News Scientists jumping off the warming train

[Skyhunter]

Yet another fact of AGW ripped apart.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

Surely the band wagon has run out of road.

I assume here that the specious argument presented in that ill informed opinion piece you are declaring a "ripped apart fact" is a response to the cover story in Nature magazine.

How this is construed as discussion of the AGW politics is beyond me. Since when are ad hominem attacks and red herring arguments a discussion of politics?

Here is what she says about MBH 98/99

This shoddy research was subsequently torn apart so comprehensively that it has been called the most discredited study in the history of science

I am sure that someone has called it that so technically she is not lying.

After examination by the http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html" at the request of Congress the conclusion was:

There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report. There is less confidence in reconstructions of surface temperatures from 1600 back to A.D. 900, and very little confidence in findings on average temperatures before then.

She also declares that the IPCC has "quietly dropped" the reconstruction from it's assessment. An outright lie. Since it is right there in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf" on page 476 with eleven other reconstructions that also have a hockey stick shape.

Is this the PF standard?

Are the rants of right wing lunatics now considered to be objective media coverage?

 

[mheslep]

...

Here is what she says about MBH 98/99

I am sure that someone has called it that so technically she is not lying.

After examination by the http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html" at the request of Congress the conclusion was:

She also declares that the IPCC has "quietly dropped" the reconstruction from it's assessment. An outright lie. Since it is right there in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf" on page 476 with eleven other reconstructions that also have a hockey stick shape.

Is this the PF standard?

Are the rants of right wing lunatics now considered to be objective media coverage?

Knock off the blather. The Spectator piece, in that it refers to the dropping of MBH 98/99 work published in the 2001 IPCC, is correct. The 'hockey stick' graph of MBH 98/99 has indeed been dropped from IPCC 2007. MBH 98/99 was displayed as http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/005.htm" in the 2001 IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the MBH 98/99 plot no longer appears there, or anywhere else in the 4th assessment, nor should any reconstruction found to have 'very little confidence' over most of its range (before 1600AD). MBH 98/99 obliterated the medieval warming period. Figure 6.13/2007 returns the medieval warming; Mann 2005, significantly different from MBH 98/99, is only one of the data series plotted there.

 

[Skyhunter]

Knock off the blather. The Spectator piece, in that it refers to the dropping of MBH 98/99 work published in the 2001 IPCC, is correct. The 'hockey stick' graph of MBH 98/99 has indeed been dropped from IPCC 2007. MBH 98/99 was displayed as http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/005.htm" in the 2001 IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the MBH 98/99 plot no longer appears there, or anywhere else in the 4th assessment, nor should any reconstruction found to have 'very little confidence' over most of its range (before 1600AD). MBH 98/99 obliterated the medieval warming period. Figure 6.13/2007 returns the medieval warming; Mann 2005, significantly different from MBH 98/99, is only one of the data series plotted there.

Is the entire work of MBH98/99 reduced to one chart?

And why does http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-10.jpg" still say MBH99 if it is not included?

Next assessment they may replace it with http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg" but currently it is included and even discussed in the IPCC Fourth assessment.

So I ask again, is this Spectator piece the standard here for objective journalism?

 

[Evo]

So I ask again, is this Spectator piece the standard here for objective journalism?

While I personally don't care for the tone of it, factually, it is correct. I'm pending a decision on replacing it with just the facts from the article, but with the server acting up, that's going to have to wait.

 

[Skyhunter]

While I don't care for the tone of it, personally, it is factually correct.

How can you say that?

MBH99 is cited and discussed in the IPCC Fourth assessment report.

