[Al_U_Card]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-16, 13:49, said:

There are a significant number of articles describing the temperature effects associated with solar radiation, volcanic activity, ENSO changes, orbital variations, etc. But since these do not specifically address AGW, they were excluded from the study. By the way, I was one of the people rating these papers. Interestingly only one of the papers I read directly endorsed AGW. Most were responses to warming, without attribution of the cause, but global warming appeared in the abstract.

From No room at the Inn?

7. Keywords searches may miss the most important skeptical papers.

Keyword searches are more likely to turn up “consensus” papers. Many skeptical papers don’t use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change”: eg Svensmark (1998), Douglass (2007), Christy (2010), Loehle (2009), and Spencer (2011). Were they included? Perhaps they were, but they don’t appear to match the search terms in the methods. These are just a few seminal skeptical papers that might have been missed.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-16, 15:18, said:

From No room at the Inn?

7. Keywords searches may miss the most important skeptical papers.

Keyword searches are more likely to turn up “consensus” papers. Many skeptical papers don’t use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change”: eg Svensmark (1998), Douglass (2007), Christy (2010), Loehle (2009), and Spencer (2011). Were they included? Perhaps they were, but they don’t appear to match the search terms in the methods. These are just a few seminal skeptical papers that might have been missed.

This is hardly newsworthy. The information was not hidden but forthrightly expressed: (enphasis added)

Quote

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

It is quite clear that in this search that 7931 of these papers had no opinion stated, while 3894 papers expressed support of AGW, and 119 rejected or were uncertain about AGW.

How many extra papers of each type (supportive or non-supportive) that were missed due to the search criteria is irrelevant and wildly unlikely to skew the percentages enough to make a difference.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-16, 15:51, said:

This is hardly newsworthy. The information was not hidden but forthrightly expressed: (enphasis added)



It is quite clear that in this search that 7931 of these papers had no opinion stated, while 3894 papers expressed support of AGW, and 119 rejected or were uncertain about AGW.

How many extra papers of each type (supportive or non-supportive) that were missed due to the search criteria is irrelevant and wildly unlikely to skew the percentages enough to make a difference.

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

Speaking of emphasis, wasn't there a 97% consensus already?

The point is that the entire exercise was unable, despite collusion and co-operation, to re-affirm the supposed consensus that man is responsible for the most recent (up to 15 years ago....) rise in global temperatures. Despite [CO2] continuing to rise, that dog appears to be having trouble hunting.

[Al_U_Card]

Further along those same lines:

The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans. No other rating says how much humans contribute to global warming. The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions:

that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).

If we use the system’s search feature for abstracts that meet this requirement, we get 65 results. That is 65, out of the 12,000+ examined abstracts. Not only is that value incredibly small, it is smaller than another value listed in the paper:

Reject AGW 0.7% (78)

Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others, praised by the President of the United States, found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it.

The “consensus” they’re promoting says it is more likely humans have a negligible impact on the planet’s warming than a large one.

More of the same

[Daniel1960]

Here is an interesting take on the politics of global warming:

http://thepointman.w...e-climate-wars/

My only real concern here is that science has taken a hit along with environmentalism.

[Winstonm]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-16, 20:40, said:

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

Speaking of emphasis, wasn't there a 97% consensus already?

The point is that the entire exercise was unable, despite collusion and co-operation, to re-affirm the supposed consensus that man is responsible for the most recent (up to 15 years ago....) rise in global temperatures. Despite [CO2] continuing to rise, that dog appears to be having trouble hunting.

Honestly. This is like claiming 1000 random baseball players were surveyed as to what pitch is most difficult for them to throw, and finding out only 340 pitchers were included in the poll so there were only 340 responses (position players had no opinion) and then saying that because 970 players did not say "curveball" that the 330 pitchers who did say "curveball" shows there is no consensus.

Staggering.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-17, 12:34, said:

Honestly. This is like claiming 1000 random baseball players were surveyed as to what pitch is most difficult for them to throw, and finding out only 340 pitchers were included in the poll so there were only 340 responses (position players had no opinion) and then saying that because 970 players did not say "curveball" that the 330 pitchers who did say "curveball" shows there is no consensus.

Staggering.

Mounting a defense for that piece of crap, of any kind, whatsoever, is what is staggering.

I look forward to actually seeing some study that withstands facile critiques and demonstrates some alarming relationship between global temperature variations and their supposed anthropogenic causes. Thus far, not much of anything to see so we can all move along...

[Al_U_Card]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-May-17, 10:18, said:

Here is an interesting take on the politics of global warming:

http://thepointman.w...e-climate-wars/

My only real concern here is that science has taken a hit along with environmentalism.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, left that organization as it became overrun with individuals willing to sacrifice intelligent environmentalism for alarmist advocacy.

