Wow, that’s the most ingenious response to a request for evidence that I’ve ever seen. My congratulations. Now, are you planning to come up with the evidence?
A strained and self-serving reading. She is at pains to counsel civility and collegial good will, as well she might. And she directs criticism towards positions she regards as extreme, based on models she considers flawed. Fair enough.
But she also states that she believes that some action is needed. Well, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? She believes actions must be taken to solve a problem, which implies pretty clearly that she believes that there is such a problem. I’m guessing she bases that on scientific reasoning, since there is no mention of extortion or Ouija boards.
One can criticize extreme positions without suggesting one believes the opposite extreme. There are people to the left of me, whose extreme solutions I find impractical and/or unworthy. That does not make me a Republican.
Doesn’t sound like someone who is debunking AGW does it?
As the context show, the Greenland loss of ice is not as bad as it was feared, and others still point at AGW as a cause, but for Greenland the global warming is not as bad as in most of other areas of the world, the good news is that we should not expect a huge raise of the ocean level from the Greenland ice, the bad news is that the current low estimates of the ocean rise are a bit higher than the IPCC projections. (About a .8 meter rise by the end of the century)
Gee I wonder who is making it endless? It would be better to drop the list (Don’t you ever want to sound more convincing in future discussions?) and concentrate on the few recognized scientists.
Well, the main point for me was that as a retired Meteorologist I would expect Dr. Joanne Simpson to say more on the subject or even complain about her organization giving the award to Hansen, her silence tells me more than a repeated quote that IMHO does not mean what you think it does. (She is blasting both extremes in this discussion and I do think that she would be blasting at Inhofe and “Hurricanes galore thanks to AGW” alarmists)
OK, where is the misquotation or the misrepresentation in that?
My point is simple. I bring up the list. You say it is full of misquotations and misrepresentations. We’re exploring where those might be.
You, and others, have said that the list has been ‘strongly debunked’. I’m trying to find out what the heck y’all mean when you say that. Lobohan, for example, says it contains “lies”, but where are they?
So you are not saying she was directly misrepresented or misquoted. You are complaining that her “silence” was not quoted, that she didn’t blast Hansen but only blasted “extremists” without mentioning him by name, and that means she was misquoted?
She is definitely blasting both extremes. She is also saying that she doesn’t trust the models, and that she is skeptical of the science behind AGW. Where is the misquoting?
This is not about whether action is needed. The 700 list is entitled “Scientists who dissent over man-made global warming claims”, not “Scientists who think that no action is indicated”. As I have said before, I think action is indicated. I just don’t agree with Joanne on what that action should be.
No, but this does …
So she doesn’t believe that there is a consensus, only that some scientists claim there is. She doesn’t believe in the models. She does believe that those who oppose the “consensus” face consequences.
Not exactly the claims of an AGW supporter.
You don’t get it. We know you claim there are lies. Point to some. Merely repeating your claim ad nauseum means nothing. Pull up a lie out of the 700 list, and show us an example of what you are talking about.
Finally, the brand new citation you have posted, saying “Check out here for a detailed breakdown of the 700:”, is just a graphic illustrating the same list you posted before, you know, the one that identifies me as a climate scientist … you sure you want to do that? You sure you are paying attention?
:rolleyes:
The point still stands, Your list is still the minority report, not a consensus. And it continues to lie about the qualifications of virtually all the researchers quoted. There is also the fact that even the quotes that can be accepted as valid were almost always already rebutted or explained should.
All you have done is repeat the same quote over and over. I only need to point out that the Meteorological Society gave an award to Hansen and the group’s official position is to support the science of AGW. That tells me that most Meteorologists do not agree with the Dr. If we assume she was indeed supporting your position, as I see it, it is a very weak support to depend on.
In the end (if we assume she is a denier) she is a minority of a minority in the field of discussion, the often mentioned point that there is no consensus on AGW is a fairy tale. The ideas of the deniers are not getting much traction in academia or in current climate research.
You know about the misquotation. You know that the vast majority of your list aren’t climate scientists and you know that the title promises 700 climate scientists against the AGW. I can’t make you think and judge things honestly. I can only show others that you are unwilling to concede points made plain.
Yes, it’s a simple graphical chart so you don’t have to go through the whole thing. Don’t you understand, counting you as a climate scientist is makes Inhofe’s list worse. It means the set the bar farcically low and still only 40 make the grade.
Fact: Most of the 700 are not qualified to judge climate science. You are too blinded by ideology to admit that fact.
