Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

a position supporting theirs that is

Profoundly wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

You have no evidence, you have his supposition.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

Here is Cook et al



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

different link than originally posted.
Seems that only those that believe in agw were counted so there is question 1 and that's all they looked for .

You are unwittingly being a part of for the MMGWC upper echelons ( you actually believe your rhetoric) well it is wrong.

Btw we are cooling .....:-):-):-):-):-)

[Exile]

Yes, STFU is always preferable for someone who is incapable of intelligent discussion or debate, and of course who's ego & conceit cannot tolerate being challenged. I hope you keep this up for everyone's education.

In relevant part, here's what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Exile

The same process that included leading skeptics such as Roy Spencer within this same "consensus."

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.

I never claimed Spencer nor any other scientist's name literally appeared on any list which I wasn't even aware existed. The point is that any scientist who published any study which agreed that CO2 played any role in GW was part of Cook's bogus "consensus." You can either play games or play it straight. It's your credibility not mine that's on the line.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have no evidence, you have his supposition.

I believe what I heard him say under oath.

Btw we are cooling...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile View Post

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."

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

Exactly! And I went ahead and highlighted your repeating it just to be sure! THE COOK SURVEY EXCLUDES SCIENTIFIC PAPERS WHICH DON'T TAKE A POSITION AND SO CANNOT REPRESENT 97-99% OF THE POSITIONS OF SCIENTISTS.

See it now?

[Exile]

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?

Originally Posted by jackdale

I wrote this material myself.

Congrats. You must keep a hefty file of your "own" work.

You're almost there. Now all you have to do is reach into your file and tell us how much of the scientific community believes that, but for AGW, the earth would be in a cooling cycle right now thanks to the Milankovich cycle?

Hint: I'm pretty sure it's a minority view but I'll wait for the upload.

Nothing wrong with a minority view when it comes to science. Unless you're representing it as THE science. Then it's misleading, and when repeated again & again it becomes deceitful.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unless it was tongue-in-cheek, Gord requested an attempt at objectivity. Nobody is under the illusion that "dispassionate skepticism" will be achieved. You responded with your usual biased & unsupported assertions which only represent, at best, part of the science. Why do you think this is responsive or persuasive?

Well, let's see...

Yes, a long-term warming trend that encompasses the industrial revolution appears to be uncontroverted. Let's stick to global averages as the Arctic is subject to polar amplification and thus higher temps -- but that's exactly why you cited it, right?

I cited it because the Arctic is getting f#@ked up - permafrost melting, roads and foundations disintegrating, hunting and fishing messed up. It won't be getting better any time soon. Guess those poor bastards didn't get your memo about adaptation.

You need a specific page cite to the IPCC report which says the warming trend is abnormal/aberrant, or whatever language is used.

Seriously? The hell I do. Scientists don't join together to lean on the UN to set up the IPCC because Prof Frink over there forgot to mention that hey, it might be natural after all.[/QUOTE]
There must be skepticism over the extent of any aberration or there'd be little basis for skepticism within the science itself. [QUOTE]
... you're getting warmer.

It's either CO2 or its natural forces, the same ones which caused countless previous cycles of warming & cooling the past 10,000 years. This is some sort of red herring you've cooked up yourself since I don't think even Skeptical Science is silly enough to come up with such nonsense. They do, after all, have to retain some semblance of credibility to fund their PayPal account.

Well...

• have previous "natural" cycles manifested in the same way: anywhere near the same speed and magnitude of CO2 increase, same rate of warming in the last 10,000 years? Noooo...
• has there been a massive increase in CO2?... Yes...
• can increased CO2 cause warming? ... Yes...
• is there warming? ... yes?

Connect the dots. I won't deny that something this large and complex is going to have uncertainties, and not 100% buy-in (97% is pretty good though), but those are tweaks and fine tuning; the main idea has stood up: AGW. None of the handful of skeptics have dealt it a death-blow, or come up with a viable alternative, let alone any sort of alternative consensus.

