Thread: Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

What I meant was, do you have a reference for the ozone hole being caused by Mt. Erebus?

That's the DC 10 magnet, isn't it?

Originally Posted by glyn

That's the DC 10 magnet, isn't it?

What's large, white and f*cks Kiwis?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Says who? Where's your proof? Show me a survey that demonstrates a majority of Lindzens scientific peers advocate AGW theory.

But that is of course exactly what the Oreskes survey of peer reviewed science from 1993-2003 found. And we'll see shortly that Klaus-Martin Schulte unwittingly ends up doing the same from 2004-2007 ...

Do you remember that original Lindzen article you quoted to start this thread? You ordered all of us to: "Read it. Read it all".

And in my own first posting on this subject, I said: "Pari, Lindzen is entitled to his opinion (and he's not alone amongst so-called global warming sceptics), but it's not shared by the majority of experts in the field ..."

Well, it turns out that Harper's Magazine revealed your article was a speech Lindzen delivered underwritten by OPEC ... yes, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

All part of business for him, as he "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services ..."

Harpers: The Heat Is On - Global Warming - Sierra Club

Read it? Read it all????

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Let's forget about the fact that Schulte isn't a scientist in the field, which you seem to be big on. He's into endocrine medicine, but it actually doesn't matter for this type of armchair research.

It turns out that the journal Energy and Environment is unlikely to publish it at all. This guy claims to have seen the results, though:

The truth will out… « Old man in a cave

who joins them with Oreseke's to come up with this opinion:

Thanks to these two show-and-tell projects, we now know that, out of 1467 abstracts on the subject of ‘global climate change’, there are 4 (there may be a few more) which appear to challenge the ‘consensus’ position. That’ll be 0.27%. This means, surely, that 99.73% do not challenge this position. (We won’t go into the details now). Does this look like a scientific consensus?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

it was Gunnut and Dalem who attacked wiki, not me

Yes, you're right, Pari, it was mistaken identity ... sorry ...

On a related matter, I am still waiting for that position statement by Harvard University, that you said was not simply the views of individuals.

It is not in the Wikipedia link you produced.

Do you have a direct URL instead?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Dumbass.

That's just sooooooo grownup ....

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Being right solely because one is a MIT prof is, of course, absurd. But is it any less absurd to say one is not right because a majority of one's peers disagree?

Are you as certain about Lindzen now you've read about exactly who writes his pay cheques, JAD?

I do actually agree with you. I even said it's possible that he's Galileo-like, right even when he's surrounded by hordes of wrong believers.

But he may not be either. I'm in no position to tell. The only thing we do know is that he hasn't convinced his colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC ... he's been a member of both ...

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Dragging Chomsky into the picture has the earmark of a bias in the making;
unintentional, no doubt.

I'm just pointing out that Chomsky is also a controversial figure, and a full Professor at MIT like Linzden ... his views (either in his field, linguistics, or his hobby, politics) can't possibly represent MIT as an institution either ...

Originally Posted by gunnut

OK, then why did they start using the term "global warming" rather than stick with "climate change" for the last 20 years?

The IPCC is still the IPCC, twenty years or whatever afterwards, GN.

As to why the phrase "global warming" has appeared? You might be right in your earlier post when you guessed it was just a glib slogan, like "An Inconvenient Truth" ...

And true to predictions

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Whats next? Are you going to call them "deniers"? Or tell me they're all in the pay of Exxon?

You do exactly that, direct from the cult propaganda team at the Sierra Club.

Originally Posted by clackers

But that is of course exactly what the Oreskes survey of peer reviewed science from 1993-2003 found. And we'll see shortly that Klaus-Martin Schulte unwittingly ends up doing the same from 2004-2007 ...

Do you remember that original Lindzen article you quoted to start this thread? You ordered all of us to: "Read it. Read it all".

And in my own first posting on this subject, I said: "Pari, Lindzen is entitled to his opinion (and he's not alone amongst so-called global warming sceptics), but it's not shared by the majority of experts in the field ..."

Well, it turns out that Harper's Magazine revealed your article was a speech Lindzen delivered underwritten by OPEC ... yes, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

All part of business for him, as he "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services ..."

Harpers: The Heat Is On - Global Warming - Sierra Club

Read it? Read it all????

Why yes I did. No science apart from spurious allusions, long since discredited, about the Antarctic melting and the authors lawns going brown in summer.
Instead, a 'greenie' site indulging in character assassination: I mean goodness me $2,500 for consultation.
I think you'll find a better source for the claims is the original character assassination where these claims were first made way back in 1995, by Ross Gelbspan (sorry about the wiki article )

an American writer and activist. He has written two books relating to global warming-- The Heat Is On (1997) and Boiling Point (2004). The Heat Is On received national attention when President Bill Clinton told the press he was reading it. Boiling Point was the subject of the lead review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. That review was written by former Vice President Al Gore.[1]

Lindzen himself of course denies the claims, part of the campaign he refers to here

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.

but lets play the game anyway...



I'll see your pathetic $2,500 and raise you $750,000 to James Hansen, your high priest of the global warming cult.

The Soros Threat To Democracy

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/24/2007

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

Next.

Originally Posted by clackers

Let's forget about the fact that Schulte isn't a scientist in the field, which you seem to be big on. He's into endocrine medicine, but it actually doesn't matter for this type of armchair research.

It turns out that the journal Energy and Environment is unlikely to publish it at all. This guy claims to have seen the results, though:

The truth will out… « Old man in a cave

who joins them with Oreseke's to come up with this opinion:

Thanks to these two show-and-tell projects, we now know that, out of 1467 abstracts on the subject of ‘global climate change’, there are 4 (there may be a few more) which appear to challenge the ‘consensus’ position. That’ll be 0.27%. This means, surely, that 99.73% do not challenge this position. (We won’t go into the details now). Does this look like a scientific consensus?

So a study of equal detail following the original Oreseke study, which demonstrates that since the Oreseke study scientific opinion has, despite your claims, moved away from consensus on AGW, you take to mean the opposite. Why am I not surprised

Originally Posted by clackers

Yes, you're right, Pari, it was mistaken identity ... sorry ...

On a related matter, I am still waiting for that position statement by Harvard University, that you said was not simply the views of individuals.

It is not in the Wikipedia link you produced.

Do you have a direct URL instead?

As I have already stated twice, the link to the Harvard article is in the original wiki link I provided, AND, as I have also already stated it was not a position summary but science

Originally Posted by Parihaka

LOL, that's the thing clackers, you keep talking and linking to politics and I keep providing science. The science from Harvard is in the wiki link I provided, look it up yourself.

But since you're so dense here's the Harvard link, part of the wiki article screen shotted below(see what I mean about actually reading everything, it'll help you immensely going through life)

Originally Posted by clackers

That's just sooooooo grownup ....

But you just keep proving the validity of my claim, what can I say)

Originally Posted by clackers

Y
On a related matter, I am still waiting for that position statement by Harvard University, that you said was not simply the views of individuals.

While I'm at it, I REALLY dislike being deliberately misquoted.
You do that again, you're gone.

Originally Posted by clackers

I'm just pointing out that Chomsky is also a controversial figure, and a full Professor at MIT like Linzden ... his views (either in his field, linguistics, or his hobby, politics) can't possibly represent MIT as an institution either ...

Bad analogy. Chomsky is only controversial as regards his politics. As I understand it he is highly respected in his field of expertise, linguistics.