Proxy-based reconstructions of temperature
Reconstructed Location Of Proxiesc
Series Period Season Region H M L O Reference
JBB..1998 1000–1991 Summer Land, 20°N–90°N y y o o Jones et al., 1998; calibrated by Jones
et al., 2001
MBH1999 1000–1980 Annual Land + marine, 0–90°N n n y y Mann et al., 1999
BOS..2001 1402–1960 Summer Land, 20°N–90°N n y o o Briffa et al., 2001
ECS2002 831–1992 Annual Land, 20°N–90°N y y o o Esper et al., 2002; recalibrated by Cook
et al., 2004a
B2000 1–1993 Summer Land, 20°N–90°N y o o o Briffa, 2000; calibrated by Briffa et al.,
2004
MJ2003 200–1980 Annual Land + marine, 0–90°N y y o o Mann and Jones, 2003
RMO..2005 1400–1960 Annual Land + marine, 0–90°N n n y y Rutherford et al., 2005
MSH..2005 1–1979 Annual Land + marine, 0–90°N y y y y Moberg et al., 2005
DWJ2006 713–1995 Annual Land, 20°N–90°N n y o o D’Arrigo et al., 2006
HCA..2006 558–1960 Annual Land, 20°N–90°N y y o o Hegerl et al., 2006
PS2004 1500–2000 Annual Land, 0–90°N y n o o Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; reference
level adjusted following Moberg et al.,
2005
O2005 1600–1990 Summer Global land y n o o Oerlemans, 2005

Right there it is in the http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf" . How can you say the article is factually correct when I have just demonstrated an outright falsehood?

Since when is an ad hominem attack against the scientists considered valid argument?

Steig et al is a robust well received reconstruction of Antarctic temperature for the last fifty years. The claim that this study overturns some consensus that Antarctica is cooling is also preposterous. They did not make up data. They use satellite data calibrated to the AVHRR data to extrapolate temperature in grids that do not have surface stations. The method is not new and the results are not unexpected.

Because the SH is warming slower than the NH (a function of geography) And Antarctica even less, (a result of ozone depletion) the deniers have twisted this into an argument for global cooling and other specious arguments. This study takes away another denialist talking point, so they disparage the character of the scientists with these op-ed's. I would expect that the more sophisticated consumers of information on this forum would not be so easily duped by what is an obvious hit piece.

I guess this is just a demonstration of the power of a confirmation bias.

 

[Evo]

Mann's Hockey stick has been soundly debunked.

I know that you get most, if not all of your information from the global warming meetings you previously mentioned that you attend, but you really should look at the most current data, obviously the information those people hand out is biased, eh? There is truth on both sides, the real truth, somewhere in the middle.

I think you should give this a read to put things into perspective. It's from 2006, but still holds true.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

 

[Skyhunter]

Mann's Hockey stick has been soundly debunked.

When did the practice of debunking scientific research in op-eds begin?

I know that you get most, if not all of your information from the global warming meetings you previously mentioned that you attend, but you really should look at the most current data, obviously the information those people hand out is biased, eh? There is truth on both sides, the real truth, somewhere in the middle.

That is quite a condescending attitude and I think you have me confused with someone else. I do not attend "global warming meetings." I get my information from science journals and dialogue with climate scientists.

I think you should give this a read to put things into perspective. It's from 2006, but still holds true.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

No thank you. If Richard Lindzen has a scientific opinion I can read it in the peer reviewed journals.

MBH99 has not been debunked.

What has been debunked is the lie that it was "quietly dropped by the IPCC."

Thus the premise for your conclusion that "Manns hockey stick has been soundly debunked" has itself been demonstrated to be false, IE debunked.

To argue otherwise is illogical.

Now if you want to parse words you could argue that overconfidence in the results was an exaggeration. But since those statements have been validated by new research it seems a little petty. But that is what you get when you have political enemies attmpting to assassinate your character.

There was also a statistical error discovered that effected the amplitude of the final reconstruction by ~0.05C. This was minor and has been corrected.

Science is self correcting and it progresses. The good news is that Mann undertook to address the reasons the NAS lacked confidence in his earlier results.

The sparseness of proxy data especially in the SH led the NAS to conclude that the statement that the last 2 decades of the 20th century were warmer than any other period in the past millennium, although quite plausible could not be supported with high confidence beyond 400 years.

Mann recently published http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf" that addressed the concerns of the NAS. This reconstruction, along with a dozen or so others confirms that the last two decades of the 20th century are the warmest in 1300 years and the last 1700 years when the tree ring data is included. I would also like to point out that the last 10 years have been warmer than any ten year period of the 20th century.

Maybe you should start getting your information from science journals instead of op-eds in the WSJ.

 

[Moridin]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next

What do you guys make of this?

I am not impressed.

