Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
59 minutes ago.
by Ohwiseone
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Ohwiseone

4 more pages of the serial denyer !

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.

By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Update 1: Dr. Tol also found problems with the classifications Update

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Posted 7 days ago.

harryanderson

An appeal to non-authority.

Hah.

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

The reason I just posted this question numerous times is simply because I believe tiredofit is copy/pasting a crap ton of stuff and making a bunch of tweet style posts to bury what the others and I are bringing into this discussion.

And I would really like for Tiredofit to answer that question. So its best to keep it visible.

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

Posted 7 days ago.

Tiredofit

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit's method in quoting Anthony Watts is...

...an appeal to non-authority.

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.

mythravere

How is it possible to show YOU Tiredofit ONE SINGLE PROVABLE FACT showing man causes global warming when you will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful?

Posted 7 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or