Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

a reply to: mbkennel

Take a look at the climate depot link - there is a schlock of them there for you

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This is the exact study of the Pacific and Antarctic Oceans that proves the MWP was global, not regional, nature.

It also proves that current global warmiing is not "unprecedented"

www.sciencemag.org...

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

You may feel free to ignore it, just like everyother global warming supporter has. After all, it does't support your pet theory and any evidence to the contrary must be studiously ignored.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

So you claim that the current observations of temperature are error prone, ect; and not reliable enough to conclude we are observing a warming trend?

Yet you find some extrapolated data that has a large margin of error, that is incomplete, but because with the help of your imagination it supports your confirmation bias, you run with it as your ah ha gotcha climate scientists argument?

a reply to: jrod

so you don't like the margin of error? I am using my imagination

But the study AUTHORS are the ones who have published the conclusion. Go argue with them. The MWP was known to exist BEFORE the theory of anthropogenic sourced global warming. The MWP was known to be warmer based on environmental evidence. (Altitude of tree line).

But Micheal Mann used tree ring proxy that even he knows is unreliable and doesn't meet up with modern instrument readings and decided to "hide the decline" by grafting instrument readings from the 1940s onward to form the Hockeey Stick Graph and mislead the accuracy of his graph. With his graph the MWP and the little ice age virtually disappear.

This is you OK with?

Tired of Control Freaks.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
I could care less, I just want to point out the hypocrisy in your arguments.

In has not been concluded that the MWP was armer than today, in fact there are papers that suggest today is warmer than that period.

We really do not know with any reasonable level if certainty. You have concluded that the MWP was warmer than today based on scanty evidence that supports your confirmation bias.

a reply to: jrod

No -the physical evidence such as treelines in Russia that are 350 m higher then today are what confirm that the MWP was warmer then today

Your refusal to read peer-reviewed published studies as evidence also supports your confirmation bias.

Let me know when yo wish to discuss science rather than bully me into backing down

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We argued it before so I don't know why you are saying that I didn't respond to it.

a reply to: Kali74

ok. I believe you but as I stated previously - I missed it

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Then find the thread.

a reply to: Kali74

No thanks I can't be bothered.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

Of the 66% that did not declare support for or against (or claim they didn't know) the consensus theory in their abstract, 54% of those expressed a degree of support for the consensus when contacted by the researchers.

Almost half of that 66% did not want to make a statement endorsing the consensus or not.

Because they were asked to rate their paper. Many papers don't directly deal with the issue. The real point is that a HIGHER fraction of authors said that their papers supported consensus than the independent reviewers of the abstract scored them.

Here's an exercise, go score last year's abstracts in Physical Review Letters about support for or against conservation of momentum. Apply the same methodology. By the denialist critics here, you'd come up with "The 'consensus' is a lie, only 0.1% support it! Are 99.9% of physicists too cowardly to take a position on momentum conservation theory---are they being suppressed by the tax-hungry global elitists? " And that would seriously take up traction if this momentum conservation meant that some wealthy people might be inconvenienced financially.

I wonder why they would rather stay quiet? Maybe there are aspects they are uncomfortable with, but fear of reprisal from vicious climate psychologists holds their tongue? Who knows other then they do, my speculating is only meant in a mocking fashion because an honest conversation on that probably cant occur.

You have donald trump spouting bigotry on TV without shame, and you think this overwhelming silent majority of climatologists, many with tenure, all over the world, would somehow be silent about the supposed flood of major results coming out of the data and being published against AGW and yet EVERYBODY shuts up about it?

You realize that your rationalization for supporting a 97% number just de-legitimized the entire study as a source for any scientists supporting the consensus right?

If you want to interpret the study as ~70% of researches feel as though their research supports the consensus, that means that saying 97% based on that number is even more ludicrous.

And yes, I know many people (some which I even work with) who make a living in academia.

Also, don't come up with absurd comparisons like the conservation of momentum or energy as you know, or should know, that is an entirely different class of proof than the consensus AGW theory. It is a simple mathematical proof which has years and years and years of studies confirming the law.

That argument is weak and below you, but are moving your goal posts in all sorts of directions right now so it is to be expected.

-FBB

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And I can't be bothered to have the same exact argument with you.

So we're at an impasse.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You realize that your rationalization for supporting a 97% number just de-legitimized the entire study as a source for any scientists supporting the consensus right?

No, it doesn't.

If you want to interpret the study as ~70% of researches feel as though their research supports the consensus, that means that saying 97% based on that number is even more ludicrous.

