Same thing happened with the tobacco industry. Scientists who researched it found that there was a correlation between smoking and cancer and they presented those findings. Then big tobacco got a few doctors, scientists, politicians, etc that were willing to defend the tobacco companies. Money makes people say anything! Tobacco fought these scientists for decades. Imagine the power of big oil. They can convince you that you're gay. That's how easy it is for them to get people like you to buy their shit. People who actually do the research and understand what they're researching think differently than you and Big Oil! What a shocker!
Pardon me as I step over the burned and charred corpse which was once akfagdrunk...
Someone explain to me how is it that the "settled" science is unable to fathom the current hiatus in warming (their words, not mine)? How is it that settled science just can't fathom what the hell is going on with the Antarctic ice? The climate zealots can't answer those questions, so the best thing to do is ask some other questions that will deflect attention.
Simply, the science is not settled.
I was watching a show on Einstein a few days ago. They were discussing the period when he was seeking to prove his general relativity theory. One woman physicist said it best:
"He needed proof. In science, without proof...you have science fiction."
Global warming/Climate change has no proof. No proof, no peace. Zero, nada. If the glove doesn't, fit you must acquit.
Where is the proof? Where is the definitive linkage that all these anecdotal developments are caused by CO2 and that the trajectory of change is known? Where's the beef?
No proof, no peace. We're indeed left with science fiction. Instead of proof, we get declarative sentences from both our resident idiots and the climate high priests.
Someone explain to me how is it that the "settled" science is unable to fathom the current hiatus in warming (their words, not mine)? How is it that settled science just can't fathom what the hell is going on with the Antarctic ice? The climate zealots can't answer those questions, so the best thing to do is ask some other questions that will deflect attention.
Simply, the science is not settled.
I was watching a show on Einstein a few days ago. They were discussing the period when he was seeking to prove his general relativity theory. One woman physicist said it best:
"He needed proof. In science, without proof...you have science fiction."
Global warming/Climate change has no proof. No proof, no peace. Zero, nada. If the glove doesn't, fit you must acquit.
Where is the proof? Where is the definitive linkage that all these anecdotal developments are caused by CO2 and that the trajectory of change is known? Where's the beef?
No proof, no peace. We're indeed left with science fiction. Instead of proof, we get declarative sentences from both our resident idiots and the climate high priests.
Ak continues to prove why he's the dumbest (and most ignorant) idiot in here.
[h=3]13,950 Meaningless Search Results[/h]
Rebuttal to "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles"
In the never ending quest for alarmists to one up their incompetent friends they continue to seek out new ways to demonstrate their own computer illiteracy. Enter James Powell who in a meaningless analysis is apparently ignorant that the 'Web of Science' database does not have a "peer-reviewed" filter and the existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine it's context. Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 13,950 meaningless search results not "peer-reviewed scientific articles" for a query of the 'Web of Science' database - with 24 chosen by strawman argument.
1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in all the results was never determined.
2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".
3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter.
4. It is a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
1. Context matters
The existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine its context. So making any arguments for or against an implied position relating to the use of a phrase by simply looking at numerical result totals is impossible. Powell never determined the context of how the search phrases were used in all the results.
Thus, Powell's 13,950 meaningless search results include ones irrelevant to the global warming debate such as,
Case study of visualizing global user download patterns using Google Earth and NASA World Wind
(Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, Volume 6, Issue 1, October 2012)
- Ziliang Zong et al.
2. Padding the Results
Powell padded his search results total by using the phrases; "global warming" and/or "global climate change" instead of "anthropogenic global warming" [man-made global warming] or "anthropogenic global climate change" [man-made global climate change], which would have significantly reduced the number of returned results. Without the qualifier "anthropogenic", results are included where no claim of explicit endorsement or rejection of ACC/AGW can be made.
Others alarmists have been challenged to search for the phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" using Oreskes (2004) methods and they only got 108 returned results. These low number of results are not useful to sell the type of propaganda alarmists like Powell are looking for.
3. Peer-Reviewed?
In his methods, Powell filtered his results by the 'articles' document type which includes content that may not be peer-reviewed depending on the specific journal,
Document Type Descriptions (Web of Science)
"Article: Reports of research on original works. Includes research papers, features, brief communications, case reports, technical notes, chronology, and full papers that were presented at a symposium or conference."