Oh, and keep peoples' personal religious beliefs out of it.

I have zero doubt about Dr Spencer's competence and diligence in his field. None. When it comes to geological records, ancient life-forms, evolution, speculating about CO2 buildup and warming - stuff outside of his field that butts up against Creationism... I have doubts.



Maybe you could lean on someone else for a while... give the poor guy a rest. Surely there's an equally qualified and quotable skeptical scientist who hasn't signed onto the Cornwall Alliance?

What's even more remarkable is that you and others still put the blame elsewhere for not being able to win over adherents to your transparently biased views.

You must be referring to "others"; I DGAF about "winning over adherents". Just calling out BS.

But why respond forthrightly when you can just silence the discussion by getting the thread closed down? It does frustrate and anger YOU after all. Isn't that enough justification all on its own?
All of this begs the question: Why is even an attempt at reasonably objective, respectful adult discourse so frightening to you?

Hard to say. There hasn't been a one here yet, when it comes to CC. Why does CF need to be a scratching post for bored CC deniers?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile View Post

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."



Exactly! And I went ahead and highlighted your repeating it just to be sure! THE COOK SURVEY EXCLUDES SCIENTIFIC PAPERS WHICH DON'T TAKE A POSITION AND SO CANNOT REPRESENT 97-99% OF THE POSITIONS OF SCIENTISTS.

See it now?

Of the papers that take a position, 97% are congruent with the consensus.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I believe what I heard him say under oath.

Btw we are cooling...

At 3:40 Spencer says he is part of the 97%. The Cook et al database says he is wrong.

https://youtu.be/Aou-mBhoeuE

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Of the papers that take a position, 97% are congruent with the consensus.

BINGO! We finally have a winner!! But what the Cook study does NOT say is that 97-99% of all climate scientists concur with the IPCC consensus. So why do you and most other adherents continue to say it?!

Another perfect example of the dangers of group think, bias confirmation, and all the other distortions & manipulations that have infected this entire area of science. Lay aside the ego and open yourself up to a bit of critical thinking. It doesn't hurt, I promise.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

At 3:40 Spencer says he is part of the 97%. The Cook et al database says he is wrong.

https://youtu.be/Aou-mBhoeuE

And the Cook criteria for inclusion in the consensus says he is RIGHT!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I never claimed Spencer nor any other scientist's name literally appeared on any list which I wasn't even aware existed. The point is that any scientist who published any study which agreed that CO2 played any role in GW was part of Cook's bogus "consensus." You can either play games or play it straight. It's your credibility not mine that's on the line.

yeah... you really need to prove that. Show some counted papers where the correlation is really as tenuous as you're asserting.

Originally Posted by Exile

THE COOK SURVEY EXCLUDES SCIENTIFIC PAPERS WHICH DON'T TAKE A POSITION AND SO CANNOT REPRESENT 97-99% OF THE POSITIONS OF SCIENTISTS.

See it now?

I do. Do you? Exactly as Jack has told you: Of the papers that take a position, 97% are congruent with the consensus. Of course that's not the same as polling every single climate scientist with a single yes/no question. Is that your claim?

But we must also consider the contrary opinions of the scientific bodies and institutions who express disagreement with the conclusions of this consensus and/or the IPCC. Oh wait, there aren't any. Zero.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, let's see...

I cited it because the Arctic is getting f#@ked up - permafrost melting, roads and foundations disintegrating, hunting and fishing messed up. It won't be getting better any time soon. Guess those poor bastards didn't get your memo about adaptation.

Seriously? The hell I do. Scientists don't join together to lean on the UN to set up the IPCC because Prof Frink over there forgot to mention that hey, it might be natural after all.

There must be skepticism over the extent of any aberration or there'd be little basis for skepticism within the science itself.

... you're getting warmer.
Well...

• have previous "natural" cycles manifested in the same way: anywhere near the same speed and magnitude of CO2 increase, same rate of warming in the last 10,000 years? Noooo...
• has there been a massive increase in CO2?... Yes...
• can increased CO2 cause warming? ... Yes...
• is there warming? ... yes?

