Drexel University study on AGW deniers

[flacaltenn]

bri, an appeal to authority only applies when a conclusion is drawn. No conclusion was drawn. I didn't claim climate scientists are right, I only accused Helen of poor defense.

We really really don't have to work very hard at all at this point Gnarly to maintain the high position as skeptics.. All we really have to do is show where all the OBVIOUS SCIENCE on Climate Change has been delayed or come late to the discussion..

I'm talking about things like the Max Planck position that was discussed a couple pages ago, and the warming "hiding in the oceans" ---- These are all OBVIOUS oversights from BASICS PHYSIC and ENGINEERING that I PERSONALLY believe were left out of "climate science" ON PURPOSE --- until they were needed as excuses for failure. It's all very Sesame Street type science with all the curve matching and modeling and hype.. The SERIOUS stuff (like the Max Planck "discovery" of delays in establishing thermal equilibrium) not being delivered until recently --------- just looks ASSININE to anyone with a serious science background.

All these obvious omissions should have been in discussion DECADES ago...

 

[IanC]

In surveys, semantics is a crucial factor. Two questions that on their faces ask for precisely the same opinion, can garner widely divergent results. Phrasing questions accurately and objectively in order to get the desired information is an art form. And along the way to learning that art, pollsters and surveyors learn how to phrase questions, not to get the information they want, but the results they're looking for. When dealing with polls and surveys, either as a subject or as a potential user of their results, it's always good to have a good look with a critical eye at the questions that were asked and to whom they were put.

I don't blame you for worrying about the make up of the questions or how they are compiled and what conclusions will be draw. Many of the previous polls on climate change have been poorly done. The Lewandowsky and Cook poll and the papers it led to is an example of practically all the wrong things that can be done. But this is a poll on skeptic's opinions, not a hatchet job, so I think the results will be illuminating.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

bri, an appeal to authority only applies when a conclusion is drawn. No conclusion was drawn. I didn't claim climate scientists are right, I only accused Helen of poor defense.

We really really don't have to work very hard at all at this point Gnarly to maintain the high position as skeptics.. All we really have to do is show where all the OBVIOUS SCIENCE on Climate Change has been delayed or come late to the discussion..

I'm talking about things like the Max Planck position that was discussed a couple pages ago, and the warming "hiding in the oceans" ---- These are all OBVIOUS oversights from BASICS PHYSIC and ENGINEERING that I PERSONALLY believe were left out of "climate science" ON PURPOSE --- until they were needed as excuses for failure. It's all very Sesame Street type science with all the curve matching and modeling and hype.. The SERIOUS stuff (like the Max Planck "discovery" of delays in establishing thermal equilibrium) not being delivered until recently --------- just looks ASSININE to anyone with a serious science background.

All these obvious omissions should have been in discussion DECADES ago...

Another good reason to be a skeptic.

What other omissions are there? What other excuses are they going to pull from thin air, to try and explain away why their models keep being wrong?

 

[Kosh]

This thread is proof that the far left/AGW cultists are against real science.

 

[gnarlylove]

What is real science?

Does science become real when you believe it or do you believe it because it's real? The distinction is an important one.

Sadly foibles and blemishes are your only science, FLC.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is real science?

Does science become real when you believe it or do you believe it because it's real? The distinction is an important one.

Sadly foibles and blemishes are your only science, FLC.

Is that me FLC? Big Ten Philosophy wasn't it? It Shows...

I was calling out these SnuffleUpAguses and Big Birds YEARS ago --- on this very forum --- for ignoring science stuff they are JUST DISCOVERING today... Go do a forum search on "thermal inertia" and tell me what you come with.


Go try that crap in Politics..

 

[Kosh]

What is real science?

Does science become real when you believe it or do you believe it because it's real? The distinction is an important one.

Sadly foibles and blemishes are your only science, FLC.

And this goes to show why the far left /AGW cultists should not be anywhere near the field of science as they are non-believers.

