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

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I wrote no reasonable person. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Hansen has since redacted his extreme predictions.

Clearly when you and others in your camp just deny and misdirect the science.

We have been studying this for over a lifetime, to say we need more time and more evidence at this point is unreasonable and irrational.

LoL me, and others in my camp?

You mean people telling you to ignore BS hype machines that have no scientific basis for the rhetoric they spew?

The fact that NASA and NOAA are still debating on whether there has actually been a net melt in the Antarctic should tell you that after a lifetime of studying, we still need to collect more data.

Do not confuse science with your politics.

-FBB

//edit
And this citation from your What's going on in Antarctica (ecowatch)

The study’s lead author, Jay Zwally of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, agrees that the overall global rate of ice discharge into the oceans is increasing. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” said Dr. Zwally. “But this is also bad news,” he added. “If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

Science. Stop pretending you believe in it.
//edit


//edit2

An example of complete BS hype rhetoric that you should not believe because of a headline. The actual article reveals that it was just some bureaucrat that accuses climate change of causing the flooding. Absolutely zero scientific backing, but presented as proof.

Climate Change Blamed for Southern India’s Worst Flooding in More Than a Century

“Weather experts say the seasonal northeast monsoon was responsible for the flooding in the city of six million, but was amplified this year by El Nino, a warming of the eastern Pacific Ocean that can have far-reaching climate effects,” said Reuters.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi blamed climate change for the deluge, tweeting that India is already feeling the effects of climate change before heading to the UN COP21 climate summit in Paris this week.

This crap . . . . I don't even know what to say . . . such BS
//edit2

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Thank you Grimpachi for this gif:



Source:
skepticalscience.com/#

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Thank you Grimpachi for this gif:

Source:
skepticalscience.com/#

You must be missing the point I was making in the other thread.

Arctic =/= Antarctic

Arctic

Antarctic

-FBB

a reply to: jrod

Keep moving those goal posts????????

What about temperature data sets that keep getting adjusted upward?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The most common misconception regarding Antarctic sea ice is that sea ice is increasing because it's cooling around Antarctica. The reality is the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it's warming faster than the global trend. This warmingtrend is apparent in satellite measurements of temperature trends over Antarctica:
www.skepticalscience.com...

I already addressed this in the other thread. It appears you have some serious memory issues, or could it be that you are intentionally being obtuse?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Thank you Grimpachi for this gif:

Source:
skepticalscience.com/#

Oh well there you go a Graf showing that the ice is melting

That proves what?
That the ice is melting

I don't think many here are denying there are global whether anomalies, that's not the issue

Your rhetoric is not aimed in the right direction

Your graph proves, means nothing relevant, it's smoke and mirrors

a reply to: jrod

But you have NOT addressed the study I provided to Amazing showing that they once again adjusted the temperature data set as recently as 2013.

How many times are they going to adjust the data set and adjust only in one direction - more warming? I have lost complete confidence in the temperature measurement and estimates as it is.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Thank you Grimpachi for this gif:

Source:
skepticalscience.com/#

Oh well there you go a Graf showing that the ice is melting

That proves what?
That the ice is melting

I don't think many here are denying there are global whether anomalies, that's not the issue

Your rhetoric is not aimed in the right direction

Your graph proves, means nothing relevant, it's smoke and mirrors

Yes, he linked to a graph of sea ice melt, which has nothing to do with rising sea levels.

It was a simple thing so commonly referenced that its easy to understand why there was confusion and they responded with it so quickly.

-FBB

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

--Joseph Goebbels
Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945

"What The 97% of Scientists Alleged to Support AGW REALLY Said"
www.forbes.com...

a reply to: dasman888
Is Goebbels a hero of yours?
Do you have any thoughts of your own to contribute?

originally posted by: dasman888

"What The 97% of Scientists Alleged to Support AGW REALLY Said"
www.forbes.com...

I personally was at a meeting with one of the authors of the 97% consensus paper. Forbes is lying. The authors of the paper verified their interpretation of the abstracts with the original authors themselves.

The idea that there is any significant professional dispute about the central facts is a lie. Frankly, it's difficult to imagine that 3% of practicing professionals in the field (that is, those that do research, publication & teaching for a living) dispute the principles.

Back in the early 90's, some of my housemates were attending the American Geophysical Union conference---the big one. In the enormous book of abstracts, I saw a couple of ones which seemed to be against various aspects of global warming at a fundamental level (and a large number of ones in the mainstream and advancing science in various ways). The housemates said something like "oh they're just cranks left now, everybody significant [as in working scientists] who were skeptical are now convinced by the evidence."

