2014 Was The Hottest Year On Record

Posted: January 7, 2015 by watsonthethird in Climate Change, Conservative Hypocrisy, Conservative Shenanigans, Current Events
Tags: , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, the Japan Meteorological Agency released its average global temperature data for 2014, which shows that globally last year was the hottest year, by far, in JMA’s 120 years of record-keeping. Nine of the ten hottest years recorded have occurred in the twenty-first century. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is expected release similar data soon.

Furthermore, there has been no “pause” in warming. Here is the chart from JMA of the average global temperature by year since 1891:

an_wld

Does that look like a pause to you? Didn’t think so. The trend line is obvious.

The fact is, “[T]here is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet. If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Michael Mann has written a paper for the scientific community, and others, about how special interests try to intimidate and discredit scientists. He calls it “the Serengeti strategy”:

Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once. Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages other scientists from conveying their research’s implications to the public. This “Serengeti strategy” is often employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the world’s scientists about the underlying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves.

He goes on to say, “Many of the attacks have been aimed at undermining one of the scientific community’s great strengths—the trust that the public has in scientists as communicators and messengers. A poll conducted by Yale University and George Mason University indicated that climate scientists are the most trusted source of information about global warming for voting-age Americans (Yale Project, 2012). This is in line with a number of polls regarding science that have been conducted over the years, which consistently show that the public ranks scientists near the top for trustworthiness (Pew Research Center, 2009)—while they put members of Congress, TV reporters, and used-car salesmen near the bottom. (At the very bottom are lobbyists, who have only a 6 percent approval rating for honesty and ethics (Gallup, 2014)). In their effort to discredit the genuine science behind climate change, fossil fuel interests and their front groups have sought to undermine that trust in science and scientists.”

The full paper is worth a read.

Meanwhile, a perfect example of an individual with an agenda–in this case, an ideological one–is Blogs For Victory’s Mark Noonan, who continues with his on-going series of “global warming hoax” updates. In his latest post, Noonan latches onto an article alerting readers to the fact that “two rounds of Arctic cold will move through much of the U.S. this week.” To Noonan, this isn’t a temporary weather phenomenon; it’s further proof that global warming is a hoax. Clearly, like his favorite conservative politicians, Noonan isn’t a scientist.

Don’t be fooled by the clowns who live on Frozen Pond, Indiana. They can’t be bothered to look any further than their own backyard because ideology. Instead, they are convinced that cold Midwest winters prove there is no global warming. They don’t.

The real “hoax” in the “global warming hoax” is the one being perpetrated by individuals and organizations who attempt to discredit science and scientists for their own personal gain or agendas. It’s really pretty simple.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. 02casper says:

    Your post is right on. The right wing will attack anyone who believes in something they don’t want to believe in. Even if it’s the pope.

  2. meursault1942 says:

    One would think that being so completely, egregiously wrong about this (among a great many other things) would give conservatives pause and make them rethink their position. Instead, they cling ever more tightly to the lies and double down on their fanaticism for squelching any bit of fact or truth. How sad.

  3. mitchethekid says:

    Haven’t commented in a long time. Think I will start back. Just to piss off Tired. Give him something else to play with instead of himself.

  4. meursault1942 says:

    Speaking of things conservatives are completely, egregiously wrong about, how ’bout that economy?

    Tuesday has been a great day for the labor market.
    Small-business optimism is at a new post-crisis high. The NFIB small-business-optimism survey rose to 100.4 in December, the highest reading since October 2006.

    Additionally, job openings rose to a new post-crisis high, and following these reports, economists can barely contain their excitement about the economy.

    “The labor market isn’t just healing — it is red hot with nearly 5 million jobs available,” Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi’s Chris Rupkey said. “Slack in the economy isn’t just going away; it’s all but evaporated.”

    Clearly, Obama’s Commie Nazi Socialist Muslim policies are turning the US of A into a third-world hellhole, just as Herr Comrade Fuhrer Chairman Sheik Obama wants, and just as conservatives predicted. Clearly, this also means we need a dose of supply-side economics, which has never, ever been a catastrophic failure and will be not just a success but a super-duper-mega-ultra success now that conservatives are forcing the CBO to use “dynamic scoring,” which isn’t at all just reciting a bunch of comforting lies conservatives hysterically shriek they must hear in lieu of actual facts.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      But Meursault, you’re forgetting that Republicans took over the Senate six minutes ago. Surely they’re to thank for our growing economy!

