Based on one forecast? Or have you done a comprehensive overview of the model?
I do not see how this fits into your argument.
Based on one forecast? Or have you done a comprehensive overview of the model?
Also, I know you are just a good as dodger as Poptech but maybe you could answer the question, Darrin.
I have seen the list used in many ways but have no way to determine how a person arrives at believing papers on the list to be the only valid science. It is quite possible they have read papers on both sides and found these more convincing. Regardless, I do not recall seeing this argument being made. What I do see is it used as evidence of the existence of peer-reviewed papers that supports skeptic arguments. Usually as a reply to an alarmist challenging or demanding they produce such papers.
All I can do is clarify the purpose of the list or correct any misinformation stated about the list. I cannot control other people's behavior.
Various changes have been made to the list to make it's purpose more clear as well as a copious amount of notes added that has helped clear up misrepresentations. In relation to misrepresentations those criticizing the list have consistently stated misinformation about it more than those promoting it. In my experiences those promoting it are more likely to properly represent it than those criticizing it. I have noticed the clarifications have practically eliminated the few problems with those promoting it while it has had little to no effect on those criticizing it.
Some examples: one of the biggest problems was claiming the list was a list of skeptical scientists so this statement was added to the list, "The list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics."
Another was that the list only included papers arguing against AGW and not also AGW Alarm, which requires not reading the word "Alarm" in the le. So there is not much I can do about that.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-01-2012 at 10:43 PM.
Proof can be defined more than one way. And what can be considered appreciable is subjective. That statement can be valid as stated.
Attempts at presenting evidence that humankind is having any appreciable affect on the global climate does exist but I have not found these very convincing.
I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 01:04 AM.
Did you just attribute the rise in global temps to mostly land change?
I did no such thing, as a local climate is not the same as the global climate and I did not qualify or quantify the "effect". It is best not to jump to conclusions without reading carefully.
Who jumped to a conclusion? I asked a question. Do you believe CO2 has a appreciable effect on the global climate?
I see you more or less gave up on the actual USSR thing. Who cares if it didn't have the term capitalist in it. That was the whole point of brining up the term republic. This is what I am getting at when I say you just ignore arguments. its just a ty one liner.
The point is that if you equate support of socialized medicine with communism then you equate almost all of NATO with communism. You are using the support of an individual of socialized medicine as a standard to call someone a communist. Thats what precipitated this: show some justification for calling them communists. You once again fail to keep up with the flow of the argument. Quite frankly i cannot believe that i am having to argue this. The Red Scare tactic is just lame.
I never said that libertarians were left wing. I don't really buy that you are any more of a libertarian as most GOP people that are disillusioned with the party lately anyway.
That, however, is besides the point. The US political system despite all of your obfuscation is a two party system. On the left you have the dems and the right you have the GOP. thats just conventional american vernacular. Making assumption about what the Village Voice is saying when they say 'left' on the basis of your pseudo-political theory is completely unfounded.
If you want to make the argument about the terms liberal versus conservative then that is one thing but quite frankly in terms of the american political system complete libertarians are neither on the left or the right. sure enough there is a libertarian parties even if they are marginalized ins utionally they are not part of the bilateral symmetry that dominates US politics.
Argue the way the world is not the way you want it to be especially when you are the one that is on the extreme. laissez faire in the context of contemporary US political culture is extreme.
I never made the argument that their list was exhaustive. thats a strawman. It also stinks of bull .
and lol the list has to be exhaustive of everything that you judge to be skeptical science in order to be intellectually honest? Again what is your credibility to make such a qualification? This may come as a surprise to you but random internet guy doesn't get to be that arbiter. As I stated its just you being an egomaniac.
i would think that they do not agree with your list as being credible. The authors themselves say its not credible:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011...-is-misleadingSome of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.
However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change - and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.
Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work - the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.
Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Ins ute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list:
"I've responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print.
"I've asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Ins ute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I've never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well ... and all want their names removed."
A paper on the list by Zeebe et al. published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2009 studies the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is a period of rapid temperature rise around 55 million years ago.
The authors found that feedbacks such as increases in other greenhouse gases were responsible for a substantial part of global warming, alongside the direct impact of carbon dioxide.
