Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are you trying to discuss something about which you are totally and profoundly ignorant.

Our recent dialogue, and not your continued insults, speaks for itself. Don't try and distract from your own inability to get beyond your own bias in interpreting the Cook survey. You interpreted it wrong simply because you blindly followed others' wrong interpretations.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Just 39 of those signatories have any expressed expertise in climate science.

really you have already done an actual background on each one personally or are you taking some trained monkeys word for it .

You should read this page before you answer
http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

You have misrepresented what the consensus position is. It is NOT that CO2 has played SOME role. The consensus position is that humans ARE CAUSING global warming.

And Spencer agrees CO2 plays a role, but the role is likely inconsequential. You can parse it any way you want, but the bottom line is that it does NOT represent the opinions of 97-99% of climate scientists. ONLY those who have published papers who take a position, i.e. predominantly those who agree with the basic tenets of AGW.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As a teacher I expected my students to present an informed opinion.

mine is informed and I'm not one of your mini MMGWC followers
I formulate my opinion by researching all sides
Just found yours to be incorrect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

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 most concise graph of this observation has been posted here ad nauseum. It shows NOTHING in recent history to compare with the current CO2 rise or warming. Neither magnitude nor speed.


So, once AGAIN, if you can't point to a comparable natural event happening now, or in the past, it's empty speculation to assert that such is a likely cause now.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I know what the problem is here you don't understand how a good government run by and for the people does things .

Its not a supposition
It is correctly called a deposition. Which is a statement of facts under oath and Penalty of law .
Losing to congress can get you up to 20 years in prison.
Its not like how your loosey goosey system is .

If Spencer was testifying under oath, he perjured himself.

Category
2,Impacts
3,Mitigation
4,Methods
5,Paleoclimate
8,Not climate related
9,Not Peer-Reviewed
10,No Abstract

Endorsement
1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4,No Position
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%

1991,Microwave Sounding Units And Global Warming - Response,Science,Spencer| Rw; Christy| Jr,4,4
1991,Precision Tropospheric Temperature Monitoring 1979-1990,Global And Planetary Change,Spencer| Rw; Christy| Jr; Grody| Nc,4,4
1993,Global Temperature Monitoring From Space,Global Change And Space Observations,Spencer| Rw,4,4
1997,How Dry Is The Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications For Global Warming Theory,Bulletin Of The American Meteorological Society,Spencer| Rw; Braswell| Wd,4,4
2007,Cloud And Radiation Budget Changes Associated With Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations,Geophysical Research Letters,Spencer| Rw; Braswell| Wd; Christy| Jr; Hnilo| J,2,5

All of Spencer references are either 4,No Position or 5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW

The only ones include in the 97% are 1s, 2s, and 3s.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And Spencer agrees CO2 plays a role, but the role is likely inconsequential. You can parse it any way you want, but the bottom line is that it does NOT represent the opinions of 97-99% of climate scientists. ONLY those who have published papers who take a position, i.e. predominantly those who agree with the basic tenets of AGW.

Did you bother to look at Cook's database?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

try again Jacko

Global Warming Petition Project

II) Climatology (39)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Seems to be a perfect example of someone thrashing around for any possible reason to dismiss a majority conclusion. If there truly were a significant number of dissenting climate scientists, and/or a credible alternative hypothesis, don't you think we'd know about it by now?



(cue the conspiracy theories, scientist slagging etc....)

Seems to be a perfect example of yet another strawman of your own creation. I never dismissed the majority conclusion, advanced any conspiracy theories, or slagged any scientists. I only pointed out why the Cook study is completely misleading & bogus despite you, Jack, and so many others accepting it blindly. It supported your preordained conclusions after all, so why question it?

And no, I don't think we'd necessarily "know" about dissenting opinions by now for the same reason you and so many others don't know the Cook study is so misleading, aren't aware of the science behind the skepticism, and are oblivious to why CC is being blamed for every severe storm and other physical events when we've only had 1/1.5/1.8ºC of warming in the past 150 years.

Speaking of, have you found where in the IPCC report you cited it says that our warming trend has been aberrant? If it's as settled as you represent, it shouldn't be very difficult. I'd check Skeptical Science first. It'll be the first to come up anyway.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you bother to look at Cook's database?

I will but I'm busy playing a game of "Where's Waldo?" Why don't you just tell us why you think Cook's database is relevant. If it refutes the obvious fact that the Cook study does NOT represent the positions of 97-99% of all climate scientists then it's NOT relevant. Does it or does it not? You really don't need to cite any more of your "evidence" to answer in your own words.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking of, have you found where in the IPCC report you cited it says that our warming trend has been aberrant? If it's as settled as you represent, it shouldn't be very difficult. I'd check Skeptical Science first. It'll be the first to come up anyway.

I would check an IPCC report.

It is certain that global mean surface temperature (GMST) has increased
since the late 19th century (Figures TS.1 and TS.2). Each of the past three
decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade of the
2000’s has been the warmest.

There is high confidence that annual mean surface warming since the
20th century has reversed long-term cooling trends of the past 5000
years in mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (NH).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...5_TS_FINAL.pdf

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The most concise graph of this observation has been posted here ad nauseum. It shows NOTHING in recent history to compare with the current CO2 rise or warming. Neither magnitude nor speed.


So, once AGAIN, if you can't point to a comparable natural event happening now, or in the past, it's empty speculation to assert that such is a likely cause now.

I must have missed the graph you speak of.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I will but I'm busy playing a game of "Where's Waldo?" Why don't you just tell us why you think Cook's database is relevant. If it refutes the obvious fact that the Cook study does NOT represent the positions of 97-99% of all climate scientists then it's NOT relevant. Does it or does it not? You really don't need to cite any more of your "evidence" to answer in your own words.

You are profoundly intellectually lazy.

Cook database shows that 97% of the published climate scientists who take a position support that view that climate change is due to human activities.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I must have missed the graph you speak of.

You miss a lot.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global Warming Petition Project

your beloved golden boy Michael Mann geologist