      • Note only that, Rusty, according to Mitch McConnell, the economy is improving merely because of the expectation of a new Republican senate. Those Republicans are mighty powerful.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Why, just the thought of Republicans swooping in to save us from six years of Obama’s jack-booted tyranny, uh, incompetence, uh, fecklessness (never mind that these are contradictions, just pick one!) is enough to lift us from despair. There’s certainly no way his two term Presidency had anything to do with it!

  5. 02casper says:

    Maybe why that’s why Mark doesn’t talk about the economy much any more.

  6. meursault1942 says:

    Regarding the topic of the original post, sea level rise is rapidly accelerating. But don’t worry! Wingnuts in North Carolina have made it illegal to take sea level rise into account when making any coastal policy, therefore sea levels officially are not rising. That’s just basic science. Plus, Al Gore is fat.

    • 02casper says:

      I have this picture in my mind of neo standing in his front lawn as waves wash over him, shouting “it’s not real”.

  7. meursault1942 says:

    Obamacare has done something remarkable and reversed a decade-long trend. For the first time since 2005, the number of people struggling to pay for medical procedures has dropped instead of increased; the same has happened to the number of people who simply opt to not get medical treatment due to payment issues. Or, as conservatives say, “TYRANNY!!!!111!!1twelve! BAMACURR TOOK AWAY MAH FREEDUMZ!” I can’t wait to see them run on a platform of “you people don’t deserve health coverage; you only deserve ruinous medical costs.”

  8. rustybrown2012 says:

    Anybody see Noonan’s idiotic post on free speech? It’s his usual stew of self-righteousness, hypocrisy and muddled thinking, but a few things stand out:

    Charlie Hedbo did play a role in bringing on the attack.

    What exactly is that supposed to mean? By publishing cartoons they “played a role in their attacks”? In a free civilized society, one should be able to publish any amount of satire, criticism, or offensiveness (outside the bounds of libel) without fear of losing their life for it. Period. If some aggrieved lunatic puts a bullet in Mark’s melon for publishing some of the horrendous hateful shit he’s allowed on his blog over the years, like Cluster calling for the death of countless thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children just because they happen to be in the proximity of terrorists, would it be fair to say that that Mark “played a role in his attack”? I wouldn’t think so, but then again, I understand and believe in the principles of free speech.

    But the real kicker is when he says:

    The Islamists have their dogmas they are willing to fight and die for – what dogmas are we willing to fight and die for? And if we do have some people believing in dogmas worth fighting for, are there enough of them?

    The answer to his two questions are, in order: “None”, and “Hopefully not”. This is a free, secular country firmly rooted in the principles of the Enlightenment. No one in their right mind laments that there are not enough people living in the USA who are unwilling to fight and die for religious dogmas, but Mark apparently does.

    One more:

    Among the rigid standards of conduct in our civilization is a cautious courtesy of speech – an unwillingness to cause needless offense.

    Again, what the fuck does this mean? Rigid standards of conduct? WTF?

  9. 02casper says:

    meanwhile tired does a post using information from these guys.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot

  10. Good catch, Casper. tired probably still smokes, too.

    But, hey, it’s progress when the best they can come up with is, “Well, well, it only got a little hotter this year!”

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      For any normal cancer patient with an inoperable brain tumor, the news “Well, it only got a little bigger this year” would be cause for grave alarm and immediate action. For Tired and the rest of the clowns at bfv it would be a cause for celebration that the tumor had ‘paused’. They would stop all treatment, commence in their long term planning, and ridicule their oncologist.

    • meursault1942 says:

      “But, hey, it’s progress when the best they can come up with is, ‘Well, well, it only got a little hotter this year!'”

      Well, it would be progress if it weren’t for the fact that they’ll immediately regress to their usual lies/talking points. You know, “18-year warming pause!” and “It’s cold somewhere, therefore Al Gore is fat!” and all that meaningless crap that’s been smacked down more times than can be counted. Remember: These are people whose entire political outlook is absolutely depended on shutting facts out. If facts get in, they’re ruined. That’s why when, for example, tired posts talking points from a denialist blog, that’s the absolute best he can do. That’s his A-game. That’s it. If you’re looking for improvement, there’s really none to be had absent some great epiphany that yes, facts actually do matter and aren’t something to be hated and shunned.