There are more historians denying the Holocaust and scientists supporting intelligent design creationism than the number of scientists dissenting from human induced climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?" by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman

It is perfectly alright to reject the political ideologies from certain climate fanatics that want to reduce so much usage of fuel that it would disrupt the global economy on a huge scale; it is entirely different to reject the science.

But above all else, let us not make the error of mistaking honest debate about details with a controversy about the wider picture. I'm sure that we all reject this line of argument from creationists and Holocaust deniers.

 

[D H]

I am not impressed.

There are more historians denying the Holocaust and scientists supporting intelligent design creationism than the number of scientists dissenting from human induced climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Speaking of not impressed, your argument is pure fallacious reasoning. First and foremost, it is a false analogy (an informal fallacy). Secondly, the cited articles do not support your claim (false attribution). Even if they did support your claim regarding absolute numbers, there are a lot more historians and biologists than climatologists (hasty generalization). The fraction of historians who reject the Holocaust and biologists who reject evolution are very, very small numbers. Thirdly, your argument is a non sequitur and ignores that arguing that a consensus for AGW does not exist is a valid argument against AGW because the AGW bases its claim for validity in part on consensus (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself, appeal to loyalty).

Calling people who dispute AGW "denialists" (post #196) and comparing them to Holocaust deniers (post #208) are an ad hominem attacks, yet another logical fallacy. Calling arguments against AGW "denialist propaganda" (post #196 again) coming from "biased non objective media coverage" (post #200) is "poisoning the well".
To summarize: Stop using logical fallacies. You and Skyhunter have used several fallacies (formal and informal) in the last few posts: false analogy, false attribution, hasty generalization, non sequitur, at hominem, poisoning the well. Not good.

 

[Skyhunter]

Speaking of not impressed, your argument is pure fallacious reasoning. First and foremost, it is a false analogy (an informal fallacy). Secondly, the cited articles do not support your claim (false attribution). Even if they did support your claim regarding absolute numbers, there are a lot more historians and biologists than climatologists (hasty generalization). The fraction of historians who reject the Holocaust and biologists who reject evolution are very, very small numbers. Thirdly, your argument is a non sequitur and ignores that arguing that a consensus for AGW does not exist is a valid argument against AGW because the AGW bases its claim for validity in part on consensus (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself, appeal to loyalty).

Calling people who dispute AGW "denialists" (post #196) and comparing them to Holocaust deniers (post #208) are an ad hominem attacks, yet another logical fallacy. Calling arguments against AGW "denialist propaganda" (post #196 again) coming from "biased non objective media coverage" (post #200) is "poisoning the well".



To summarize: Stop using logical fallacies. You and Skyhunter have used several fallacies (formal and informal) in the last few posts: false analogy, false attribution, hasty generalization, non sequitur, at hominem, poisoning the well. Not good.

If one denies something and then propagates false information in support of their denial what do you call them?

Do you consider telling the lie that one volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than all human activity in a year to be a valid argument against AGW?

Where do you think Noo got the idea that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity?

It was certainly not from the USGS.

And since the topic of this thread is the "consensus" pointing out that there is are more holocaust deniers then AGW deniers is a valid argument about the "consensus". Not an ad hominem attack on AGW deniers.

And if you believe that op-eds, especially op-eds from the Spectator are not biased, then you are very naive.

 

[D H]

If one denies something and then propagates false information in support of their denial what do you call them?

Someone who propagates false information is a liar. You are implying that everyone who doubts the veracity of AGW is a liar, a denialist, whatever. That is at worst naive, more likely intentionally misleading. There are liars on the AGW side of the debate as well. Every time a heat wave hits the US you can find some idiot on the AGW side of the debate who will blame the heat wave on global warming. Does the presence of idiots invalidate the entire argument? Of course not. Similarly, just because some idiot puts out falsehoods regarding volcanic emissions does not invalidate the very real concerns of those who question the validity of AGW.

And since the topic of this thread is the "consensus" pointing out that there is are more holocaust deniers then AGW deniers is a valid argument about the "consensus". Not an ad hominem attack on AGW deniers.

