Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

In this case the full range of views includes the view that recent increases in ice melt are transient and that there will be no net SLR contribution from ice sheets over the next 100 years.

you have an apparent desire to completely discount the issue of potentials related to ice-sheet melting - the IPCC AR4 report did not discount it... decision was made, as qualified, to not include it within projections (given the aforementioned unknowns/uncertainties). Specifically, consistent with what I've stated:

The projected sea level rise

assumes

that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration

will persist unchanged

. It

does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge

, which is an alternative possibility.

When you make the claim that the IPCC was 'conservative' you seek to imply that the actual SLR is likely to be much larger because the ice sheet melt was 'left out'. That is not a reasonable reading of the report because the report also says that the SLR could end up being smaller because the ice sheets are more stable than the CAWG advocates believe. The correct reading of the report is we have no idea how ice sheets will affect SLR.

see the immediately preceding quote from the IPCC AR4 report, where your assessment would:

- preclude the report statements that speak directly to an assumption that ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration will persist unchanged... and that would

- not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge.

Not at all. I am just pointing out that they are not the 'IPCC consensus view' should not be represented as the consensus view. We will have to wait until 2014 to see if that changes.

you keep skirting around this point, without elaborating. Without naming names/circumstance/context, you keep generically claiming that there are scientists (?) misrepresenting sea level rise that includes ice-sheet flow melting... claiming it as the IPCC AR4 consensus. You could actually provide support to your assertion, or.....

[Shady]

After a three or four day hiatus he is just playing catch up.

Some may call it a hiatus. Others may more accurately call it a ban. Most likely because of his disgusting use of private messaging in the forum. It's not a big deal though. Trolls get banned around here all the time!

[TimG]

you have an apparent desire to completely discount the issue of potentials related to ice-sheet melting - the IPCC AR4 report did not discount it

I don't disqualify it. It is one end of a probability spectrum that cannot be quantified. At the other end is science that suggests the ice sheets are not going have net melting even if the planet warms. AR4 discusses both which means any discussion that omits one end of the spectrum does not accurate represent what the IPCC said.

[WIP]

What I am saying is the IPCC captured the full range of scientific views on this point and acknowledged the uncertainty. In this case the full range of views includes the view that recent increases in ice melt are transient and that there will be no net SLR contribution from ice sheets over the next 100 years.

When you make the claim that the IPCC was 'conservative' you seek to imply that the actual SLR is likely to be much larger because the ice sheet melt was 'left out'. That is not a reasonable reading of the report because the report also says that the SLR could end up being smaller because the ice sheets are more stable than the CAWG advocates believe. The correct reading of the report is we have no idea how ice sheets will affect SLR.

Not at all. I am just pointing out that they are not the 'IPCC consensus view' should not be represented as the consensus view. We will have to wait until 2014 to see if that changes.

Here's something we know right now: the rate of atmospheric CO2 levels is increasing at an accelerating rate, and will be at 400 ppm within two years at the present rate. This is especially troubling considering that the world's economies have been in a recession in the last two years, and yet those CO2 numbers (linked below) keeps climbing! We have to go back 15 million yearsto observe a time in Earth's history when atmospheric CO2 levels were even at their present level. Nearly all of the plants and animals (including us!) have evolved during an age when carbon levels are much lower than present, and we have no idea how we are going to deal with the changes that will come from present CO2 levels, let alone raising them even higher.

It's also worth mentioning that one of the denier arguments - that increased solar activity caused the global warming of the 90's, has been blown out of the water since worldwide temperatures have kept increasing right through a time of minimal sunspot activity over the last few years!

So what's the next excuse? Let's just wait till 2014 before we do anything...another shifting excuse just to stall time and prevent any action taken to prevent this rolling disaster. The actions of BP in the Gulf of Mexico illustrate that oil company executives are reckless, greedy short-term thinkers, who only focus on the next quarter's profits, and could care less about the long term effects of their business practices. And that's why oil and coal company propaganda on this subject needs to be dismissed just like the tobacco company propaganda 30 years ago, that tried to deny the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes!

