Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox's other claim that the anthropogenic vs natural drivers of global warming is quote "hotly contested" is only his opinion - it's not the reality.

Actually what I said was contested in scientific community was the magnitude of the role of CO2 in observed global warming.

Even Mr Cook admits this on his very prominent website."Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up. What they don't agree on is by how much."

I've just realised that NASA Climate have finally watered down thier statement on consensus after being called out for lying. Might make a new post about that. Might be time for CSIRO to do the same thing.

EDIT: sorry, it seems they didn' t change the wording (I think), but only added the references they missed before. I had thought they had actioned this submission calling them out but seems not so much: cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf

Paradox paradox....

You're trying to put words in my mouth and misrepresent what I think and believe/accept in general.

I agree that no one should ever believe something 100% or have blind faith. That's what religion is for.

What I take issue with, is your dismissal of the findings of the bulk of the international scientific community on the subject of what is driving the current warming.

You claim there is hot debate about the science when this is simply false.

You claim that there is just as much evidence to support natural variability as the underlying driver of the current warming - but provide no evidence. Counting numbers of reports is not indicative of a weight of evidence.

So, to make good decisions, government and people need top look at the hard facts and outcomes from policy and that is why our government looks at the facts from reputable and well resourced institutions like the CSIRO, the BOM and the IPCC. They don't listen to opinions like yours because in reality all you're doing to trying to spread doubt about the science.

The truth is a highly subjective thing paradox. Looking at facts, I review all sources and find that respected scientific institutions provide the most comprehensive and trustworthy observations, data, analysis, conclusions and advice. That's why our government is taking action to reduce GHG emissions - whether one agree with the political methods or not.

So far, I haven't seen any facts or science from you to sway me from a broad acceptance that the world's scientific community in general accepts that human GHG emissions are the cause of the bulk of global warming we observe since about 1950.

I'm open to seeing your evidence and facts, supported by reputable sources, that also demonstrate a weight of evidence equivalent or greater than the prevailing science of the day.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You're trying to put words in my mouth and misrepresent what I think and believe/accept in general.

I agree that no one should ever believe something 100% or have blind faith. That's what religion is for.

What I take issue with, is your dismissal of the findings of the bulk of the international scientific community on the subject of what is driving the current warming.

You claim there is hot debate about the science when this is simply false.

You claim that there is just as much evidence to support natural variability as the underlying driver of the current warming - but provide no evidence. Counting numbers of reports is not indicative of a weight of evidence.

So, to make good decisions, government and people need top look at the hard facts and outcomes from policy and that is why our government looks at the facts from reputable and well resourced institutions like the CSIRO, the BOM and the IPCC. They don't listen to opinions like yours because in reality all you're doing to trying to spread doubt about the science.

The truth is a highly subjective thing paradox. Looking at facts, I review all sources and find that respected scientific institutions provide the most comprehensive and trustworthy observations, data, analysis, conclusions and advice. That's why our government is taking action to reduce GHG emissions - whether one agree with the political methods or not.

So far, I haven't seen any facts or science from you to sway me from a broad acceptance that the world's scientific community in general accepts that human GHG emissions are the cause of the bulk of global warming we observe since about 1950.

I'm open to seeing your evidence and facts, supported by reputable sources, that also demonstrate a weight of evidence equivalent or greater than the prevailing science of the day.

"the bulk of the international scientific community"
Still waiting on your source....

Oh yes, it's just "common knowledge". We don't need sources for something everyone just *knows*, like a broadcast divine revelation.

A religion, you say...huh. Funny you should mention that...

Hard facts *is* what we need, backed up by citations to the actual studies rather then just "common knowledge". Cos we know how well that sort of decision making turns out...

I don't think any amount of facts and data would sway you from your assumptions.

I mean, I've done your job for you and provided the source of the "bulk of the international scientific community" statement, and you don't appear to get what it actually says.

You can see that it's an analysis of studies on climate change, not a poll of "the International scientific community". Do non-climate scientists actually get a say in this -- they need "10 plus years in the field" to be qualified to even comment, I hear...

"the truth is highly subjective"
Say what now? LOL

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You claim there is hot debate about the science when this is simply false.

And yet I have provided a clear example that even Cook admits this is true on the Skeptical Science website. I can only provide so much.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You claim that there is just as much evidence to support natural variability as the underlying driver of the current warming - but provide no evidence.

