'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

You are still wrong about Cook

And they are not legal threats - just a statement of what is reality - and you do not have to be a resident of Australia BTW

Enjoy the so called "freedom" of the internet it will not last long a lot of people are starting to get very very peeved with those who deliberately spread misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Australia

It is not a threat - consider it part of your education

 

And you stated, "Good Ratio". Ratio of what? It was not a ratio but a sample.

That is not a strawman that is an irrefutable fact, it is explicitly stated in the title,

"900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"

You seem to be very confused about what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is a distorted (made-up) position that someone else did not hold. The term is not being applied to the author's of the papers but to skeptic arguments.

Are you in denial?

Everything I have stated is an irrefutable fact not misinformation as opposed to what you have stated about the list.

What part of I don't care about your laws do you not understand?

Have fun trying your nonsense in the United States.

 

More Ad Hominems.

Attacking the source rather than the argument.

Same old sh*t from you, just another day...

 

Do Ad Hominem attacks ever end with you?

I have posted several links showing the monetary bliss your side is having in all of this as well, but you don't see me making that the basis for my side of the discussion.

 

You understand there is a reason the Vickings named Greenland "Green"Land, right?

The IPCC position is at odds with the findings of many other scientists. For example, research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] “A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.”

...The red-herring: the MWP was not global, therefore it doesn’t count.

The problem: the warming of the “official” CO2 era (1970s-1990s) was not global either.

Recent Global? Warming

Global warming is not global. The following figure shows the global temperature change from 1978 to 2006 for the lower troposphere from UAH satellite data [http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg]. The warming is a northern hemisphere phenomenon – particularly in the Arctic.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/MWP_Globality.htm

 

So this truthful information will be more well known,

The Truth about Skeptical Science

 

And by the looks of it about the only ones that are truly sceptical papers alarm or no alarm

I am not confused - the straw man is the that scientific papers spread alarm about AGW. In truth very few scientific papers could be called alarmist because that is not how to phrase issues in academia

For it not to be an straw man you would have to prove rather than simply stating that there is significant alarmism in the first place

Or should I go around all those sites that are "misrepresenting" that list as a list of papers rebutting climate change and correct them? I know that from now on I will tell anyone quoting your list that it only is about "alarmism" not a rebuttal to climate change itself

No doing what you are doing old boy - being specific. John Cook might have been and might still be getting some income from cartooning but that does not mitigate the fact that currently he is

http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

UQ has acknowledged the work Cook is doing. And whatever you say about him Cook runs an academically sound site. The points are referenced, and acknowledged and nothing is taken out of context or misrepresented

Unlike that list of "900 papers"

Glad you think you are in an unassailable position

Me? I am sitting back watching the floodgates opening - it is not going to start in climate science though - it will start on the vaccine denialist sites

As for your "irrefutable facts" just stating something does not make it an "irrefutable fact"

 

This is incorrect there are hundreds of papers on the list that are explicitly skeptical of ACC/AGW Alarm. Just to name a few, all the hundreds of papers from authors: Balling, Carter, Christy, Douglas, Goklany, Idso, Legates, Lindzen, Loehle, Khandekar, McIntyre, McKitrick, Michaels, Scafetta, Singer, Spencer, Soon and Svensmark are all explicitly skeptical of ACC/AGW Alarm.

You are correct that is a strawman argument, a new one you just created. The list makes no claim that alarmist arguments are only spread by scientific papers. Alarmist claims can come from anywhere in the media, including but not limited to the Internet. In the cases of the Internet they are not random people but well-known activists, environmentalists or journalists.

This is very easy to prove. Do skeptics exist who consider consider certain positions by ACC/AGW proponents alarming?

Please do but make sure to get it right. As the "list" is not a rebuttal to anything, it is a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. The list does include peer-reviewed papers that explicitly argue against ACC/AGW.

Not "might", irrefutably was and is a cartoonist. His meaningless and silly anointed "title" does not change this irrefutable fact. It is not surprisingly that a left-wing liberal University would endorse a cartoonist's website.

