Page 3 of 3

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:40 pm
by woodburner
kenneal - lagger wrote:
woodburner wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:You really are losing your way, Woodburner. The 97% refers to climate scientists....................
Really? Despite the continuing insults (motley collection) I could argue that I am not prepared to be led up the garden path by attemps to appeal-to-authority (97%) to avoid having to admit that “consensus� is not a scientific justification.

As ................ors of global climate change�; and
42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.[/i]�
If you look at this page, Woodburner, you will find that Peiser has, in fact, retracted this criticism of Oreskes paper and also the full rebuttal. Apparently Daft Monckton repeated Peiser's claim after he had retracted it.

So, once again your badly researched point turns out to be no point at all.
If you had bothered to read the comment section of the very page you referred to you would see there are some significant questions. The comments point out the cherry picking of Peiser’s statement which gives a distorted view. Not unusual on skepticalscience, a site that is hardly unbiased.

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 2:01 pm
by kenneal - lagger
This comment sums it up for me
" CBDunkerson at 04:53 AM on 18 January, 2012
EnergyPolemist, it would be difficult for Oreskes to have 'possibly understated the level of consensus'... given that she found 0% disagreement.

This is not to say that there are not any peer reviewed papers which disagree with the consensus that humans are responsible for most of the warming over the past ~50 years. Oreskes' study didn't find any, but that wasn't meant to suggest that none exist... just to demonstrate that they are so vanishingly rare that the claims of a huge scientific controversy on the issue were nonsense. You'd have to do a much more thorough search to find out that the actual value is something like 0.00023%. "
The debate as to whether there is 100% consensus or 97% or even 90% is just a diversion when a huge majority of scientists in the field believe in the consensus. You can't find any scientific arguments against AGW, woodburner, so you argue about the level of consensus.

Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 8:34 pm
by woodburner
You just dismiss anything that questions your religeon as “unscientific�. Then you resort to insults and ridicule. That really confirms AGW is questionable at best, certainly doubtful, and more likely bordering on fraud. Well you will enjoy paying the taxes to fix a non existent problem.

Only a lowly meteoroligist, and probably knows much less than someone like yourself.

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:24 am
by kenneal - lagger
You accuse me of having faith in a religion, woodburner, when I look at the science and make a decision on climate change. You on the other hand listen to what an admittedly very persuasive person tells you without any reference to any science at all and make a decision. That sounds more like "religious faith" to me. Scientific argument versus a quiet chat! Make you minds up folks. He must be so lowly that he doesn't even have a name so that I can check his credentials.

Now, you can't even find an argument against the consensus argument so you make the basis of your argument the supposed fact that I have insulted you. The fact that I have insulted and ridiculed you, as you say, " really confirms AGW is questionable at best, certainly doubtful, and more likely bordering on fraud": never mind all the science. Now that really is worthy of ridicule and what I would say about you can't be an insult, it's the truth.

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 12:31 pm
by woodburner
Science? Or dogma? The “evidence� does not support that AGW, neither would it necessarily support an opposing position. Basically there is a big question as to what this “evidence� says.

As I stretched your ability to find any information about the presenter in the video, let me help you. His name is Richard Lindzen (as shown in the first few seconds of the video). Needless to say, his colleagues at MIT do not necessarily agree with his views, but that is the nature of science, ie not determined by popular vote.

Now, I’m off to put my mark in another popular vote, where there is also no evidence to predict the future, any better than random chance.

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 2:08 pm
by kenneal - lagger
The overwhelming mass of evidence does support AGW, woodburner. It's the 97%, or is it 99.97%? Who knows or for that matter who is bothered?

This piece answers Lindzen et al's paper of 2009 on Low climate sensitivity. Trenberth et al 2010 found that
"It turns out the low climate sensitivity result is heavily dependent on the choice of start and end points in the periods they analyse. Small changes in their choice of dates entirely change the result."
To quote the rebuttal "Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes." Who is providing the good science now? See the piece above for the full scientific rebuttal of Lindzen's case.

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:23 pm
by woodburner
Ha! Exactly the same method used by those who believe in AGW. Tweak the endpoints to get the results you want. What it boils down to is there is no firm evidence as to what is going on.

Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:12 pm
by woodburner
Useful place to have a look.

Operation Cloud Lab: Secrets of the Skies on BBC4.

Towards the end of the programme they were discussing the frequency today of hurricanes and how they have increased, presumably you would think caused by CO2 and must be also AGW. Well there’s a possible explanation. A few, or perhaps a lot more than a few, decades ago, there was more airbourne pollution over Europe (and presumably much of the northern hemisphere), which blocked out the sun, preventing warming of the oceans. Now that the pollution is reduced, (apart from the evil CO2 of course), the sun is more able to warm up the oceans, with the possible increase in hurricanes as a result. There’s also the increase in cosmic rays due to reduced sun activity, but that’s another story. What we have is not an absolute increase in the number of hurricanes, but just an adjustment back to the normal. The lower number of hurricanes was a reductionfrom the norm, and was the result of the pollution blocking out the sun.

However don’t worry about trivia like AGW, it’s just a sideshow. Possibly a more significant event.