The lead author, Professor Richard Zeebe, University of Hawaii, said:
"Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
These two papers contribute to the scientific consensus on climate change, rather than undermining it. Earth's climate has changed throughout geological time. Studies like the papers listed here have helped to explain why, broadening our understanding of the climate system.
It is precisely our knowledge of these processes that allows us to eliminate them as the cause of the current warming trend. Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are now the dominant factor forcing today's climate.
A paper by Meehl et al, also placed on the list, discussed how the 11-year solar cycle has an amplified effect on climate signals in the tropical Pacific. The author of the paper, Gerald Meehl, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), said:
"It's odd that our 2009 paper is on a site about global warming. Our paper addressed specifically the climate system response to the 11-year solar cycle. Thus it is about decadal timescale climate variability.
"It said nothing about long-term warming trends, and in fact, in the last sentence of the paper, we state, 'This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years.'"
The inclusion of a paper studying the sun's influence on climate is in itself very odd. It's well established that solar irradiance has contributed little to warming since the 1960s, whilst the Earth's temperature has risen. For example, a paper by Scafetta & West (2006) says:
"Since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
I mean why should they post all of your links to scientists with an obvious conflict of interest like Idso?
Like I said, context.
He won't take a stand on anything when you try to get right down to it.
I find land-use changes to be more compelling.
So you attribute most of the change to land changes?
I never said that.
Its probably to the point now where you treat him like Chump does the 9/11 truthers.
Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.
But I LOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when people say that humans don't have an appreciable affect on the global climate. Its just laughable to me when that is said and I love to pick apart that foolish argument.
I have not given up on anything. Are you denying that the U.S.S.R. was a socialist state? The word "Republic" was used to show they were not a monarchy and had a socialist cons ution.
Your point is a lie as I equated no such thing. I correctly equated socialized medicine with socialism. You lie again that I equate almost all of NATO with communism. Again I equated those countries who have socialized medicine with socialism.
Quote from the article where I call them communists. I have had no problem keeping up with the argument. Your obsession with the "Red Scare" is obviously a personal problem with you.
Of course you wouldn't as you have perpetually tried to accuse me of lying. It is an irrefutable fact that I voted for the Libertarian party in the 2008 election.
An undisputed liberal (left-wing) publication, the Village Vioce called them "from the far side of liberal." They did not simply call them "left". This article is simply used to support my correct usage of the phrase, "extreme-left wing" to describe them.
My argument about Libertarians was in relation to your use of the phrase "civil libertarians" and had nothing to do with nor was it related to either of the two main political parties in the U.S. I already said Libertarians were neither on the left or the right. Libertarians are clearly a part of the U.S. Political system with the Libertarian party. Just because the U.S. Political system is dominated by the two main parties does not change these facts.
It can be considered this by some, this does not change the fact that socialist policies are also considered extreme.
So you admit that the Skeptical Science link does not include most of the peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments on my list?
Do you consider a list that claims to present both sides of an argument on a website, where the administration is aware of peer-reviewed papers for one side of the argument but fails to include these papers on their list, to be intellectually honest in their presentation of both sides of an argument?
I make no claims to be but remember this applies to you and your fellow commentators here.
Yes you have stated this nonsense.
An author making a false statement does not make it true. Why do the author's believe their papers were listed?
It helps if you read the list,
Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
Dr. Idso is a credentialed scientist who's papers were peer-reviewed,In Part II of his desperate attack on the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list, Christian lists "comments" from three authors without providing the question he asked them. Based on his false statements about why papers were included on the list, the question was likely based on a strawman argument intended to mislead the authors. This tactic has been tried in the past by alarmists since asking a legitimate question based on the truth would not get the response they hoped for. All the papers are listed because they support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW alarm defined as, "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." It is made explicitly clear in the disclaimer that the list has nothing to do with any of the personal positions of the authors,
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While certain authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm.
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
He holds not conflict of interest,
Is Dr. Idso lying? Yes or No"I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write." - Sherwood Idso
Do not dodge the question.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-02-2012 at 01:36 AM.
Your inability to read clearly is amazing. You delusionally read into things I never said and take them widely out of context to create strawman arguments. I explicitly said,
"I have seen more compelling evidence for things like land-use changes having an affect on a local climate."
