Ocean acidifcation .

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Exile

I agree with all of this. My concern, however, is that there are preordained outcomes which may or may not be consistent with the actual science, and the best way to safeguard against this is to insure that the skeptics are not hindered in engaging in a free and fair scientific debate. In science, that means the same access to publications and peer review, and a commensurate level of funding for research.

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'll let John Oliver comment on false equality/balance.....

Most people have heard of beta-blocker medications for blood pressure and for heart problems. One of the mechanisms by which they work is to reduce the heart muscle's ability to squeeze as tightly (per given amount of stimulation, e.g. by adrenaline).

40 years ago if a physician suggested that people with weak heart muscles should be given a beta blocker...the physician's understanding of basic grade 5 science, not to mention plain basic common sense, would be seriously questioned. Back then, to give a patient with a weak heart muscle a beta blocker would be considered frank malpractice. So then some more science happened and it was discovered that beta blockers significantly prolongs survival in people with heart failure for reasons that are intuitive (common sense) to people nowadays. We're all familiar with similar anecdotes in history and our professional lives.

So if John Oliver had the same skit done in 1985 on the beta blocker subject, he'd have 97 "don't give 'em beta blocker" docs yelling at 3 "um, I think beta blockers makes sense" outliers. The skit wasn't done, but a lot of people died earlier than they should have because of the 97%rs. There's something to be said about the need for the 97%rs to sincerely scrutinize, amongst themselves, the detailed narrative of the 3%rs. History suggests that when such considerate scrutiny is not done by the 97%rs, then the narrative of the 97%rs is unlikely to stand the test of time, probably in the manner that the 3%rs predicted (or wanted).

Otherwise, this CC debate here is to me what TV was to Mick Dundee:
https://youtu.be/w58ikKrXDjI?t=112

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Peer reviewed, so therefore no need to also cite the lengthy critiques of the process used to come up with the 97-99% "consensus." The same process that included leading skeptics such as Roy Spencer within this same "consensus." You can look it up on Google Scholar and cite it along with, or you can continue to engage in not very credible propaganda.

Since you have never made any attempt to "cite the lengthy critiques of the process used to come up with the 97-99% "consensus" you comment lacks any merit.

Cook et al DOES NOT include Spencer in the consensus.

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326...91datafile.txt

Please provide one database from a consensus study that shows Spencer in the consensus.

Failure to do so moves you from cynic to liar.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the use of red at 270k is an intentional misleading attempt . The average person automatically associates red with heat so they use perception to their advantage
You know that its true .

I guess you are an average person. 50% of the population is smarter than you.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I would love to actually see the terms of reference for this study .

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=bsta

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=bsta

really not worth paying for .

But I bet the first question was
Do you believe in climate change?
Anyone that says no is just wrong and we all know it
Wether the temps go up or down over a period of time it is climate change .

Then I wonder if there were any additional questions
They got the info they wanted that supports their opinions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really not worth paying for .

But I bet the first question was
Do you believe in climate change?
Anyone that says no is just wrong and we all know it
Wether the temps go up or down over a period of time it is climate change .

Then I wonder if there were any additional questions
They got the info they wanted that supports their opinions.

Wrong as usual.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Since you have never made any attempt to "cite the lengthy critiques of the process used to come up with the 97-99% "consensus" you comment lacks any merit.

Cook et al DOES NOT include Spencer in the consensus.

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326...91datafile.txt

Please provide one database from a consensus study that shows Spencer in the consensus.

Failure to do so moves you from cynic to liar.

There's a definite advantage to being Google's favorite CC website. Yes, none other than . . .

https://skepticalscience.com/97-perc...sus-robust.htm

"Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.

When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus."

IOW, and among other problems that have been repeatedly pointed out about the Cook "survey," over 2/3 of published papers written by ?? numbers of scientists were never even included in the "consensus." After all the criticism, you must truly be drowning in your own bias. Either that or you can't remember which of your many websites & blogs you've posted in. Either way, the Cook study deceptively misrepresents that it includes 97-99% of all climate scientists. Only the most extreme partisans continue to buy into that one.

Spencer himself testified before the US Congress that he would have been included as part of the "97-99% consensus" because he has published studies which agree with the core but indeterminate opinion that human CO2 is responsible for "some" amount of the warming (that he believes is inconsequential). So I suppose Spencer is not only a liar and a creationist, but guilty of perjury too. You really should try and restrain your personal attacks if you want other people to treat you similarly.

Why do you think that merely copying & pasting the same material time & again will make it any more credible or persuasive?

P.S. Your link did not work.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Spencer himself testified before the US Congress that he would have been included as part of the "97-99% consensus" because he has published studies which agree with the core but indeterminate opinion that human CO2 is responsible for "some" amount of the warming (that he believes is inconsequential).
P.S. Your link did not work.

Was he included as you claim? Provide a database that includes him. Otherwise STFU.

Cook et al does NOT include him.

The link works for me. It is a text file.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are not going back far enough. For 800,000 years natural forces, primarily Milankovitch cycles, created a Goldilocks world in which CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm.



Home sapiens evolved and their food crops were domesticated in that atmosphere.

The Holocene optimum occured 8000 years ago and the earth began to cool. That ended abruptly when we started to use fossil fuels and dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere raising CO2 levels from 285 to the current 410 ppm. Using carbon isotope analysis that nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.



Short term cycles such as solar cycles would also have us cooling. Despite newhaul's assertions we are still warming.



Natural cycles USED to dominate; they do not do so anymore.

Time & again I've asked you what sort of consensus underlies this theory, and time & again you've simply cut & pasted the exact same material without responding. Are you even capable of discussion, or do you just serve to dish out whichever "science" suits?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong as usual.

then instead of saying your bs prove me wrong.
Instead of flapping your keyboard

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus."

.

Look what you forgot to highlight. They only include those who take a position.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Time & again I've asked you what sort of consensus underlies this theory, and time & again you've simply cut & pasted the exact same material without responding. Are you even capable of discussion, or do you just serve to dish out whichever "science" suits?

I wrote this material myself.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Was he included as you claim? Provide a database that includes him. Otherwise STFU.

Cook et al does NOT include him.

The link works for me. It is a text file.

Spencer testified to it so you need to STFU
I posted the video last year. You even commented on it .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Look what you forgot to highlight. They only include those who take a position.

a position supporting theirs that is

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

then instead of saying your bs prove me wrong.
Instead of flapping your keyboard

Read the methodologies used in the studies. They are not opinion sirveys they are are analyses of published papers.

Here is Cook et al

Abstract
Play Video Download video Download transcript
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024