I provided clear evidence from a reliable source that an underlying warming trend started well before CO2 had an influence and the influence of that warming trend can't be dismissed. I also showed you a CO2 graph that I beleive disproved your assertion that CO2 warming started in 1800. I have also provided factual data from reliable sources that the science clearly shows the direct greenhouse effects of CO2 alone can't explain the warming we have seen. This is why there is debate over the magnitude role of CO2 in observed warming, not that its not contributing. Again I can only provide so much.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
They don't listen to opinions like yours because in reality all you're doing to trying to spread doubt about the science.

Challenging hypothesis with facts is not "opinion". If challenging a hypothisis with facts and a logical argument is spreading doubt, then 100% yep, especially if others believe a hypothisis is true. It's called the scientific method and it meant to stop people from accepting flawed or incorrect hypothesis, no matter how entrenched the support is. Shutting down logical debate goes against science. If you disagree with a debate point you counter it with another. If you can't do that then you either accept it or just admit you are unsure. It's not hard.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
So far, I haven't seen any facts or science from you to sway me from a broad acceptance that the world's scientific community in general accepts that human GHG emissions are the cause of the bulk of global warming we observe since about 1950.

And that is perfectly fine, you are not alone. I think my statements and arguments are solid, but I don't require you to accept them.

You're obsessed with Cook aren't you? I'll let you stew over Cook ......

The underlying trend you refer to was very weak until 1950 when GHG's started to spike. I don't expect you to accept the solidity of that observation and logical inference.

You're still yet to provide any evidence that supports your theory that there is quote "hot debate" about the anthropogenic contribution to warming observations since the middle of last century. I don't expect much to materialise from you in this regard because this so called "debate" tends to come from fossil fuel stooges and spin doctors. People with links to fossil fuels, dodgy think tanks and propaganda organisations.

I think your statements and arguments are very carefully constructed indicating a very high level of intelligence however, that doesn't make them balanced, accurate or back-able by any valid evidence. They look shiny but underneath there's no substance or evidence.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said.."the bulk of the international scientific community"
Still waiting on your source....

Oh it's the IPCC....you know.....the communists backed by most governments, who are secretly trying to mislead the entire world in order to bringing about the One World Government!

Them, they.....

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You're obsessed with Cook aren't you? I'll let you stew over Cook ......

Because Cook et al is the source of "97% of".

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Oh it's the IPCC....you know.....the communists backed by most governments, who are secretly trying to mislead the entire world in order to bringing about the One World Government!

Them, they.....

Ok, so provide the link.

The rest of that waffle is straw man nonsense LOL get a grip, provide a citation. "Easy" you said.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..Because Cook et al is the source of "97% of".

holy guacamole said..
You're obsessed with Cook aren't you? I'll let you stew over Cook ......

Yes. Never said I agreed with that claim. That's a straw man argument definition. That's what AGW deniers like you do all the time. It's core business.

I accept the mainstream science that demonstrates how the warming we observe from about 1950 is largely due to anthropogenic GHC emissions. If you have some other data, observations or assessments that demonstrate otherwise please, feel free to share.

I don't rate the protestations of fringe fossil fuel stooges in my own research and assessments of the reality.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Oh it's the IPCC....you know.....the communists backed by most governments, who are secretly trying to mislead the entire world in order to bringing about the One World Government!
Them, they.....

Ok, so provide the link.
The rest of that waffle is straw man nonsense LOL get a grip, provide a citation. "Easy" you said.

You're also obsessed with straw men.

The IPCC has lots of reports and links. You can do your own research. It might actually open your eyes a bit.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Yes. Never said I agreed with that claim. I accept the mainstream science, not the protestations of fringe fossil fuel stooges.

Wha-aaat? Why even post it and declare it an authoritative statement on the consensus of international science then? LOL

You don't agree with the mainstream view, but you accept the mainstream view.

No wonder you're confused about what I think, you don't even understand what you think

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You're obsessed with Cook aren't you? I'll let you stew over Cook ......

Not particularly, I am merely providing references that you will be comfortable with. If I quoted a source you viewed as flawed becuase it was from a "denier" with some other agenda you will just dissmiss it irrespective of it's accuracy. So I use Cooks mob at Skeptical Science a lot.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
The underlying trend you refer to was very weak until 1950 when GHG's started to spike. I don't expect you to accept the solidity of that observation and logical inference.

