Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Neither Cook nor I made that claim.

bull Jack you make that claim concerning cook et al at least 2 times in each CC thread .

Myself I will stand by my theorem concerning the natural cyclical nature of the climate .
You all know my theorem . Lets see how it plays out over the next few years.

We are one good vei6 cosmic ray induced eruption away from a good cool down .
The real problem is that 1) To many politicians are involved wrt MMGW. Which causes 2)
the alarmists being to over the top radical. The real science gets lost in the rhetoric.

And we are cooling

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Strange july 19 is marked is much warmer than average where i live, yet actual measurements show the complete opposite.




I live in the algarve in portugal. here is a link to the actual temps


https://www.accuweather.com/en/pt/po...monyr=7/1/2019

you really want fun take a look at this. ( the grey areas mean no temperature stations so no actual temperature readings )
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm shocked that the thread is still alive. Mods night off?



Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer....



You are on solid ground right up to the i.e. . You don't have any basis for saying that only (or mainly) those who agree with AGW are publishing their positions. Is it not more likely that of those who have studied aspects of the issue and published on it, 97% have found further proof or confirmation of AGW?

But it's churlish of me to take away your shiny thing so quickly. Let's admire it for a bit.

For C being all "climate scientists", and c being the "climate scientists" who have published work that has expressed a conclusion re AGW, we can say with certainty that c < C. According to Cook's survey 97% of c have published conciusions that support the hypothesis of AGW. And yes, of course, 0.97c != 0.97C. It is certainly a mistake to take Cook's study as "97% of all climate scientists agree that...".

So - what about the rest (C-c)? This is where I just know you have some primo social/behavioural rationalization to impart.

But let's have a brief reality check. "climate scientist" is our construct, for the convenience of our uninformed arguments. Climate is a pretty big area of study. Yes there are "climatologists", but also many others whose specialty is required - physicists, chemists, biologists etc. And even these are over-broad. So, who are we counting as "climate scientists"?

Secondly, being a big field, they do actually have people who don't study climate change. Hard to believe I know. If a "climate scientist" hasn't been studying CC or CO2 buildup or recent warming, do we count them? What if they don't have an informed opinion one way or the other?

I'm sure there are other distinctions to be made as well. Considering all this... maybe Cook's methodology isn't that unreasonable? Short of contacting every single "climate scientist" with a simple question, can you suggest a better metric than conclusions in published papers?

But have at it. Perhaps you will be the first to show that agreement is only...90%? 85%? Whew. Game-changer.

Stuff like this must be where scientists become most exasperated with the great unwashed (us). Playing with them like toy soldiers, going off on mad speculative tangents to conjure up scenarios where scientists are by turns lazy, deceitful, conformists, commies. Except of course the few brave skeptics...

Imagine if we were putting the same effort into discussing the actual science, and not these little fugues on anything but...

You're resorting to strawmen again. I'm not trying to show what the consensus IS since there doesn't seem to be much if any credible evidence that one has been established. I'm only pointing out what I had erroneously thought was resolved long ago, namely what the Cook study IS NOT. The rest of your post is just speculative through the use of red herrings. For example, I don't know how many skeptics within climate science or other science disciplines are out there, or what the breakdown may be amongst those actually studying CC if you prefer. But it's obviously not just Spencer, Spencer, Spencer as much as you'd personally like it to be. And the Cook study does NOT establish that the consensus of all these scientists -- however you'd like to break it down -- is 97-99%.

The Cook study represents the exact sort of misrepresentation & manipulation that leads to the distrust and conspiracy theories on the other side. The best and thus far only assumption that seems credible is that the weight of the scientific evidence supports the mainstream position of the IPCC that CO2 is a "significant" cause of the warming. But you're going to have to stop ignoring all of these scientists before your silly Spencer, Spencer, Spencer argument has any credibility.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Neither Cook nor I made that claim.

So . . . maybe it was this claim?

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."

This one looks quite a bit more familiar.

"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."

Or maybe it was this one.

"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."

For someone always eager to chide others to look at the "data," your claims over the years appear awfully similar to the deceptive conclusions reached by extremely biased sources.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But you're going to have to stop ignoring all of these scientists before your silly Spencer, Spencer, Spencer argument has any credibility.

There are 78 names on that page. I know most of them and have read some of their work.

There are 831 expert authors for IPCC AR5, whom you are ignoring.

After Ivar Giaever gave this talk ( https://youtu.be/awJs7qDWYfs ) in 2015, 76 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration ( Mainau Declaration ) calling for immediate action on climate change.

Somehow I do not think that was Giaever's intention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainau...Climate_Change

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So . . . maybe it was this claim?

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."

This one looks quite a bit more familiar.

"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."

Or maybe it was this one.

"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."

For someone always eager to chide others to look at the "data," your claims over the years appear awfully similar to the deceptive conclusions reached by extremely biased sources.

I provided you with the methodology from the Cook et al paper; you ignored it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are 78 names on that page. I know most of them and have read some of their work.

There are 831 expert authors for IPCC AR5, whom you are ignoring.

After Ivar Giaever gave this talk ( https://youtu.be/awJs7qDWYfs ) in 2015, 76 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration ( Mainau Declaration ) calling for immediate action on climate change.

Somehow I do not think that was Giaever's intention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainau...Climate_Change

"Ignoring" the 831 who endorse IPCC AR5 is hardly consistent with my frequent acknowledgments that the weight of the scientific evidence supports the IPCC position. Stop producing strawmen and insulting peoples' intelligence, and start presenting your case responsibly. You have the resources but lack the objectivity.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I provided you with the methodology from the Cook et al paper; you ignored it.