Connect the dots. I won't deny that something this large and complex is going to have uncertainties, and not 100% buy-in (97% is pretty good though), but those are tweaks and fine tuning; the main idea has stood up: AGW. None of the handful of skeptics have dealt it a death-blow, or come up with a viable alternative, let alone any sort of alternative consensus.

I have zero doubt about Dr Spencer's competence and diligence in his field. None. When it comes to geological records, ancient life-forms, evolution, speculating about CO2 buildup and warming - stuff outside of his field that butts up against Creationism... I have doubts.



Maybe you could lean on someone else for a while... give the poor guy a rest. Surely there's an equally qualified and quotable skeptical scientist who hasn't signed onto the Cornwall Alliance?

You must be referring to "others"; I DGAF about "winning over adherents". Just calling out BS.


Hard to say. There hasn't been a one here yet, when it comes to CC. Why does CF need to be a scratching post for bored CC deniers?

Because sailors are interested in it and the mods (thus far) allow it. Despite your best and most selfish efforts.

We need a cite to our modern warming trend being abnormal/aberrant as compared to pre-industrial warming trends. It's your big assumption, and you are representing it as THE science. I'm not making any assumptions one way or the other. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

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?



Congrats. You must keep a hefty file of your "own" work.

You're almost there. Now all you have to do is reach into your file and tell us how much of the scientific community believes that, but for AGW, the earth would be in a cooling cycle right now thanks to the Milankovich cycle?

Hint: I'm pretty sure it's a minority view but I'll wait for the upload.

Nothing wrong with a minority view when it comes to science. Unless you're representing it as THE science. Then it's misleading, and when repeated again & again it becomes deceitful.

Just for you.

Geophysical Research Letters banner
Research Letter Free Access
Giant natural fluctuation models and anthropogenic warming
S. Lovejoy L. del Rio Amador R. Hébert I. de Lima
First published: 29 July 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070428
SECTIONSePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
Abstract
Explanations for the industrial epoch warming are polarized around the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AW) and giant natural fluctuations (GNFs). While climate sceptics have systematically attacked AW, up until now they have only invoked GNFs. This has now changed with the publication by D. Keenan of a sample of 1000 series from stochastic processes purporting to emulate the global annual temperature since 1880. While Keenan's objective was to criticize the International Panel on Climate Change's trend uncertainty analysis (their assumption that residuals are only weakly correlated), for the first time it is possible to compare a stochastic GNF model with real data. Using Haar fluctuations, probability distributions, and other techniques of time series analysis, we show that his model has unrealistically strong low‐frequency variability so that even mild extrapolations imply ice ages every ≈1000 years. Helped by statistics, the GNF model can easily be scientifically rejected.

And

A new study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California says there can no longer be any doubt that humans are responsible for climate change. Technically, there is a tiny amount of doubt, but the scientists cite statistical analysis showing 99.9999 percent confidence that we’re to blame. This so-called “gold standard” is as close to a guarantee as you’ll get in scientific analysis.

Because of this confluence in scientific understanding, we can now answer the following question: when did a human-caused tropospheric warming signal first emerge from the background noise of natural climate variability? We addressed this question by applying a fingerprint
method related to Hasselmann’s approach (see Supplementary Information 1). An anthropogenic fingerprint of tropospheric warming is identifiable with high statistical confidence in all currently available satellite datasets (Fig. 1). In two out of three datasets, fingerprint detection at a 5σ threshold — the gold standard for discoveries in particle physics — occurs no later than 2005, only 27 years after the 1979 start of the satellite measurements. Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals.Data availabilityAll primary satellite and model temperature datasets used here are publicly available. Derived products (synthetic satellite temperatures calculated from model simulations) are provided at: https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/research/DandA/.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0424-x.epdf?



BTW - my cut and paste is called evidence, a concept about you are clueless. You have never provided a single scintilla of evidence in your cynicism.