Lets look at the graph again. I agree there is a strong warming trend since about 1970. Yes there is correlation with that trend and significant increasing CO2 from about 1940 and we know that CO2 has the possibilty to warm the atmosphere. However there was also an almost equally strong increasing trend from 1910 to 1940 (very small amount of additional CO2 at that time), which continued an ongoing longer term trend from around 1810. This is a short amount of data in the scheme of things, but the reality is that no one can say what the trend might have been with no additional CO2, but more importantly you cannot dissmiss the posibility that much of this trend is and extention of a warming movement that started naturally 200 years ago.


A simple regression line on the data would suggest that the natural warming pattern prior to 1970 would account for all but 0.5deg of observed warming to date. It's crude and highly error prone but it does match roughly with the 1 deg of warming per doubling of CO2 a lot of scientists suggest is the maximum we can expect.

The graph also highlights that the rate of warming we are seeing is strong, but it's not unprecedented even in the last 200years. One could also argue the 95% uncertainty areas indicate we are not even 100% sure that it wasn't this warm in the late 1700's.

No one is saying CO2 isn't contributing, but because we don't know its magnitude, we must also consider a large portion of the trend could be natural. The point is there is an equally plausible hypothesis that competes with the CO2 influence hypothesis, and there is no evidence to definately say one or the other is dominant and that is why there is debate and uncertainty. We dont know.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
You're still yet to provide any evidence that supports your theory that there is quote "hot debate" about the anthropogenic contribution to warming observations since the middle of last century. I don't expect much to materialise from you in this regard because this so called "debate" tends to come from fossil fuel stooges and spin doctors. People with links to fossil fuels, dodgy think tanks and propaganda organisations.

Once again, ive posted a link to Skeptical Science that admits there is debate and uncertainty over the magnitude of the influence of CO2. If they admit it then you would have to be inclinded to beleive them as it works against thier cause. As CO2 is hailed as the biggest contributer to AGW then by association AGW contribution is debated.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Oh it's the IPCC....you know.....the communists backed by most governments, who are secretly trying to mislead the entire world in order to bringing about the One World Government!
Them, they.....

Ok, so provide the link.
The rest of that waffle is straw man nonsense LOL get a grip, provide a citation. "Easy" you said.

You're also obsessed with straw men.

The IPCC has lots of reports and links. You can do your own research. It might actually open your eyes a bit.

Stop trying to build straw men then. You have no idea what I think, you're just leaping to conclusions and spewing out erroneous twaddle because I want to see a citation for a very specific statement you rely on heavily to prop up your position (whatever that actually is LOL).

That's it. It's a simple point, easily addressed, but you keep flailing around with nonsense about fossil fuels, organizations, one world governments and other such nonsense.

Just ... post the link that backs up that statement about "the International scientific community".

It's an easy job, just a copy and paste. No comments needed, no throwing wobblies about fossil fuels and mysterious organisations LOL

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Yes. Never said I agreed with that claim. I accept the mainstream science, not the protestations of fringe fossil fuel stooges.

Wha-aaat? Why even post it and declare it an authoritative statement on the consensus of international science then? LOL

You don't agree with the mainstream view, but you accept the mainstream view.

No wonder you're confused about what I think, you don't even understand what you think

Oh I'm crystal clear.

As I've explained several times now, placing a percentage support figure against the scientific weighting of individual reports is nonsense. The consensus is still a consensus whether someone decides to put a rating to reports or not. One could argue that Evolution By Natural Selection doesn't have consensus support because some whacko "scientists" from a university funded by evangelists constitutes a desperate and embarrassing "hot debate".

I choose not to listen much to individual fringe "scientists", normally in the paid employ of fossil fuel corporations.

Cook is not a government scientific agency, is not the CSIRO, is not a university and is not the IPCC, all who largely back the consensus.

Drop the obsession with Cook and you might get somewhere.

Does this make sense?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Oh I'm crystal clear.

As I've explained several times now, placing a percentage support figure against the scientific weighting of individual reports is nonsense. The consensus is still a consensus whether someone decides to put a rating to reports or not. One could argue that Evolution By Natural Selection doesn't have consensus support because some whacko "scientists" from a university funded by evangelists constitutes a desperate and embarrassing "hot debate".

