Want to see how easily you could be squished like a cockroach?

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock" - YouTube



How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?


Moberg_Hockey_Stick.gif




</:banana_sml:>

You keep posting this "Skeptical Science" blog as if it's not a hack site.

All they did was change the graph until it fit their preconception.

Lots of comments on this blog, so I'm sure Luke will take it as gospel.



The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?
by John Droz, Jr.
August 13, 2010

17 3 1

I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.

The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.

Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.

Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.

I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.

For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.

Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.

Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!

Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?

The OISM petition should be looked at as a peer-review process where a great number of scientists (from many fields) have concluded that a relatively small number of specialized scientists (climatologists) have diverged from good scientific practices. In other words, the 31,000± petition signers have concluded that the methodology for supporting AGW was more political than scientific.

The IPCC’s Own (Back Door) Skepticism: Two Examples for Mr. Cook

The Skeptical Science website can begin its revision with these two quotations from the IPCC itself to introduce skepticism toward climate alarmism and open-ended policy activism. Here they are:

“The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”

- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 805.

“Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the cost and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilization level where benefits exceed costs.”

- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 18.

So in my opinion (as a physicist), the most surprising thing is that his exhaustive list of 119 reasons does not get to the fundamentals of the AGW debate in its scientific and public policy dimensions. How can such an extensive enumeration omit the most important core issues?

Maybe it’s partly our fault. In response to the AGW claims of its proponents, it seems that good sites like this tend to respond with a shotgun approach, instead of using a rifle. For example, look at the recent articles in WattsUpWithThat. They cover an exceptionally diverse list of topics.

That’s good in some ways, but it’s bad if it leads any of us to lose our focus.

So what IS the number one concern about AGW? The answer lies in what science is all about.

The Scientific Method

Science is NOT a collection of data. Science is a PROCESS. (That’s why when 31,000 scientists criticize the process, it is apropos and significant.) When an answer (e.g., AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

This has NOT been done — and is by FAR the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.

AGW promoters are well aware of this key shortcoming. Their solution is to devalue the merits of the Scientific Method. Of course, they usually aren’t foolish enough to come out and say that specifically, but that is the effect of their actions.

So how are AGW proponents attempting to undermine real science? It’s in their assertions that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method; that computer models are superior to empirical evidence; that we don’t have the time to get down and dirty so the precautionary principle justifies specious extrapolation; that “Post Normal Science” is a better way of resolving complex technical issues, etc., etc.

This is, in a word, bunk.

The Scientific Method is at the core of real science. Until AGW (and other illegitimate offspring — e.g., wind energy) are truly subjected to the Scientific Method, they remain entirely in the category of being unproven hypotheses.

We simply must keep this is mind as the most fundamental of ALL issues here.
 


You keep posting this "Skeptical Science" blog as if it's not a hack site.
It isn't:

Skeptical Science's about us page said:
All the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

All they did was change the graph until it fit their preconception.
Do do you believe that climate scientists do this on all published, peer-reviewed papers then?
 
What will be the result of this warming, according to scientists favorably minded to the catastrophic outcome?

It seems to me like the bad result is that life gets measurably tougher for the 7B folks living on earth and the consequences will be unmanageable by global governments. Maybe a lot of people will perish and world population will drop.

I don't see why this is a bad thing, frankly. We need a little turbulence now and again.

I predict vastly catastrophes within the next 1 to 2 decades anyway. But I am uncertain why climate change is a bad thing. Yea, people will suffer and die... But everyone suffers and dies. I have a chronic illness and will likely not live to see any of it but it sounds cleansing to me and that's the worst case.

I may not totally understand all the ramifications. But I think climate change zealotry is better explain by evo psych as a way for smart conscious people to feel superior/elevate status to the ignorant 'DENIERS'...

Restating: If a catastrophe of climate increased environmental stress, it could be just the reset to proper selection that we are long overdue for. Not to sound uncaring, but everyone will face harship, suffering and death no matter what happens with the weather.
 
Glad to see that everyone ignored my last post...

Can't you global warming fuckheads see that there are far more important thing to worry about in this world right now?

Let's compromise.

I can get behind global warming as long as everyone else can get behind getting rid of the world's largest murderer, thief, enemy of human rights, biggest threat to the safety and well being of all mankind as well as the largest polluter on the planet.

The Worst Polluter on Earth Is… The U.S. Federal Government

Let's save the planet bros.
 