Fact: You have been told this before.
As one of the 40 climate scientists listed as remaining after “the purge”, I agree with that. For example, Gore is spending $300 million dollars to make it as hard as he can for us to make much headway.
But that says nothing about whether CO2 functions like the thermometer in my house. Given that the climate is an extremely complex, chaotic system, I doubt it just on that basis. I know of no complex chaotic system which is ruled by a single small part of the picture. Do you?
Heck, I don’t know of any system as massively complex as climate. It is a terawatt scale heat engine with five main subsystems (atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, oceans, lithosphere). None of these subsystems are well understood. Each of these subsystems has a host of known and unknown forcings, resonances, feedbacks, and cycles. In addition, there are external forcings from outside the earth (solar wind, insolation, cosmic rays, etc.). Each subsystem interacts with both itself and the other subsystems. It has important processes on temporal scales from milliseconds to millions of years, and spatial scales from the molecular to the planetary. There’s on the order of 500 W/m2 flowing into and out of the earth at all times.
The idea that any one change, particularly a change of less than 1% of the energy flowing through the system, is the thermostat that controls the temperature of entire huge complex chaotic system is ludicrous. It is a claim that is unprecedented in science.
But with the overwhelming share of the funding going to folks that do believe it, and Gore directing a three hundred megabuck ad campaign to support it, you are right — it is hard to make headway.
I believe you are referring to Tenneke’s statement:
How is that a lie? Al Gore did paint the picture, so that’s not a lie. Tenneke does think it is without merit, so that’s not a lie.
Seems you have a very wide definition of a lie. Your counterclaim is simply that Al didn’t put a time frame on the prediction … but Tennekes didn’t say he did, so that’s not a lie either.
Love the way you guys sling accusations of “lies” around, though …
I love the way you avoid addressing it.
So in the end, deniers can not make headway because of a conspiracy. That figures. It it more silly to claim that just one man is controlling the research or the results.
And it is not accurate to say that climate scientists are only dealing with just CO2, I can not believe that you don’t know that. The discussion of complexity was already done before and currently most do agree that models are valid tools to use.
Oh, please. Stop putting words in my mouth. Saying that Al Gore is spending $300 million to spread the AGW message, or that the overwhelming majority of funding goes to AGW supporters, does not mean that there is a conspiracy. It’s just the way the tide is flowing at the moment, there’s no secret cabal of funding managers getting together to decide on common policies. That’s nonsense. People have lost their jobs for not toeing the party line on climate, but that doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy either.
Eisenhower, as I mentioned before, warned about the upcoming “scientific-government complex”. He wasn’t talking about conspiracy either, but he was right. When the government of the day controls the overwhelming majority of the scientific funding, Eisenhower saw that would be a problem. And it is … but it’s not a conspiracy.
GIGObuster, you quote someone saying:
This has to be one of the most bogus arguments ever. The argument goes that we know June will be warmer than January, so obviously we can predict the climate.
And not only that, models say that summer is warmer than winter (seasonal changes), so obviously the models should be used for prediction.
Do you really believe that makes sense, GIGObuster? Really? Because if so, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you …
Yes, it makes sense.
Yes, I was the one who volunteered for that job, sorry for the delay but it’s been end of term here, whooboy. Here’s a handy compilation of the most-cited authors on climate science, cross-referenced by their positions on AGW.
The compiler distinguishes among the tabulated scientists who have signed some kind of “climate skeptic” statement, those who have signed what he calls “activist” statements (i.e., anti-“skeptic” ones which urge policy action to reduce anthropogenic emissions), and others. As he notes,
Yes, saying that climate science researchers who support the consensus view on AGW far outnumber those who oppose it, especially among the most influential researchers, is pretty much like saying the Pope is Catholic. AGW deniers are really not going to get anywhere by pretending they’re not largely outnumbered.
Well, you know, the overwhelming share of the funding on AIDS research goes to folks that believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, too. There are a few “HIV skeptics” (more commonly known as “AIDS denialists”) out there doing research, but they tend not to get many grants.
Oddly enough, the overwhelming share of research funding in most fields tends to go to those researchers who are working with the best-supported scientific hypotheses in that field. The contrarian minority frequently likes to claim that this is due to nefarious political bias of some kind, but generally it just reflects a bias in favor of better science. Nobody has yet made a convincing, evidence-supported case that climate science is an exception to this general trend.
