Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not a good sign that you're jumping back a couple squares to the "corrupt scientist" canard. Who's really drunk the Koolaid here?



You'll have to prove that. I haven't seen that 'we're doomed' from the scientists. Expressions of concern. yes. Again, you have some Koolaid on your breath.

Why won't you simply tell us how many climate scientists oppose the finding of AGW?

I would mention "that" petition. But it is:
fraudulent
funded by the oil industry
run by kooks
full of dead people
etc etc.

The reason "deniers" are unorganized and formed into little groups of bloggers and websites is because they are outcast from the pro-AGW clan. Just research Judith Curry (thanks Jackdale ) and a couple of other prominent deniers. You see, when you become a denier, you become an outcast and branded a pariah and unless extremely fortunate, get cut off from access to public research funding. Your opponents will no longer listen to your opinions or research but will instead scream "the science is settled", "97% consensus" and a whole heap of other crap whilst sticking fingers in their ears.

And don't forget. The US President recently quoted the 97% consensus line. Propaganda emitted from a well oiled and organised machine is an extremely difficult opponent to counter. We know this from history.

[Lake-Effect]

Would somebody pulllllease tell us the percentage of climate scientists who oppose the finding of AGW? Then we could settle this, sh1tcan the 97% number, and kill the thread.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sobraon

So while the battle rages into it's 1300th post I am going to celebrate this lovely warm day in the tropics by diving on my hull, prepping for the continuation of our journey to the high latitudes.

If only AGW was true, I could have saved 1000's of dollars on survival suits and thermals.

Garry
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

Thanks for the support

Isn't it ironic that those of us baking under a tropical sun appear far less concerned about global warming than those having to dig themselves out of their houses with snow shovels. I just don't get that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Would somebody pulllllease tell us the percentage of climate scientists who oppose the finding of AGW? Then we could settle this, sh1tcan the 97% number, and kill the thread.

100-34.5 = 65.5% according to the data supplied in one study major 2013 peer reviewed study once values are normalized.

Now onward and forward...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just research Judith Curry (thanks Jackdale ) and a couple of other prominent deniers. You see, when you become a denier, you become an outcast and branded a pariah and unless extremely fortunate, get cut off from access to public research funding.

That is an outright lie.

Impact of Marine and Dust Aerosols on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Development
Award Number:1064346; Principal Investigator:Henian Zhang; Co-Principal Investigator:Judith Curry, Irina Sokolik; Organization:Georgia Tech Research Corporation;NSF Organization:AGS Start Date:05/01/2011; Award Amount:$349,903.00; Relevance:64.0;

Richard Lindzen recieved over $3,000,000 in NSF finding during his career. Pielke Jr., Legates etc.. continue to get NSF funding.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Would somebody pulllllease tell us the percentage of climate scientists who oppose the finding of AGW? Then we could settle this, sh1tcan the 97% number, and kill the thread.

Jamespowell.org

(2/10,885)*100 = 0.0184%

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is an outright lie.



Richard Lindzen recieved over $3,000,000 in NSF finding during his career. Pielke Jr., Legates etc.. continue to get NSF funding.

..and unless extremely fortunate, get cut off from access to public research funding...

Really? How so?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Jamespowell.org

(2/10,885)*100 = 0.0184%

Now, good sir, and not that you're the one telling it, but that is an outright mistruth. It doesn't even agree with the "97% consensus" campaign.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Really? How so?

Name a scientist who has lost their public finding.

Spencer and Christy get their funding from NASA, NOAA, and the DOE.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Now, good sir, and not that you're the one telling it, but that is an outright mistruth. It doesn't even agree with the "97% consensus" campaign.

I have never once referenced any one of these studie:, Anderegg et al, Cook et al, Orekses et al., Zimmermann et al. Not I have I made any reference to 97%.

Check Powell's numbers for yourself. His database and methodology are on his web site.

[sobraon]

Name a scientist who has lost their public funding.