The F it is not. The phrase "AGW denier" is quite derogative and as far as I can tell the label was intentionally chosen to be derogative. That AGW proponents have to resort to name-calling, poisoning the well, ad hominem, non sequitur attacks (and practically every other fallacy, formal and informal, known to man) indicates that their theory is not sound.

 

[Proton Soup]

I am not impressed.

There are more historians denying the Holocaust and scientists supporting intelligent design creationism than the number of scientists dissenting from human induced climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
"Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?" by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman

It is perfectly alright to reject the political ideologies from certain climate fanatics that want to reduce so much usage of fuel that it would disrupt the global economy on a huge scale; it is entirely different to reject the science.

But above all else, let us not make the error of mistaking honest debate about details with a controversy about the wider picture. I'm sure that we all reject this line of argument from creationists and Holocaust deniers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

 

[Skyhunter]

Someone who propagates false information is a liar. You are implying that everyone who doubts the veracity of AGW is a liar, a denialist, whatever. That is at worst naive, more likely intentionally misleading. There are liars on the AGW side of the debate as well. Every time a heat wave hits the US you can find some idiot on the AGW side of the debate who will blame the heat wave on global warming. Does the presence of idiots invalidate the entire argument? Of course not. Similarly, just because some idiot puts out falsehoods regarding volcanic emissions does not invalidate the very real concerns of those who question the validity of AGW.The F it is not. The phrase "AGW denier" is quite derogative and as far as I can tell the label was intentionally chosen to be derogative. That AGW proponents have to resort to name-calling, poisoning the well, ad hominem, non sequitur attacks (and practically every other fallacy, formal and informal, known to man) indicates that their theory is not sound.

A holocaust denier is someone who denies that the Holocaust was real.

An AGW denier is someone that denies that anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are warming the planet. It is just a word and serves to describe the behavior and bias of said deniers. Just because it offends you does not make it an ad hominem attack.

We are not talking about honest skeptics here, we are talking about people producing movies that make the claim one volcanic eruption is > than the total annual human emissions. We are talking about fringe media and op-eds that propagate this and other lies. Like the one cited here that makes the false claim the IPCC dropped MBH99.

The denialist's (by that I mean those who deny AGW) lie about volcanoes, lie about CO2 saturation, and they lied about MBH99.

How many times do you let someone tell you lies before you start to question their statements?

 

[D H]

A holocaust denier is someone who denies that the Holocaust was real.

An AGW denier is someone that denies that anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are warming the planet.

Look at it this way. In general, people tend to resort to name-calling when they don't have any real arguments. Calling people names indicates that the AGW has no clothes. That this name calling comes from the highest levels from the pro-AGW camp makes it doubly so.

Name calling does not help you win arguments. It helps you lose arguments.

It is just a word and serves to describe the behavior and bias of said deniers. Just because it offends you does not make it an ad hominem attack.

Bunk. If it was "just a word" you would not have immediately prefaced your definition of AGW denier with a definition of holocaust denier. Words have meaning. We have long since passed the age where calling people names based on their gender, ethnic descent, or sexual preference was deemed acceptable. Calling people names is not acceptable, ever. What makes you think it is acceptable in this case? It is not.

 

[skeptic2]

http://desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3894

 

[Skyhunter]

I denial is denial. One who denies is a denialist.

If there is a credible argument that refutes the AGW theory then it should be easy to provide it. Until there is one those who claim that human CO2 emissions do not disrupt the geochemical processes that regulate the biosphere are denialists. Since both groups deny empirical evidence the comparison is accurate and relevant. No connection between Nazi's and climate deniers is either stated or implied by my argument.

And BTW, your attack on me is itself an ad hominem since you are ignoring the underlying premise of my argument. MBH99 was not dropped by the IPCC. To claim otherwise is denial of the facts.

 

[D H]

http://desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3894

To those of you on the pro-AGW side of the debate: Please try to step back dispassionately from your views and see how incredibly bad this kind of name-calling makes you look and, by extension, how incredibly weak your arguments must be if your only retort is name-calling. Name-calling is not acceptable in any other form discussion. What makes it acceptable here?

 

[Skyhunter]

To those of you on the pro-AGW side of the debate: Please try to step back dispassionately from your views and see how incredibly bad this kind of name-calling makes you look and, by extension, how incredibly weak your arguments must be if your only retort is name-calling. Name-calling is not acceptable in any other form discussion. What makes it acceptable here?

