Will London become the North Pole?

[Doc Socks Junior]

Several of the wall of "soundbites" were peer-reviewed journal articles, Brother.

Not that consensus numbers matters one way or the other, intellectually speaking.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I have to say that the abstract of the first paper inspires very low confidence:

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

How would you mark that if it was handed up to you. Also the fact that he is an economist ring some bells.

Br Cornelius

[Doc Socks Junior]

I would say he's got a very clear thesis. Some of his language is a little over the top, but that's to be expected in a paper that directly disagrees with the data and methods of another paper.

It's nice to see your own biases clearly playing out in your initial reaction to the paper.

Also, I didn't realize that the Cook paper raters were all from Skeptical Science? Heh. That is good.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I would say he's got a very clear thesis. Some of his language is a little over the top, but that's to be expected in a paper that directly disagrees with the data and methods of another paper.

It's nice to see your own biases clearly playing out in your initial reaction to the paper.

Also, I didn't realize that the Cook paper raters were all from Skeptical Science? Heh. That is good.

When a self described climate change skeptic produces such a paper I question his motives as well as his methods.

i have looked at some of his other work on the economic impacts of climate change (his field) and I must say his lack of rigour and general tone really doesn't inspire any confidence in his conclusions:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-economic-impacts-of-climate-change-richard-tol/

Br Cornelius

Edited April 13, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Whats curious about Richard Tols critique is that he refuses to classify studies of the impacts and mitigation of climate change as an implicit endorsement of the reality of climate change. Thats seems very curious and I would go so far as to say - dishonest.

He also has a hissy fit when 5 of his papers are classified by Cook et al as an endorsement, when he is well know to accept the reality of climate change - but simply dismisses it as insignificant. With scholastic input like that are we to really take his paper seriously ?

Br Cornelius

Edited April 13, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Doc Socks Junior]

I see you've learned well from the skeptics you fight. Your first move is always an attack on the person. Good work there.

His "refusal" (not really a refusal, more similar to questioning Cook) has nothing to do with the reality of climate change. The papers obviously presuppose the reality of climate change, that's why they appeared in the analysis in the first place. Cook is questioning their endorsement of causes (because rather obviously, causes are not the primary province of impact/mitigation papers). Your misrepresentation of Tol's critique is understandable, albeit dishonest.

Where is the hissy fit? I'm not seeing it in the journal article. Once again, since you seem to be having trouble comprehending Tol, the acceptance of the reality of climate change is not what he is taking exception with in the papers. He is instead speaking to what Cook termed the "level of endorsement" of the papers.

They all MENTION climate change...that's why they appeared in the analysis. It's the classification of endorsement that is at issue. Which is why it's hilarious that Skeptical Science were the gatekeepers on this.

The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this.

And, lest we forget that this doesn't actually matter, and we're both on the same side.

Edited April 13, 2016 by socrates.junior

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I see you've learned well from the skeptics you fight. Your first move is always an attack on the person. Good work there.

His "refusal" (not really a refusal, more similar to questioning Cook) has nothing to do with the reality of climate change. The papers obviously presuppose the reality of climate change, that's why they appeared in the analysis in the first place. Cook is questioning their endorsement of causes (because rather obviously, causes are not the primary province of impact/mitigation papers). Your misrepresentation of Tol's critique is understandable, albeit dishonest.

Where is the hissy fit? I'm not seeing it in the journal article. Once again, since you seem to be having trouble comprehending Tol, the acceptance of the reality of climate change is not what he is taking exception with in the papers. He is instead speaking to what Cook termed the "level of endorsement" of the papers.

They all MENTION climate change...that's why they appeared in the analysis. It's the classification of endorsement that is at issue. Which is why it's hilarious that Skeptical Science were the gatekeepers on this.

Tol is not actually addressing Cooks methodology - his is trying to substitute his own definition of endorsement which is straw man arguing. He has not refuted the initial study in any meaningful way. But you just carry on trying to accuse me of playing the man. Additionally he knows full well that the only part that most people will read are a few choice quotes and the misleading title to spread doubt and will never encounter the part where he fully endorses the overwhelming consensus. His slight of hand is an easy one to pull on the denial blogosphere.

It obviously worked judging by its inclusion in the list - it might almost be called an illustrative point of how a paper which fully endorse the reality of climate change can be used to deny it.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 13, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Doc Socks Junior]

On the contrary, the entire paper addresses the methodology of Cook. If you believe that the entire paper is a straw man argument, why don't you submit your critique to peer review and get it published?

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. You're demonstrating your bias quite well enough as is.

What is misleading about the title? Specifics, please.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

On the contrary, the entire paper addresses the methodology of Cook. If you believe that the entire paper is a straw man argument, why don't you submit your critique to peer review and get it published?