No he doesn't, he runs an alarmist fanboy site that censors all dissenting opinion. It is an irrefutable fact that they have taken things out of context and misrepresented them,

Skepticalscience.com quote surgery on Pat Michaels (Shub Niggurath Climate, January 18, 2012)

Name the paper on the list that is not peer-reviewed and does not support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Make sure to reference the Heartland Institute,

Vaccine Fearmongers Exposed (Heartland Institute, September 13, 2011)

But I did not just state it, I provided irrefutable evidence using the Wayback Machine as Mr. Cook has deceptively tried to hide this information from his readers. These are now screen captured for safe keeping,

The Truth about Skeptical Science

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science



The truth will now be known, John Cook is irrefutably a cartoonist and is not a climatologist or scientist.

 

Still, you must accept that some scientists felt their inclusion on the list misrepresented their work.

Yeah what I should've said was: So it stands that many of the studies on the list still agree with AGW.

 

You really do not comprehend this. If a scientist makes a false claim about something, that does not make it true. I accept that some scientists have made strawman arguments about why their paper was included which had nothing to do with why they actually were. They are entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to misrepresent the list based on untrue claims.

Some of the papers on the list support the existence of an anthropogenic influence on the climate which is irrelevant to the fact that these same papers support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm.

 

Ironically you seem to be the one lacking comprehension. I made a simple, true statement. See this quote by Professor Peter deMenocal.

""I've responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print.

"I've asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I've never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well ... and all want their names removed."

There is no strawman here. He simply feels his work is being misrepresented by being included on a skeptics list....Perhaps he doesn't realize the list is specifically trying to refute 'alarmism'.

THe point is you cannot cite this list as evidence of a refutation of AGW or that there are a large number of skeptics/skeptical studies because many of the studies/authors are in agreement about AGW happening. If anything this list shows how little scientific support the denialists really have.

 

Please quote the original email and question that was sent to Professor Peter deMenocal to which you quoted his response. The fact that he claimed Dennis Avery's list was "similar" (which is absolutely false) clearly shows he did not read the clear wording on the list if he read it at all. This has already been responded to,

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

It is inaccurate to represent his paper in support of the skeptic argument that the MWP happened and it was global not regional? It is not a "skeptics" list, it is a list of peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW Alarm. Are you claiming he is illiterate?

You certainly can cite the list as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed papers that refute AGW. You cannot cite the list as only including these papers. It is absolutely false that many of the studies/authors on the list are in agreement about AGW.

Please get your facts straight.

 

Yep, you certainly struggle with comprehension. Why is it I need to repeat myself a hundred times before you guys read the entire thing?

"He simply feels his work is being misrepresented by being included on a skeptics list....Perhaps he doesn't realize the list is specifically trying to refute 'alarmism'."


This is fair enough and proves that what I said was correct and justified.

Also, you assume too much about what deMenocal meant by 'similar'. I took that as meaning a list that advocates climate skepticism. Which is correct.

What's your point? They admit they don't know what the question was. Why do you put so much into their baseless conjecture? Of course they are going to make a statement along those lines.

Huh? Why do you guys have such ridiculous logic. Missing a single word on the end of a sentence does not qualify you as 'illiterate' and I never said he did for sure. Using that logic you are illiterate.

You also have missed the point entirely. For the third time read this: He simply feels his work is being misrepresented by being included on a skeptics list

That is all I said. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and twist my position.

Dude, you said it yourself. The list is arguing against climate alarm. I'm looking at the papers and most of them DO NOT refute AGW.

 

They don't have to state outright that they refute AGW, they simply offer Science that does that all on its own.

 

Yes, but a lot of them don't do that at all. There is also no section at all on climate sensitivity. Simply put, to think this list refutes AGW is wrong. It refutes alarmism.

 

The actual papers I can find disagree with you. I'll point you to three of them. In return, I'd like to see your sources that say outward IR flux is up in the CO2 band, while downward IR flux is decreasing. (I hope you have actual papers, and not just claims from denialist websites.)