      And all of this is why the GOP is having Ted Cruz oversee NASA> They need somebody to sq

      • meursault1942 says:

        Gah, accidentally posted there. Anyway, they need somebody to squelch facts–it’s a full-time project for conservatives (see also: “dynamic scoring”). When reality doesn’t line up with conservative talking points–and it almost never does, given conservatives’ acrimonious divorce from reality–their response is not to correct themselves, but to insist that reality is biased and therefore must be “corrected.” Economic data shows the full-scale, horrendous failure of supply-side economics? Mutilate the data. Scientific data shows denialists to be lairs every single time? Mutilate the data.

        As I’ve said before, one wishes conservatives would apply their energy to something productive instead of trying to prop up ridiculous lies, but for wahtever reason, they want to lvie their lives in service of lies.

  11. what is really funny is they actually ask what the big deal is. Isn’t it great that the temperature is rising? They are too ignorant to know that it is causing worst hurricanes, worst snow storms and more erratic weather with the oceans warming up and yadda yadda yadda. It ls like they live in a cestpool of ignorance that nobody can break. Is it not better to think that we are leaving the planet in better shape for our kids? God forbid we have cleaner air and less pollution. Luckily this was the less offensive stuff they have written this week. The stuff on jews and how dumb we are to vote democrat and how America is a horrible place filled with anti-palestine college students was my favorite of the week.

  12. tiredoflibbs says:

    The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warming admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PCsBFVCJ

    38% sure? Oh, it must be one of those consensus things again.

  13. tired, yes there is a margin of error in these measurements — the same as in previous years. So given that, by definition, the margin of error would be randomly distributed, it doesn’t change the trend, no matter how badly you wish it so.

    By the way, your hero, Mitt Romney, not accepts that global warming is settled science. Why do you think he’s saying that now?

  14. tiredoflibbs says:

    It is interesting that the latest “trend” is based on data from surface observations only. If they took the SATELLITE data, that was once touted by NASA at the more accurate of the two, it would show cooling for the last since 2000.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    The planet released more heat than the FAULTY climate models predicted. The consensus you show above is just manipulation of data (accepting some while rejecting others). The “science” used by the left and scientists looking for their next grant are not so “sound” and “settled” as much as you wish it to be.

    Those of us who use reason want the true debate to take place. The trouble is the IPCC and the left don’t want it to. That is why the IPCC shuts out any and all true science that shows the opposite of their agenda. This also why the left demonizes anyone who opposes the political “science” that is taking place. You and the rest of the left are afraid of the outcome if the scientific method was actually used.

    Nice try watty, but yours is another example of “figures lie and liars figure”.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Tired, the link you provide is old propaganda from a biased source that’s been thoroughly debunked. You’ve posted that bogus article before and I’ve posted this link which completely obliterates it’s premise. Here it is again, since it blew through that howling dustbowl you call a cranium the first time:

      “The Forbes article is based on a paper published in the journal Remote Sensing (PDF). The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change, so more on him in a moment — and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream climate scientists.

      Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is “unrealistic”, “flawed”, and “incorrect”. As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, “don’t make any physical sense”, and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.”…

      …”I did some poking around on the web, and sure enough a lot of far-right blogs are diving on this red meat, simply repeating the claims of the Forbes article. I wonder how many of them actually read the paper or sought outside opinions?

      And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer’s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.

      I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it’s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. Heck, even a conservative judge ruled it to be so in the now-famous Dover lawsuit. Anyone who dumps all of biological science in favor of provably wrong antiscience should raise alarm bells in your head, and their claims should be examined with an even more skeptical eye.

      It’s too bad, really. I’m not a fan of ad hominems, but the recent attacks on the science of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang by the far right — and on medicine by the far left — make it necessary to know more about the authors when reading articles. If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality.”

      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/#.VMJ1eVovGbw

  15. tiredoflibbs says:

    Thanks for proving my point crusty. Your link is full of demonization and ad hominem attacks, which it acknowledges, against a peer reviewed paper and its author. And you want to pass off Think Progress as an unbiased “source”?

    A simple search shows that there are others that dispute the faulty climate models and the reasons for the pause in “warming”.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-paper-shows-ipcc-underestimates.html
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

    But if you’d rather stick with articles that where the alarmists, cherry pick data, ignore valid data, “doctor shop” for like minded scientists looking for their next grant and demonize and attack all opposition, rather than have an actual, go right ahead.

    Ta ta.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Wow Tard, there are “others” that deny climate change? You don’t say. To take the long view, we’re back to where we started regarding climate science: me siding with the consensus of 98% of the world’s climate scientists, and you siding with a tiny smattering of deniers funded by the oil industry. I’m comfortable with that.

  16. tiredoflibbs says:

    Crusty: “To take the long view, we’re back to where we started regarding climate science: me siding with the consensus of 98% of the world’s climate scientists, and you siding with a tiny smattering of deniers funded by the oil industry.”

    Yes we have come full circle. You fall back to the “98% consensus of the worlds climate scientists” fraud. The “consensus” is nothing more than a collection of like minded abstracts while rejecting those out of hand that did not agree with their purpose, as explained below.

    From Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked
    When you look at the actual “study” (in this case a term used very loosely), 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’, one would find 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position (there’s that word again) that humans are causing global warming. So of 11944 climate science abstracts, only 3894 abstracts gave mention to AGW and 97% of those were endorsed by their authors. Yes that’s right – the “peer review” was a SELF review and not by independent climate scientists.

    Cook actually “cooked the books” on AGW. Another big name in climate science actually analyzed Cooks “data”. Professor Richard S. J. Tol. Dr. Tol is a professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Netherlands, and a professor of economics at the University of Sussex, England. He has also served on the UN’s IPCC.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

    As I said earlier, “doctor shopping” and cherry-picking data does nothing for your cause and will not stand up to an actual scientific debate.

    Plus, the IPCC did not survive an audit of their “peer-reviewed” reports – another fraud perpetuated by the left in their man-made global warming, climate change scam.
    IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
The InterAcademy Council (IAC) conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this review, the IAC issued a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen IPCC’s processes and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports.IAC findings:
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).
In plain English: the IPCC reports are NOT PEER-REVIEWED.

    
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).

    
Again in plain English: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “TOO POLITICAL” (p. 25).

    
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

    
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

    How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20mLGz6ss

    As the GOD_FATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK HAS ACCURATELY STATED the DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS WERE “INNACURATE” and the SCIENCE was far from “SETTLED”. It is factual that a true PEER-REVIEW of IPCC’s process found that their process was flawed, politically motivated, forced consensus and its conclusions complete crap.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Regarding Tol’s criticism of Cook’s 97% consensus: Tol’s an economist, not a climate scientist, and he’s full of shit:

      “Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It’s worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:

      “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

      Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey. For example, he has argued that the literature search should have been conducted with Scopus rather than the Web of Science in order to capture more papers, but also that fewer papers should have been included in the survey in order to focus on those specifically researching the causes of global warming. Tol has also applied various statistical tests comparing the abstract ratings to the author self-ratings, but these tests are invalid because the two phases of the survey considered different information (abstracts only vs. full papers) and are thus not comparable.

      In fact, when we released the self-rating data, we explicitly discussed the difference between the two datasets and how the difference was actually instructive. As John Cook wrote,

      “That’s not to say our ratings of abstracts exactly matched the self-ratings by the papers’ authors. On the contrary, the two sets measure different things and not only are differences expected, they’re instructive.”

      Ultimately Tol submitted his criticisms to Environmental Research Letters as a comment, but the submission was summarily rejected by the editor who described it as a speculative opinion piece that does not identify any clear errors that would call the paper’s conclusions into question.

      In short, the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol’s criticisms have not. Moreover, all of Tol’s criticisms only apply to the abstract ratings, while the self-ratings also found the same 97% consensus result, completely independent from the abstract ratings.”

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

      And you pretend like you’re the one engaged in an “actual scientific debate”. It’s hilarious (and revealing) that the two sources you use to deny the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists are an economist and the CEO of the Heartland Institute (an institution that is constantly and lovingly referenced by deniers). Since your claim is that the consensus of climate scientists is bogus, one would think you could come up with a wide variety of actual dissenting climate scientists. But you can’t, and that tells one all one needs to know about the veracity of your opinion.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, in formulating my opinions on climate science I prefer to get my information from actual climate scientists. You should try it sometime.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        And once again, I’m not committing the logical fallacy of ‘arguing from authority’ here. But when we debate scientific theories well beyond our expertise we have to rely on experts within the field, not journalists, businessmen, etc. It’s analogous to us arguing an aspect of marine biology and me presenting peer reviewed papers authored by marine biologists to prove my point while you counter with opinions from geologists, astronomers and perhaps cobblers.