I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. You're demonstrating your bias quite well enough as is.

What is misleading about the title? Specifics, please.

You may not agree with the tone of this critique of Tol's paper (not peer reviewed) but the points are entirely valid and highlights the ridiculousness of much of his claims. It supports my proposition that Tol is attempting to redefine terms of reference to his own agenda rather than addressing the methodology of Cooks paper:

Now remember, Richard decided on the basis of his flawed assumption that many more abstracts would have rejected AGW, that the consensus is 91%. That would still be regarded as an overwhelming consensus. So all his effort went into drawing an erroneous conclusion, but despite this he ended up with an overwhelming proportion of scientific papers endorse the science - that humans are causing global warming.

And lets not forget that this paper was rejected multiple times by peer review journals and he was advised strongly as to what the flaws were in his methodology in his rejection letters:

Many of the claims in the abstract and conclusion are not supported by the author’s analyses. Much of the analyses explore methods choices made by the Cook et al paper, and often find differences when a different database or search term or subset of papers is analyzed, but the larger point is completely missed – that both the Cook authors and this paper’s author make assumptions about representativeness, appropriateness of search terms, appropriateness of different fields in calculations made. These are, in fact, assumptions. Thus, it is impossible to claim that the Cook dataset is “unrepresentative” of any larger population, as the other scenarios investigated by the author are just a different (and not necessarily better or “more true”, even in some cases less likely to be a good sample) set of assumptions. Regarding later calculations of consensus, the author finds largely similar percentages to that of the Cook paper and also seems to ignore the self-rated abstract consensus rate, presenting evidence in fact that the Cook paper’s main conclusions do seem to be quite robust, which is the opposite of what is claimed by the author.

http://blog.hotwhopp...-tol-makes.html

So he published a paper which reduced the consensus from 97% to 91%. Have you ever come across that in any person who has used this paper to dismiss the consensus ? The whole point was to grandstand about disputing the consensus whilst actually endorsing it on the quiet. Thats dishonest.

And a detailed academic critique of Tol's paper for those with a sound constitution who enjoy seeing an academic humiliated:

http://www.skeptical....pdf?f=24errors

I am really surprised that you would lower yourself to defend this level of tripe, but I suppose its all in a days work for a socratic truth seeker.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 13, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Doc Socks Junior]

You may not agree with the tone of this critique of Tol's paper (not peer reviewed) but the points are entirely valid and highlights the ridiculousness of much of his claims. It supports my proposition that Tol is attempting to redefine terms of reference to his own agenda rather than addressing the methodology of Cooks paper:

Hilariously, your second block of quotes text contains this: "Much of the analyses explore methods choices made by the Cook et al paper..."

So let's chalk up your (twice made) assertion that Tol fails to address methods as a demonstrably false claim by you.

I enjoy when the sources you post directly contradict you. It's always funny. Don't ever change, Brother.

Additionally, you have also made (and then ignored my request for clarification on) the claim that Tol's title is misleading. Another demonstrably false claim.

And lets not forget that this paper was rejected multiple times by peer review journals and he was advised strongly as to what the flaws were in his methodology in his rejection letters:

http://blog.hotwhopp...-tol-makes.html

So he published a paper which reduced the consensus from 97% to 91%. Have you ever come across that in any person who has used this paper to dismiss the consensus ? The whole point was to grandstand about disputing the consensus whilst actually endorsing it on the quiet. Thats dishonest.

Without too much digression into the philosophy of science, a paper that comes to a correct conclusion based on faulty data is not useful scientifically. I might publish a paper stating that little ageist gremlins who live at continental margins hate elderly oceanic lithosphere, so the lithosphere gets pulled into the mantle there.. That's a correct conclusion. And a completely stupid reason for stating it.

That seems to be the case with both Cook's and Tol's papers. They both come to the (obvious) conclusion that there is a consensus opinion on AGW. However, there are flaws in both of their papers.

And a detailed academic critique of Tol's paper for those with a sound constitution who enjoy seeing an academic humiliated:

http://www.skeptical....pdf?f=24errors

It took you all of 3 posts of conversation with me to regurgitate the pre-digested thoughts of Skeptical Science. You're doing better. Glancing over the hit-piece...I really need to see their graphics person. Seriously top-notch stuff.

I am really surprised that you would lower yourself to defend this level of tripe, but I suppose its all in a days work for a socratic truth seeker.

I dropped by specifically to address your demonstrably false claim that none of the sources someone provided were peer reviewed.

Don't worry, I'm not on the dialectic grind at the moment. I'd be less tolerant of your false statements and ignoring my questions if I were.

[Black Monk]

You don't understand evidence do you. The study is statistically accurate and if someone wants to refute it then they can easily publish a counter argument and have it tested in a peer reviewed journal for sound methodology. A journalist need never do any of those things, they are paid to express the opinion of their editor and they generally repeat the same story as everyone else, that is why all 97 of those papers are essentially just repeating the same soundbites.

But really this is just a side show, what I really want you do is show me why the physics of climate change is flawed - because if you cannot do that then the physics says warming must happen when you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases. That has never been dis-proven, so do your best and show us how increasing CO2 in the atmosphere cannot effect the temperature.

Br Cornelius

The "97% consensus" is one great big lie and has been shown to be such all over the internet and the media.

There is no Global Warming - it's nothing but a huge big con, an excuse to impose a range of elaborate "green taxes" on us.

This is just something you're goiung to have to accept.

[Guest Br Cornelius]

The "97% consensus" is one great big lie and has been shown to be such all over the internet and the media.

There is no Global Warming - it's nothing but a huge big con, an excuse to impose a range of elaborate "green taxes" on us.

This is just something you're goiung to have to accept.

i think you will find that no credible investigation has ever proved that their is less than 90% of all scientists who endorse man made global warming - and if you followed the little discussion that just took place you would see that.

As I said I can only poor scorn on your paranoid conspiratorial ravings.

Br Cornelius

[seeder]

What a blooming shame! Our warmest winter in over a century means flowers are already dead at a daffodil festival

Flowers for Britain’s biggest daffodil festival have opened early and died

It's left hundreds of browning stalks in Cambridgeshire village Thriplow

Village plants scores of bulbs for its annual display which is open today

But weather has given farmers their earliest daffodil harvest for 40 years

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3542361/What-blooming-shame-warmest-winter-century-means-flowers-dead-daffodil-festival.html#ixzz45woW7zB4

[EllJay]

This rare footage has gone on record as the largest glacier calving event ever captured on film, by the 2016 Guiness Book of World Records.

On May 28, 2008, Adam LeWinter and Director Jeff Orlowski filmed a historic breakup at the Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland. The calving event lasted for 75 minutes and the glacier retreated a full mile across a calving face three miles wide. The height of the ice is about 3,000 feet, 300-400 feet above water and the rest below water.

http://youtu.be/hC3VTgIPoGU

[+and-then]

You've just confirmed yourself for what I always suspected a real hard core paranoid nutjob. a conspiracy of all scientific bodies to lie to you can only be described as the workings of a very broken mind. And since you have not act6ually supported your position with any evidence I think i will have to leave you in your sad little universe to think your paranoid dreams.

They really are coming to get you.

Br Cornelius

And YOU are showing your nasty side Br. You're never exactly a pleasant individual but this particular topic shows you for the true extremist you are. I do not pretend to know whether the data prove anything or not but I am always suspect of any situation where an organization expects 100's of billions of dollars to "fix" a problem that there is not universal consensus on.

Could you please confirm which sort of global warming skeptic you are:

1. The Earth is not getting warmer at all.

2. The Earth is getting warmer, but it's purely natural processes.

3. The Earth is getting warmer, and the human contribution is negligible compared to natural processes.

4. The Earth is getting warmer, and humans are mostly responsible, but we shouldn't do anything about it.

Could you please explain why you reject the other three positions.

Thank you.

From all I've read and heard I'd have to go with number 3. The bottom line is that if those who are shouting over the problem had their way, western democracies primarily, would be gutted economically in the "fix". The impact of THAT would cause far more death and disruption than any climate change.

[thedemon]

Asking people to "prove climate change doesn't exist" is like asking an atheist to "prove god doesn't exist". It's silly to ask someone to disprove something that hasn't been proven beyond any reasonable doubt anyways, especially of this nature in regards to climate.

It's climate theorists who are making these claims, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the skeptic. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. And what can't be proven "beyond any reasonable doubt", i can't stress that enough, it's silly to see someone argue like it's the gospel. It's like watching the religious tout their faith.

While i'm convinced man-made climate change effects us to some degree, i'm not convinced that it isn't being highly over exaggerated. It just seems like more "dooms day" ramblings in my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time scientists, theories and their predictions failed miserably.

Edited April 17, 2016 by xxxdemonxxx

[Rlyeh]

Hate to break it to you but noticing a very obvious and well docemented lie isnt a result of a broken mind, regardless of how much you think calling names proves ypur point or superiority.

You still believe Nibiru is out there?

[Guest Br Cornelius]

And YOU are showing your nasty side Br. You're never exactly a pleasant individual but this particular topic shows you for the true extremist you are. I do not pretend to know whether the data prove anything or not but I am always suspect of any situation where an organization expects 100's of billions of dollars to "fix" a problem that there is not universal consensus on.From all I've read and heard I'd have to go with number 3. The bottom line is that if those who are shouting over the problem had their way, western democracies primarily, would be gutted economically in the "fix". The impact of THAT would cause far more death and disruption than any climate change.