Many papers in climate can be on something other than global warming, and when it is, the correct answer is 'neutral'. If somebody published a paper on data modeling and analysis techniques for combined satellite and buoy measurements, what does that have to say about global warming? Nothing.

They asked the authors to rate the papers, not how they personally evaluated the evidence on the subject overall. It's a different question.

I published papers in Physical Review. None of them addressed conservation of momentum. If asked whether my paper supported or denied it I would say neither. If you asked me, I would say

Also, don't come up with absurd comparisons like the conservation of momentum or energy as you know, or should know, that is an entirely different class of proof than the consensus AGW theory. It is a simple mathematical proof which has years and years and years of studies confirming the law.

It's not about global warming vs momentum.

You didn't understand my point. What fraction of papers address conservation of momentum?  Few.
What fraction of physicists agree with conservation of momentum consensus? All.

Equivalent data analysis of this, interpreted the way the denialsts spin it would be 'a huge fraction [of papers] do not support the momentum theory!' Clearly that's a false conclusion.

Since many papers address neither momentum or global warming it's typical to exclude them. If you took a medical journal and graded all articles about whether it supports cholesterol theory of heart disease---what would you do with a paper about influenza?

I'm just in this thread to find people who I won't help when SHTF due to climate change.

I think climate change deniers think that humans are " high and mighty" and that our strong, only home can withstand anything we can greedily throw at it.

There are many, many reasons for climate change. Human interaction, natural cycles, etc. But, it is real and it is impacting the world today. To think any less is to stick your head in the sand and ignore the truth until its too late.

When you're wrong in school after getting the same facts as everyone else, you get marked down. When you're wrong now, you get screwed over for your life.

a reply to: Kali74

Absolutely!

Do you understand that the only reply you ever gave me was to another study and talked only of the Little Ice Age and nothing at all to do with the MWP - which I believed was the topic?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You realize that your rationalization for supporting a 97% number just de-legitimized the entire study as a source for any scientists supporting the consensus right?

No, it doesn't.

If you want to interpret the study as ~70% of researches feel as though their research supports the consensus, that means that saying 97% based on that number is even more ludicrous.

Many papers in climate can be on something other than global warming, and when it is, the correct answer is 'neutral'. If somebody published a paper on data modeling and analysis techniques for combined satellite and buoy measurements, what does that have to say about global warming? Nothing.

They asked the authors to rate the papers, not how they personally evaluated the evidence on the subject overall. It's a different question.

I published papers in Physical Review. None of them addressed conservation of momentum. If asked whether my paper supported or denied it I would say neither. If you asked me, I would say

Also, don't come up with absurd comparisons like the conservation of momentum or energy as you know, or should know, that is an entirely different class of proof than the consensus AGW theory. It is a simple mathematical proof which has years and years and years of studies confirming the law.

It's not about global warming vs momentum.

You didn't understand my point. What fraction of papers address conservation of momentum?  Few.
What fraction of physicists agree with conservation of momentum consensus? All.

Equivalent data analysis of this, interpreted the way the denialsts spin it would be 'a huge fraction [of papers] do not support the momentum theory!' Clearly that's a false conclusion.

Since many papers address neither momentum or global warming it's typical to exclude them. If you took a medical journal and graded all articles about whether it supports cholesterol theory of heart disease---what would you do with a paper about influenza?

If you were publishing a paper on what percentage of papers supported the law of conservation of momentum, you wouldn't include papers not dealing with that in your data set.

That would be a poor data set and you would have excluded them from your analysis.

Further it has nothing to do with whether the researchers held a consensus on the law.

//edit
You do understand the point I am making right?

That whether a study on whether the researchers felt their study upheld the consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers personally agreed with the consensus.

Your abstraction does nothing to change that.
//edit

It still does not stand up to scrutiny under your new parameters.

Keep on making stuff up though, its entertaining.

-FBB

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Link to the study?

a reply to: Kali74

htt

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

p://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You realize that your rationalization for supporting a 97% number just de-legitimized the entire study as a source for any scientists supporting the consensus right?

No, it doesn't.

If you want to interpret the study as ~70% of researches feel as though their research supports the consensus, that means that saying 97% based on that number is even more ludicrous.

Many papers in climate can be on something other than global warming, and when it is, the correct answer is 'neutral'. If somebody published a paper on data modeling and analysis techniques for combined satellite and buoy measurements, what does that have to say about global warming? Nothing.

They asked the authors to rate the papers, not how they personally evaluated the evidence on the subject overall. It's a different question.