[waldo]

you have an apparent desire to completely discount the issue of potentials related to ice-sheet melting - the IPCC AR4 report did not discount it... decision was made, as qualified, to not include it within projections (given the aforementioned unknowns/uncertainties). Specifically, consistent with what I've stated:

The projected sea level rise

assumes

that the part of the present-day ice sheet mass imbalance that is due to recent ice flow acceleration

will persist unchanged

. It

does not include the contribution shown from scaled-up ice sheet discharge

, which is an alternative possibility.

I don't disqualify it. It is one end of a probability spectrum that cannot be quantified. At the other end is science that suggests the ice sheets are not going have net melting even if the planet warms. AR4 discusses both which means any discussion that omits one end of the spectrum does not accurate represent what the IPCC said.

which, again, has you limiting yourself to the science at the point of whatever IPCC report iteration you choose. Effectively, you're discounting any advances within science, post-publication date... any new understandings within science, and fixating upon what represented the status-quo within science at the point of publication. At what point are you accepting to moving beyond a publication date status-quo account?

more to the point, and consistent with everything I've previously stated! Specifically: within Section 4.6.2.2 Measured Balance of the Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves... with respect to:

- Greenland, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005.

- A summing of the 1993 to 2003 contributions from Greenland and Antarctica produces a range from balance (0 Gt yr–1) to shrinkage of 300 Gt yr–1

now, we can nuance the subtleties as to why "unknowns/uncertainties" precluded the lead authors from including this recognized melting, but you can't discount the stated summation (accepting to applied caveats).

Assessment of the data and techniques suggests a mass balance for the Greenland Ice Sheet ranging between growth of 25 Gt yr–1 and shrinkage of 60 Gt yr–1 for 1961 to 2003, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005. Lack of agreement between techniques and the small number of estimates preclude assignment of statistically rigorous error bounds. Interannual variability is very large, driven mainly by variability in summer melting, but also by sudden glacier accelerations (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006). Consequently, the short time interval covered by instrumental data is of concern in separating fluctuations from trends.

Assessment of the data and techniques suggests overall Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance ranging from growth of 50 Gt yr–1 to shrinkage of 200 Gt yr–1 from 1993 to 2003. As in the case of Greenland, the small number of measurements, lack of agreement between techniques, and existence of systematic errors that cannot be estimated accurately preclude formal error analyses and confidence limits. There is no implication that the midpoint of the range given provides the best estimate. Lack of older data complicates a similar estimate for the period 1961 to 2003. Acceleration of mass loss is likely to have occurred, but not so dramatically as in Greenland. Considering the lack of estimated strong trends in accumulation rate, assessment of the possible acceleration and the slow time scales affecting central regions of the ice sheets, it is reasonable to estimate that the behaviour from 1961 to 2003 falls between ice sheet growth of 100 Gt yr–1 and shrinkage of 200 Gt yr–1.

Simply summing the 1993 to 2003 contributions from Greenland and Antarctica produces a range from balance (0 Gt yr–1) to shrinkage of 300 Gt yr–1

, or a contribution to sea level rise of 0 to 0.8 mm yr–1. Because it is very unlikely that each of the ice sheets would exhibit the upper limit of its estimated mass balance range, it is very likely that, taken together, the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have been contributing to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003. For 1961 to 2003, the same calculation spans growth of 125 Gt yr–1 to shrinkage of 260 Gt yr–1, with 1993 to 2003 likely having the fastest mass loss of any decade in the 1961 to 2003 interval. Geodetic data on Earth rotation and polar wander provide additional insight (Peltier, 1998). Although Munk (2002) suggested that the geodetic data did not allow much contribution to sea level rise from ice sheets, subsequent reassessment of the errors involved in some of the data sets and analyses allows an anomalous late 20th century sea level rise of up to about 1 mm yr–1 (360 Gt yr–1) from land ice (Mitrovica et al., 2006). Estimated mountain glacier contributions do not supply this, so a contribution from the polar ice sheets is consistent with the geodetic constraints, although little change in polar ice is also consistent.