This is a red-herring.

My argument is that MBH99 has not been debunked or discredited. I proved my argument by demonstrating it's continued existence in the IPCC Fourth Assessment.

Since the argument that MBH99 was debunked is premised on this falsehood. I already won that argument.

You are engaging in a personal attack against me for my use of the term denialist. This is not relevant to the argument and therefore a distraction from the point.

 

[drankin]

What do we call someone who doubts AGW because the data is believed to be unconclusive? Is he/she a denier or should we simply call this person a AGW doubter?

 

[D H]

This is a red-herring.

More bunk. You, Moridin, and skeptic2 started this mess with name-calling and the implication that those who doubt the veracity of AGW studies are Nazis. Now that you have been called on the carpet you claim red herring? Sorry, you started it.

You are engaging in a personal attack against me for my use of the term denialist. This is not relevant to the argument and therefore a distraction from the point.

The distraction comes solely from those who persist in name-calling: You, Moridin, skeptic2, et al. Stop the name-calling and the use of fallacies we can get back to discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Gokul43201]

Look at it this way. In general, people tend to resort to name-calling when they don't have any real arguments. Calling people names indicates that the AGW has no clothes.

That AGW proponents have to...

How's them clothes doing?

I just don't get all this hullabaloo about name calling: I've read blog posts where people call themselves "AGW deniers".

 

[Skyhunter]

What do we call someone who doubts AGW because the data is believed to be unconclusive? Is he/she a denier or should we simply call this person a AGW doubter?

What specific data is inconclusive?

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-2-1-fig-2.jpg"

AGW is based on sound physics not some hypothetical. a doubling of CO2 increases radiative forcing by ~1.2W/m², ~4W/m² when you include short term feedbacks and up to 7W/m² when you figure in the long term feedbacks.

The magnitude of feedbacks and manner in which the climate will respond to this enhanced forcing is a matter of robust debate and intensive research. But to question the underlying soundness of the physics is denial of facts. Of the 650 so called scientists supposedly jumping off the AGW train, I'll wager that only a small percentage of them deny these basic physics. It has been my experience that these psuedo polls grossly misrepresent the opinions of these "scientists."

And DH. I did not start name calling, I have called no one a name, nor have I engaged in personal attacks. Someone who claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans is denying the facts. Calling that claim denialist propaganda is an accurate description of the author of that lie, since the facts are that human emissions are ~150 times that of volcanoes. I did not call Noo, you, or anyone else on this forum a name.

However if you believe that volcanoes are responsible for global warming then you can include yourself in that description of one who denies facts.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do we call someone who doubts AGW because the data is believed to be unconclusive?

A climate scientist? Most anyone else is unlikely to be able to tell the difference.

 

[Skyhunter]

A climate scientist? Most anyone else is unlikely to be able to tell the difference.

LOL Good point.

 

[D H]

That AGW proponents ...

How's them clothes doing?

"Proponent" does not, as far as I know, have a negative connotation. If it does, I'll use a different term. I'm not trying to call names. Use of "denialist" does have negative connotations due to that term's very close association with Holocaust Denier (which is a crime in some European countries.)

I just don't get all this hullabaloo about name calling: I've read blog posts where people call themselves "AGW deniers".

The term is intentionally used to give offense. Offense taken. The polite thing to do when someone asks someone else to desist in the use of derogatory terms is to desist in the use of said derogatory terms. Please desist.

Guidelines on Langauge and Attitude:
Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives.

Please treat all members with respect, even if you do not agree with them. If you feel that you have been attacked, and the moderators or mentors have not yet gotten around to doing something about it, please report it using the "Report" button. If you choose to post a response, address only the substantive content, constructively, and ignore any personal remarks.

<Big huge chart>

No need to shout with that oversized graph! (In other words, please shrink images down to a reasonable size before posting. Huge graphics screw up the way VBulletin formats text.)

And DH. I did not start name calling, I have called no one a name, nor have I engaged in personal attacks.

BS. You have done exactly that in posts 196, 210, 213, 216, ...

