They are linked in other things I already posted.
For a freelancer at climate science with a background in IT I'm surprised you didn't know about it.
..........
Last edited:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
They are linked in other things I already posted.
For a freelancer at climate science with a background in IT I'm surprised you didn't know about it.
..........
Poptech
Member
No they are not, why are you lying?
I'm not. You are invested in your ideology so you assume that people who are trying to teach you are lying.
It's pretty normal that when people are confronted with inconvenient facts they react violently as if they are being tricked. You're acting a lot like the gamergate people.
Poptech
Member
If you are not lying, then name the peer-reviewed papers as none are linked in anything you provided here. Prove me wrong.
Last edited:
The Cook paper is consistent with numerous other peer reviewed papers, as has been talked about here and in various links.
Your problem is that you tried to wade into a discussion about climate science when you didn't know what you were talking about. You got duped by a guy who has a reputation for making papers he has to apologize later for.
Everyone makes mistakes, you just didn't know any better until you talked to people who did. Now you know.
Poptech
Member
1. You claimed Dr. Tol's paper was rebutted by numerous peer-reviewed papers.
2. You then claimed these papers were linked in the sources your provided.
None of your sources provided a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper.
Again I ask, why are you lying?
Poptech
Member
You also continue to dodge these:
1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?
2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?
3. You failed to rebut the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper.
1. How many papers are in the climate science literature?
2. How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?
3. You failed to rebut the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Hmmm...
This is untrue, you're simply desperately trying to cling to the idea that Tol's paper isn't bullshit.
Their findings are broadly confirmed by:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf
and
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
I can add more if you would like.
Tol's paper was repeatedly rejected by numerous journals with literally dozens of errors identified. It was a shit paper by any rational standard. Perhaps people who are easily duped and wanted to believe the results were happy to see it but that's what it is, a sop to fools.
Moreover, his basic premise is "Cook's conclusion isn't wrong, I just don't like his methods". In many ways this isn't even worth arguing as the basic point of contention isn't even up for debate by the person you are championing.
I feel like if you understood the climate science debate better you would never have even attempted to enter this argument. Instead, you decided to crap your pants here. Live and learn I guess, haha.
Paratus
Lifer
@Poptech (fixed. 😉 )
Here's direct measurement of the effects of CO2 radiative forceings
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/25/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/
While .2W/m^2 doesn't sound like a lot when applied over the entire 200 million miles^2 that's an extra 100TW of power or enough energy to melt 9.4x10^15 metric tons of ice per year. It's also increasing.
So here's undeniable proof that man causes most of global warming. CO2 causes global warming and man releases the lions share of CO2.
Scientists who study climate understand all this. The fundamentals are chemistry, thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. All of which are accepted by any non-fringe scientist. Which is why it's not surprising that 97% of papers by practicing climate scientists agree regardless of the opinion pieces and op-eds you linked too.
Here's direct measurement of the effects of CO2 radiative forceings
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/25/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/
While .2W/m^2 doesn't sound like a lot when applied over the entire 200 million miles^2 that's an extra 100TW of power or enough energy to melt 9.4x10^15 metric tons of ice per year. It's also increasing.
So here's undeniable proof that man causes most of global warming. CO2 causes global warming and man releases the lions share of CO2.
Scientists who study climate understand all this. The fundamentals are chemistry, thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. All of which are accepted by any non-fringe scientist. Which is why it's not surprising that 97% of papers by practicing climate scientists agree regardless of the opinion pieces and op-eds you linked too.
Last edited:
Poptech
Member
It is impossible for those papers rebut Dr. Tol's as they were published years before his.
Regardless, all of those papers were refuted by peer-review.
All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review
You already stated this lie and it was refuted.
"My comment on Cook's consensus paper has at last been accepted. It was rejected by three journals -- twice by Environmental Research Letters and once by two other journals for being out of scope."