[Pliny]

Pliny, you've already read my response to your assertion... why repeat it... unless you, once again, want to be labeled a bullshit artist?

I find your responses don't often deal in any convincing manner, except, it seems, in your mind, with the content of the post you are responding to.

Are there that many scientists that can be bought, Waldo? They will just do whatever big oil says? How do we figure out the ones that haven't been bought? Are they the ones that are appointed to political bodies and don't trash the claims of their political leaders like (speaking of bullshit artists) Pope Al Gore and The Book of An Inconvenient Truth? Yuk! Yuk!

[jbg]

no - I had concerns over your numbing and futile raw data cut-paste exercises. You actually thought you were providing something of substance... unfortunately, no one has your eyeballing prowess of that endless stream of raw data you put forward. Equally, it was most unfortunate you didn't bother providing any qualification as to what you managed to eyeball within that raw data... in a mindless exercise, you simply cut-pasted reams of raw data... because you could!

as for what AGW is connected to... it most certainly isn't connected to your, without qualification, numbing, futile and mindless eyeballing of raw data.

I do not have to explain how my visual or other senses operate. Suffice to say that the data itself showed either no trend or a small rise. These links(Bonam #1) (Bonam #2) posted by Bonam (trendless) and your link (Waldo's) are quite different graphs of the same temperatures, which itself is cause for suspicion. But even accepting "the world according to Waldo" the rise is 2.5F over a period of either 1893-present or 1931 to present (uncertain which it is), which, in the scheme of things is not alarming.

The fact that the temperature figures aren't nice to look at doesn't make them numbing. What bothers you is the heavily interpreted IPCC graphs are not reflected in "on the ground" reality.

While I'm the first to admit three station's data don't conclusively prove or disprove anything, temperature figures should be a check on the IPCC's conclusions.

[waldo]

I find your responses don't often deal in any convincing manner, except, it seems, in your mind, with the content of the post you are responding to.

your minuscule comprehension capabilities are not my concern - ya think!

Are there that many scientists that can be bought, Waldo? They will just do whatever big oil says? How do we figure out the ones that haven't been bought?

you can be certain of one thing, Pliny... if I'm aware of any of your favoured denier-type scientists having ties to the Heartland Institute, to the American Enterprise Institute, to Koch Industries, to the George Marshall Institute, to the Cato Institute, to the Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., etc,; you can be sure I'll pull the pin and highlight their associations. I realize that outing causes you distress, Pliny... but that's the reality of your favoured politicization. Pliny, a while back you promised to name names... you had a great start but fizzled out after only dropping a couple of names. Perhaps you could recap and start anew; certainly, your deep insights are a valued MLW treasure

[waldo]

I do not have to explain how my visual or other senses operate. Suffice to say that the data itself showed either no trend or a small rise. These links(Bonam #1) (Bonam #2) posted by Bonam (trendless) and your link (Waldo's) are quite different graphs of the same temperatures, which itself is cause for suspicion. But even accepting "the world according to Waldo" the rise is 2.5F over a period of either 1893-present or 1931 to present (uncertain which it is), which, in the scheme of things is not alarming.

The fact that the temperature figures aren't nice to look at doesn't make them numbing. What bothers you is the heavily interpreted IPCC graphs are not reflected in "on the ground" reality.

While I'm the first to admit three station's data don't conclusively prove or disprove anything, temperature figures should be a check on the IPCC's conclusions.

keep digging yourself that hole! You don't even realize what's been plotted/trended... here's a clue - re-read my post and look carefully at the graphic text within that plotted trendline. Just remember, I only provided it to you in the context of it's localized association - that's it - nothing more. Again, you haven't a clue as to what warming of 2.0 - to 2.5°F actually equates to in terms of practical extension as seen within empirical evidence of global warming. Just keep calling it inconsequential... nothing to worry about... not alarming. Of course, you'll equally discount continued projections of temperature rise - because you can... because it's quite easy for the uninformed to be easily dismissive in their presumed know-it-all selves. Perhaps you could find some more raw data to mindlessly cut/paste... and display your eyeball prowess... uhhhh... what you refer to as your "visual or other senses"! Perhaps you might even, for once, enlighten us with what your eyeball prowess actually observes!

as for your bold pronouncement that, as you say, "temperature figures should be a check on the IPCC's conclusions", I'm sure no one has ever considered that.