Someone who claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans is denying the facts.

Fine. So argue with facts, not with names. There is no reason to argue with names when the facts are fully on your side, which they certainly are in this particular case.

 

[Skyhunter]

"Proponent" does not, as far as I know, have a negative connotation. If it does, I'll use a different term. I'm not trying to call names. Use of "denialist" does have negative connotations due to that term's very close association with Holocaust Denier (which is a crime in some European countries.)

The term is intentionally used to give offense. Offense taken. The polite thing to do when someone asks someone else to desist in the use of derogatory terms is to desist in the use of said derogatory terms. Please desist.

I have called no one in this thread a denialist. But if the term offends you from now on I will simply call the authors of such falsehoods liars.

No need to shout with that oversized graph! (In other words, please shrink images down to a reasonable size before posting. Huge graphics screw up the way VBulletin formats text.)

I just linked the chart from the IPCC. I don't know how to shrink their chart.

BS. You have done exactly that in posts 196, 210, 213, 216, ...

No I did not. The term denialist was not directed at you or Noo, but at the author of the much repeated lie that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. There is a psuedo media that propagates this disinformation, my use of the term denialist was entirely directed at those perpetrating these falsehoods. Denialist is IMO an accurate term to describe them. I do not use the term when describing scientists like Roy Spencer who are skeptical of the conclusions, yet do not deny the physics.

Fine. So argue with facts, not with names. There is no reason to argue with names when the facts are fully on your side, which they certainly are in this particular case.

I did argue with facts. In both cases.

It is not my fault you took offense. I don't take offense when called a warmer or an alarmist. It is just a generic label that conveys a certain meaning so I don't take it personally.

 

[Gokul43201]

"Proponent" does not, as far as I know, have a negative connotation. If it does, I'll use a different term. I'm not trying to call names. Use of "denialist" does have negative connotations due to that term's very close association with Holocaust Denier (which is a crime in some European countries.)

Perhaps you haven't read the many threads we've had about ID proponents!

The term is intentionally used to give offense.

If I have used it in reference to someone (I don't believe I have), I certainly have NOT used it to intentionally give offense. Like I said, I've seen people refer to themselves as AGW deniers, who didn't intend to offend themselves.

Offense taken. The polite thing to do when someone asks someone else to desist in the use of derogatory terms is to desist in the use of said derogatory terms. Please desist.

I don't know if you are saying this to me; I haven't called you or anyone else in this thread a denier. Heck, I only chimed in now because I was surprised to hear that people take offense to this term.

 

[D H]

I don't know if you are saying this to me; I haven't called you or anyone else in this thread a denier. Heck, I only chimed in now because I was surprised to hear that people take offense to this term.

I was not saying that to you. I was saying that to those who intentionally use the term "denialist" in a derogatory, snide manner. Just in case the intended recipient of the remark is too dang thick to comprehend that the intent is derogatory, said purveyors will make the intent known by explicitly pointing out the similarity between "Holocaust Denier" and "AGW denier". You will note that it is the purveyors of this filth who brought up this similarity in terminology, not me.

I just linked the chart from the IPCC. I don't know how to shrink their chart.

Standard procedure for any over-sized chart: Upload it to some site like http://www.TinyPic.com/. Choose from the "Resize" dropdown when you're uploading; choose the size "Message Board (640x480)". So that people can see the full-sized image, you can insert the link to source graphics as a url link (rather than an img link).

 

[Skyhunter]

The tinypic did not work (to much advertising I think) so I just inserted the URL.

 

[Evo]

If one denies something and then propagates false information in support of their denial what do you call them?

An AGW alarmist?

And since the topic of this thread is the "consensus" pointing out that there is are more holocaust deniers then AGW deniers is a valid argument about the "consensus".

The topic of this thread is scientists that are brave enough to go against the "PC" wave. Scientists that want it known that due to the amount of errors, skewed data, and inaccurate models, they not only do not feel they can not support the statements that AGW promoters are feeding the public, but must go public with the evidence against it.

I have not read anywhere in the OP where any scientist is pointing out

that there is are more holocaust deniers then AGW deniers is a valid argument about the "consensus".

Let's please stay on topic. The thread is about scientists that are stating that unlike what the popular press would leave people to believe, they don't agree.

