Earth climate significantly more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought

[zmatt]

If this wasn't written by people linked to bad science then I would be more apt to listen to it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. I'll listen to studies carried out by people who still have credibility. I have no time for crooks with an agenda. They bastardized science and have no place here.

 

[PJABBER]

from what I saw most of the people didn't even try to refute the data or the study and just pointed at the CRU scandal and THAT was their argument? WTF.

The provided link is to a site where you have buy the study in order to read it. All that is provided is an Abstract, a summary of a type.

So, cheap bastards that we are, we are responding to the identified participants in the study, a number of which we are not surprised to find are under quite the storm cloud for being part and parcel of the latest scandal related to falsifying studies and cherry picking data to achieve a pre-ordained conclusion.

Not all the participants in the study are likely to be hoaxers, but the concern here and in other threads is that the data that is being relied upon is hopelessly compromised by hoaxers.

In some cases, like the British Antarctic Survey, the equipment they were relying on utterly failed and they then relied on extrapolations, otherwise know as WAG (Wild Ass Guesses,) a term which is now commonly used in referring to studies produced by Acolytes of the Church of AGW (Non-denominational, of course.)

If you can spare a dollar or two and buy the actual study and supporting peer reviews, please present us with a copy for more detailed analysis.

We will reward you with a cookie. Promise.

 

[fskimospy]

The guy who posts op-ed pieces by creationists writing about climate science and then complains when people attack his source... is attacking sources and then asking for full text of a study and supporting peer reviews.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[shira]

from what I saw most of the people didn't even try to refute the data or the study and just pointed at the CRU scandal and THAT was their argument? WTF.

What's even more amazing is that these same cretins haven't even bothered to read the full set CRU emails. There's nothing, nada, zilch in the emails to discredit the CRU data and the CRU science.

 

[shira]

If this wasn't written by people linked to bad science then I would be more apt to listen to it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. I'll listen to studies carried out by people who still have credibility. I have no time for crooks with an agenda. They bastardized science and have no place here.

The CRU scandal isn't about bad science. Not in the least. READ the full set of emails. The quote-mined emails are about how a few scientists responded to a man they view as an unqualified antagonist. It has NOTHING whatever to do with the validity of the CRU data. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lying or misinformed or both.

 

[PJABBER]

The CRU scandal isn't about bad science. Not in the least. READ the full set of emails. The quote-mined emails are about how a few scientists responded to a man they view as an unqualified antagonist. It has NOTHING whatever to do with the validity of the CRU data. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lying or misinformed or both.

And all along we were thinking that it was you and eskimopie that were lying or misinformed or both.

Honestly, we were actually thinking you were twins, sort of like little peas nestled together in a pea pod. Organic, of course, but still.

The imagery continued with each of you raising a toast to each other with twin soy lattes in hand.

Could we actually be wrong headed about this?

(Munching a particularly good cookie now.)

(Wait for it!)

(Wait for it!)

Naaaaah!

 

[umbrella39]

Well done Shira, you've made another thread for the rockheads to play with each other in. You should charge rent for the people who haven't a clue what those CRU emails actually say because if they did they'd know some of the emails highlight the sloppy research done by prominent skeptics as well. Just like UHC, we are seeing a full court press by corporate funded attack machines and the all too willing sheep who blindly buy into their BS. Dumbed down Americuh.

 

[Patranus]

What's even more amazing is that these same cretins haven't even bothered to read the full set CRU emails. There's nothing, nada, zilch in the emails to discredit the CRU data and the CRU science.

If you don't mind:
- dumping raw data so no one can prove your scientific claims
- trying to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests
- manipulating programs/data to fit your desired outcome
- trying to rewrite the process of peer-review
- discrediting those who don't necessarily agree with your findings
and if you don't mind:
- lying to redistribute wealth on a global scale
- lying to maniupulate world markets
- lying to enrich yourself and your colleagues
- lying to tax the hell out of everyone on the planet

then yes, I guess there is nothing, nada, zilch in the emails to discredit the CRU data

 

[jagec]

And, clearly, scientists use "may" in a study result to imply that the results of the study provide at best extremely weak evidence for the statement or even point strongly in the OPPOSITE direction.

Never, ever does that language construction "may" actually mean, "We have collected evidence that supports the hypothesis that . . . ."

Naturally, for a study to be meaningful, it must use absolutist language: "This study proves incontrovertibly that the earth's climate is 42.5% more sensitive to CO2 than previously believed. This is now settled truth." Anything short of that indicates the the study is rubbish.

Have I got that right?

Last sentence in your example (in fact, ALL scientific articles) should read "Everybody knows this."