I choose not to listen much to individual fringe "scientists", normally in the paid employ of fossil fuel corporations.

Cook is not a government scientific agency, is not the CSIRO, is not a university and is not the IPCC, all who largely back the consensus.

Drop the obsession with Cook and you might get somewhere.

Does this make sense?

Oh it's the rating of a report now #rolleyes Cook didn't do that, why are you?

I'm not disputing Cook et al's results, he presented them clearly and concisely.

I'm not promoting "fringe" scientists. I've not brought them up at all, that seems to be your area of concern. I'm ignoring them and focusing on the source of the consensus, not trying to dispute it.

If you drop "the obsession" with Cook and those papers that looked for consensus on the cause of AGW, then you have zero evidence for the claim of consensus by "the international scientific community". Cook is pretty much THE source of that statement, certainly one of the original papers.

Unless of course you have another citation to drop on us, from your extensive research...?

The CSIRO (I assume #rolleyes), the IPCC, and NASA all cite the Cook paper as the basis of their claim for the consensus of "the International scientific community".

Surely you can see why Cook is important. In case you missed it -- without Cook's meta-analysis, you have no basis from which to claim consensus. At any level.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Yes. Never said I agreed with that claim. That's a straw man argument definition. That's what AGW deniers like you do all the time. It's core business.

I accept the mainstream science that demonstrates how the warming we observe from about 1950 is largely due to anthropogenic GHC emissions. If you have some other data, observations or assessments that demonstrate otherwise please, feel free to share.

I don't rate the protestations of fringe fossil fuel stooges in my own research and assessments of the reality.

Since you changed your post since Iquoted it, I'll readdress it...

You've no evidence that I'm a "denier" and it's unrelated to my point --that's a straw man. My point being solely that the source of your statement about what "the international scientific community" thinks needs to be cited. The source, not people quoting it.

The science of how climate change works IS NOT what we're talking about -- we're talking about the source that supports what consensus amongst "the international scientific community" is. That's moving the goal posts.

Not the point, that's a red herring.

Red herrings and straw men.....sigh.

I don't believe anyone's ever had to do a survey of meta data on the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection either, because it's generally accepted as the best and most robust theory. Very little seems to disagree with it.

It seems that climate change gets some people really worked up to the point where they look furiously for dissenting views that attempt to portray the mainstream view as "hotly debatable", when it's actually quite obvious in this case from the observations and analysis what's driving the warming - there being an almost complete absence of observations explaining where this alleged significant phantom natural warming is coming from.

For example, the CSIRO models this stuff with supercomputers fed with datasets from the BOM and other observations.
When they input AGHG's the model aligns with the observations.
When they omit the AGHG's the model disagrees with the observations and we get the very shallow trend line paradox refers to in the long term temperature graph.

Are you claiming the CSIRO and BOM's input parameters, methodologies or datasets are erroneous?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Red herrings and straw men.....sigh.

I don't believe anyone's ever had to do a survey of meta data on the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection either, because it's generally accepted as the best and most robust theory. Very little seems to disagree with it.

It seems that climate change gets some people really worked up to the point where they look furiously for dissenting views that attempt to portray the mainstream view as "hotly debatable", when it's actually quite obvious in this case from the observations and analysis what's driving the warming - there being an almost complete absence of observations explaining where this alleged significant phantom natural warming is coming from.

For example, the CSIRO models this stuff with supercomputers fed with datasets from the BOM and other observations.
When they input AGHG's the model aligns with the observations.
When they omit the AGHG's the model disagrees with the observations and we get the very shallow trend line paradox refers to in the long term temperature graph.

Are you claiming the CSIRO and BOM's input parameters, methodologies or datasets are erroneous?

Stop doing it then!

Oh no you can't -- another red herring.

Not looking for a dissenting view. Shifting the goal posts.

Unrelated to "the international scientific community" consensus statement. Not interested in going there, sorry.

Don't care, that's yet another red herring.



All I want is the source for that statement. That's it. It's so simple, why can't you do that?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..
Red herrings and straw men.....sigh.

I don't believe anyone's ever had to do a survey of meta data on the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection either, because it's generally accepted as the best and most robust theory. Very little seems to disagree with it.

It seems that climate change gets some people really worked up to the point where they look furiously for dissenting views that attempt to portray the mainstream view as "hotly debatable", when it's actually quite obvious in this case from the observations and analysis what's driving the warming - there being an almost complete absence of observations explaining where this alleged significant phantom natural warming is coming from.

