Climate sensitivity

You made this strawman argument already, my list is not a list of skeptics but more than 3 have still signed the Oregon Petition and other petitions, that was just a sample.

There are over 9,000 with PhDs who signed the Oregon Petition.

You continue to inject red herrings because you cannot answer the question,

How many members of those scientific organizations signed a position statement on climate changed?

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman, I am well aware that it explicitly argues against Alarmism,

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

 

I don't have the time to refute your strawman arguments (my list is a resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics) but as an example of your misinformation, I took ten minutes and easily found 25 authors who signed the Oregon Petition,

Arthur B. Robinson - Oregon Petition
Chauncey Starr - Oregon Petition
David H. Douglass - Oregon Petition
Don J. Easterbrook - Oregon Petition
Frederick Seitz - Oregon Petition
Freeman J. Dyson - Oregon Petition
George V. Chilingar - Oregon Petition
Henry R. Linden - Oregon Petition
Hugh W. Ellsaesser - Oregon Petition
Joel M. Kauffman - Oregon Petition
John R. Stubbles - Oregon Petition
Noah E. Robinson - Oregon Petition
Petr Chylek - Oregon Petition
Reid A. Bryson - Oregon Petition
Robert E. Davis - Oregon Petition
Robert H. Essenhigh - Oregon Petition
Richard S. Lindzen - Oregon Petition
Robert Jastrow - Oregon Petition
S. Fred Singer - Oregon Petition
Sallie L. Baliunas - Oregon Petition
Sherwood B. Idso - Oregon Petition
William A. Nierenberg - Oregon Petition
William M. Briggs - Oregon Petition
William M. Gray - Oregon Petition
Zachary W. Robinson - Oregon Petition

Also the list has over 1500 authors but that was counted when the list was at 900 papers.

I am not going to keep refuting this strawman argument as I gave you a chance and you failed to even look.

 

From one of the original 97%'ers you like to talk about, found this on another message board:

Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.


We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

 

just for you:
From one of the original 97%'ers you both talk about, found this on another message board:

Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.


We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

 

It is funny the use of the word denier. When all the alarmists have is failed models represented by bad data and challenged by one of the original 97%'ers they love to talk about, Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com. They are the deniers.

 

Did you not understand the last paragraph? Let me repeat it for you.

If you have problems with reading comprehension, I'll be happy to explain the quote to you. And in van Storch's own words
Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?

Source

So which is it? Is van Storch right or wrong?

Don't really expect an answer. I'm going to guess deflection!

 

So by your own standards, only 25 out of 31,000 signers of the Oregon Petition are scientifically qualified. Nice!

Oh goody! I for one can hardly wait until you stop posting.

And regarding the three, I was just taking your word for it. If you were wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Yes teacher I totally understand his write up. And, he is no longer one of the 97%'ers you all go on about. He believes the globe is warming though. But he has no clue why. And is unwilling to go where the politics took it.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, don't go there again. You know that all of the people on your side are scientists either. Useless data.

 

I didn't really think you'd be honest enugh to quote the complete petition. Here's the beginning part you left out:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
So did the signers
"urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997"
(maybe they just didn't want the Senate to ratify the Kyoto agreement) or are the signers convinced that
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "

And how do you know which part of the petition they agreed with?
It was a deceptive petition from the beginning and some signers later recognized that fact

source

 

Dude, you're the one who doesn't want to go there. Because when you look only at scientists, the consensus is strong and getting stronger.
As has been repeatedly shown in a variety of ways, here, here, here, and here.

And where are all the studies from Deny Central Station that show these data are wrong? ... we're waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...

Nowhere.

 

If you mean the panel of the IPCC arbitrarily deciding the consensus is stronger, then you would be right, but the facts are making it much weaker and you won't find the "consensus" among scientists that you think you would.

 

Again, you are thinking wrongly. See it is you who states that temperatures are affected by humans, not me. See prove that point and you and I can have a further discussion. Right now, it doesn't matter how many scientists want to pull the wool over our eyes, the fact is this, there is no proof of any human cause to climate. None, and as always, I'm open for some factual data from your side to prove that. Which, you haven't supplied. And again, it is you that is the denier, since it is you that don't understand natural events.

 

Dude. How did Peyton last, in your incredible state, for many seasons?

Why did Larry Bird return? Don't take up hoops and make him want to leave, again.

 

Hmmm. Your post, about Hans Van Storch was kind of ambiguous, correct?

Scientists were right, about the Earth being a geoid. They were right, about natural selection. They are trying to figure out the universe and creation, as fast as they can.

And they are right, about 1. warming 2. climate change, and 3. substantial human causes. AGAIN!

And I suppose we'll have to wait for every last rwnj-derpist, to get over how Al Gore sucks, before media traffic clears, and well-thought-out social strategy may emerge.

 

And that my friends, substitutes a real understanding of science for some. LOL

 

Nice. Twenty-five, of whom seven are dead. Deniers are dropping like flies, it seems.

More importantly, though, my list of thirteen was drawn from a subset of scientists actively working in the UK in 2009. And not one of your 25, living or dead, was actively working in the UK in 2009.

So among those scientists who were:
1. Actively working in the UK in 2009;
AND
2. authors or co-authors of papers on your list;

... thirteen have signed the consensus statement, and zero have signed the Oregon Petition.

Consensus reigns again.

 

LOL... that's all I can say when you go on with no evidence to support the statements. Sorry, Hans Van Storch wanted nothing to do with leading a fight against something unproven.

- - - Updated - - -

I forget, did you post a list?

 

There are mountains of data and hard physical evidence supporting the worldwide scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. A lot of it had been cited and quoted on this forum. The fact that you persist in denying that reality for political/economic motivations that have nothing to do with the actual science is exactly why you bamboozled rightwingnuts are called 'deniers'.

 

No, but since you ask, here they are:

Roger J. Braithwaite
Simon J. Brown
Ruth M. Doherty
Hayley J. Fowler
Michael R. Frogley
Edward Hanna
R. Giles Harrison
Kevin I. Hodges
M. D. Iglesias-Rodriguez
Neil Jennings
Michael Lockwood
Tavi Murray
Martin C. Todd

 

Oh you mean the graphs? Really the graphs? I asked for causal proof and to date, there has not been one post to show causal evidence. So, please point me to that evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

So these are all scientists? I will look them up.

 

Well let's start on Venus. Why do you think Venus has a higher temperature at midnight than Mercury has at noon -- in spite of getting less than half the amount of solar radiation?

If you can't answer that, the point is proven.

 

Venus is so hot because it is surrounded by a very thick atmosphere which is about 100 times more massive than our atmosphere here on Earth. That and of course it is closer to the Sun than Earth which boiled off all the oceans.

 

So atmosphere warms the planet? Now get jc456 to believe that.

 

The surface is approx 500 degrees cooler than the atmosphere. It is the atmosphere that is hot because there it is so thick that little heat reaches the surface and heat escapes to space, unlike Earth.

 

I assume you have a source for that? Because you're flat-out wrong. We've landed craft on the surface, and it's hot. Very hot.

That makes no sense at all.