In the field, the primary question was resolved conclusively (warming influences are substantially outstripping cooling influences and the warming is mostly from humans since 1950 or so) by the early 90's. Remember, scientific consensus was not always there in an earlier age. All planetary scientists accepted the greenhouse effect, but the magnitude of the consequences and the uncertainties of climate response and other influences was insufficiently known, and the quality of the datasets too sparse to make public statements. In the field, there was appropriate and authentic scientific skepticism requiring the improvement of understanding and observations. There was no hoax, cabal, or political motivation, just regular science as most other parts of science.


It stayed mostly an internal debate until the evidence was strong enough that it deserved public policy attention. That was late 80's.


The Mt Pinatubo eruption was a very useful natural experiment which showed that the principles and workings of the radiative transfer and GCM models were mostly correct and increased confidence in the analysis and predictions.

China is to blame

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
by Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer | October 09, 2002 01:25pm ET

In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.

They suspect the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: dasman888

"What The 97% of Scientists Alleged to Support AGW REALLY Said"
www.forbes.com...

I personally was at a meeting with one of the authors of the 97% consensus paper. Forbes is lying. The authors of the paper verified their interpretation of the abstracts with the original authors themselves.

The idea that there is any significant professional dispute about the central facts is a lie. Frankly, it's difficult to imagine that 3% of practicing professionals in the field (that is, those that do research, publication & teaching for a living) dispute the principles.

Back in the early 90's, some of my housemates were attending the American Geophysical Union conference---the big one. In the enormous book of abstracts, I saw a couple of ones which seemed to be against various aspects of global warming at a fundamental level (and a large number of ones in the mainstream and advancing science in various ways). The housemates said something like "oh they're just cranks left now, everybody significant [as in working scientists] who were skeptical are now convinced by the evidence."

In the field, the primary question was resolved conclusively (warming influences are substantially outstripping cooling influences and the warming is mostly from humans since 1950 or so) by the early 90's. Remember, scientific consensus was not always there in an earlier age. All planetary scientists accepted the greenhouse effect, but the magnitude of the consequences and the uncertainties of climate response and other influences was insufficiently known, and the quality of the datasets too sparse to make public statements. In the field, there was appropriate and authentic scientific skepticism requiring the improvement of understanding and observations. There was no hoax, cabal, or political motivation, just regular science as most other parts of science.


It stayed mostly an internal debate until the evidence was strong enough that it deserved public policy attention. That was late 80's.


The Mt Pinatubo eruption was a very useful natural experiment which showed that the principles and workings of the radiative transfer and GCM models were mostly correct and increased confidence in the analysis and predictions.

But what about th epapers they didnt use because they didnt agree with the theory? there are quite a few who dispute the AGW convincingly form what i understand.

a reply to: yuppa

But what about th epapers they didnt use because they didnt agree with the theory? there are quite a few who dispute the AGW convincingly form what i understand.

That would be because because it was a gathering of of all scientists that have written papers in accredited journals in which modern warming was mentioned:

Details of each paper and ratings based on the papers’ abstract (Year, Paper Title, Journal, Authors, Category rating (based on abstract), Endorsement level (based on abstract))

Ratings by the authors of the papers (Year, Abstract Endorsement Level, Self-Rated Endorsement Level)

First and second ratings by our team. Ratings are ordered sequentially. E.g., in order that original ratings were made (Article Id #, Original endorsement rating, Original category rating, Endorsement rating after consultation stage, Category rating after consultation stage)

Data of 1000 "no position" abstracts that were reexamined for expressions of uncertainty about AGW (Article Id #, Expression of uncertainty on AGW. 0 = no position expressed on AGW. 1 = expression of uncertainty)

The survey protocol used by the rating team

All the articles listed by Id number (Article Id #, Year of Publication and Paper Title)

Article abstracts (Article Id #, Year of Publication, Category, Endorsement Level, Title and Abstract)

Emphasis mine

Skeptical Science

Pay extra attention to the text in bold and especially the the text in italics.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: yuppa

But what about th epapers they didnt use because they didnt agree with the theory? there are quite a few who dispute the AGW convincingly form what i understand.

That would be because because it was a gathering of of all scientists that have written papers in accredited journals in which modern warming was mentioned:

Details of each paper and ratings based on the papers’ abstract (Year, Paper Title, Journal, Authors, Category rating (based on abstract), Endorsement level (based on abstract))

Ratings by the authors of the papers (Year, Abstract Endorsement Level, Self-Rated Endorsement Level)

First and second ratings by our team. Ratings are ordered sequentially. E.g., in order that original ratings were made (Article Id #, Original endorsement rating, Original category rating, Endorsement rating after consultation stage, Category rating after consultation stage)

Data of 1000 "no position" abstracts that were reexamined for expressions of uncertainty about AGW (Article Id #, Expression of uncertainty on AGW. 0 = no position expressed on AGW. 1 = expression of uncertainty)

The survey protocol used by the rating team

All the articles listed by Id number (Article Id #, Year of Publication and Paper Title)

Article abstracts (Article Id #, Year of Publication, Category, Endorsement Level, Title and Abstract)

Emphasis mine

Skeptical Science

Pay extra attention to the text in bold and especially the the text in italics.

