Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
I don't need to read the papers because Powell's pie chart creates a completely distorted picture of the information described underneath.You have really become a joke, claiming you don't need to know what any of those papers say because you don't like a pie chart.
You don't have to take my word for it. Look at the various posts in this thread where people have claimed that 10,000 researchers "back" or "support" the theory of AGW. According to his own write-up, Powell found no such thing. The comments posted in this thread confirm the pie chart is completely misleading.
Furthermore, to make Groggy happy (since I prefer evidence over claims of a "consensus"), I reluctantly agreed to look into Cook and Doran. Both were useless in their own way, but Cook did confirm (if his assessments are reasonably aligned with reality) that about two-thirds of papers on the matter (approx. 8,000 out of 12,000) expressed no opinion one way or the other.
Assuming Cook is reasonably right -- and recognizing that Powell's pie chart is completely misleading, and his language underneath deliberately vague -- I can draw reasonable conclusions. The "individual papers" argument is a straw man. Given how completely misleading the pie chart is, it is unnecessary to look at the individual papers.
If someone really wanted to know the answer, he/she would survey the researchers with a straight-forward question:
Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause for recently recorded increases in the Earth's temperature?
-- Yes.
-- No.
-- Don't know.
I prefer evidence over surveys and polls. But for those of you who think surveying the climate researchers' views is important, that would give you an appropriate breakdown of responses.
Unfortunately, I suspect you might not like the results. That's probably why the direct question never gets asked (eg., Doran).
Coming from the man who quotes from creationists, I have to laugh a little.Wikipedia? Seriously?
Tell you what, while we're on this betting rant.
I'll give you 4 to 1 that the list of scientific associations supporting the findings of the IPCC on anthropogenic climate change are correct.
I win and you concede that all legit scientific associations back the findings and the consensus backing those findings is through all of scientists, not just the climatologists and you buy a book of my choice, even if it has words with more then three syllables.
You find a false entry for one of their consensus supporting organizations and I'll buy four of your favourite biblical/climate denial books.
Those are my terms, no changes allowed?
Do you accept?
Just admit you were wrong.I don't know. Either way, I don't think it's the kind of thing that will be easily settled in a bet. So my offer is still withdrawn.
You prefer evidence?I prefer evidence over surveys and polls. .
That, sir, is very funny.
You dismiss the IPCC reports, despite them publishing all papers, evidence and data and instead support creationists?
That is really, really funny.
From what I can see, it is Mann who says McIntyre and McKitrick didn't have the correct data.Just admit you were wrong.
Another deliberately misleading falsehood (no wonder you like propaganda websites so much).You prefer evidence?
That, sir, is very funny.
You dismiss the IPCC reports, despite them publishing all papers, evidence and data and instead support creationists?
That is really, really funny.
At no point did I say I support creationists.
In the bet you're referring to, you asked me to name three climatologists who don't back the IPCC's reports. There was nothing in your original "dare" or in the terms of the bet that said anything about me "supporting" the climatologists that I named (and that led to me winning the bet).
As for the evidence, I do not "dismiss" it. As previously stated, I fully accept the evidence that shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong. I accept those results without reservation. I'm not the one posting "adjusted" predictions that were completely changed after the facts were known.
And you don't see me trying to find "footnotes" to get out of the other bet.
Probably McIntyre and McKitrick fudged it to make it look like they had the data.From what I can see, it is Mann who says McIntyre and McKitrick didn't have the correct data.
Yes you did. You named a creationist as a 'legit scientist'.Another deliberately misleading falsehood (no wonder you like propaganda websites so much).
At no point did I say I support creationists.
That's supporting creationism, not dismissing it as a foolish religion that thinks the world is only 6,000 years old.
You cited a creationist as your example of a legit scientist.
Hmm, then you off the rail by imagining it was possibly the wrong data. You have not shame.Actually, it looks like Mann's research was made available, after all (I actually didn't know if it had or not):
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Groggy should have taken the bet. Too bad -- the offer is withdrawn.
Update: Actually, I can't figure out what went on. It looks like Mann had an assistant provide data, but it may not have been the correct data. As far as I can tell, Mann did not provide the computer codes (similar to his 2005 statement that the code was his intellectual property and he didn't have to release it). Page 59 and on:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=97H...cintyre and mckitrick get mann's data&f=false
So maybe I was right.
I don't know. Either way, I don't think it's the kind of thing that will be easily settled in a bet. So my offer is still withdrawn.
OR
Are incredibly desperate.
Anyone who uses at least half a brain knows that the important part of any wiki reference is at the end where the primary sources are listed. Feel free to check them out.Wikipedia? Seriously?
Oh, I forgot you don't need to read primary sources, you just know.
From what I can see, it is Mann who says it was the wrong data.Hmm, then you off the rail by imagining it was possibly the wrong data. You have not shame.
Another propaganda tactic.Yes you did. You named a creationist as a 'legit scientist'.
The definition of "legit" that you and I agreed to was that the named climatologists had to be employed and conducting research at recognized universities. That was the agreed-upon definition, and it was what I responded to (thus, winning the bet).
There was nothing in your "dare" or in the terms of the bet that said anything about me supporting the climatologists that I was asked to name.
Thank you for confirming that you still think creationists are legit scientists.]