 

[westwall]

The Earth is going to exist whether humans roam or not. The Earth is not going to cease existence due to pollution. There may be a sharp decline in the population resulting from effects of climate disruption, and this is worth doing something about. Throwing our hands up is not by any means addressing or dissolving the real issues we are facing and will face down the road.

All evidence we have, and it is substantial and go's back for millennia now, shows that almost all life does significantly warmer when it is warmer than the current temperature.
Especially human life. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods were warmer than the current day and there were fewer wars, more food, and culture blossomed during those eras.

Only you science and history deniers claim otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Then tell us Helen, how bad do you think the world is going to get? Do you think it'll get so bad that we really suffer or will it be okay for most folks?

Sound like a good question?

The world will do BETTER when it's warmer. All evidence we have supports that contention.

 

[westwall]

Helen, are you thinking the facts are on your side?

What facts would those be?

ALL empirical and historical evidence shows us that when it's warmer it's better. The global temperature is less now than it has been for several warming periods that were cultural bonanzas.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, Walleyes, you are full of shit. The only period we have enough data on to state that it was warmer or colder than the present, was the MWP. And it was cooler;

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

In geological history, periods of rapid temperature change, whether warmer or colder, have been periods of extinction. From the PT Extinction from rapid warming, to the Ordivician extinction period from rapid cooling, depletion of CO2 from the weathering of the ancient Appalachian Mountains, rapid change is very dangerous to life.

 

[gnarlylove]

What is real science?

Does science become real when you believe it or do you believe it because it's real? The distinction is an important one.

Sadly foibles and blemishes are your only science, FLC.

Is that me FLC? Big Ten Philosophy wasn't it? It Shows...

I was calling out these SnuffleUpAguses and Big Birds YEARS ago --- on this very forum --- for ignoring science stuff they are JUST DISCOVERING today... Go do a forum search on "thermal inertia" and tell me what you come with.


Go try that crap in Politics..

"Go try that crap in Politics"
Should have told me a month ago when we were raging in the sketpics are winning thread. I already found it and am well underway. Maybe you can join in say on the purpose of government thread so I can get a better picture of how your politics influences your science.

But anyway, I have to admit, every once in a while I really like your posts. This would be one just for it's flow. I would love to start calling you Big Ten Philosophy.

Only the last comment on the post you replied to was directed at you. The other was asking Kosh.

But either way, I respect you I just can't respect some of your ideas. I am not saying you aren't smart or don't have plenty of scientific knowledge. But your campaign against AGW is based on pointing out insignificant errors insofar as they don't change the fact we are marching towards environmental devastation. You even agree that many things like NP Gyre and it's soupy garbage and plastic mix is way bad. I'm sure you think 100s of things we are doing is bad. But when it comes to actually thinking the environment should not be destroyed, you confuse yourself by agreeing it shouldn't but thinking humans play inconsequential role and therefore cannot change the world. That is based on pseudo scientific beliefs that the earth is just too big. I'll admit the earth isn't going anywhere whether we visit nuclear holocaust or pursue environmental degradation to the end but the fact is, that doesn't matter. What matters is how the environment will change and thus effect food supply, displace coastal regions and islands, not this year, but decades from now. These consequences are quite real and are very serious of climate change that is 95% likely due to human activity.

 

[gnarlylove]

The Earth is going to exist whether humans roam or not. The Earth is not going to cease existence due to pollution. There may be a sharp decline in the population resulting from effects of climate disruption, and this is worth doing something about. Throwing our hands up is not by any means addressing or dissolving the real issues we are facing and will face down the road.

All evidence we have, and it is substantial and go's back for millennia now, shows that almost all life does significantly warmer when it is warmer than the current temperature.
Especially human life. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming Periods were warmer than the current day and there were fewer wars, more food, and culture blossomed during those eras.

Only you science and history deniers claim otherwise.

I don't remember saying that but thanks for bringing it back up. I think it's a rather eloquent description of what my last post spent twice as many sentences explaining.

At any rate, "warming" is not the problem. It's the effects of climate change, which stems from erratic weather, not just warming. Say for example droughts or floods. I know I deny science, that's why I think IPCC is full of shit. NOT!

 

[flacaltenn]

And, Walleyes, you are full of shit. The only period we have enough data on to state that it was warmer or colder than the present, was the MWP. And it was cooler;

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

In geological history, periods of rapid temperature change, whether warmer or colder, have been periods of extinction. From the PT Extinction from rapid warming, to the Ordivician extinction period from rapid cooling, depletion of CO2 from the weathering of the ancient Appalachian Mountains, rapid change is very dangerous to life.

Somebody still hasnt graduated from skepticalscience. We have discussed 3 studies in thenpast six months declaring a warmer Medieval period and the evidence was global.

 

[Abraham3]

So what? Where do you get the idea that the MWP and the current period have anything in common?

 

[flacaltenn]

So what? Where do you get the idea that the MWP and the current period have anything in common?

That's not my concern at the moment. My concern is your bud GoldiRocks is still clinging to the wild scat he reads at skepticalscience instead of paying attention to the mountain of new studies confirming the MWP was warmer and global.. I shall not sleep tonight worrying about the status of his drifting soul...

 

[westwall]

And, Walleyes, you are full of shit. The only period we have enough data on to state that it was warmer or colder than the present, was the MWP. And it was cooler;

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

In geological history, periods of rapid temperature change, whether warmer or colder, have been periods of extinction. From the PT Extinction from rapid warming, to the Ordivician extinction period from rapid cooling, depletion of CO2 from the weathering of the ancient Appalachian Mountains, rapid change is very dangerous to life.

I'll see your skeptical science BS and raise you these peer reviewed papers that claim otherwise.

Aas, B. and Faarlund, T. 1988. Postglasiale skoggrenser i sentrale sornorske fjelltrakter. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 4: 6-16.

Aas, B. and Faarlund, T. 1999. Macrofossils versus pollen as evidence of the Holocene forest development in Fennoscandia. AmS-Rapport 12B: 307-346.

Akasofu, S.-I. 2010. On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Natural Science 2: 1211-1224.

Berger, A. 1988. Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics 26: 624-657.

Carcaillet, C., Hornberg, G. and Zackrisson, O. 2012. Woody vegetation, fuel and fire track the melting of the Scandinavian ice-sheet before 9500 cal yr BP. Quaternary Research 78: 540-548.

Curry, J.A. and Webster, P.J. 2011. Climate science and the uncertainty monster. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92: 1667-1682.

Eronen, M. 1979. The retreat of pine forest in Finnish Lapland since the Holocene climatic optimum: a general discussion with radiocarbon evidence from subfossil pine. Fennia 157: 93-114.

Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Tomonen, M., Zorita, E., Wilson, R.J.S., Luterbacher, J., Holzkamper, S., Fischer, N., Wagner, S., Nievergelt, D., Verstege, A. and Buntgen, U. 2012. Orbital forcing of tree-ring data. Nature Climate Change 2: 862-866.

Helama, S., Lundholm, M., Timonen, M. and Eronen,M. 2004. Dendrochronologically dated changes in the limit of pine in northernmost Finland during the past 7.5 millennia. Boreas 33: 250-259.

Hiller, A., Boettger, T. and Kremenetski, C. 2001. Mediaeval climate warming recorded by radiocarbon dated alpine tree-line shift on the Kola Peninsula, Russia. The Holocene 11: 491-497.

Humlum, O., Solheim, J.-E. and Stordahl, K. 2011. Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change. Global and Planetary Change 79: 145-156.

Karlen, W. 1976. Lacustrine sediments and tree-limit variations as indicators of Holocene climatic fluctuations in Lappland, northern Sweden. Geografiska Annaler 58A: 1-34.

Karlen, W. 1998. Climate variations and the enhanced greenhouse effect. Ambio 27: 270-274.

Karlen, W. 2008. Recent changes in climate: natural or forced by human activity. Ambio, Special Report 14: 483-488.

