Peer-reviewed study - AGW is just not true

[rustled]

Don't pretend you don't understand projections and modelling because I don't think that's true. You're smarter than this. I think you got stuck in a conclusion and despite overwhelming evidence, and the conclusion of the vast majority of scientists on the planet, won't change your public view due to ego. Seriously dude, lay off the blogs.

Oh, the irony...

And that's not what irony means. I form my conclusions on science. I don't think I'm smarter than a planet full of climate scientists and that I have some inside knowledge that they don't.

Ah, but that's not where the irony is.

(BTW: Maintaining your conclusions requires that you continue to disregard any credible scientist who points out the discrepancies, and that you continually try to silence those who do not share your conclusions. IMO, that's not science. That's belief.)

[Omnitheo]

Your denial requires ignoring exponentially more credible scientists than Jlives doubts over yours who cannot publish in journals.

[Ccrider]

Your denial requires ignoring exponentially more credible scientists than Jlives doubts over yours who cannot publish in journals.

I would strongly recommend that you read a first year science book. Your scientific knowledge may grow "exponentially".

The fact is that there are more scientists who are publishing papers that promote climate alarmism, than those that publish papers to the contrary. And, the million dollar question is, why?

How would a "political" scientist solve this problem? Simple, they would just treat the list of scientists like they would raw data, in need of "editing". Firstly they would remove all scientists who have been "corrupted" by associating with any "denialist" groups. Next they would have to remove from the list all scientists who are using "old" government data, and not the "new" government data. Just for good measure, they would ensure that these "denialist" scientists are discredited, and then shunned by the scientific community.

Wow! It's working pretty well for them.

[rustled]

Your denial requires ignoring exponentially more credible scientists than Jlives doubts over yours who cannot publish in journals.

"You're denial"? More irony.

I'm struggling to make sense of the rest of what you've written here.

You seem to be suggesting I have my own personal scientists, who are exponentially less credible than the ones belonging to JLives and, further, that "my" scientists cannot publish in journals. If you're referring to the two scientists I've pointed to in this thread as examples of scientists CAGW adherents must dismiss or ignore in order to maintain their support for CAGW-initiated policy, it would appear you are unwilling or unable to recognize these scientists credentials. Perhaps this is because you, too, have a belief system to maintain? Or perhaps rather than checking out their credentials, you, too, have relied on the many blogs and opinion pieces written by those supporting Cook's agenda.

Either way, you've provided yet another example of irony by opening your post with a reference to my "denial".

I can assure you, I'm both willing and able to recognize the credentials of all scientists contributing to this conversation. I'm also quite capable of recognizing an agenda when I see one. It's quite interesting to me how much of the conversation has been driven by folk like Gore and Cook and others with clearly stated agendas, and by those who would rather support those agendas than seriously consider the possibility those agendas have already resulted in far more harm than good.

Omnitheo, you've yet to share your position on policy. How do you feel about all the harm we've done, and all the harm we continue to do, to fight CAGW?

[What_the]

I don't wade into these type subjects because it would take years to become somewhat informed of all the various disciplines and reading. However, to dumb it down for simplicity- industrial growth has had serious detrimental effects on our environment and has made certain areas, pockets If you will, uninhabitable. We know there is a fine balance between temperature and life and when disruption occurs catastrophe ensues.

We definitely have an impact on the atmosphere : acid rain and ozone layer for example.

While I can certainly agree there's fraud afoot and natural dynamics is the biggest driver of climate change, I can certainly with out hesitation say that we are having an impact on the climate. We can argue which scientist is right or not but miss the point on the obviousness before us.
The evidence of effective detrimental pollution is every where.

[Jflem1983]

I pretty much agree with all that . Pollution is real and it's a problem . Our atmosphere is a big bubble and if we fill it with poisonous gasses it will make us sick. I agree with all that . What I don't believe in is that with taxes we are gonna change any of it . I know there is a problem with pollution . I just don't see taxes as the answer . Now to say man is warming the planet I think that is a few steps too far .

[What_the]

Cap and trade, carbon taxes etc is all garbage. Photosynthetic organisms cannot handle the out of balance emissions we are pumping out and there is no debate that these emissions are greenhouse gases. To exactly what effect seems to be the argument.

[Omnitheo]

I just don't know why I should acknowledge 2 scientists that fail to publish their research in any credible journal more than thousands of other scientists from across the globe in different fields of study which are able to publish and corroborate each others findings. Why should I treat these with the same weight.

If you want to prove a hypothesis in science, you don't work to prove it. You work to disprove it. Few scientists have earned fame for proving a theory. You don't see any nobel prizes going out for re-affirming e=mc2. If these scientists had credible data and could publish and definitively prove that humans are not driving climate change, they would be garnering a lot more recognition.

You keep going on about these two people, saying we can't discount them, while you discount the vast majority of peer reviewed scientific studies. I think you need to see things in perspective.

[averagejoe]

I just don't know why I should acknowledge 2 scientists that fail to publish their research in any credible journal more than thousands of other scientists from across the globe in different fields of study which are able to publish and corroborate each others findings. Why should I treat these with the same weight.

If you want to prove a hypothesis in science, you don't work to prove it. You work to disprove it. Few scientists have earned fame for proving a theory. You don't see any nobel prizes going out for re-affirming e=mc2. If these scientists had credible data and could publish and definitively prove that humans are not driving climate change, they would be garnering a lot more recognition.

You keep going on about these two people, saying we can't discount them, while you discount the vast majority of peer reviewed scientific studies. I think you need to see things in perspective.

Now your a scientist?

[averagejoe]

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

[What_the]

To me, all of this is occums razor.

Hell, who knows? Perhaps global warming or climate change will spur the next change in our evolution, like anthropology suggests in the growth of our brains and the evolutionary advance of hominids, some 400 thousand years ago, partly due to climate change.

[neilsimon]

To me, all of this is occums razor.

Hell, who knows? Perhaps global warming or climate change will spur the next change in our evolution, like anthropology suggests in the growth of our brains and the evolutionary advance of hominids, some 400 thousand years ago, partly due to climate change.

IIRC, the most fun thing about large evolutionary steps is that they are often coincidental with population bottlenecks

[What_the]

IIRC? I hate four letter acronyms :) three I usually get lol
Help me out someone.

[neilsimon]

IIRC? I hate four letter acronyms :) three I usually get lol
Help me out someone.

IIRC, IIRC means "If I recall correctly"

[RupertBear]

I pretty much agree with all that . Pollution is real and it's a problem . Our atmosphere is a big bubble and if we fill it with poisonous gasses it will make us sick. I agree with all that . What I don't believe in is that with taxes we are gonna change any of it . I know there is a problem with pollution . I just don't see taxes as the answer . Now to say man is warming the planet I think that is a few steps too far .

I heard Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about pollution this morning. He said that no matter what your thoughts are on global warming and climate change, he said on average, 19,000 people a day die as a result of pollution.