I published papers in Physical Review. None of them addressed conservation of momentum. If asked whether my paper supported or denied it I would say neither. If you asked me, I would say

Also, don't come up with absurd comparisons like the conservation of momentum or energy as you know, or should know, that is an entirely different class of proof than the consensus AGW theory. It is a simple mathematical proof which has years and years and years of studies confirming the law.

It's not about global warming vs momentum.

You didn't understand my point. What fraction of papers address conservation of momentum?  Few.
What fraction of physicists agree with conservation of momentum consensus? All.

Equivalent data analysis of this, interpreted the way the denialsts spin it would be 'a huge fraction [of papers] do not support the momentum theory!' Clearly that's a false conclusion.

Since many papers address neither momentum or global warming it's typical to exclude them. If you took a medical journal and graded all articles about whether it supports cholesterol theory of heart disease---what would you do with a paper about influenza?

If you were publishing a paper on what percentage of papers supported the law of conservation of momentum, you wouldn't include papers not dealing with that in your data set.

Correct. They eliminated papers not dealing with climate to begin with, presumably by broad cuts on journal.

For further downselection, they scored the papers individually, and then asked authors themselves. Not addressing the consensus means that it is not relevant.

Not including them in the dataset is exactly what gets the 97%, which is the point: of those that were on the issue, 97% were supportive.

We are under more agreement then.

That whether a study on whether the researchers felt their study upheld the consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers personally agreed with the consensus.

It has to do with that consensus when the papers address the consensus, and when the papers don't, then it doesn't. In the first category it's 97%.

You can ask people's opinions, but scoring the papers themselves is also very valuable because it means you're evaluating the results of people who have created direct scientific input on the issue.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

You realize that your rationalization for supporting a 97% number just de-legitimized the entire study as a source for any scientists supporting the consensus right?

No, it doesn't.

If you want to interpret the study as ~70% of researches feel as though their research supports the consensus, that means that saying 97% based on that number is even more ludicrous.

Many papers in climate can be on something other than global warming, and when it is, the correct answer is 'neutral'. If somebody published a paper on data modeling and analysis techniques for combined satellite and buoy measurements, what does that have to say about global warming? Nothing.

They asked the authors to rate the papers, not how they personally evaluated the evidence on the subject overall. It's a different question.

I published papers in Physical Review. None of them addressed conservation of momentum. If asked whether my paper supported or denied it I would say neither. If you asked me, I would say

Also, don't come up with absurd comparisons like the conservation of momentum or energy as you know, or should know, that is an entirely different class of proof than the consensus AGW theory. It is a simple mathematical proof which has years and years and years of studies confirming the law.

It's not about global warming vs momentum.

You didn't understand my point. What fraction of papers address conservation of momentum?  Few.
What fraction of physicists agree with conservation of momentum consensus? All.

Equivalent data analysis of this, interpreted the way the denialsts spin it would be 'a huge fraction [of papers] do not support the momentum theory!' Clearly that's a false conclusion.

Since many papers address neither momentum or global warming it's typical to exclude them. If you took a medical journal and graded all articles about whether it supports cholesterol theory of heart disease---what would you do with a paper about influenza?

If you were publishing a paper on what percentage of papers supported the law of conservation of momentum, you wouldn't include papers not dealing with that in your data set.

Correct. They eliminated papers not dealing with climate to begin with, presumably by broad cuts on journal.

For further downselection, they scored the papers individually, and then asked authors themselves. Not addressing the consensus means that it is not relevant.

Not including them in the dataset is exactly what gets the 97%, which is the point: of those that were on the issue, 97% were supportive.

We are under more agreement then.

That whether a study on whether the researchers felt their study upheld the consensus has nothing to do with whether or not the researchers personally agreed with the consensus.

It has to do with that consensus when the papers address the consensus, and when the papers don't, then it doesn't. In the first category it's 97%.

You can ask people's opinions, but scoring the papers themselves is also very valuable because it means you're evaluating the results of people who have created direct scientific input on the issue.

Then you agree that the study cannot be used to say that 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree with the consensus.

My point being that citing that study as justification for opinions is disingenuous.

The backlash of calling me a climate denier for making such statements would be indicative of my overall claim that the propaganda has radicalised people to such an extent that they are not thinking critically.

Further using that study, as a consensus of opinion, to denounce any criticism of the consensus model is not an honest (truth seeking) argument.

Even if you disagree with my perception of the discourse at least we agree on the point that the study does not engage in a measurement of what people are claiming it does.

-FBB