One thing I can't get over is how "split" people are over this issue. I think we can all agree on the fundamentals:

- Earth has never been this populated before
- Mankind is increasing at an alarming rate (we added an extra billion in the last 100 years, the fastest it's ever grown)
- We farm at a scale never before seen, in the process causing deforestation at a scale also never seen.
- We've introduced elements that never existed before which produce massive emissions - transport, industry, waste etc

I could go on and on, but the concluding point?

We've never been here before.

Therefore ANY anomaly in environmental conditions CAN (and likely are) influenced by us, and that we've got absolutely no benchmark.

We impact our environment simply by existing (not necessarily a bad thing in the life cycle perspective).

However, increase the scale (and speed of scale) of the impact, and the environment cannot evolve quick enough to balance the equation.

Simple logic for everyone surely?
 
Simple logic for everyone surely?

Simply flawed.

Earth has never been this populated before

Based on what? I could say 'Earth has never been this underpopulated before' and be correct.

I assume you mean 'Earth has never been this populated before by humans' and to that I say... SO?

Mankind is increasing at an alarming rate (we added an extra billion in the last 100 years, the fastest it's ever grown)

Again... SO?

We farm at a scale never before seen

This is a good thing, it means we can support the growth of the population. It's the main reason we now have over 7 billion people on the planet.

in the process causing deforestation at a scale also never seen.

Bullshit!

Therefore ANY anomaly in environmental conditions CAN (and likely are) influenced by us, and that we've got absolutely no benchmark.

Correlation is not causation

However, increase the scale (and speed of scale) of the impact, and the environment cannot evolve quick enough to balance the equation.

Balance what? You're talking as if the planet is some sort of sentient being that needs to react to changes.

You argument is like every other "Humans are to blame for all the worlds ills. WE SUCK!!" line of illogical bullshit.
 

Scientists talking about science. Imagine that. I'll assume you are suggesting they are applying some type of bias that they shouldn't.


OK, how about these dudes then? It looks like for at least 3 out of the 4, that money trails can be followed back to oil companies. Apparently, Fred Singer is an 88 year old that has worked directly for "a dozen or so" energy companies and was once employed by tobacco companies to downplay the dangers of smoking. Also worth pointing out is that David Douglass supposedly "now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant."

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: John Christy
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: David H. Douglass


Singer's Deniers Misrepresenting New Climatology Journal Article | DeSmogBlog

Somebody (probably the graduate student Benjamin Pearson) deserves some credit for identifying a statistical anomaly of scientific interest. But using this study to dismiss the notion of climate change is like concluding, on the strength of a second-quarter interception, that your favorite team had lost a football game - even when you could see the final victorious result posted on the scoreboard.
 
I'm presuming you are joking, but in case you aren't:

Based on what?

Er....based on science. Feel free to dig up scientific evidence that the human population has ever reached 7 billion before.

I could say 'Earth has never been this underpopulated before' and be correct.

I assume you mean 'Earth has never been this populated before by humans' and to that I say... SO?

At the most basic level - supply and demand. Every additional mouth on the planet means more strain on the agriculture, farming and fishery industries, which in turn need larger swaths of land.

We've got a finite supply of those elements. We are out-fishing major areas, countries like Japan can no longer sustain themselves and import the bulk of their food. As more countries become over populated (particularly in the BRICS countries) resources get tapped further, requiring importation of resources from other countries etc etc.

Again... SO?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:

Population_curve.svg


We are expecting to hit a population of 10 billion within our lifetime. Refer my response to the first question as to why this might be a problem (hint - "supply and demand"). Then if that chart keeps going that way and increasing exponentially, the only thing that will stop or slow it down is a MAJOR catastrophe, and I'm not talking about a tsunami or world war....likely not even a nuclear based incident.

This is a good thing, it means we can support the growth of the population. It's the main reason we now have over 7 billion people on the planet.

No, it's not a good thing. We may be able to support the growth of the population for now (although try telling that to aid workers in Africa), but the problem lies in the fact that the agriculture and farming and fishing practices being used world-wide are not sustainable.

Bullshit!

Good scientific observation.

I personally grew up in a country that is loosing it's forests so fast the entire landscape of the country will be changed within another 100 years, and it's most definitely not restricted to just that one country.

Correlation is not causation

Which is why I said "CAN" be influenced by us. But all things considered, it's a distinct possibility.