Karlen, W. and Kuylenstierna, J. 1996. On solar forcing of Holocene climate: evidence from Scandinavia. The Holocene 6: 359-365.

Kobashi, T., Kawamura, K., Severinghaus, J.P., Barnola, M.-M., Nakaegawa, T., Vinther, B.M., Johnasen, S.J. and Box, J.E. 2011. High variability of Greenland surface temperatures over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2011GL049444.

Kremenetski, K.V., Boettger, T., MacDonald, G.M., Vaschalova, T., Sulerzhitsky, L. and Hiller, A. 2004. Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multi-proxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 113-125.

Kullman, L. 1995. Holocene tree-limit and climate history from the Scandes Mountains, Sweden. Ecology 76: 2490-2502.

Kullman, L. 2000. The geoecological history of Picea abies in northern Sweden and adjacent parts of Norway. A contrarian hypothesis of postglacial tree immigration patterns. Geo-Oko 21: 141-172.

Kullman, L. 2006. Late-glacial trees from arctic coast to alpine tundra. Response to Birks et al. 2005 and 2006. Correspondence. Journal of Biogeography 33: 377-378.

Kullman, L. 2008. Early postglacial appearance of tree species in northern Scandinavia: review and perspective. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 2467-2472.

Kullman, L. 2013. Ecological tree line history and palaeoclimate - review of mega-fossil evidence from the Swedish Scandes. Boreas 42: 555-567.

Kullman, L. and Kjallgren, L. 2000. A coherent postglacial tree-limit chronology (Pinus sylvestris (L.) for the Swedish Scandes: aspects of paleoclimate and 'recent warming,' based on megafossil evidence. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 32: 419-428.

Kullman, L. and Kjallgren, L. 2006. Holocene pine tree-line evolution in the Swedish Scandes: recent tree-line rise and climate change in a long-term perspective. Boreas 35: 159-168.

Ljungqvist, F.C., Krusic, P.J., Brattstrom, G. and Sundffqvist, H.S. 2012. Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8: 227-249.

Lundqvist, G. 1959. C14- daterade tallstubbar fran fjallen. Sveriges Geologiska Undersokning. Serie C 565: 1-21.

Lundqvist, J. 1969. Beskrivning till jordartskarta over Jamtlands lan. Sveriges Geologiska Undersokning. Serie Ca 45: 1-418.

Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.

Moe, D. and Odland, A. 1992. The influence of the temperature climate on the vertical distribution of Alnus incana (Betulaceae) through the Holocene in Norway. Acta Botanica Fennica 144: 35-49.

Nesje, M., Kvamme, M., Rye, N. and Lovlie, R. 1991. Holocene glacial and climate history of the Jostedalsbreen region, western Norway: evidence from lake sediments and terrestrial deposits. Quaternary Science Reviews 10: 87-114.

Oberg, L. and Kullman, L. 2011a. Ancient subalpine clonal spruces (Picea abies) - sources of postglacial vegetation history in the Swedish Scandes. Arctic 64: 183-196.

Oberg, L. and Kullman, L. 2011b. Recent glacier recession - a new source of postglacial treeline and climate history in the Swedish Scandes. Landscape Online 26: 1-38.

Parducci, L., Jorgensen, T., Tollefsrud, M.T., Elverland, E., Alm, T., Fontana, S.L., Bennett, K.D., Haile, J., Matetovici, I., Suyama, Y., Edwards, M.E., Andersen, K., Rasmussen, M., Boessenkol, S., Coissact, E., Brochmann, C., Taberlet, P., Houmark-Nielsen, M., Krog Larsen, N., Orlando, L., Gilbert, M.T., Kjaer, K.H., Greve Alsos, I. and Willerslev, E. 2012. Glacial survival of boreal trees in Northern Scandinavia. Science 335: 1083-1086.

Paus, A. 2010. Vegetation and environment of the Rodalen alpine area, Central Norway, with emphasis on the early Holocene. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19: 29-51.