You do realize that you are quoting a website run by a guy pursuing a Phd in psychology right?

I just want to make sure you realize you are quoting the analysis of a psychologist who earned a BS in physics.

You are not quoting any sort of climatologist. His published paper is more loonie psychologist magic wave of the hand analysis that most people are used to with the "discipline."

Skeptical Science

About John Cook
Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is also developing a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, to be released in April 2015.

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

I just want you to be aware about the sources you are using.

-FBB

//edit

Also I am really sick of you and others here throwing out a 97% number and not actually representing that number properly.

Quantif ying the Consensus - Citizen's Investigation

3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

This number is thrown around waaaay too much without people understanding how it came about.
//edit

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

SO basically... th eobama admin is actually ony got 14 percent of scientist saying AGW is real and these morons are buying this crap.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

SO basically... th eobama admin is actually ony got 14 percent of scientist saying AGW is real and these morons are buying this crap.

No, that's not quite right either.

There was a portion of peer reviewed papers which openly expressed an endorsement for or against the 'consensus' AGW model.

The number which openly professed endorsement or against the consensus totalled about 33.7% of peer reviewed climate science papers.

Around 66% of the papers expressed no opinion.

They then requested the authors of the papers email them about whether they endorse the consensus. And from that the results were:

Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

So 54% from the group that refused to openly endorse the consensus in their abstracts expressed personal acceptance of the consensus after being contact.

The 97% statistic comes from the 35% of papers which openly expressed their opinion in the abstracts of their papers.


The use of the number is complete BS and should be mocked for its blatant use in propagandising efforts. I think I have made my opinion on the politicizing of science very clear and am not going to let this crap slide any more.

So at most around 66-70% of peer reviewed climate science express open endorsement of the consensus model, but that doesn't sound as good as 97% so agenda driven ignorant propagandists chanting, "DENIERS!" are obviously going to use the larger number while misrepresenting it.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

John Cook was the lead author on the paper, but he wasn't the only author. Is the paper wrong or not? IOP's Environmental Newsletter is a peer reviewed journal, yes? You realize I quoted the methodology when I posted the link, right?

You're tired of what exactly?
iop Science, Environmental Research Letters

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

John Cook was the lead author on the paper, but he wasn't the only author. Is the paper wrong or not? IOP's Environmental Newsletter is a peer reviewed journal, yes? You realize I quoted the methodology when I posted the link, right?

You're tired of what exactly?

iop Science, Environmental Research Letters

The 97% figure is clearly disingenuous, and its only use is for propaganda.

The only paper published by Mr. Cook in regards to climate science is this meta-analysis of published climate science.

By the standards you established earlier for people being allowed to criticize work, this guy is a complete and utter joke to be ignored. He is NOT a climate scientist.

I am pointing towards your disingenuous use of a number and hypocrisy in the sources you permit being brought to the table.

-FBB

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We live and survive in an atmosphere of cooled radiated light sound...and scientists named those single reviews for the purpose of science...which has nothing to do with this discussion.

The atmosphere is a cooled body of radiated light/sound/gases evolved due to evolution as a process of cooling.

Scientists change the atmosphere.

Science alters cooled radiated light and sound that belonged to the fused state of uranium/plutonium crystal.

Obviously if you alter cooled radiated fusion, it will cause an effect......the effect is noticed, atmospheric heating.

If you ask a simple question, the simple answer is the fact that nuclear fuel, a cold body is not as cold as crystal fused...which is a state in fusion that exists as an evolution of coldness for far longer than fuel does in space.

You alter the crystal fusion into a fuel, and the fuel coldness causes an artificial cold in the atmosphere.

Artificial cold is naturally warmer than evolved cold.

This would explain all of the changes to Nature, that exist naturally only due to the pre-existing evolved coldness of the atmospheric radiated light/sound body. Change the atmosphere and you change evolution.

If you change the light and sound in the atmosphere, the change would also be witnessed in the bodies involved in cold reactions....clouds.

Why have clouds formed alien space ship bodies as imagery?

Imagery in light and sound demonstrates that it belongs to vibration.

Change light and sound and you would then also change imagery...or manifestation images.