----
Less outward IR flux in the greenhouse gas bands:

http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servle...0001000164000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present
Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries
Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

"Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate."

----
More downward IR flux:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
K. Wang & S. Liang
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D19101, 12 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009JD011800

Abstract:
In this article, we first evaluate two widely accepted methods to estimate global atmospheric downward longwave radiation (L d ) under both clear and cloudy conditions, using meteorological observations from 1996 to 2007 at 36 globally distributed sites, operated by the Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD), AmeriFlux, and AsiaFlux Projects. The breakdown of locations is North America (20 sites), Asia (12 sites), Australia (2 sites), Africa (1 site), and Europe (1 site). Latitudes for these sites range from 0° at the equator to ±50°; elevation ranges from 98 to 4700 m, and six different land cover types are represented (deserts, semideserts, croplands, grasslands, forests, and wetlands). The evaluation shows that the instantaneous L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with an average bias of 2 W m−2 (0.6%), an average standard deviation (SD) of 20 W m−2 (6%), and an average correlation coefficient (R) of 0.86. Daily L d under all-sky conditions is estimated with a SD of 12 W m−2 (3.7%) and an average R of 0.93. These results suggest that these two methods could be applied to most of the Earth's land surfaces. Accordingly, we applied them to globally available meteorological observations to estimate decadal variation in L d . The decadal variations in global L d under both clear and cloudy conditions at about 3200 stations from 1973 to 2008 are presented. We found that daily L d increased at an average rate of 2.2 W m−2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration.

----
And again, more downward IR flux.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006)

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

 

True, and like I have said often, bring it on. Warming would make more land arable and be more beneficial to mankind. Maybe not to real estate agents, but that is incidental.

 

I've read it and it is not accurate. His "feelings" are based on a strawman argument.

There is nothing to assume, I am very familiar with Avery's list which explicitly states,

The List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares

The title specifically targets scientists while the 900 list specifically targets skeptic arguments.

Why is the original email and the question he was asked not in the article by the carbon brief? My statements are not baseless.

It is not just missing a single word explicitly stated in the title but also missing reading the extensive notes preceding the list,

Your argument that he was not aware of this either means he is careless or incompetent. Which one is it?

Why does he believe his papers are included in the list? You can prove me wrong at anytime by providing this information.

That is not what I said. The list is not arguing against anything because it is not a theory or a unified argument. It is a resource that includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm.

Most of the papers you have looked at (imaginary number) do no refute (defined by you) AGW (defined by you).

 

There are many papers on the list refuting alarmist positions on climate sensitivity.

 

It would give you more credibility if you'd just once show evidence for such a thing, instead of claiming it without evidence over and over.

That is, please show us your peer-reviewed indicating the gain of arable land in cold areas outweighs the loss of arable land in warm areas. Make sure it takes into account that both soil and sunlight are necessary to grow crops. For example, most of northern Canada is either bedrock or bog muck on top of bedrock, neither of which is conducive to agriculture.

Oh, also take into account the problems of moving food from where the population is not to the places where the now starving populations are.

 

Sorry but if you rely on peer reviewed papers from the global warming community, you will come up short.

Instead of relying on men in white coats being paid for their work, look at the historical records. In the past, the northern hemisphere used to be much friendlier to plants and animals. In fact, during the beginning of this Holocene period, it was warm enough to grow grasslands in Iceland and forests on the barren islands of Scotland. During the same period, the equatorial regions were not much different than they are now. Warming benefits the extreme northern and southern hemispheres.

Since we are in a 2.5 million year ice age (look it up), this mild Holocene, more than likely, will end with glaciation, which will be much worse for mankind than warming.

Warming is beneficial, cooling is not. Change is the only constant.

 

We don't need studies to show this...

The REAL WORLD has shown it quite nicely over the last century or so.

Empirical data trumps all else.

 

All science is either Physics or stamp collecting. Climate change is indeed rather conclusive to what degree mankind has on the climate is far from conclusive.