For example, the CSIRO models this stuff with supercomputers fed with datasets from the BOM and other observations.
When they input AGHG's the model aligns with the observations.
When they omit the AGHG's the model disagrees with the observations and we get the very shallow trend line paradox refers to in the long term temperature graph.

Are you claiming the CSIRO and BOM's input parameters, methodologies or datasets are erroneous?

Stop doing it then!

Oh no you can't -- another red herring.

Not looking for a dissenting view. Shifting the goal posts.

Unrelated to "the international scientific community" consensus statement. Not interested in going there, sorry.

Don't care, that's yet another red herring.



All I want is the source for that statement. That's it. It's so simple, why can't you do that?

FFS can we just say cook doesn't exist, Oreskes doesn't exist and that latest report that said 99% of scientist doesn't exist .......OK?????!!!

I don't know why I've decided to be part of this conversation, but here is a final quote from a paper...
"...Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

from www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.long

yes, according to this it is only 97-98% of a certain population of scientists- those who are most actively participating in the field of climate research by publishing papers- but it seems like a pretty good indicator regardless.

Yes. It's only controversial amongst anthropogenic climate change deniers.

I suspect the fossil fuel companies accept the scientific assessment of the situation, which is why they're so desperate to fill the airwaves with lies and misinformation.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
FFS can we just say cook doesn't exist, Oreskes doesn't exist and that latest report that said 99% of scientist doesn't exist .......OK?????!!!

Then there's no consensus, is there? Jesus you're dumb.

Select to expand quote

Beersy said..
I don't know why I've decided to be part of this conversation, but here is a final quote from a paper...
"...Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

from www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.long

yes, according to this it is only 97-98% of a certain population of scientists- those who are most actively participating in the field of climate research by publishing papers- but it seems like a pretty good indicator regardless.

'The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community,"' but it still seems like a good assessment of what researchers in the field actually think ie. humans are very likely causing most global warming.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Anderegg,_Prall,_Harold,_and_Schneider,_2010

Still not "the international scientific community" though is it, holy guacamole? And why can't you provide a single citation for any of your nonsense?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Yes. It's only controversial amongst anthropogenic climate change deniers.

I suspect the fossil fuel companies accept the scientific assessment of the situation, which is why they're so desperate to fill the airwaves with lies and misinformation.

it seems that to deniers it's their big gotcha moment but to everyone who accepts the science it's a very, very ........VERY!!!! inconsequential.

Somehow Mr COOK has become a demon for deniers and his work must be destroyed and with it's destruction the whole facade of GW will come crashing down.

In reality Cooks work really is a side show.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Beersy said..
I don't know why I've decided to be part of this conversation, but here is a final quote from a paper...
"...Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

from www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.long

yes, according to this it is only 97-98% of a certain population of scientists- those who are most actively participating in the field of climate research by publishing papers- but it seems like a pretty good indicator regardless.

'The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community,"' but it still seems like a good assessment of what researchers in the field actually think ie. humans are very likely causing most global warming.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Anderegg,_Prall,_Harold,_and_Schneider,_2010

Still not "the international scientific community" though is it, holy guacamole? And why can't you provide a single citation for any of your nonsense?

sorry but it is.

Select to expand quote

log man said..

holy guacamole said..
Yes. It's only controversial amongst anthropogenic climate change deniers.

I suspect the fossil fuel companies accept the scientific assessment of the situation, which is why they're so desperate to fill the airwaves with lies and misinformation.

it seems that to deniers it's their big gotcha moment but to everyone who accepts the science it's a very, very ........VERY!!!! inconsequential.

Somehow Mr COOK has become a demon for deniers and his work must be destroyed and with it's destruction the whole facade of GW will come crashing down.

In reality Cooks work really is a side show.

Well yes deniers need something don't they, because the generally accepted science is not controversial amongst the general/international/respected scientific community...
The only thing they've got is playing word games.
Ya can't even quote the CSIRO without being lashed by hysterical semantics Nazis. Sheesh.

Select to expand quote

Beersy said..
I don't know why I've decided to be part of this conversation, but here is a final quote from a paper...
"...Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

from www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.long

yes, according to this it is only 97-98% of a certain population of scientists- those who are most actively participating in the field of climate research by publishing papers- but it seems like a pretty good indicator regardless.