More notable climate scientists coming out stating they don't agree.

John Theon

Theon's credentials are impressive; here is his resume: Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

 

[Gokul43201]

The topic of this thread is scientists that are brave enough to go against the "PC" wave.

The thread is about scientists jumping off something called the "warming train". That this is either an act of bravery or integrity or boredom or a demonstration of thirst for media attention is entirely speculation.

Scientists that want it known that due to the amount of errors, skewed data, and inaccurate models, they not only do not feel they can not support the statements that AGW promoters are feeding the public, but must go public with the evidence against it.

Where in the Inhofe page (which is filled with all kinds of utter nonsense and lies) or elsewhere does Theon present the evidence against AGW? I looked, but may have missed it.

 

[WhoWee]

To go back to the point of this discussion:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-g...s-what-everyone-green-is-saying-about-it.html

There is a lot at risk in the political debate...worldwide.

 

[Gokul43201]

To go back to the point of this discussion:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-g...s-what-everyone-green-is-saying-about-it.html

There is a lot at risk in the political debate...worldwide.

I don't believe this is the point of this discussion (at least, not by anything in the OP or title). I can easily imagine the discussion may have veered off from the OP over all these pages, but fortunately for me, I haven't been following it carefully.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is what Gavin Schmidt has to say about Theon.

[Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations. - gavin]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...n-unstoppable/langswitch_lang/index.php?p=644

Evo,

The topic of this thread is scientists that are brave enough to go against the "PC" wave. Scientists that want it known that due to the amount of errors, skewed data, and inaccurate models, they not only do not feel they can not support the statements that AGW promoters are feeding the public, but must go public with the evidence against it.

Are you suggesting that everyone must accept this premise and heap praise on these courageous nay sayers?

Since the title of the full article linked in the OP is:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....tore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9"

Is it not fair to assume the topic under debate here is the scientific consensus or lack thereof?

 

[Andre]

My argument is that MBH99 has not been debunked or discredited. I proved my argument by demonstrating it's continued existence in the IPCC Fourth Assessment.

Which says more about the integrity of the writers team of the 4AR than about the hockeystick construction. Both the http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf and the NAS report have found the method flawed.

But most importantly Mann himslf debunked hockeystick implicitely by presenting a completely new and cleary different temperature reconstruction

See also this and this thread

 

[Gokul43201]

But most importantly Mann himslf debunked hockeystick implicitely by presenting a completely new and cleary different temperature reconstruction

Perhaps in some other thread (not in P&WA), you can point out where the new reconstruction spills outside the 2 \sigma interval of MBH99, because I could not find any sign of it.

But P&WA is not intended for arguments of scientific content. Skyhunter and you (and anyone else, such as Noo) should keep such arguments within the Earth forum.

EDIT: Ignore the above. The problem is bigger than I thought. Every single post from #185 to #207 goes into discussions of the scientific content. And everyone, from single-post newbs to Mentors have participated in this, so if no one really cares about how the forums are meant to be used, who am I to object? Please carry on with the backroom arguments!

Meanwhile, I'm going to start a new thread in GD about how Munday et al, Nature 457, 170 (2009) exposes the electromagnetism fraud perpetrated by Maxwell and others, and why we should destroy all electronics if we wish to avoid being torn apart by repulsive Casimir forces from zero-point fluctuations.

 

[Evo]

The thread is about scientists jumping off something called the "warming train". That this is either an act of bravery or integrity or boredom or a demonstration of thirst for media attention is entirely speculation.

Where in the Inhofe page (which is filled with all kinds of utter nonsense and lies) or elsewhere does Theon present the evidence against AGW? I looked, but may have missed it.

If you look at my post again, you'll notice that what you quoted above concerns the OP, not Theon.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps in some other thread (not in P&WA), you can point out where the new reconstruction spills outside the 2 \sigma interval of MBH99, because I could not find any sign of it.

But P&WA is not intended for arguments of scientific content. Skyhunter and you (and anyone else, such as Noo) should keep such arguments within the Earth forum.

Agreed, locking pending moderation to delete off topic posts.

There are many threads that already exist in the Earth forum that discuss the science.