This was in the context of the evidence that is compelling to show an affect, it was not on what I believe to be the most compelling to explain changes in the global climate. Land use change could have an affect on a local climate and still not explain 99.9% of the change. This is irrelevant to the global climate.
I believe the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on the global climate. I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver.
I have addressed every point that is brought up.
Care to elaborate?
Do you believe the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic in nature?
Yay more canned answers!
You also equated socialism with the Soviets and communism.
Where is the independent verified source that claims they are communist?
Also your Red Scare tactics are hardly my concern alone. Not resorting to it has been a cornerstone of intellectual conservatism since 1962:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...n-conservatismNonetheless, in February 1962 National Review ran a six-page editorial against Welch, arguing that he was damaging the anti-Communist cause by “distorting reality” and failing to distinguish between an “active pro-Communist” and an “ineffectually anti-Communist liberal.” It would be several years before Buckley excommunicated all Birchers from the conservative movement, but his editorial emphasized that “There are bounds to the dictum, Anyone on the right is my ally.”
Even Bill would have thought you a hack.
I vote for the libertarian party all the time as I have not voted for either of the two parties in any election since 1998 and I vote in every national election. I always vote third party; many times that has been the libertarian party. Does that make me a libertarian?
Supporting a particular socialist policy neither makes one extreme nor socialist. Most Americans --myself included-- believe in a mixed economy. The acceptance of the notion of socialized medicine is pretty well split along party lines:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...-medicine.html'. Historically, the phrase socialized medicine has been used to attack health reform proposals in the U.S. However, a new poll by the Harvard Opinion Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Harris Interactive finds that Americans are split on whether a socialized medical system would be better or worse than the current system. Among those who say they have at least some understanding of the phrase (82%), a plurality (45%) says such a system would be better while 39 percent say it would be worse. Twelve percent say they do not know and four percent say about the same.
The poll shows striking differences by party identification. Seventy percent of Republicans say that socialized medicine would be worse than our current system. The same percentage of Democrats (70%) say that a socialized medical system would be better than our current system. Independents are more evenly split with 43% saying socialized medicine would be better and 38% worse.
"These results suggest how polarizing the issue of health care will be in the general election," says Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. "The phrase ‘socialized medicine' really resonates as a pejorative with Republicans. However, that so many Democrats believe that socialized medicine would be an improvement is an indication of their dissatisfaction with our current system. Independents, who are the key swing group in this election, are split like the country as a whole."
Further an rust laws have been a foundation of american economic policy for over a century. At the same time most american's -myself included-- support our incarnation of property laws and subsequent liberty in forming our own businesses.
Contrast that with the laissez faire political view: the libertarian party. They have never had a representative in the US congress nor have they received over 1.1% of the popular vote.
So those authors make false statements but you still went ahead and took their work? its cherry picking plain and simple. You just pick and choose to please your confirmation bias. the whole papers were peer reviewed not just the parts that you like.
You do not get to arbiter what is considered the totality of what is considered an acceptable skeptics paper nor have i heard any decent argument why either list needs to be exhaustive.
Will you please quit asking the stupid question if I think their list is exhaustive or not. I do not contend that either the pro or the con arguments are exhaustive. Perhaps you will have a point at some point.
As for Idso, did he or did he not accept money from Exxon?
Oh and as to your edit, I am not in a position to know whether or not he is lying. I certainly can see cause as to why he would be deceptive to their influence over him but that is nothing more than supposition.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-02-2012 at 02:21 AM.
Oh i can read just fine, dissembler.
Its irrelevant. Yet, he brought it up.
You give canned answers in your line by lines for the most part. its pretty obvious that you are practiced at arguments concerning your list. that is not the same thing as addressing every argument.
Do you realize how many things you might be refering to from that?
PS I don't think much of Poptech. Couldn't care much less what he/she thinks of me.
Again, stop making me guess. I'm not playing your silly game. Put it in words.
I see...
It's not my explanations you disagree with, it's that I don't speak like a snob, like you.
Logical arguments have nothing to do with arrogance except according to those intimidated by intelligence, dolt.
I put it in words for you. I gave you pictures. Videos maybe?
Its funny though because you act like I give a whether you understand. We're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that point.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
