Comments on: The Consensus on Climate Change

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:28:01 +0000

"By the way he predicted the slow down in warming and expects a drop after 2020." Clark predicted the global average temperature would continue to do what every scientist in the related science venues has been observing it doing for 130+ years? Gosh, that's amazing! Why, no other scientists predicted that!

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:23:27 +0000

Brainstorms: “All Milankovitch Cycle and no GHG Emissions makes Roy Clark a bad scientist.”

But is he still a great banjo player?

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:01:30 +0000

All Milankovitch Cycle and no GHG Emissions makes Roy Clark a bad scientist.

(Nice try at cherry-picking an “authority” and claiming he speaks for all of science. As if…)

By: Larry wilhelmsen

Larry wilhelmsen — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:44:26 +0000

Dr Roy Clark of Ventura Photonics does a very scientific job of showing how the greenhouse effect influences surface temperature and goes on to point out his thoughts on climate models. Dr Joseph O Fletcher at 80 years of age gave a lecture in 2000 sharing his 50 years of experience from pole to pole and his 1963 to 1993 years at NOAA. It sheds a lot of light on heating from the sun versus greenhouse gases all based on real earth data. He really does relate climate change to real measurements and climate history. By the way he predicted the slow down in warming and expects a drop after 2020.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:01:16 +0000

1) you failed to show any kind of bias at all with that long post.
2) you make allegations about the peer review process and then proceed to back them up with absolutely no kind of data at all. Just random statements.
3) showing a hunting structure underwater in the great lakes is not somehow a debunking of AGW.
4) you suggest it might be the sun while showing you haven’t read any of the vast body of scientific evidence showing we are getting less energy from the sun.

Thanks for coming out.

By: DSL

DSL — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:30:36 +0000

Mr. Laden, first off, I just found your blog yesterday and had a knee jerk reaction. Secondly, I just read some of your fishing posts and I find a kindred spirit. Thirdly, let say I am no way an expert or in the science field. Now with all this said I grew up in real Detroit, not some suburb, during the 70’s and 80’s I have a certain amount of street smarts and common sense. Let me say that I call John Cook into question and the method of proving a theory based on the amount of peer reviewed papers. As in your first response, the papers were 3894 out of 11944.The 11944 were authored by 29,083. These were found by using the search term ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. I have not researched all of these or the 60% that held no opinion. It seems to me they are relative to climate change and global warming. This is 20 years of papers of which 3894 of 29083 were specific to the subject matter they wanted to find. 3796 confirmed what they wanted to find that it is human caused. Lets now talk about the integrity of peer review. Is it fair? Do scientific publishers and their referees prejudice against the non common belief, AGW is real. They are papers, not necessarily proven fact. Did you know eggs are now good for you, the whole egg. Science said something different but now it has changed. I wonder how many peer reviewed papers were written on egg white benefits. John cook also has another paper he co authored with Stephan Lewandowsky on debunking and psychology. This document “Debunking Handbook” essentially instructs one on how to steer the public to your thinking without causing a backfire with the message you are fighting. Seems fishy to me, almost religious. So…now everyone is spouting 97% of climate scientist agree. When you fairly point out we are talking papers not people. This statement is a falsehood and not a survey of people as our leaders want us to believe. I have doubts of the causes and do wonder what rockets and their fuel blasting through our ozone is doing in the name of science. We have scrubbing technology for coal plants and the like and don’t get me started on third world pollution. Kids in china mining gold from our “recycled” electronics. Finally, of interest to you is the recent find under lake Huron (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140429133830.htm) Prehistoric caribou hunting structure discovered beneath Lake Huron. 120 feet below the surface with a land bridge. The climate does indeed change. Are we the evil doers? Maybe, but a consensus?? What about our sun? it’s activity or lack of not have some bearing. Just questioning the “facts”. Thanks-Dave

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:59:54 +0000

What is the bias you have identified and how did you identify it? Or is it just something you think must be true?

By: DSL

DSL — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:42:10 +0000

Thanks for setting me straight! (as I wipe the drool from my chin and drag my knuckles back to my cave). I believe there is some bias in that study. I also believe this planet is in constant climate change and wonder if 200 years of study of a planet this old can really make a firm analysis. Just keeping an open mind due to the fact my fresh water state has a lot of limestone….hmmm. and as far as this study, yep I guess that’s what it finds. 97% of what was wanted to be found.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:54:54 +0000

In reply to DSL.

No, it is simply incorrect, and rather bone-headed, to say that 66 percent had no opinion. 66% did not address the issue BECAUSE THEY WERE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

Yes, this is a little hard to understand for some so let me explain it another way. Say I wanted to see how many computer programmers used Python. I want to use blog posts by computer programmers to see if they use Python or not. So, I look at EVERY SINGLE BLOG POST EVER WRITTEN BY ANYONE EVER and see how many of them say “I am a computer programmer and I use Python” or otherwise indicate that they use python.

What I’ll find is that 99.99999 percent of the blog posts say nothing about Python and are not even by computer programmers. SO I look at the 0.00001 percent that say something about this. Among those, I find that about 99% are by people indicating that they are computer programmers, but they don’t happen to say what language they use. Of the remaining 0.0000001 percent it turns out that half of them use Python.

Therefore, according to your logic, 0.00000001 (or whatever, I’ve lost track of the zeros) of computer programmers use Python.

But no. I would not do such an idiotic survey. I’d narrow it down first to look only at blogs about computer programmers. Then I’d start counting.

THE CONSENSUS STUDY LOOKE AT ONLY PEER REVIEWED PAPERS THAT HAD SOME THING OR ANOTHER TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. Then, they look at those papers to see which ones could possibly have had any information about the acceptance/rejection of AGW. THEN they looked at that … the relevant papers … to see what their findings on the matter were.

I know this is really hard because it has numbers and stuff, and logic, and it is a tiny bit complicated. But really, most people can understand if they try just a little.

Also, you are confusing the idea of a study of PEER REVIEWED PAPERS which are a thing and Scientists, which is a different thing. Please try to keep that straight as well.

Jeesh.

By: DSL

DSL — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:21:00 +0000

“66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” Among the papers that expressed a scientific position on the topic, “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”….97% of 32.6% of papers that say yes. Wow talk about false data!! 66% had no opinion! So 1/3 of scientist say it is human caused. We live on a crusted fire ball and the climate will always change. Please, let’s also find out what our beloved governments have done to damage our atmosphere with rockets and weapons and their testing. Instead of taking away from real quality of human life as far as transportation and electricity production. Fear mongers!!!