Categories like these have been the subject of debate and confusion in relation to their peer-review status,
"...three categories of articles have been published: review articles up to 10 000 words, original articles of 2500–5000 words and brief communications of 1000–2000 words. Only the first two categories were subject to peer review and brief communications were being published without this quality check." - Health Information and Libraries Journal
"Because of trends in submissions, Nature's Brief Communications will bow out at the end of the year. [...] False rumours that the section was not peer reviewed have occasionally circulated." - Nature
4. Strawman argument
By fabricating a strawman argument claiming he found only 24 papers "rejecting global warming", Powell intentionally misrepresented actual skeptic arguments and failed to count hundreds of peer-reviewed papers authored by skeptics such as,
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
* Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index).
* August 1997 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012.
* Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? includes the search phrase "global warming".
and,
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
* Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded).
* August 2011 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012.
* On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications includes the search phrase "global warming".
Powell then mentions, "Note that some papers that one might expect to find listed were classified as "Review" or "Editorial Material" by WoS. I did not count these." It is illogical why anyone would expect "Editorial Material" to be listed if they were looking for peer-reviewed content. However, he intentionally did not count review papers which are commonly peer-reviewed and considered scientifically valid such as,
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
* Climate Research is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index).
* April 1998 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012.
* CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change includes the search phrase "global warming".
and,
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 162, Issue 8-9, pp. 1557-1586, August 2005)
- Madhav L. Khandekar, T. S. Murty, P. Chittibabu
* Pure and Applied Geophysics is indexed in Web of Science (Science Citation Index).
* August 2005 is between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012.
* The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science includes the search phrase "global warming".
Conclusion
In a true sense of irony Powell uses his meaningless analysis as a defense of Oreskes (2004) which is considered useless by world renowned climate experts,
"Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work." - Tom Wigley, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
He then attempts to smear skeptics as "global warming deniers". This is a dishonest ad hominem as skeptics believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.Powell's pie chart is simply propaganda for those who are intellectual dishonest and want to be intentionally misleading about actual skeptic arguments or the over 1100 peer-reviewed papers that support them.
Questions:
1. Why is Powell being intentionally misleading and not counting hundreds of peer-reviewed papers authored by skeptics?
2. Why is Powell stating dishonest ad hominems about skeptics, claiming they don't believe there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age?
References:
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PNAS, August 5, 1997)
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (Climate Research, April, 1998)
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Science, December 3, 2004)
The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science (Pure and Applied Geophysics, August, 2005)
The brief goodbye (Nature, September 20, 2006)
Editorial (Health Information & Libraries Journal, June 19, 2007)
Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science (Popular Technology.net, February 14, 2011)
On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, August, 2011)
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm (Popular Technology.net, July 23, 2012)
Climategate 3.0: Tom Wigley says Naomi Oreskes’ work is ‘useless’? (Junk Science, March 13, 2013)
Indeed.
As soon as you hear that "97% consensus" bullshit you know you're dealing with a hopeless left wing hack.
[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook and the other loon 'warmers' are outright frauds.
Not even a debate in the academic community any more. Only people like Sheriff Joe, festeringZit, Gas Man and conservative clowns are still questioning it, lol. So funny to watch.
You've already been exposed for posting fake graphics in here multiple times, but yet you keep doing it.
You're just one big fucking joke, and everyone in here knows it.
Almost every study ever done amongst climate scientists is around the 95-100% consensus. So it comes down to trying to discredit people and the surveys rather than acknowledge the overwhelming results.
The only surveys conservatives have done is through engineers, oil field geo-scientists, and just a common survey where anyone with a degree in any field of science counted (considering there is over 10 million of those in America, not that hard).
The bottom line is the people who research climate change agree that the earth is warming and man is the cause. Just a bunch of .com bloggers and crazy Oil & Gas paid clowns try to argue against it. Definitely not any actual researchers. It would be like asking economists how to build bridges.
The only surveys conservatives have done is through engineers, oil field geo-scientists, and just a common survey where anyone with a degree in any field of science counted (considering there is over 10 million of those in America, not that hard).
The bottom line is the people who research climate change agree that the earth is warming and man is the cause. Just a bunch of .com bloggers and crazy Oil & Gas paid clowns try to argue against it. Definitely not any actual researchers. It would be like asking economists how to build bridges.
Turn the clock back by 500 years on this stupid graph...and we would see similar "settled science" numbers that the Earth was flat, not round. Scientists warned Christopher Columbus that he'd fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed out too far.
Again, show me the CO2 proof linkage I asked for earlier. You can't do it, because scientists are now admitting they can't fully explain some of the recent incidents taking place.
I think the real story is more likely "97% of scientists agree their global warming experiments should continue to be funded so they don't have to look for other work..."
