent, but willing to use ideology to get egg in their peer reviewed faces:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...raswell-paper/

Avoiding, as usual. All of your post might be true, but you didn't answr the premise.
Was it 3000?
Was it 75?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by jshore

By the way, I think that climate scientists have mixed feelings about Muller: They are certainly happy that he came around on this and that yet another independent study of the surface temperature record has arrived at the same conclusions as the previous ones. On the other hand, some are annoyed by his self-promotion and the idea that it is only now that Muller has weighed in that one can trust the conclusions of thousands of scientists around the world. It is also a little strange that Muller puts such weight on his conclusion of the human contribution based on what is basically just an argument from correlation (i.e., the correlation between the rise in CO2 and the rise in the global temperature record) when the field of detection and attribution of climate change has more advanced techniques for such attribution.

As you have more experience on papers and journals, I'm curious to know if what the Berkeley BEST team is reporting on their site is correct, They already got the latest paper to be peer reviewed? Since June?

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

The Berkeley Earth team has submitted a fifth paper for publication; it has received journal peer review, and we are now posting it for a wider peer review from the scientific community. The new results paper is available here.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina

Avoiding, as usual. All of your post might be true, but you didn't answr the premise.
Was it 3000?
Was it 75?

Let me sum up the discussion real quick.

Aji: You were wrong about this poll, the sample size is too small.
GIGO: <reason why sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: But the sample size!
GIGO: <further explanation why the sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: BUT THE SAMPLE SIZE

Dude, drop it, because it doesn't matter. Even if you're right on this point, congrats, it doesn't help you any.

[MrDibble]

So I'm guessing that my question in the OP is answered as "only for some. Others will go down fighting."

[Ají de Gallina]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

As you have more experience on papers and journals, I'm curious to know if what the Berkeley BEST team is reporting on their site is correct, They already got the latest paper to be peer reviewed? Since June?

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

If quoting their FAQ makes me more experienced, the bar is low.
I'm glad they're peer-reviewing.
Still no answer, though.

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Let me sum up the discussion real quick.

Aji: You were wrong about this poll, the sample size is too small.
GIGO: <reason why sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: But the sample size!
GIGO: <further explanation why the sample size is irrelevant>
Aji: BUT THE SAMPLE SIZE

Dude, drop it, because it doesn't matter. Even if you're right on this point, congrats, it doesn't help you any.

There is no explanation why the size is irrelevant, only that he doesn't think it is important. A phrase like "97% of climate scientists agree with AGW" has a different ring if you say "97% (75 of77) of (specialised) climate sicentists (out of a sample of 3000) agree with AGW (statements that even most sceptics agree with)".
And yes it help, because real science gets substituted for a soundbite.