They have done it to themselves and by hitching their wagon to the CAGW scam, they have slowed what progress might have been obtained. Lysenkoism, like McCarthyism, is institutionalized scare-mongering. Anytime you look to the facts, reality rears its head and science is one of the best ways to ascertain them even if it is subject to being hi-jacked by the likes of Phil Jones et al viz:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That web they wove is tangled indeed.

[PassedOut]

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts

Quote

The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming?

The world is paying more attention than ever.

Russia, Canada and Denmark, prompted in part by years of warming and the ice retreat this year, ratcheted up rhetoric and actions aimed at securing sea routes and seabed resources.

Proponents of cuts in greenhouse gases cited the meltdown as proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity.

Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.

For one thing, experts are having trouble finding any records from Russia, Alaska or elsewhere pointing to such a widespread Arctic ice retreat in recent times, adding credence to the idea that humans may have tipped the balance. Many scientists say the last substantial warming in the region, peaking in the 1930s, mainly affected areas near Greenland and Scandinavia.

Some scientists who have long doubted that a human influence could be clearly discerned in the Arctic’s changing climate now agree that the trend is hard to ascribe to anything else.

“We used to argue that a lot of the variability up to the late 1990s was induced by changes in the winds, natural changes not obviously related to global warming,” said John Michael Wallace, a scientist at the University of Washington. “But changes in the last few years make you have to question that. I’m much more open to the idea that we might have passed a point where it’s becoming essentially irreversible.”

And so is the arctic.

[Al_U_Card]

experts are having trouble finding any records from Russia, Alaska or elsewhere pointing to such a widespread Arctic ice retreat in recent times,

Strange, I had no trouble finding scads of them...

Still, we do live in interesting times. A more watery Arctic seems less foreboding despite the alarmist cries of "Canary in a coal mine!" So, weather patterns change some (global sea-ice is reasonably constant so there is that to factor in as well) and Canada gets some more sovereignty issues...(Just what we DON'T need.)

Perhaps our grandchildren will sunbathe on the shores of the Arctic ocean....yeah, right. Until the modelers get their parameters right and can predict something verifiable and accurate (unlike their successive and repeated failures thus far...) I will hold onto my cash and avoid purchasing that northern beach-front property.

[Winstonm]

According to this author, the problem is the method of communicating the message.

Quote

"Scientific consensus" has been the dominant theme of climate communication for the better part of a decade. And cultural polarization over that time has not abated--it has only intensified.

Empirical studies aimed at trying to make sense of this phenomenon have concluded that the reason the public remains divided on “scientific consensus” isn’t that they haven’t been exposed to evidence on the matter but rather that when they are exposed to evidence of what experts believe they selectively credit or discredit it in patterns that reflect and reinforce their perception that scientific consensus is consistent with the position that predominates in their cultural or ideological group.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-26, 10:38, said:

According to this author, the problem is the method of communicating the message.

Interesting article -- thanks for the link.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2013-May-26, 10:54, said:

Interesting article -- thanks for the link.

Welcome. I learned as well. It seems learning to communicate more effectively is the best move. The issue, it seems, is not so much the science but what should our response be that is the defining question.

This may also be of interest.

[Al_U_Card]

From that same interesting article: "I urged my climate law students this month to be advocates and not give up despite all the pessimistic news,"

When "pessimistic" is a euphemism for non-catastrophic, advocacy is not the only other problem after communication. So, good news doesn't mean to focus on real problems but rather to persist in supporting out-dated or disproved ideas. Great, just great.(Unless, of course, he was referring to the well-worn "worse than we thought" meme that is the standard fallback position of the warmists.)

That is where consensus usually takes you. A one-way ride to debility. Just like most other faith-based precepts.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-26, 11:05, said:

Welcome. I learned as well. It seems learning to communicate more effectively is the best move. The issue, it seems, is not so much the science but what should our response be that is the defining question.

This may also be of interest.

Especially since it resumes well the confounding of "climate change" (The climate is ALWAYS changing...) with deleterious anthropogenic effects on global climate. From what I can see, from the repeated and one-way adjustments to the "official" temperature records, the greatest man-made effect appears to be the quality control efforts of the CAGW priesthood. Natural variation and the inherent global climate control mechanisms seem to be doing a pretty good job of negating the human influence on the weather.

[onoway]

I think that part of the issue for people is the initial label "global warming" rather than "climate change". People looked out the window at -20 in September or April and said, "yeah, right". The other things are the lack of interest or leadership by governments who are great at yapping but demonstrate astounding inertia and the questionable suggestions offered about the things people can do, like massive P.R. programs advocating switching to (government subsidized? I have read, don't know this for sure) mercury filled CFL's rather than the much safer LEDs.

Nobody is talking about liquid thorium reactors except possibly China and Japan. Nobody is talking about different methods of agriculture which could have a HUGE impact on carbon emissions. Burning fields in Africa is said to dump a magnitude more carbon into the air every year than all vehicle emission all over the world, and the cutting down of trees everywhere, especially in the Amazon but everywhere else as well makes it worse. Possibly aside from the Amazon, these things are simple to fix, with excellent r.o.i. They don't get press or looked at seriously by governments (again, aside from China who has spent a fair amount of money restoring some of the most degraded agricultural land in the world..successfully) because they aren't sexy and exotic enough?

