Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?

[Whiskey_Clear]

These guys are in the minority.....so they must be idiots with opinions to be discounted.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1

 

[Animal02]

These guys are in the minority.....so they must be idiots with opinions to be discounted.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1

I like that Plimer.

 

[cyptomcat]

Add the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology to the list of institutions of higher tin-foil hat wearing:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/s...y-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

The scientists involved in the Max Planck study better batten down the hatches. Their names will be drawn through the mud now. Happens to every scientist that proposes info that counters the "consensus".

As to the study itself. Shows the more we learn the less we knew from the beginning. I'm not convinced this study proves atmospheric sensitivity. It certainly casts more doubt on the consensus however.

The scientists, Bjorn Stevens, penned a response, so in his very own words:

"So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

(approaching from a slightly different angle than mine above)

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Then there is this.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html

It reports on a study conducted by climate scientists from Duke University.........its Duke so I guess we have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[cyptomcat]

Then there is this.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html

It reports on a study conducted by climate scientists from Duke University.........its Duke so I guess we have to take it with a grain of salt.

Interesting read, here is the official Duke release which Daily Mail mostly quoted without linking:
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

“Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” ... “At any given time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability”

“By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

Here is the original paper since the Daily Mail didn't share a link to it:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150421/srep09957/full/srep09957.html

Figure 2 is a nice overlay of the models and observed temperatures.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Maybe this will help shed light on whether the temperature data has been fudged or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

 

[Northeast Stinger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

 

[cyptomcat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Well, that part was obvious, but you shouldn't be prejudiced just because of that. This will take a long time to prepare and results should help make science better.

Let's see the report first. I like Pielke's work.

The Berkeley group started their work for the same reason. They thought they could do better than NASA's algorithms, and maybe they did. Regardless their end result was the same, that there has been warming.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

but you shouldn't be prejudiced just because of that

That was my point I think. The fact that this particular group is investigating the research is both neither surprising nor is it conclusive of anything at this point. It just is what it is.

 

[Animal02]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

Really.....Wikipedia?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Really.....Wikipedia?

I get that you like your old set of Encyclopedia Britanica but they don't get corrected and updated as often.

 

[Animal02]

I get that you like your old set of Encyclopedia Britanica but they don't get corrected and updated as often.

No, simply that an subject with the slightest controversy is going to have a "slant" in wiki.
It is not even accepted as a source at the H.S. level......

 

[AE 87]

I get that you like your old set of Encyclopedia Britanica but they don't get corrected and updated as often.

No, simply that an subject with the slightest controversy is going to have a "slant" in wiki.
It is not even accepted as a source at the H.S. level......

Yeah, Animal's right on this. I think you can use Wiki to check their sources etc, but it is an echo chamber of one side of controversial issues and often simply censors alternative data.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yeah, Animal's right on this. I think you can use Wiki to check their sources etc, but it is an echo chamber of one side of controversial issues and often simply censors alternative data.

I find it to be a pretty good source if you check the footnotes. Pretty much acknowledged as the single best source for a starting point on anything and everything in the world. Of course you don't stop with their narrative. That was the mistake Rand Paul kept making.

Still amazes me how the founder of Wiki gave up making billions of dollars to focus on a program that could get the most information to the most people as quickly as possible. And its self correcting nature is democracy at its best. Not perfect but one of the few times the internet actually delivered on what it promised when it was first invented.

 

[AE 87]

I find it to be a pretty good source if you check the footnotes. Pretty much acknowledged as the single best source for a starting point on anything and everything in the world. Of course you don't stop with their narrative. That was the mistake Rand Paul kept making.

Still amazes me how the founder of Wiki gave up making billions of dollars to focus on a program that could get the most information to the most people as quickly as possible. And its self correcting nature is democracy at its best. Not perfect but one of the few times the internet actually delivered on what it promised when it was first invented.

Yeah, perhaps we just disagree on whether "democracy at its best" includes censoring and silencing unpopular positions. Or, since you seem to think that Animal and I are lying in our claims of how it handles controversial opinions, you may simply be drawn to Wiki which similarly dismisses and censors information with which the mob disagrees.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Or, since you seem to think that Animal and I are lying in our claims of how it handles controversial opinions, you may simply be drawn to Wiki which similarly dismisses and censors information with which the mob disagrees.

I don't think you are lying but it makes me wonder why you don't edit the articles yourself if you think they are factually incorrect. If you are suggesting that facts are dismissed because they are unpopular you are seeing something I have not seen and frankly have never heard before. My experience has been that if a topic is controversial and there is not factual consensus the article will state that up front, show the passages that are in dispute and discuss which areas are still under review, all with plenty of footnotes. I do know they do not accept information from sources that are part of any political lobbying efforts. The program was set up by the founder that way.

 

[AE 87]

I don't think you are lying but it makes me wonder why you don't edit the articles yourself if you think they are factually incorrect. If you are suggesting that facts are dismissed because they are unpopular you are seeing something I have not seen and frankly have never heard before. My experience has been that if a topic is controversial and there is not factual consensus the article will state that up front, show the passages that are in dispute and discuss which areas are still under review, all with plenty of footnotes. I do know they do not accept information from sources that are part of any political lobbying efforts. The program was set up by the founder that way.

Your experience is incomplete. I tried participating once, but I quickly found it wasn't worth it. The issues I have in mind are not political but academic.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Your experience is incomplete. I tried participating once, but I quickly found it wasn't worth it. The issues I have in mind are not political but academic.

O.K., I'll accept your experience over mine. You were probably in an area of your expertise whereas I was probably in an area of my expertise.

 

[Animal02]

Your experience is incomplete. I tried participating once, but I quickly found it wasn't worth it. The issues I have in mind are not political but academic.

Yeah, I tried a couple of times on non controversial subjects and it quickly got re-edited by what apparently were "owners" of the that particular page. There are definitely "gate keepers"
No doubt it can be a good starting point for many things, but it certainly is not a reliable source of information.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Another individual study swimming upstream against a river of climate alarmist studies. Just delving into it but an interesting read so far.