Antarctica Conumdrum

[fskimospy]

97% study

2,933 papers: CO2 is a green house gas.
934 papers: Man's emissions can and do effect global temp.
65 papers: Man is majority responsible for observed warming.

Half a percent (0.5%) of all papers from the study do what you claim.

This is a very very dishonest way of looking at it. They evaluated papers that took a position on global warming because...well... how else would you do it. By your logic the number should be even smaller because academic papers on interpretations of Beowulf don't endorse the global climate change consensus.

This nonsense has been repeatedly debunked. You're falling for propaganda again.

 

[Jaskalas]

Your rebuke is pathetic.

Even among just the consensus papers, 65 would be 1.6%
You got nothing.

 

[buckshot24]

This is a very very dishonest way of looking at it. They evaluated papers that took a position on global warming because...well... how else would you do it. By your logic the number should be even smaller because academic papers on interpretations of Beowulf don't endorse the global climate change consensus.

This nonsense has been repeatedly debunked. You're falling for propaganda again.

I remember a discussion on job call backs for "racial" names where you too the opposite position.

 

[fskimospy]

Your rebuke is pathetic.

Even among just the consensus papers, 65 would be 1.6%
You got nothing.

I would strongly suggest you go read the paper more closely and ignore the propaganda you just linked.

They just tried to convince you that you should count papers that don't make a statement on global warming in the denominator for the positions of papers on global warming. Don't be content with being lied to.

Even this latest attempt to expand the denominator is nonsensical. Why would you include papers that didn't make a statement on whether or not man was the primary cause in your denominator for the percentage of papers that accepted man was the primary cause? You're making the same mistake as before, just on a smaller scale.

 

[fskimospy]

I remember a discussion on job call backs for "racial" names where you too the opposite position.

Haha, no you don't. You may recall a thread on job call backs where you didn't understand the discussion though.

 

[buckshot24]

They just tried to convince you that you should count papers that don't make a statement on global warming in the denominator for the positions of papers on global warming. Don't be content with being lied to.

You thought non-call backs should be included in statistical significance calculations in that other thread. You're not being a hack are you?

 

[buckshot24]

I just looked it up and that was almost 3 years ago!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2292076&page=14

 

[Jaskalas]

They just tried to convince you that you should count papers that don't make a statement on global warming

I just did that. It raises your 0.5% to 1.6%
You are ignoring the results of doing it "your way".

 

[fskimospy]

I just looked it up and that was almost 3 years ago!

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2292076&page=14

Haha yes. I am taking an identical position both here and in that thread, you just didn't understand the study.

I would read my response to you then more closely, because your objection was forehead slapping nonsense.

 

[fskimospy]

I just did that. It raises your 0.5% to 1.6%
You are ignoring the results of doing it "your way".

No, I'm telling you that you just attempted to pull the same shenanigans as the people who wanted to count that larger set of papers, just on a smaller scale.

The numbers in your numerator and denominator need to be on the same 'scale'. That means you don't put papers that don't make a statement about climate change in the denominator when the numerator is all papers that make a statement on climate change. Similarly, you don't put papers that don't make a statement as to man's degree of influence in the denominator where the numerator does. That's a big no-no.

 

[buckshot24]

Haha yes. I am taking an identical position both here and in that thread, you just didn't understand the study.

I would read my response to you then more closely, because your objection was forehead slapping nonsense.

Explain, looks like you're doing the exact opposite.

 

[fskimospy]

Explain, looks like you're doing the exact opposite.

Haha, no thanks. Just reading that page again makes me want to facepalm my own eyebrows off.

 

[buckshot24]

The numbers in your numerator and denominator need to be on the same 'scale'. That means you don't put papers that don't make a statement about climate change in the denominator when the numerator is all papers that make a statement on climate change. Similarly, you don't put papers that don't make a statement as to man's degree of influence in the denominator where the numerator does. That's a big no-no.

Kind of my point from the other thread.

 

[fskimospy]

Kind of my point from the other thread.

The numerator and denominator were identical in that case.

 

[buckshot24]

The numerator and denominator were identical in that case.

So the answer was 1?:sneaky:

 

[fskimospy]

So the answer was 1?:sneaky:

No. Enough with this stupidity, go back and read that thread again if you have any more questions.

 

[buckshot24]

No. Enough with this stupidity, go back and read that thread again if you have any more questions.

That was a joke.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.

 

[Paratus]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html

Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".

Other researchers and organisations are also predicting global cooling - the Russian Academy of Science, the Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Scientists, the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism Russia, Victor Manuel Velesco Herrera at the National University of Mexico, the Bulgarian Institute of Astronomy, Dr Tim Patterson at Carleton University in Canada, Drs Lin Zhen at Nanjing University in China, just to name a few.

This is an opinion piece and a repost.

Oops. Let me put it in words you can understand:

Another conservi-KOOK doing what they do best! Trying to pass of opinion BS as FACT!!!111.

I can see why you liked this opinion piece.

• Global Cooling!
• Climategate Re-hash!
• Judith Curry!
• The Pause!

It's still basically a repost http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2438977&highlight=global+cooling

And no it's not going to cool things off. If the prediction is right and we have another Muander Minimum at most it's effect will be the same as pausing CO2 production for about 3 years if I remember correctly.