[Pliny]

certainly, your deep insights are a valued MLW treasure

Yes. They are.

[waldo]

expertise gap? Oh my!... just released study on "Expert credibility in climate change"

1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (anthropogenic climate change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

the usual suspects cadre of MLW denier-types should not be discouraged... keep the faith... keep on trusting the lesser expertise and scientific prominence of your 2-3% of like-minded denying climate researchers.

[Keepitsimple]

But even accepting "the world according to Waldo" the rise is 2.5F over a period of either 1893-present or 1931 to present (uncertain which it is), which, in the scheme of things is not alarming.

Here are some graphs from the MET Office. They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years.

Link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

[waldo]

Here are some graphs from the MET Office. They are anomoly graphs based on the average global temperature from 1961-1990. The graphs cover the period from 1850-2009. Near 1850, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius below the average. Nearer to 2009, the global temperature is at most a half degree celsius above the average. That's an increase of at most, one degree celsius (1.8 degrees Farenheit) over 150 years.

Link: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

but, but, but... Simple... that's from that there CRU group - you know, the group you've attempted to disparage/discredit the last year.

of course, let's not lose sight of your confusion in presuming to compare global sea/land surface temperatures to the previous discussions concerning surface temperatures (as spurred on by jbg's mindless raw data cut/paste exercise of a few select U.S. land stations). Equally, let's not lose sight of your confusion in presuming to compare anomolies with absolute temperatures. Oh wait... anomolies! Weren't you the guy who railed against temperature manipulations... not withstanding all the adjustments/homogenizations you appear to (now) accept. Make up your mind, Simple!

for the record: Per the 2007 IPCC AR4 report, global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century... the majority of that since 1950. Equally, the warming rate over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade). But let's not let actual facts get in the way, hey Simple?

[jbg]

Some may call it a hiatus. Others may more accurately call it a ban. Most likely because of his disgusting use of private messaging in the forum. It's not a big deal though. Trolls get banned around here all the time!

Maybe Waldo, like most people, has work or family obligations that sometimes keeps him away from posting. Posting is not, for example, how I earn a living.

[Shady]

Maybe Waldo, like most people, has work or family obligations that sometimes keeps him away from posting. Posting is not, for example, how I earn a living.

Nah. I'm pretty sure he was banned for a short time. He sent out private messages telling people to f*ck themselves. He's classy as he is smart.

[Pliny]

expertise gap? Oh my!... just released study on "Expert credibility in climate change"

1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (anthropogenic climate change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and

2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

the usual suspects cadre of MLW denier-types should not be discouraged... keep the faith... keep on trusting the lesser expertise and scientific prominence of your 2-3% of like-minded denying climate researchers.

I am surprised that they found so many scientists out of the 908 (culled from 1372) who disagreed. The number is around 20-25. I also wonder at excluding 464 that were in the initial count?

In 2005, the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the National Academy of Sciences) plus science academies of Brazil, China and India (three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world) signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change had become sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.[9][10]

Sounds like they are in agreement with politicians or wait is it politicians are in agreement with them?

Gosh, in 2005 they made that statement I thought it would have been in the nineties at least...way before politicians sounded the alarm.

And here's another interesting tidbit.

In May 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents from Michael E. Mann, who was formerly an assistant professor there from 1999-2005.[11][12] Mann, who currently works at Penn State, is a climate change researcher, and Cuccinelli alleges that Mann may have defrauded Virginia taxpayers in the course of his environmental research.

