Global luke warming

abandonconflict · Jun 20, 2015

Harrekin said:
Pseudoscience.

Meta analysis...

peer review

fobesterdam · Jun 20, 2015

"enlightened" ones' circle jerk.

UncleBuck · Jun 20, 2015

polemic.

fobesterdam · Jun 20, 2015

googleme-emic ;-)

heckler73 · Jun 20, 2015

abandonconflict said:
He retracted.

To a certain extent.
...

As I explained above, I included *all* documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)

> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?
Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

> If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.
Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at
~~http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm~~ [Dead Link]
...

It appears he retracted his specific critique because Oreskes' methodology was hokum anyway, much like the rest of the unscientific consensus you appeal to. :lol:

PS If you can find that "experiment" which convinced you beyond doubt, I'd like to see it. Thanks.

fobesterdam · Jun 20, 2015

"global warming" hasnt fizzled yet? :confused:

any "action" against it, has, and will.

abandonconflict · Jun 20, 2015

The fact is that you dolts can't come up with a

heckler73 said:
To a certain extent.

I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view.

So you should be able to cite a peer-reviewed study that contradicts the consensus view.

Be sure to remember what the consensus view is this time.

UncleBuck · Jun 21, 2015

fobesterdam said:
"global warming" hasnt fizzled yet?

any "action" against it, has, and will.

i like how the default position has gone from "HOAX!" to "it'll be good for us!" to "well at least we'll block legislation".

also, hiatus.

polemic.

fobesterdam · Jun 21, 2015

im glad diligent enlightenedbrahs like bucky here are keepin track of ALL this stuff! :-P

UncleBuck · Jun 21, 2015

Harrekin said:
Lol, you're taking on heckler now?

Good luck, I guess you don't know the consensus view that you're an idiot.

heckler is taking on NASA, actually.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

abandonconflict · Jun 21, 2015

Harrekin said:
Lol, you're taking on heckler now?

Good luck, I guess you don't know the consensus view that you're an idiot.

Well it's true that heckler is the only one among the deniers with a brain around here. For example, he never claimed that CO2 emissions are a symptom of global warming, like you did.

Harrekin · Jun 21, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Well it's true that heckler is the only one among the deniers with a brain around here. For example, he never claimed that CO2 emissions are a symptom of global warming, like you did.

At least he doesn't deliberately misquote people to make a point, which is the only way you seem to be able to declare victory.

abandonconflict · Jun 21, 2015

Harrekin said:
At least he doesn't deliberately misquote people to make a point, which is the only way you seem to be able to declare victory.

Then why are you having a meltdown?

You misquoted yourself ya dingus.

UncleBuck · Jun 21, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Well it's true that heckler is the only one among the deniers with a brain around here. For example, he never claimed that CO2 emissions are a symptom of global warming, like you did.

not even a denier, he's a skeptic.

he's very skeptical of CO2's role as a greenhouse gas for one, which is a kinda out there view.

and now apparently, he is disputing the consensus that even NASA says exists. and NASA even employs skeptic hacks like roy spencer, so they are not part of some conspiracy.

i am not sure why anyone is even skeptical that human activities have increased CO2 levels massively in a short time, thereby leading to a climate that is changing by warming more rapidly than we have seen in a long time. and i am not sure why some are skeptical that it is mostly human activities causing this sudden change and warming, and i am not sure why anyone is skeptical of the harm that will be caused by rapidly changing our climate in this way.

it's a strange conspiracy theory to buy into.

londonfog · Jun 21, 2015

desert dude said:
This is a sensible summary of the state of affairs regarding climate change. Rather than admit that the possible range of global warming is from beneficial to very harmful, the alarmists insist that we are doomed... Doomed... DOOOMED! The damage done to the public's trust in "science" by this overreach cannot be overstated.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/

Cheerleaders for alarm

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. In the 1970s, when global temperatures were cooling, some scientists could not resist the lure of press attention by arguing that a new ice age was imminent. Others called this nonsense and the World Meteorological Organisation rightly refused to endorse the alarm. That’s science working as it should. In the 1980s, as temperatures began to rise again, some of the same scientists dusted off the greenhouse effect and began to argue that runaway warming was now likely.

At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.

Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous.

MuyLocoNC · Jun 21, 2015

abandonconflict said:
Well it's true that heckler is the only one among the deniers with a brain around here. For example, he never claimed that CO2 emissions are a symptom of global warming, like you did.

He doesn't need to claim it. It's an incontrovertible fact.

abandonconflict · Jun 21, 2015

MuyLocoNC said:
He doesn't need to claim it. It's an incontrovertible fact.

Please cite your claim that CO2 emissions are a symptom of global warming.

fobesterdam · Jun 21, 2015

UncleBuck said:
it's a strange conspiracy theory to buy into.

schuylaar · Jun 22, 2015

UncleBuck said:
not even a denier, he's a skeptic.

he's very skeptical of CO2's role as a greenhouse gas for one, which is a kinda out there view.

and now apparently, he is disputing the consensus that even NASA says exists. and NASA even employs skeptic hacks like roy spencer, so they are not part of some conspiracy.

i am not sure why anyone is even skeptical that human activities have increased CO2 levels massively in a short time, thereby leading to a climate that is changing by warming more rapidly than we have seen in a long time. and i am not sure why some are skeptical that it is mostly human activities causing this sudden change and warming, and i am not sure why anyone is skeptical of the harm that will be caused by rapidly changing our climate in this way.

it's a strange conspiracy theory to buy into.

that's because they're mouth-breathers.

schuylaar · Jun 22, 2015

londonfog said:

because je-he-sus died for your sins.. :lol:

Global luke warming

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads