Another diversion, but so it goes. My YouTube profile must be growing, as reflected by the creepy clowns crawling out of the woodwork to take pot shots at me, reminds me of some cheap zombie horror movie.
A favorite meme is: CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past, as though that has anything to do with today's world and the reality of adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2 on top of the natural flux into our climate system every month after month. One would think Republican types would know all about accumulating compounding interest and what that can do to numbers in a hurry - it doesn't just work that way in the financial world. Why they ignore such simple rational fundamentals, is beyond me.
Another favorite, goes like this:
Great so you object. Now do you have any objective evidence to support what you believe.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dude (I'll going to start using the generic Dude for multiple YouTube characters) writes:
A lot, actually.
Here's a small (but informative) collection of evidence. If needed, I can provide a lot more.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
All you folks seem to point to co2science, watts up with that, has it become your bible or something? It's run by the Idso Clan who are paid spokesmen for Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil - it has been shown to dishonestly represent the science. But that's all you got - and you refuse to look beyond your smug little certitude.
But, learning requires some times getting out and assessing the reality going down on this one and only planet of ours - that we depend on for everything. A bit of healthy self-skepticism would go a long way too.
What about all the information and detailed explanations and the hundreds of referenced papers that are collected in there???
Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test
September 9, 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The IPCC? You are really going to reference people who still believe in the hockey stick graph and a 97% consensus? OK.
Here's a lot more papers (1,350+):
Excuse my irritation, here you can learn about the IPCC, followed by a series of links to articles looking into this PopularTechnology.net's Poptech character and his game, I'll catch up to co2science in another post.
The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Understanding the IPCC Reports
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained
By Denise Chow, Staff Writer | September 18, 2013
Such as the reality that our increasingly erratic jet stream (which pushes and pulls weather systems around the globe), and which is the boundary between the frigid Arctic air mass and temperate zone air mass, and is subject to making increasingly extreme meanders that shove our warm air into the Arctic, forcing cold Arctic air masses into temperate zone. All part and parcel of Global Warming's cascading consequences. Confusion explained - but will any of them listen to reason?
and https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth's-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade (Here we have an example of "seepage" since surface temps never actually stopped rising, it was just the rate of increase that moderated, but that's all over now, sadly no one on that side of the aisle has the courage to look at the evidence and admit what is happening. Way too entrenched in their self-certain convictions. The more the evidence diverges from their mind's eye convictions - the more they will get pissed at other people who do accept the obvious. Frightening times we are entering.)
Here I share a sampling:
Eli Rabett, recalls his excursion into Poptech's world and does a fine job of describing Poptech's technic.
"RTFR Pops" - http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/rtfr-pops.html
9 out of 10 top climate change deniers linked with Exxon Mobil
Mihai Andrei | May 10, 2011
A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief investigated no less than 900 published papers, all of which cast doubts on climate change, or even speak against it. After concluding this investigation, they found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific ones had some sort of connection with Exxon Mobil. You can find a link to these papers at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The results showed that out of the 938 papers cited, 186 of them were written by only ten men, and foremost among them was Dr Sherwood B Idso, who personally authored 67 of them. Idso is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, an ExxonMobil funded think tank. The second most prolific was Dr Patrick J Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who receives roughly 40% of his funding from the oil industry.
This goes in parallel with the ‘work’ of the Koch industries; even though you probably haven’t heard of them, Koch industries is the second largest privately held company in the US, and in the past 50 years, they have invested more than 50.000.000 dollars in spreading doubts about climate change, according to Greenpeace.
Carbon Brief's review of Poptech's list:
Part 1 - Analyzing the 900 papers supporting climate skeptics 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil
Part 2 - Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.
Part 3 - Energy and Environment – “journal of choice for climate skeptics”
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
Poptech’s list of Confusion
800 papers disputing the theory of climate change!! Can it be true, or is this an over-reaction?
Joanna Nova, known for her hatred of anyone on her website calling deniers a denier, invokes the use of this term for anyone willing to question a list of papers.
This is also another straw man argument, no one needs to deny the existence of these papers, because quite obviously they do exist, but they don’t destroy AGW as some people might be fooled into thinking. Nova’s words
Who are the deniers now? 800 Peer Reviewed Papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.