Professor Bob Carter instantly comes to mind.

Jackdale, please have a read of Professor Tol's statement re Cook's "Peer reviewed Paper" Then suggest why we should take the 97% rubbish seriously. I know I keep going on about his statement. I could post numerous other academics who have the same view; however I use Tol because he is one of you. A Warmist and former lead author of the IPCC. Others I quote will lead to accusations of 'Big Oil' and other warmist slurs. Tol as I stated is a believer. He says the 97% is rubbish.

Just so you don't have to search, here again is his statement. I have taken it upon myself to highlight two very compelling sentences in the statement. Feel free like Tensen to try to discredit Tol. It won't work:

Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t…

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable.... In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about *climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of *climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman *effort…
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion… The entire study should therefore be dismissed.
This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency…
If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

Most of us realist (not deniers) if quoted would agree that GW is real. Of course it is. We would also agree that man has had some input. What we realist don't agree with is the ridiculous hype that warmist and scaremongers go on with and the hysteria on CO2.

Since you were so adamant that we must name an actual person who has had funding withdrawn, and I have, may I challenge you now too. Without relying on may be's or manipulated data I challenge you to name one prediction of dire consequences that the Warmists have predicted that has actually come to fruition that is agreed on by anywhere near 97% of academics. I can certainly name hundreds that have not.

Oh by the way! I have finished diving on the hull. Just thought that I might check back in on the debate. Your welcome Reefmagnet. How is the weather in tropical Mackay today. I hope you are enjoying the warmth.

Garry
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[sobraon]

And to further the the debate about the unsettled Science, here is a list of 50 former IPCC experts and their statements re the settled science

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

18. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

21. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

22. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

25. Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

27. Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

29. Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

31. Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

32. Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."

36. Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."

37. Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."

38. Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."

39. Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

41. Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"

42. Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

43. Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."

44. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

45. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

46. Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

48. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."

Feel free to argue with each one of them. In fact knock your self out. All of them have just a little more skin in the game than anyone commenting on the Cruisers Forum.

Garry
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[savoir]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;1798658](Sorry, I do still have a bit of a life)



Climate science, and publishing research, isn't facebook. (Amen for that)

Again you're simply not supplying what would be an incontrovertible demolition of the consensus/97%/whatever argument - show us that there's a significant percentage ("x") of climate scientists who do not accept the AGW findings and conclusions.

We would take this number, and with our solar-powered calculators we would subtract your number x from 100, and we would then have to concede that 100 - x is much less than 97, and your point is made.

If you can't find a verifiable and significant value for x, or 100 - x is still pretty damn close to 100%, then you have to concede that there's a undeniably solid consensus among the best brains we have that study climate.

No analogies were tortured in the making of this argument.

Even your own reprocessing of the papers below supports the consensus:

Of the papers that express any opinion on AGW, you have

34.8 /(34.8 + 1.2 +0.4) = 95.6%

(Yes even climate scientists research and publish on other stuff besides AGW. When they're not attending Soshulist Konspiracy Kamp)

But there's no need for all this mathematical calisthenics over one source of data. Simply show us the percentage of AGW deniers within the ranks of the climate scientists.

What part of this don't you understand?[/QUOTE]

Nice conclusion. Arrogant but subtle.

[savoir]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name a scientist who has lost their public finding.

Spencer and Christy get their funding from NASA, NOAA, and the DOE.

David Bellamy - unemployed for years and frozen out of everything.


Professor Lennart Bengtsson - succumbed to threats

[conachair]

Originally Posted by sobraon

And to further the the debate about the unsettled Science, here is a list of 50 former IPCC experts and their statements re the settled science

1. Dr Robert Balling:
.......

Following the advice of "follow the money"..



Balling acknowledged that he has received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors have included ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [2]

Balling is also the editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, an advocacy science consulting form run by global warming skeptic Patrick J. Michaels.

According to leaked documents, Robert C. Balling receives $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, an organization at the forefront of climate change skepticism.