Paus, A., Velle, G. and Berge, J. 2011. The Lateglacial and early Holocene vegetation and environment in the Dovre mountains, central Norway, as signaled in two Lateglacial lakes. Quaternary Science Reviews 80: 1780-1793.

Selsing, L. 1998. Subfossils of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) from the mountain area of South Norway as the basis for a long tree-ring chronology. Norsk Geografisk Tidskrift 52: 89-103.

Shiyatov, S.G. 2003. Rates of change in the upper treeline ecotone in the Polar Ural Mountains. Pages News 11: 8-10.

 

[westwall]

And, Walleyes, you are full of shit. The only period we have enough data on to state that it was warmer or colder than the present, was the MWP. And it was cooler;

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

In geological history, periods of rapid temperature change, whether warmer or colder, have been periods of extinction. From the PT Extinction from rapid warming, to the Ordivician extinction period from rapid cooling, depletion of CO2 from the weathering of the ancient Appalachian Mountains, rapid change is very dangerous to life.

Somebody still hasnt graduated from skepticalscience. We have discussed 3 studies in thenpast six months declaring a warmer Medieval period and the evidence was global.

Three studies of over 100. goldirocks is stunted. That's the only way to explain his inability to follow modern science.

 

[westwall]

So what? Where do you get the idea that the MWP and the current period have anything in common?

Look up the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITARIANISM. It is a foundational bedrock of modern science....not the ancient mystical crap you follow.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is real science?

Does science become real when you believe it or do you believe it because it's real? The distinction is an important one.

Sadly foibles and blemishes are your only science, FLC.

Is that me FLC? Big Ten Philosophy wasn't it? It Shows...

I was calling out these SnuffleUpAguses and Big Birds YEARS ago --- on this very forum --- for ignoring science stuff they are JUST DISCOVERING today... Go do a forum search on "thermal inertia" and tell me what you come with.


Go try that crap in Politics..

"Go try that crap in Politics"
Should have told me a month ago when we were raging in the sketpics are winning thread. I already found it and am well underway. Maybe you can join in say on the purpose of government thread so I can get a better picture of how your politics influences your science.

But anyway, I have to admit, every once in a while I really like your posts. This would be one just for it's flow. I would love to start calling you Big Ten Philosophy.

Kinda fond of you too squirt. Got a soft spot in my head for philosophers.. Especially those living so close to nature and all.. Lemme save you a bunch of reading. "The purpose of (OUR) government" is stay within the bounds of the Powers we ceeded to it via a very short read document called the Constitution.. ALL of our problems stem from not restraining it from usurping further powers..

Only the last comment on the post you replied to was directed at you. The other was asking Kosh.

But either way, I respect you I just can't respect some of your ideas. I am not saying you aren't smart or don't have plenty of scientific knowledge. But your campaign against AGW is based on pointing out insignificant errors insofar as they don't change the fact we are marching towards environmental devastation. You even agree that many things like NP Gyre and it's soupy garbage and plastic mix is way bad. I'm sure you think 100s of things we are doing is bad. But when it comes to actually thinking the environment should not be destroyed, you confuse yourself by agreeing it shouldn't but thinking humans play inconsequential role and therefore cannot change the world. That is based on pseudo scientific beliefs that the earth is just too big. I'll admit the earth isn't going anywhere whether we visit nuclear holocaust or pursue environmental degradation to the end but the fact is, that doesn't matter. What matters is how the environment will change and thus effect food supply, displace coastal regions and islands, not this year, but decades from now. These consequences are quite real and are very serious of climate change that is 95% likely due to human activity.

Oh well, that's a different story.. We certainly CAN wreck the environment in very short order if we put our minds to it.. At least temporarily.. But you should have learned not to lump arguments and generalize in logic class. Just because man does any number of destructive things to environment doesn't mean we don't MEASURE AND QUANTIFY the damage in a scientific and economic way.. And you don't get to declare that science SUPPORTS you in a jihad against the random practices that YOU think are nasty..

That's the hard part. And it takes investment in knowledge of EACH TOPIC INDIVIDUALLY. Because there are no generalized frameworks of value in science.