Seeing this list people might be fooled into thinking these papers somehow rebut the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Nova seems fooled into thinking we need to “deny” them all. In fact as we’ll see, the author of these papers likes to categorise this list in his unique way, thus making it appear there are a lot of papers that dispute the science of AGW.
“Merchant of doubt” Nova blindly promotes the list in several of her posts, but misses out on one of the nuances of Poptech’s criteria, ALARM! Poptech will list papers if HE decides they rebut an alarming claim made by “someone” on the Internet. A paper doesn’t have to dispute the mainstream climate science found in the IPCC report in order to be included.
Posted on 13 February 2011 by Rob Honeycutt
As most here have followed the climate issue for some time I'm sure we have each been faced with climate skeptics throwing out big numbers related to different aspects of climate science.
There is the ever present "31,000 Scientists Who Challenge Global Warming," the infamous Oregon Petition.
And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) and his, now, 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm ...
Instead of copying an pasting long refuted nonsense why no present a valid argument that does not misrepresent the list?
The "Rebuttals to Criticism" section includes refutations of everything you presented.
The "Historic" section of the list is still present and was specifically created so it could not be cherry picked to misrepresent the list.
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"
Rebuttal to The Carbon Brief - "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading."
Rebuttal to The Carbon Brief - Energy and Environment – "journal of choice for climate skeptics" Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III"
Rebuttal to "Poptech's list of Confusion"
"An alarmist spammer who comments at Jo Nova's site by the screen name "Blimey" and around the Internet as "itsnotnova" continues doubling down on his insanity. After having his original blog post completely refuted he decided to add new lies, misinformation and strawman arguments to it. He is so incompetent that he did not even read the list correctly (Lie #4) or understands that "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of peer-reviewed scientific document format in certain scholarly journals such as Nature (Lie #13)."
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science - Rebuttal to "Meet the Denominator"
"In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, former bike messenger and man-purse maker Rob "Scumbags" Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, the script for "Batman Returns" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.
Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense such as, "Santa Claus, Last of the Wild Men: The Origins and Evolution of Saint Nicholas" that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate."
Which of those refuted arguments do you want to try and defend? Pick any so I can refute it for you in extensive detail.
Andrew Poptech, that was a very interesting trick you pulled there. But still your comment is a cut and past of your usual boiler plate mucho-blah-blah
How about transient nature of the MWP and today's situation of society injecting over 3 gigatonnes a month of known greenhouse gases - that you so conveniently ignore?
How about your convenient way of ignoring physical observations of the cascading consequences of manmade global warming our planet is experiencing - instead keeping totally to lip flapping about distractions?
How about the one that your lists are huge incoherent conglomerations of papers and that you draw false conclusions from them - Or that you do nothing to clarify the science - instead you are all about muddling and confusing?
Why never ever try to actually look at the science behind them. What about learning about our geophysical planet and what is happening on it?
You are in your bubble chamber and all you see is your messaging, which you can massage into anything you like, since fidelity to the truth, and striving for understanding means nothing to you.
And every time someone bites back, you double down with more endless lipflapping that people don't have the time to track down, so you call self-certain victory and broadcast to all who buy your game - that the whole world of science is conspiring against you.
Your contrived self serving lists upon lists are a malicious dilettante's toy -
Here want to see what real science looks like -
Information from Paleoclimate Archives
I see there are two other comment from Andrew Poptech.
They were sent while I was busy working on my last two posts this morning in response to his first comment,
after which I had to shut down the computer and get back to the day to day chores.
Andrew, I understand that your favorite tactic is to overwhelm with self-selected lists upon lists.
But I'm not going let you play that game with me - we're going to take this a bit slower.
I'm going to sit on those comments and wait until you Andrew Poptech respond to a few simple, but oh so relevant questions, that I have.
First explain: Why you think the MWP is relevant to today's situation?
Why do you ignore the fact that the scientific community has spent enormous amounts of time and effort studying the MWP, and the LIA, and all other climate fluctuations in our past?
Why do you ignore that those lesson are thoroughly incorporated into today's understanding.
Why ignore all that the IPCC has written on the topic? (Which I bet incorporates many of the studies you're trying to use as bludgeons against that serious scientific effort to understand our global heat and moisture distribution engine.
Poptech, what about this list?
Yo, Poptech, Here's That List For You.
Post a Comment