 

[monovillage]

And, clearly, scientists use "may" in a study result to imply that the results of the study provide at best extremely weak evidence for the statement or even point strongly in the OPPOSITE direction.

Never, ever does that language construction "may" actually mean, "We have collected evidence that supports the hypothesis that . . . ."

Naturally, for a study to be meaningful, it must use absolutist language: "This study proves incontrovertibly that the earth's climate is 42.5% more sensitive to CO2 than previously believed. This is now settled truth." Anything short of that indicates the the study is rubbish.

Have I got that right?

In the title of this thread you stated it as an absolute, don't blame me if it isn't an absolute in the article. If anything this article calls for more study and more data and not the type of data or modeling that is shown at CRU.

 

[Patranus]

In the title of this thread you stated it as an absolute, don't blame me if it isn't an absolute in the article. If anything this article calls for more study and more data and not the type of data or modeling that is shown at CRU.

This might be the case but since the authors are linked to the CRU scandal, any future "scientific conclusions" should disregarded without significant scrutiny.

 

[Duwelon]

Their models say the earth should be cooking. The sun cycle shows the earth's climate is exactly as it should be. Clearly, they are still right about CO2, they just have to get over their bad science to reach their definitively good conclusion. /sarcasm.

Seriously, you AGW true believers are absolutely nuts in the head, bought out, or both.

See my signature, the wealth transfer that bought out fools like Al Gore wish to bring upon America and the rest of the world is nothing short of amazing. How so many people can so blindly believe the BS peddled by leftists is just beyond sad.

 

[fskimospy]

This might be the case but since the authors are linked to the CRU scandal, any future "scientific conclusions" should disregarded without significant scrutiny.

I'll remember this next time you shriek about attacking the source and not the substance of an argument.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

So wait, the chemical compound that humans exhale and plants need to grow is going to destroy the Earth?!

ZOMG WE ARE ALL DOOMED! ALGORE IS RIGHT IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW IF YOU IGNORE FACTS AND LOGIC!

 

[brblx]

If you don't mind:
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck
- glen beck

then yes, I guess there is nothing, nada, zilch in the emails to discredit the CRU data

edited to remove non-factual information and quote potranus's sources.

 

[Budmantom]

Looks like we have another hour or two left on this earth.......

 

[Atreus21]

Excellent refutation of the science.

Actually yeah, it kinda is.

 

[spidey07]

So wait, the chemical compound that humans exhale and plants need to grow is going to destroy the Earth?!

ZOMG WE ARE ALL DOOMED! ALGORE IS RIGHT IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW IF YOU IGNORE FACTS AND LOGIC!

Yeah, never mind that CO2 is one of the most critical gases to even having life on this planet. You cut back on it or try to influence it and you could kill everything.

 

[brblx]

try to influence it and you could kill everything.

stunningly stupid observation, since you're against regulating our influence over co2.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Yeah, never mind that CO2 is one of the most critical gases to even having life on this planet. You cut back on it or try to influence it and you could kill everything.

It would be incredibly ironic if all kinds of plants and trees started dying because the leftists capped CO2 and denied them what they needed to live and grow. Of course, it would be a tragic and dangerous side effect, which is about par for the course for leftist policies.

Maybe then the brainwashed zealots would realize that it has been about political control all along and has nothing to do with saving the planet. Unfortunately, it would probably be far too late at that point...

 

[spidey07]

stunningly stupid observation, since you're against regulating our influence over co2.

Our influence is practically zero compared to natural sources. What this BS is trying to do is magnify our influence which will do more harm than good.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'll remember this next time you shriek about attacking the source and not the substance of an argument.

Yes...it's perfectly acceptable to attack the source rather than any substance of an argument...solely on the basis on whether or not that source believes in a Creator. /s

 

[fskimospy]

Yes...it's perfectly acceptable to attack the source rather than any substance of an argument...solely on the basis on whether or not that source believes in a Creator. /s

I actually think it's perfectly acceptable to attack a noncredible source no matter what. That's why you normally see me requesting that people post articles from reputable sources. Other people on here complain about attacking noncredible sources constantly and then come in and attack sources... hence the entire point of my comment.

Not really sure how you missed that one.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I actually think it's perfectly acceptable to attack a noncredible source no matter what. That's why you normally see me requesting that people post articles from reputable sources. Other people on here complain about attacking noncredible sources constantly and then come in and attack sources... hence the entire point of my comment.

Not really sure how you missed that one.

So...in your mind...a source is noncredible if they believe that God created our universe and the laws that govern it. Seriously?

Edit - I fully understand the point of your comment...but apparently you're missing my point. Easy question...a very easy question.

 

[OutHouse]

Excellent refutation of the science.

i see no science, all i see is a agenda to control the masses.