You provide but are unable to analyze and explain. This is why professional writing -- whether it be science, history, law, or other complex subject areas -- use footnotes to cite authority which supports their analysis. Not the other way around.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The Cook study represents the exact sort of misrepresentation & manipulation that leads to the distrust and conspiracy theories on the other side.

Yes the "97%" has been abused. By the pro side for treating it like it's ALL "climate scientists", by the anti side as "the exact sort of misrepresentation & manipulation" and evidence of a conspiracy to mislead.

Don't wave away reality as strawmen. What metric would be acceptable to assess the "consensus"? The approach taken by the Cook study starts to look rational when you consider this seriously. But you're only looking for threads to pull to make your position more plausible. Favour us again with your rationalization for why the pro AGW finding is so widely endorsed by all the scientific institutions and bodies that have reviewed it.

But you're going to have to stop ignoring all of these scientists before your silly Spencer, Spencer, Spencer argument has any credibility.

The Spencer, Spencer, Spencer thing is ALL YOU. There isn't a giimmer of daylight between your position and his, and he's just about the only expert you ever seem to cite... in the few times you do give cites.

I've provided a very simple and straightforward argument. If there are other "natural" explanations for some or all of the CO2 or warming... where are they? If they aren't there, then you have to work with the hypothesis that has the most evidence in support and fits best.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You provide but are unable to analyze and explain. This is why professional writing -- whether it be science, history, law, or other complex subject areas -- use footnotes to cite authority which supports their analysis. Not the other way around.

The Cook methodology has been explained to you in plain English; you ignored that too.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Ignoring" the 831 who endorse IPCC AR5 is hardly consistent with my frequent acknowledgments that the weight of the scientific evidence supports the IPCC position. Stop producing strawmen and insulting peoples' intelligence, and start presenting your case responsibly. You have the resources but lack the objectivity.

The 831 WROTE AR5. The IPCC findings are specifically ENDORSED by nearly 200 scientific bodies, and DISPUTED by none.

BTW - Stop pretending to be objective; you aren't.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The 831 WROTE AR5. The IPCC findings are specifically ENDORSED by nearly 200 scientific bodies, and DISPUTED by none.

BTW - Stop pretending to be objective; you aren't.

the 831 you say ?

Well they didn't write the AR5 they just provided evidence within their terms of reference to match the AR5 that the politicians of the ipcc had already written

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes the "97%" has been abused. By the pro side for treating it like it's ALL "climate scientists", by the anti side as "the exact sort of misrepresentation & manipulation" and evidence of a conspiracy to mislead.

Don't wave away reality as strawmen. What metric would be acceptable to assess the "consensus"? The approach taken by the Cook study starts to look rational when you consider this seriously. But you're only looking for threads to pull to make your position more plausible. Favour us again with your rationalization for why the pro AGW finding is so widely endorsed by all the scientific institutions and bodies that have reviewed it.



The Spencer, Spencer, Spencer thing is ALL YOU. There isn't a giimmer of daylight between your position and his, and he's just about the only expert you ever seem to cite... in the few times you do give cites.

I've provided a very simple and straightforward argument. If there are other "natural" explanations for some or all of the CO2 or warming... where are they? If they aren't there, then you have to work with the hypothesis that has the most evidence in support and fits best.

I don't have a "position," other than the ones I've stated from the get-go, and in my view they cannot involve taking a position on one of the several scientific theories because I'm not a scientist. But I also don't fault, chastise, or bully others who do take a position on the science, whether it's to follow the mainstream view or it's to blame all the warming on the sun. But I've certainly never tried to hide my skepticism, but that's increasingly about the credibility of the proponents of the dominant AGW theory rather than the theories themselves. And I don't generally question the credibility of the scientists themselves, so you should stop suggesting this. You should also stop inviting ridicule by suggesting Spencer is the only skeptic when his is one of a myriad of different views that question various aspects of the dominant theory. In my view he simply articulates them well and is outspoken, and so is frequently cited. That this bothers you is not my problem.

We all reach our judgments differently, and bias obviously plays a significant role. But I fail to see how my particular views have any bearing on your (and others) angry & frustrated reactions to them, except to show your unmanaged bias and your extreme intolerance. And more importantly, I fail to see how this is going to achieve the public consensus needed for responsible & conscientious policies.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Cook methodology has been explained to you in plain English; you ignored that too.

I haven't ignored anything, most particularly your manipulations & misrepresentations, the rationale for which escape me since the weight of the evidence favors your position. I fully understand that the Cook "methodology" doesn't result in the "consensus" of scientific opinion that you and your biased sources of information -- upon which you exclusively rely -- have been propagating for years. Your failure to explain what I missed in the "data" or the "methodology" speaks for itself.

Your attempts to transfer responsibility onto me for your own lack of due diligence are transparent and asinine. You are simply motivated by partisanship and ego, and not the science you profess such loyalty to.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The 831 WROTE AR5. The IPCC findings are specifically ENDORSED by nearly 200 scientific bodies, and DISPUTED by none.

BTW - Stop pretending to be objective; you aren't.

OK, the 831 wrote & endorsed. Check. "Disputed by none?" Again misleading. Scientists who disagreed but believed they weren't being heard LEFT the IPCC rather than being ignored. You know this but left it out.

I'm not pretending to be objective. I'm making an effort at a modicum of objectivity. Do you understand the difference?