None of the rejections had to do with "errors". ERL's rejection was political and the other two were because it was out of scope for those journals.
Your failures are mounting...
1. You failed to state how many papers are in the climate science literature.
2. You failed to state how many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).
3. You failed to rebut the 97 refutations of the cartoonist's paper.
4. You failed to provide a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Dr. Tol's paper.
Poptech
Member
Name the peer-reviewed paper where I can find these alleged methodological errors.
Paratus
Lifer
I know he said he isn't being paid but...... hmmmm
Rebutting his findings does not depend on being after his paper, they simply state facts that are in opposition to what he wrote.
If your argument is simply that Cook's paper is wrong but that the other papers presenting a 97% consensus are right that's fine, because I see no point in arguing it further. Otherwise... oops.
Irrelevant. Humans being a 50%+ cause doesn't matter. The papers accept humans are a significant cause.
Babbling nonsense.
I've provided an abundance of sources, combined with repeated rejections of his paper by various journals. If you only accept peer reviewed rebuttals, then you have no rebuttals for my other papers that have endorsed a similar 97% consensus. (you did not think this line of argument through)
Of course for you, clearly his blog on why his papers were rejected is a credible source, because it tells you what you want to hear. In reality, you should look at a paper that was repeatedly rejected with a skeptical eye, because clearly numerous experts in the field thought it was bad.
You're flailing. Remember when I told you that you probably shouldn't wade into a topic you didn't understand?
Poptech
Member
@Parakeet
It is humorous you believe that all of those papers where authored by practicing climate scientists. So I take it looking at the data is not one of your strong suits?
Bowfinger
Lifer
I'm still looking for all these conservatives who seek pragmatic solutions instead of wallowing in denial.
By the way, am I the only one that wants to see this poseur's "freelance" work?
Please link us to your many climate papers so we can read them.
Paratus
Lifer
It's not that fossil fuels haven't been a boon they absolutely have. It's that they are poised to be become a significant detriment.
Look at it this way. We borrowed against the climate to boot strap our economy and quality of life. This was fundamentally a good and necessary thing. Just like borrowing from a bank can be a good thing for the right reasons; for a home, a car, to start a business are all good uses of borrowing.
Borrowing continually to keep your company from going under is not a good use. It will eventually backfire on you in a big way when the bank takes every thing you own.
We are borrowing against the climate we depend on. It's not a bank. You can't declare bankruptcy. The climate is more like the mafia. Get on the wrong side and it'll destroy your home, business and your way of life. Science is telling us that our terms are no longer as good as they once were. We'd be better off using our fossil fuel economy to jumpstart us to a different one.
By the way, this is an even worse idea.
I'm just someone that knows how to read papers and draw conclusions from them. From my understanding Paratus is a person who actually works in a related field.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Look at populartechnology.net. It appears to be his blog. If so, he cited himself as one of the experts supporting his claims. If so, it's yet another example of the rampant dishonesty and lack of ethics of the anti-climate change shills.
Poptech
Member
His "findings" are a thorough rebuttal of Cook et al. (2013) so it is not possible for older papers to critique his in anyway.
Are you illiterate?
All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review
"Significant" is subjective. Why are you dodging the question?
How many papers in Cook et al. (2013) quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause)?
Hand-waving response.
You provide a blog post at the Guardian and another blog written by someone who thinks they are a bunny rabbet.
If a journal rejects a paper because it is not topical to their scope is the paper wrong?
Why are you intent on misrepresenting why his papers were rejected by those journals?
Paratus
Lifer
@poptech
Lol. No comment on the study I linked? Your pedantic argument changes nothing. Not the facts behind MMGW or the consensus among practicing climate scientists.
However I apologize for the @poptart. I actually thought that was your name when I typed it.
My bad. 😳
Poptech
Member
Strawman argument as I never claimed I wrote any climate papers.
Poptech
Member
Then his statement I quoted is even more embarrassing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