Balance what? You're talking as if the planet is some sort of sentient being that needs to react to changes.

You argument is like every other "Humans are to blame for all the worlds ills. WE SUCK!!" line of illogical bullshit.

You'd like to think I'm some sort of tree hugging, peace sign loving or perhaps Sea Sheppard warrior. I'm not. I just see the facts for what they are, and I can see what's coming up if changes aren't made.

Feel free to discount me as someone who comes up with illogical bullshit, but I just see you as someone with their head buried under the sand.
 
Glad to see that everyone ignored my last post...

Can't you global warming fuckheads see that there are far more important thing to worry about in this world right now?
I read your post and agree... But at the same time, letting people think that climate change is a hoax is only going to make things worse.

Frankly the correct course of action is to remove the USG first, then let an entrepreneur take care of climate change... But that ain't going to happen soon so I guess there is still a lot to talk about.


I am uncertain why climate change is a bad thing.
I thought like this for a while, but I have to admit I don't have children and have no plans to create/hatch/summon any, either.

Those who do love someone young or unborn on this planet should be facing some internal struggles, because their actions/inactions today are going to directly affect the next generation in the form of increased storms and a higher sea level. It's not the fact that millions will die that anyone should be worrying about: it's the fact that their own offspring will either die or at least have a lessor quality of life.



I assume you mean 'Earth has never been this populated before by humans' and to that I say... SO?
We kinda junk up the place a bit, you know?

Look at Beijing. You couldn't pay me enough to move there. Do you want a whole planet that fucked up?


{farming}This is a good thing, it means we can support the growth of the population. It's the main reason we now have over 7 billion people on the planet.
Ever hear of agricultural runoff? There's a reason we don't do so much fishing in the gulf of mexico anymore.


Balance what? You're talking as if the planet is some sort of sentient being that needs to react to changes.

You argument is like every other "Humans are to blame for all the worlds ills. WE SUCK!!" line of illogical bullshit.
The Earth isn't sentient but it isn't unlimited.

Humans and our aggressive population pattern clearly isn't compatible with it for the long term, (or any one planet for that matter) so either there is going to be a massive die-off or we are going to have to learn some more economical ways of living here.

Most ppl I know arguing the climate change argument are just trying to help us avoid a very unpleasant reckoning when things like sea levels rise and every city is as polluted as Beijing is.
 
So if global overpopulation is the root of human caused environmental impacts, attempting to fix said environmental issues is just kicking that can down the road akin to current economic and political situations? And isn't addressing the environment instead of the over population issue the same as slapping on band aids while continuing to hold your hand in the garbage disposal? That's not a nice friendly politically correct subject that people like to address but attempting to treat symptoms while the cause runs unabated never ends well. (Source: See US Dollar)

The earth will be fine. Maybe not fine for human life but fine. Nature gonna nature.
 
I'll assume you are suggesting they are applying some type of bias that they shouldn't.

I'm suggesting that my refrigerator is more qualified to discuss climate science than the authors of that website. Everyone gets money from somewhere and money always brings an agenda, all sides included. I'm not dismissing anything outright, I'm calling bs for what it is becuase the warming crowd's shit stinks just like everyone else's.

David Douglass supposedly "now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant."

From your links I think you meant Christie and what you didn't quote is that he thinks it will be a net positive which imo is a valid conclusion to draw after studying the data available. increased co2 production + plants = increased planetary oxygen.

Here man if you really feel like finding sources refuting each of these then go for it.

I don't know why global warming proponents piss me off so much but it makes my fucking blood boil. I'll see myself out.

Hotter-burning sun warming the planet - Washington Times

The Australian

Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph

Now tests show the ice ISN'T melting: Sea water under shelf in the East Antarctic is still freezing | Mail Online

Atmospheric change is part of the the Earth's history - Telegraph

'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 – Telegraph Blogs

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | World News :: Climate change experts say sorry

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Climate scientists admit fresh error over data on rising sea levels | Environment | The Observer

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud'

Climate sceptic wins landmark data victory 'for price of a stamp' | Environment | The Guardian

As third Climategate report is published, even computer models turn against AGW alarmists – Telegraph Blogs

Voices - Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

Uncorrected Evidence 39
 
Global warming is the ultimate bleeding vagina teenage angst theory. No wonder so many liberals like that particular theory. It's a projected attempt to make mommy and daddy not go to work in the morning.