The definition of "legit" that you and I agreed to was that the named climatologists had to be employed and conducting research at recognized universities. That was the agreed-upon definition, and it was what I responded to (thus, winning the bet).
There was nothing in your "dare" or in the terms of the bet that said anything about me supporting the climatologists that I was asked to name.
This confirms how worthless your opinion is.
Did you buy global warming for idiots yet?
I did read Powell's trash propaganda.Oh, I forgot you don't need to read primary sources.
I didn't read the papers he listed, because there was no need. It was already proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Powell's post was complete trash.
Actually, I find it surprising that you keep arguing for trash propaganda over scientific evidence. Is that honestly how you feel?
Thanks for confirming -- repeatedly -- that you're an unrepentant liar.Thank you for confirming that you still think creationists are legit scientists.
And you still lost the bet, you big baby.
It really shows how little you understand about science that you still think creationism is science.Thanks for confirming -- repeatedly -- that you're an unrepentant liar
And you still lost the bet, you big baby.
Maybe you should start at this site first, then see if you're ready to work up to a whole book.
http://tiki.oneworld.net/global_warming/climate_home.html
I did read Powell's trash propaganda.
I didn't read the papers he listed, because there was no need. It was already proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Powell's post was complete trash.
Actually, I find it surprising that you keep arguing for trash propaganda over scientific evidence. Is that honestly how you feel?
Still haven't posted 'why' you think Powell's analysis is propaganda just that it is. I wonder why, not really
No, your repeated lies about me supporting creationism only shows your extreme desperation. And nothing more.It really shows how little you understand about science that you still think creationism is science.
Here it is again.Still haven't posted 'why' you think Powell's analysis is propaganda.
Here's the link: http://www.jamespowell.org/
Powell's post (on principle, I refuse to call it "research" or dignify it with any other language that suggests it has merit) did a search of 10,885 articles that he said were peer reviewed. In his judgment, only two articles "rejected" anthropogenic global warming.
What did the rest say? We have no idea.
Powell said the 10,885 articles were ones "with" topics or keyword phrases such as "global warming," "global climate change" and "climate change." No further details are provided regarding content.
The obvious questions for Powell are:
-- How many of the articles "with" references to the climate were clearly addressing anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to changes in the climate that may have occurred through natural variants?: He doesn't say.
-- How many articles specifically support the premise of anthropogenic global warming?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that do support the premise, how many indicate that they believe the affect on the climate is significant enough to be a concern?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that support the premise, how many (if any) provide any evidence or valuable research into the matter: He doesn't say.
What can we conclude from this? Absolutely nothing.
However, his misleading pie chart creates the deliberately false illusion that there is some type of "consensus," when the content of his post shows he has found no such thing.
---
If someone really wanted to know the answer, he/she would survey the researchers with a straight-forward question:
Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause for recently recorded increases in the Earth's temperature?
-- Yes.
-- No.
-- Don't know.
I prefer evidence over surveys and polls. But for those of you who think surveying the climate researchers' views is important, that would give you an appropriate breakdown of responses.
Unfortunately, I suspect you might not like the results. That's probably why the direct question never gets asked (eg., Doran).
Does that mean you retract the name of your creationist as one of your three trustworthy, legit climatologists who are deniers?No, your repeated lies about me supporting creationism only shows your extreme desperation. And nothing more.
I note that you are refusing to take the bet that there was even one credible scientific association that were deniers even after you claimed the wiki page listing them was faulty.
So now you have to claim that wiki page is wrong, this study was wrong, the other three or four studies were wrong, all 10,000 IPCC scientists fakers and your creationist is the only one who really knows the truth.
You argument gets worse every day.
If you read any of them you would know the answer. By this time, after making the claim, if had it been false someone in the denier camp would have said so and why they said so. Have anyone, besides yourself said so?Here it is again.
Here's the link: http://www.jamespowell.org/
Powell's post (on principle, I refuse to call it "research" or dignify it with any other language that suggests it has merit) did a search of 10,885 articles that he said were peer reviewed. In his judgment, only two articles "rejected" anthropogenic global warming.
What did the rest say? We have no idea.
Powell said the 10,885 articles were ones "with" topics or keyword phrases such as "global warming," "global climate change" and "climate change." No further details are provided regarding content.
The obvious questions for Powell are:
-- How many of the articles "with" references to the climate were clearly addressing anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to changes in the climate that may have occurred through natural variants?: He doesn't say.
-- How many articles specifically support the premise of anthropogenic global warming?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that do support the premise, how many indicate that they believe the affect on the climate is significant enough to be a concern?: He doesn't say.
-- Of those that support the premise, how many (if any) provide any evidence or valuable research into the matter: He doesn't say.
What can we conclude from this? Absolutely nothing.
However, his misleading pie chart creates the deliberately false illusion that there is some type of "consensus," when the content of his post shows he has found no such thing.
---
If someone really wanted to know the answer, he/she would survey the researchers with a straight-forward question:
Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause for recently recorded increases in the Earth's temperature?
-- Yes.
-- No.
-- Don't know.
I prefer evidence over surveys and polls. But for those of you who think surveying the climate researchers' views is important, that would give you an appropriate breakdown of responses.
Unfortunately, I suspect you might not like the results. That's probably why the direct question never gets asked (eg., Doran).
It's a survey of the evidence,