Sure, here are the main lies right in the title:
“More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”
Yes, I was the one who volunteered for that job, sorry for the delay but it’s been end of term here, whooboy. Here’s a handy compilation of the most-cited authors on climate science, cross-referenced by their positions on AGW.
The compiler distinguishes among the tabulated scientists who have signed some kind of “climate skeptic” statement, those who have signed what he calls “activist” statements (i.e., anti-“skeptic” ones which urge policy action to reduce anthropogenic emissions), and others. As he notes,
Yes, saying that climate science researchers who support the consensus view on AGW far outnumber those who oppose it, especially among the most influential researchers, is pretty much like saying the Pope is Catholic. AGW deniers are really not going to get anywhere by pretending they’re not largely outnumbered.
Well, you know, the overwhelming share of the funding on AIDS research goes to folks that believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, too. There are a few “HIV skeptics” (more commonly known as “AIDS denialists”) out there doing research, but they tend not to get many grants.
Oddly enough, the overwhelming share of research funding in most fields tends to go to those researchers who are working with the best-supported scientific hypotheses in that field. The contrarian minority frequently likes to claim that this is due to nefarious political bias of some kind, but generally it just reflects a bias in favor of better science. Nobody has yet made a convincing, evidence-supported case that climate science is an exception to this general trend.
Sure, here are the main lies right in the title:
“More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”
As we’ve discussed already, many of these “over 700” are not in fact scientists. I already pointed out in post #142 the example of Donald Boudreaux, an economist who says up front that he has “no expertise to judge” the science of climate change. Other economists with no apparent physical science credentials on this list of “scientists” include George Reisman, Colin Robinson, Arnold Kling, David Henderson, Des Moore, Tim Curtin, Gary Becker, Alex Robson, and Alistair McFarquhar, among others.
The term “international scientist” is also dishonest as a characterization of the many TV-weatherperson meteorologists on the list who are not scientific researchers, such as Brad Sussman, Karl Bohnak, Mike Thompson, Harry Gordon, Kevin Lemanowicz, Mike Fairbourne, Jon Loufman, James Clark, Martin Coniglio, Patrick Powell, Robert Roseman, Al Kaprielian, Justin Loew, Grant Dade, Mark Johnson, James Spann, Steve Baskerville, Bob Breck, Justin Berk, Andre and Sally Bernier, and Morgan Palmer, among numerous others. (Meteorologist jobs as a TV weatherperson, by the way, don’t always even require any degree in meteorology, so it is not at all clear how many of the “scientists” in this category have even a bachelor’s degree in a field relevant to climate science.) TV weatherpeople have a bully pulpit for sharing their views with the public but are not necessarily better informed than a layperson about climate science, so the fact that so many of the names on Inhofe’s list fall into this category does not inspire confidence.
“Dissent” is also a lie when applied to include scientists who have requested to have their names removed from the list because their inclusion misrepresents their views, or who have complained about being misquoted on the list. For instance, George Waldenberger protested to Inhofe concerning the 2007 version of the list:
Yet Waldenberger is still listed in the 2009 version as one of the “dissenters”, contrary to his explicitly expressed position. The 2009 version includes some weasel language to the effect that “there have been questions raised regarding whether Waldenberger belongs in this report”, but that is a lie: Waldenberger’s participation in the list is not “questioned”, but rather flatly denied, and retaining his name as an alleged “consensus debunker” is dishonest and misleading.
Another scientist who is egregiously and persistently misinterpreted in the Inhofe report is Luc Debontridder, with cherry-picked press release quotes like “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas”. The 2009 version of the report continues to present such quotes to make it appear that Debontridder is “debunking” the climate change consensus, even though Debontridder explicitly denied this interpretation:
The 2009 version of the Inhofe report acknowledges that Debontridder said his climate views were incorrectly reported, but continues to incorrectly report them exactly as before! This is shameless lying of the suggestio falsi type, deliberately attempting to give the appearance of serious dissent where none exists, and deliberately refusing to retract the misrepresentations even when they are directly contradicted and disavowed by the “quoted” authors.
No, intention, I think you should stop clinging to your “list of over 700” as though it were an honest and reliable source. The more you insist upon it, and the more you provoke people to scrutinize its content carefully, the more you discredit the arguments from authority that you’re attempting to base on it. It’s a thoroughly sleazy and untrustworthy piece of work.
Whoops, part of the previous post is duplicated, and the edit window has closed; could a mod fix please? kthx!
That wasn’t a post, that was a panzergruppen.