This interestingly enough is one of the Papers NASA Climate now use to bolster thier 97% claim, even though the paper itself says it is not actually representative. People who believe the 97% consensus should read the below.

When a study that sets out to establish a consensus on something issues a clarification that:

"Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all [those convinced by the evidence] versus all researchers [unconvinced by the evidence]."

Which effectively renders the entire paper meaningless, and you would want to be a bit suspicious of exactly what they did to have to admit that.

If you are interested...... they "randomly" (not) selected two groups of scientists.

Group A was 903 members made up (over 60%) of IPCC Wroking group authors plus some other prominant scientists known to back IPCC claims.

Group B was 472 scientists that had publically challenged IPCC conclusions, noting that a significant amount of known authors that fall into this category were excluded from this list (no reason given and many of them publishing scientists)

They then arbitrarily removed all members of the groups that had not published more than 20 papers (why??). Group A still had 90% of its members, Group B had 10% remaining. They then applied thier categorisation and miraculously came up with the magic 97% number.

There was nothing but pure manipulation to achieve the result. The only thing that can be reasonably taken from the study is that IPCC authors mostly have more than 20 published papers and those IPCC Authors agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Take that as you will, but this is the sort of thing that sets off alarm bells. This paper is so obviously meaningless it should have been withdrawn and no fair and reasonable scientist or organisation should be refering to it. If anyone wants a good example of why many people mistrust what they are being told, this is an excellent example. Papers like these taint every other good paper.

OK so now you're back on the 97% of agreeing papers discussion, but ignoring the real issue, the substance of the scientific work...

That is: greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are largely driving the observed warming since about 1950.

Again, if you have ANY EVIDENCE to support your theory that natural causes are a prominent or considerable factor in the observed warming, share these peer reviewed papers with us paradox.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
OK so now you're back on the 97% of agreeing papers discussion, but ignoring the real issue, the substance of the scientific work...

That is: greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are largely driving the observed warming since about 1950.

Again, if you have ANY EVIDENCE to support your theory that natural causes are a prominent or considerable factor in the observed warming, share these peer reviewed papers with us paradox.

...well thats the thing isn't it. Again you need to comprehend what I am saying. I can't provide that just as you or anyone else can't provide evidence or peer reveiwed papers that prove CO2 is the dominant cause.

There are no papers or science that prove either CO2 or natural causes are the predominant cause of observed warming. If there was there would be no debate. They are both unproven hypothesis. ie we don't know because our climate and atmosphere is far too complex for us to understand what exactly is going on.

All we can do is observe the things we can measure - temperature and CO2 levels, draw conclusions and put forward hypothesis of what we think MIGHT be happening. There are plenty of papers and models that attempt to support each hypothesis, and plenty that attempt to refute each hypothesis but none that prove either.

Thats all my point is, we don't know, we are only having educated guesses. It seems reasonably established through my reading (yes mine so just opinion) that most (not all) scientists acknowedge both CO2 and natural warming are influencing temperatures. The relative contribution is the problem.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
OK so now you're back on the 97% of agreeing papers discussion, but ignoring the real issue, the substance of the scientific work...

That is: greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are largely driving the observed warming since about 1950.

Again, if you have ANY EVIDENCE to support your theory that natural causes are a prominent or considerable factor in the observed warming, share these peer reviewed papers with us paradox.

...well thats the thing isn't it. Again you need to comprehend what I am saying. I can't provide that just as you or anyone else can't provide evidence or peer reveiwed papers that prove CO2 is the dominant cause.

There are no papers or science that prove either CO2 or natural causes are the predominant cause of observed warming. If there was there would be no debate. They are both unproven hypothesis. ie we don't know because our climate and atmosphere is far too complex for us to understand what exactly is going on.

All we can do is observe the things we can measure - temperature and CO2 levels, draw conclusions and put forward hypothesis of what we think MIGHT be happening. There are plenty of papers and models that attempt to support each hypothesis, and plenty that attempt to refute each hypothesis but none that prove either.

Thats all my point is, we don't know, we are only having educated guesses. It seems reasonably established through my reading (yes mine so just opinion) that most (not all) scientists acknowedge both CO2 and natural warming are influencing temperatures. The relative contribution is the problem.

FFS!!!!