I see no reason to tolerate the raving of people who show zero understanding of the evidence and are fairly nasty themselves (look at the language that BlackMonk has used to describe people who accept the science of Global warming). Whats nice is i don't give a rats ass what you think of me. I have spent years correcting people like yourselves errors in understanding and I am done with it. The hardcore rump of delusional deniers are immune to evidence so all that is left is to call them out on what they really are - delusional nut jobs.

You make the mistake of confusing sounding nice whilst saying intolerable things with been a nice person - it doesn't.

And Then, if you believe it is option 3 of Peters list (which there is no evidence to support) please explain the natural process which is causing the warming. otherwise i am going to lump you in with all the other denial nut jobs.

It will be my standard response to people in denial from her on out to a)ask for their evidence b ) call them out on their delusional thinking.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Asking people to "prove climate change doesn't exist" is like asking an atheist to "prove god doesn't exist". It's silly to ask someone to disprove something that hasn't been proven beyond any reasonable doubt anyways, especially of this nature in regards to climate.

It's climate theorists who are making these claims, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the skeptic. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. And what can't be proven "beyond any reasonable doubt", i can't stress that enough, it's silly to see someone argue like it's the gospel. It's like watching the religious tout their faith.

While i'm convinced man-made climate change effects us to some degree, i'm not convinced that it isn't being highly over exaggerated. It just seems like more "dooms day" ramblings in my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time scientists, theories and their predictions failed miserably.

The claims have been made satisfactorily for the vast majority of experts in the field to accept them, so that defines what is consensus reality. The burden of proof falls to those who deny consensus reality. The simple fact is that those in denial have been blurting out refutations for about 10 years now - and not one of their claims have proven an adequate explanation for the data. that ultimately is the proof of a claim - can you give an account of what is happening which matches the data and all strands of evidence. Those in denial have failed miserably for 10 years to actually make a credible case that man is not the main cause of climate change. belief based on a hunch is simply not adequate, if you can't explain why you feel that all the scientists are lying to you don't expect to be taken seriously.

Its simple, if you have an extraordinary claim then prove it and you claim will become standard reality. The gauntlet has been thrown down but there are no takers.

Climate change denial is becoming toxic for the GOP and is one of the contributory factors of why they will lose in 2016:

There is a divide growing in the GOP between the establishment, chafing at being associated with crank conspiracy theories, and the grassroots base, where the war against “climate alarmists” has taken on near-theological overtones.

http://grist.org/cli...ans-and-doesnt/

Br Cornelius

Edited April 17, 2016 by Br Cornelius

[Guest Br Cornelius]

To be associated with demonstrably irrational beliefs does your personal credibility for rational though untold harm and makes people not take you seriously on any front. The right of politics is slowing coming round to understanding this but has a rump of people so far out of touch with rational thought (the religious conservative right mainly) that it makes it all but impossible for them to dump their image as the party of the irrationality. I have seen a few people finally slip over from denial to acceptance in these very boards and discussions - which is heartening. However they usually slip into resigned indifference - overwhelmed by the magnitude of what needs to be done.

Br Cornelius

[seeder]

March was the hottest such period we've had in modern times as Earth's heatwave continues for a record 11 MONTHS

March recorded an average global temperature of 12.7°C (54.9°F)

NOAA said this continues a record heat streak that started last May

The temperature was 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average

Scientists suggest this indicates pace of global warming is accelerating

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3548109/Last-month-hottest-March-modern-times-US-officials-say.html#ixzz46LGx0FWl

[Aftermath]

Perhaps, a brighter Sun is responsible for rising temperatures.

[Vlawde]

There is no way all the made made emissions into the atmosphere since the industrial age isn't having a major effect

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Perhaps, a brighter Sun is responsible for rising temperatures.

People have been trying to find a correlation between the suns output and current temperature trends for about a century at this stage - and none can account for the upward trend in earth temperatures.

Br Cornelius

[seeder]

Global warming is making weather BETTER: 80 per cent of Americans are benefiting from nicer conditions than 40 years ago

Winter weather improved but summers have not become uncomfortable

January temperatures increased 0.58 °C (1.04 °F) per decade since 1974

The daily maximum in July rose by only 0.07 °C (0.13 °F) per decade

But this will change and by 2100, 88 per cent will have worse weather

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3550025/Global-warming-making-weather-BETTER-80-cent-Americans-benefiting-nicer-conditions-40-years-ago.html#ixzz46PhVKRc1