  17. Note that comments with multiple links are held in moderation, which is why some comments have been delayed.

  18. tiredoflibbs says:

    97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

    Cook et al, misrepresented these scientists papers that were included in the “97% Climate Scientists Agree…” shtick.

    Take notice to:

    Update 4:

    Dr. Tol has published a scathing editorial in the Guardian and a PEER-REVIEWD paper in the journal Energy Policy completely discrediting the shoddy methodology employed by Cook et al. (2013) and showed their findings to be WORTHLESS,

    The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (The Guardian, June 6, 2014)

    Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis
    (Energy Policy, June 2014)
    – Richard S. J. Tol

    So much for your assertion that there are no peer-reviewed dissenting climate scientists out there.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Let me get this straight, Tard, we know that the Cook survey researched 11,944 abstracts and concluded that AGW is real in 97% of them, but you present a half dozen scientists from the survey that quibble with their specific classification, and that’s supposed to be proof that the entire thing is a scam? Do I have that right? Even taking your specious sources at face value (a LARGE concession in your case), I think you’ve left out the other 11,938 who are apparently on board with the original findings. You’ve got a long way to go, pal.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Btw, as to your bray:

        “So much for your assertion that there are no peer-reviewed dissenting climate scientists out there.”

        I never said that. You’re lying. Again. As usual.

        But you’re also DOUBLY WRONG, for in your example of a “peer reviewed dissenting climate scientist” you cite Tol, who is NOT a climate scientist, but an economist. Burn. Ass? Elbow?

  19. tiredoflibbs says:

    “Let me get this straight, Tard, we know that the Cook survey researched 11,944 abstracts and concluded that AGW is real in 97% of them, but you present a half dozen scientists from the survey that quibble with their specific classification, and that’s supposed to be proof that the entire thing is a scam?”

    Uh no, as usual, your reading comprehension is as dismal as ever. If you ever bothered to read the study, 11994 abstracts were reviewed. Of those, only 3894 endorsed AGW – only 32.6%, those were the ones that were “peer reviewed” by their own authors – SELF reviewed. 97% of the authors agreed with the 3894 abstracts. The other 67% of the authors and climatologists were not invited into the peer review. The Cook study is a lie. The talking point “97% of the worlds climatologists agree…”, the whole basis of the arguments of you and the rest of the drones is a lie! The AGW movement had a conclusion and needed a basis for it. They then cherry picked the data and came up with this bogus study. It is a scam, much like everything else about AGW.

    Plus, your idea of only accepting data from climatologists. From your source, Skeptical Science, John Cook the person who conducted the study above is not, GASP!, a climatologist:

    John Cook
    John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

    By your own criteria, you should reject the study completely. But I doubt it.

    Game, set and match!

  20. rustybrown2012 says:

    “If you ever bothered to read the study, 11994 abstracts were reviewed. Of those, only 3894 endorsed AGW – only 32.6%, those were the ones that were “peer reviewed” by their own authors – SELF reviewed. 97% of the authors agreed with the 3894 abstracts. The other 67% of the authors and climatologists were not invited into the peer review.”

    Bullshit. Where do you get those figures? Be specific.

    “Plus, your idea of only accepting data from climatologists. From your source, Skeptical Science, John Cook the person who conducted the study above is not, GASP!, a climatologist”

    I never said I wouldn’t accept data from someone who’s not a climate scientist; it all depends on what type of data we’re talking about. And nobody ever claimed Cook was a climate scientist. He’s a person who is analyzing and categorizing the opinions of climate scientists. You seem to have a profound confusion about sources and their relevance in particular applications. I’m afraid I can’t help you there – sometimes it comes down to education and native intelligence, two things you seem to lack.

  21. rustybrown2012 says:

    Nice article about a climate researcher winning a bet against a denialist:

    http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2015/climate-researcher-wins-wager-with-climate-sceptic

    Would LOVE to make similar bets with the mouth breathers at bfv. Remember way back when Cluster imploring us to just stick around and wait for the evidence of global cooling that was sure to come? How’s that working out for you Cluster? Cluster…?

  22. rustybrown2012 says:

    Wait! Hold everything! There’s a big snowstorm in eastern north America; I’ve seen the light and am now convinced that anthropomorphic climate change is indeed a hoax. Apologies to all of the scholars at bfv.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s