05 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaBy stating that "between 1940 and 1975 the earth cooled" effectively says there was a cooling trend. There is no other way of reading that statement. That cooling trend DID NOT HAPPEN.
scottish says: "Yes. But that does NOT mean that there was a "cooling trend" within that time."
Twist and squirm scottish, twist and squirm. Did Dr David Evans say anything about "cooling trend". Why did you use quotation marks here, who are you quoting?
scottish says:[i] "He states that between 1940 and 1975 the temperature decreased. THIS IS A ...[text shortened]... these dates? Is this diversion from you lodging your foot in your mouth? again?
What actually happened was that the temperature decreased over a short period (5 - 8 years), then remained relatively constant. This is not the same was saying "the earth cooled" over this time. Staying constant is not "cooling". I don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm sure you'll remain willfully ignorant.
As for the 1890 - 1990 comparison, it is to show that the general trend, excluding things like global dimming, is one of warming overall. You seem reticent to say it, so I'll say it for you.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is only one way of reading that statement, the earth was cooler in 75 than in 40. There is no mention of "cooling trends" again, who are you quoting here, or are you putting words in other peoples mouths and then (effectively) arguing against yourself.
By stating that "between 1940 and 1975 the earth cooled" effectively says there was a cooling trend. There is no other way of reading that statement. That cooling trend DID NOT HAPPEN.
What actually happened was that the temperature decreased over a short period (5 - 8 years), then remained relatively constant. This is not the same was saying "t ...[text shortened]... ming, is one of warming overall. You seem reticent to say it, so I'll say it for you.
Words have meanings scottish.
This is not about 1890 -1990 (again with the diversion) this is about you calling Dr David Evans a liar, do you still stand by that statement.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaIf you want a certain answer, just frame the question in the right way then. This is everything about long term trends. You want to limit the grounds to a specific year followed by another specific year? If you don't want to talk about temperature trends, then what are you doing talking about global warming at all. From what I read of the paper, it appears that Dr. Evans is not lying per se, he believes cosmic rays amongst other things provide the alternative, but as pointed out through links in the consensus thread, new scientist published a report on seven of the top alternative theories (and further links to others) showing their failure as an alternative explanation.
There is only one way of reading that statement, the earth was cooler in 75 than in 40. There is no mention of "cooling trends" again, who are you quoting here, or are you putting words in other peoples mouths and then (effectively) arguing against yourself.
Words have meanings scottish.
This is not about 1890 -1990 (again with the diversion) this is about you calling Dr David Evans a liar, do you still stand by that statement.
Here's another story by he same magazine...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonIt's a shame to spend so much time on this point, but scottish is such a twisting, squirming slithering snake it's hard to pin him down on things he says.
If you want a certain answer, just frame the question in the right way then. This is everything about long term trends. You want to limit the grounds to a specific year followed by another specific year? If you don't want to talk about temperature trends, then what are you doing talking about global warming at all. From what I read of the paper, it appears t ...[text shortened]... nother story by he same magazine...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
It seems, like scottish, you'd also like to choose a particular period in time that suits your devotion to AGW, that's fine, couldn't care less, what I want to know from scottish is: Is Dr David Evans a liar?
You keep asking for me to supply this that and the other when I have been playing along with your faith i.e. if man is contributing to AGW how much does an average man actually contribute to this "trend".
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes the so called "scientific" paper that purports a unanimous consensus on man-made climate change. What this paper actually found was a consensus on greenhouse effect theory which is completely different. It found no such consensus or unanimity of man-induced global warming so the paper is meaningless and proves nothing.
So what about the recent "Science" paper which randomly evaluated 924 recent climate related papers and found that none f them questioned the basic tenants of climate change?
Interestingly, Lawrence Solomon of the Financial Post, recently tested this assumption (of a scientific consensus) and discovered it's actually the other way around:
He concludes: "..the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists - the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects - and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
[b]Yes the so called "scientific" paper that purports a unanimous consensus on man-made climate change. What this paper actually found was a consensus on greenhouse effect theory which is completely different. It found no such consensus or unanimity of man-induced global warming so the paper is meaningless and proves nothing.[b]
Which bit?
