Question for Climate Skeptics

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

The context is key, those corrections are normal and excellent science, the only reason that bit was made to sound like it was controversial (for what cause then?) was precisely to seed doubts on what what the scientists were doing, and there was no controversy on that, even less so after the BEST survey of those adjustments. Deniers adding it (and once again only by consulting denialist sites is that you would had concluded this was controversial) have no other reason to mention it other than to push a controversy or unnecessary doubts.

Nice that we agree that there are many corrections.
I don’t flatter myself that I can cast doubt on what scientists are doing. I have read the reviews and haven’t found them convincing to me.
The BEST survety surveyes the guys already agreeing with the corrections and not that many (basically none) who questioned them.

Again history does make a mockery of this point, people like Calendar and Plass never had an agenda or profited from the work they did showing that most scientists were wrong in assuming that the increase of human CO2 was going to be deal by nature and that there was nothing to worry about.

They had the non-nefarious agenda of showing the truth, they didn’t do it for kicks. They wanted to show the reality of CO2 increase and correct those who were mistaken, there’s the agenda: truth.
Interesting that you yourself mention that most scientists, long beofre denialists or big-oil money, thought something and were incorrect. I’m sure a poll would’ve shown large numbers against Plass’s stuff and maybe someone said “the consemsus says Plass is wrong”.
This of course doesn’t mean by any stretch that that majority of scientist weres stupid or ignorant.
Also, the fact that is the past the consensus was wrong doesn’t mean or even imply that the present super-majority is wrong. When you got such gigantic numbers in favour it is the job of the contrarians to conclusively show why all those scientists wrong.

As you still ignore the salient points of what Oreskes said (and they are related to this tread BTW) your request here is silly.

The answer then is no, I didn’t mention them.
Ooops, I didn’t remember seeing Oreskes, I apologise, sorry.:smack:
I would say she’s basically right, there are people with profit-before-anything-else in their minds who want to do whatever is in their power to get even more profit. I am also clearly aware that some of my ideas (would, could) play into their hands and that, of course, gives me pause.
I still have my scpeticism but it’s always good to be vigilant of not being fed by nefarious organisations/people who, in other areas go against my main concern about general well-being.

This affirmation has no basis in reality, on the previous discussion I even cited the science that discredited your silly citation. It is you who has demonstrated to rely on denialist sources and ignore the science.

Post 98: denialist baloney (content-free)
Post 100: denialist boilerplate (content-free)
Post 58: The rest is just unfounded points and denials (content-free)
Post 84: taken out of context by deniers (content-free)

Post 89: it is in reality the efforts of the deniers that convince many that there is a problem. (well, what do you expect?)
Post 95: typical of denier site(you send me to a ten minute video on cars by an activist graphic designer)
…and so on.
Maybe if you stopped with the “it’s a denialist site” and simply said “x is wrong” it would help the debate.

Only that I did quoted her before, so your excuses are getting silly.

Apologised:smack::smack::smack:

It is the OP’s subject, stop hijacking this.

So, again the answer is i didn’t mention it.
I’ll say (again): I don’t think there is a nefarious conspiracy in the great majority AGW proposers.

As pointed out before you ignored the citation I made to you and happily continue to ignore it, making others realize how you willfully skip information, first you quoted this:

CO2 Science

The only published science paper they cite, independent from their own, says the opposite of what they claim.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14248297&postcount=291

The CO2 science experiemtent is about the survial of coral larvae and polyps
The study you mention, which contradicts it only in part the other, talks about calcification in long-term studies. I think you wanted to link to this page. In that page they cite “Likewise, Langdon et al. (2000) calculate a decrease in coral calcification rate of up to 40% between 1880 and 2065.” Then they mention it’s wrong because they claim that ther is more to coral calcification than CO2 concentration and that there are biologicaly and biochemically driven aspects (It’d be good to have more than Langdon’s abstract to see in detail). I can’t see how mentioning word-by-word the most damning position made by your opponent is a misrepresentation.
I fully accept that they may be wrong (I haven’t read more than the abstracts) but I fully deny the charge of misrepresentation.

And in this context this is like reporting that water is wet to an oceanographer, sorry, it is clear that the idea is to make others doubt for no good reason whatsoever.

Of course since denialist sites like to use that point, and no, they do not clarify it to then make it apparent that the point is really a silly one once the explanation is made; it is a tactic that depends on not finding an opponent in a discussion that is aware of it.

I have a couple of cite from denialist places. Please respond to the actual data.
The first one is a classic. Broken records, averaging two other stations to fill the gap and a whoppin 0.9°C per decade increase.
“Dropped” minus signs in adjustments.
McIntyre makes interesting points with lots of data here, here, here, here.