Speaking as a non scientist, scientists need to stop squabbling about minutae and get with the program. We don't need more debate about who's to blame, we need to get solutions proven to restore waterways and habitat underway fast and then we need some very good marketters to get the public on board. We don't need exotic nonsense like trying to invent weird solutions which may cause more problems than it arguably might sort of partially solve. The way to sequester carbon is right here in trees and soil. Take care of that, which will also help address the coming crisis in water supplies, and focus on seriously investigating other forms of energy. K.I.S.S.

[Al_U_Card]

 onoway, on 2013-May-26, 14:01, said:

I think that part of the issue for people is the initial label "global warming" rather than "climate change". People looked out the window at -20 in September or April and said, "yeah, right". The other things are the lack of interest or leadership by governments who are great at yapping but demonstrate astounding inertia and the questionable suggestions offered about the things people can do, like massive P.R. programs advocating switching to (government subsidized? I have read, don't know this for sure) mercury filled CFL's rather than the much safer LEDs.

Nobody is talking about liquid thorium reactors except possibly China and Japan. Nobody is talking about different methods of agriculture which could have a HUGE impact on carbon emissions. Burning fields in Africa is said to dump a magnitude more carbon into the air every year than all vehicle emission all over the world, and the cutting down of trees everywhere, especially in the Amazon but everywhere else as well makes it worse. Possibly aside from the Amazon, these things are simple to fix, with excellent r.o.i. They don't get press or looked at seriously by governments (again, aside from China who has spent a fair amount of money restoring some of the most degraded agricultural land in the world..successfully) because they aren't sexy and exotic enough?

Speaking as a non scientist, scientists need to stop squabbling about minutae and get with the program. We don't need more debate about who's to blame, we need to get solutions proven to restore waterways and habitat underway fast and then we need some very good marketters to get the public on board. We don't need exotic nonsense like trying to invent weird solutions which may cause more problems than it arguably might sort of partially solve. The way to sequester carbon is right here in trees and soil. Take care of that, which will also help address the coming crisis in water supplies, and focus on seriously investigating other forms of energy. K.I.S.S.

Exactly. At present, the bankers/corporate greens like the carbon-credit/carbon exchange/ inefficient alternate energy sources etc. because it is a bureaucrat's dream and laden with difficult-to-trace ways to divert funds and direct conflict-of-interest investments into highly (taxpayer) subsidized industries. (Britain is the poster-child for idiotic greening of their economy, as their fuel is soon to run out...).
Thorium reactors are not a proven profit-center for the big uranium suppliers so....resistance there.
Scientists MUST be able to clearly elucidate the "effects" of our actions (as best they can, under the circumstances) WITHOUT becoming advocates and being able to accept uncertainty and scepticism, as science always demands.
Under the current scare-tactics, we are being sold a bill-of-goods and that money should be going to effective and efficient improvement in our society and way-of-life, as opposed to the green-machine and its corporate/banking buddies.

[Winstonm]

There appears to be a pattern (in these pages) of justifying political ideology via the mechanism of disputing the science involved in climate change. When understood from that viewpoint, the disputes are better understood.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-May-26, 19:20, said:

There appears to be a pattern (in these pages) of justifying political ideology via the mechanism of disputing the science involved in climate change. When understood from that viewpoint, the disputes are better understood.

Change political ideology to environmental activism and accept that:
-claiming consensus
-refusing to debate
-failing to match real observations with positions held on faith (models)
-stigmatizing opponents with dehumanizing epithets
-relying on emotional appeals (grand-kids etc.)
are all signs of group-think and tribalism. They are exhibited by all proponents of CAGW (and its recent,supposedly more palatable, offshoots).

This is why the supposed support for climate catastrophism (or even global climate effects over the last 2 decades) is so easy to refute. It is neither factual nor realistic, just like its adherents.

[mike777]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-May-26, 20:21, said:

Change political ideology to environmental activism and accept that:
-claiming consensus
-refusing to debate
-failing to match real observations with positions held on faith (models)
-stigmatizing opponents with dehumanizing epithets
-relying on emotional appeals (grand-kids etc.)
are all signs of group-think and tribalism. They are exhibited by all proponents of CAGW (and its recent,supposedly more palatable, offshoots).

This is why the supposed support for climate catastrophism (or even global climate effects over the last 2 decades) is so easy to refute. It is neither factual nor realistic, just like its adherents.

again Al I don't see what you see given your last sentence and main point.

I just see that we don't know how urgent the problem is, but we agree there is a problem.

I hope the problem is not urgent which means we have time to innovate.

If the problem is urgent then all known solutions are drastic and very bad, hurtful..