05 Aug 07
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
"The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called 'the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,' issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying 'the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.'
"The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now."
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaIt is absolutely about about long term trends. And yes, I am calling him a liar. He states that the earth cooled between 1940 and 1975. It was certainly cooler in 1975, but it didn't cool between, say, 1955 and 1975. To imply that it was is lying by deception.
There is only one way of reading that statement, the earth was cooler in 75 than in 40. There is no mention of "cooling trends" again, who are you quoting here, or are you putting words in other peoples mouths and then (effectively) arguing against yourself.
Words have meanings scottish.
This is not about 1890 -1990 (again with the diversion) this is about you calling Dr David Evans a liar, do you still stand by that statement.
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThis bit:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Which bit?
"Oreskes's study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today's commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers - more than 90% of the papers - dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the "consensus view" on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.
Oreskes originally claimed she analyzed the peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change" and found just 928 articles. It turns out she was not accurate, according to British social scientist Benny Peiser a professor at Liverpool John Moores University.
A search using the terms "climate change" actually turned up almost 12,000 papers that were published during the time frame Oreskes claimed to have researched. In other words, her supposedly comprehensive research excluded about 11,000 papers. Only after Peiser's analysis pointed out this error in her study did Oreskes reportedly admit that her study was not based on the keywords "climate change", but on the far more restrictive phrase "global climate change."
Peiser noted:
"These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change."
Oreskes's 100% "consensus" would potentially be accurate only by excluding well over 90% of the available papers in the time frame she was researching, according to Peiser. Eliminating about 11,000 papers (even if a small portion would not be considered 'peer reviewed'😉 in favor of just 928, hardly proves a "consensus."
In addition, Peiser found that less than 2% of the studies Oreskes examined supported her "consensus view" and some of the studies actually disagreed with that humans were the chief cause of the past 50 years of climate change.
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323
06 Aug 07
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyMore on the the alleged consensus and agw:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Which bit?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz"At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget."
It was mentioned in the popular press quite a bit, but I think only 1 scientific paper was ever published which suggested it to be a possibility. The authors of that paper later re-evaluated their position, and abandoned the idea, if my memory serves correctly.
One paper hardly represents "consensus".
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovThis is a lie. I have pointed that out multiple times.
"At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic propo ...[text shortened]... proposals. How quickly we forget."
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963
06 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat a cheap cop-out! You're lying when you say it's a lie!
This is a lie. I have pointed that out multiple times.
In any case, the point is Oreske's pretend analysis of the alleged consensus:
"Oreskes's study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today's commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers - more than 90% of the papers - dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the "consensus view" on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.
Oreskes originally claimed she analyzed the peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change" and found just 928 articles. It turns out she was not accurate, according to British social scientist Benny Peiser a professor at Liverpool John Moores University.
A search using the terms "climate change" actually turned up almost 12,000 papers that were published during the time frame Oreskes claimed to have researched. In other words, her supposedly comprehensive research excluded about 11,000 papers. Only after Peiser's analysis pointed out this error in her study did Oreskes reportedly admit that her study was not based on the keywords "climate change", but on the far more restrictive phrase "global climate change."
Peiser noted:
"These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change."
Oreskes's 100% "consensus" would potentially be accurate only by excluding well over 90% of the available papers in the time frame she was researching, according to Peiser. Eliminating about 11,000 papers (even if a small portion would not be considered 'peer reviewed'😉 in favor of just 928, hardly proves a "consensus."
In addition, Peiser found that less than 2% of the studies Oreskes examined supported her "consensus view" and some of the studies actually disagreed with that humans were the chief cause of the past 50 years of climate change.
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323
06 Aug 07
Originally posted by SpastiGovAre you choosing to ignore witty's post above?
What a cheap cop-out! You're lying when you say it's a lie!
In any case, the point is Oreske's pretend analysis of the alleged consensus:
"Oreskes's study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today's commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers - more than 90% of the papers - dealing ...[text shortened]... te change.
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323