Climate change skeptics have challenged Mann's work, but a Penn State investigation cleared Mann of charges that he falsified or suppressed data[13] In response, 255 Academy members signed a letter that was published in Science magazine on May 7, 2010, decrying "political assaults" against climate change scientists.[14][15]

Well, shut my mouth! No more political assaults against climate change scientists. They saw that one for what it was.

That was all from Wikipedia.

[WIP]

I am surprised that they found so many scientists out of the 908 (culled from 1372) who disagreed. The number is around 20-25. I also wonder at excluding 464 that were in the initial count?

Sounds like they are in agreement with politicians or wait is it politicians are in agreement with them?

Gosh, in 2005 they made that statement I thought it would have been in the nineties at least...way before politicians sounded the alarm.

And here's another interesting tidbit.

Well, shut my mouth! No more political assaults against climate change scientists. They saw that one for what it was.

That was all from Wikipedia.

And here's another reason why I object to the "teach the controversy" strategy that AGW deniers are using now as their fallback strategy to keep us oil dependent:

That study showing 97 to 98% in general agreement with IPCC findings also shows how small the group of so called experts are that the oil economy advocates have to draw on, and how ludicrous it is to give them equal time.

Stanford Study Exposes Lack of Credibility and Expertise Among Climate Skeptics That's an extraordinarily low number considering the gravy train offered to skeptics in funding research and speaking fees to offer themselves up as speedbumps to keep the economy oil-dependent into the future.

For everyone who has even casually followed the continually morphing creationist/intelligent design movements that impede the teaching of evolutionary theory in American schools, the similarities between these movements are startling and cannot be accidental!

Edited June 22, 2010 by WIP

[Keepitsimple]

And here's another reason why I object to the "teach the controversy" strategy that AGW deniers are using now as their fallback strategy to keep us oil dependent:

That study showing 97 to 98% in general agreement with IPCC findings also shows how small the group of so called experts are that the oil economy advocates have to draw on, and how ludicrous it is to give them equal time.

What a crock. Most of their input was provided by a U of T Systems Administrator who used Google Scholar to check on credentials. The Alarmists are going to great lengths to try and shore up their crumbling credibility but they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Yes, the debate is on.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.

The non-expert writer of this analysis of credibility, James W. Prall at Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, is not only not an expert in the field of climate change, he is also not an expert in electrical and computer engineering, at least not in the sense that some might assume from his University of Toronto affiliation. Mr. Prall is an administrator who looks after computers at the university, not a scientist or even a lowly researcher in the field. If it strikes you as odd that an editor at the National Academy of Sciences would accept someone with a life-long service and programming career in the computer field to judge the academic credentials of scientists, it gets odder.

Skip.......

Prall’s now-published work has some important differences. To give his work the trappings required to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, his study has several real scientists as co-authors, the best known and most credible among them being Stanford’s Steven Schneider, who was previously best known for predicting global cooling.

But Prall’s reliance on Google Scholar has not changed. He even tells us what search term he used to arrive at his results – key in the author by first and last name and, to obtain “climate relevant publications,” add the term “climate.”

Works beautifully. Al Gore turns up in such “climate sensitive” academic publications as Vanity Fair, Sierra Club Books, and HollywoodJesus.com.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/category/full-comment/

Edited June 22, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Pliny]

One of the problems I have noticed with science today is that once a consensus is reached it becomes an impossibility to present a contrary study to even be considered. This has been evident especially in the medical sciences. A few examples are the role of HPV in being a cause of vaginal cancer and the refusal of the recognition of heliobactal pylori causing ulcers. Both were denied and ridiculed and but for persistence on the part of "deniers" would have been lost to the world. The consequences of such blindness that a "consensus" will develop are devastating to sufferers of ulcers and cancer.

I think I have gone over this point before and Waldo probably thought he had taken care of that but I find it important.

It took twenty years to get a treatment to sufferers of ulcers when it should have been almost immediately recognized. It seems once a consensus is reached studies that are contrary are shelved never tosee the light of day. I think this is Waldo's message.

We need to shelve all study where a consensus has been reached and proceed with the correct political plan.

He hasn't said how he benefits but his vehemence reveals he has a stake. He couldn't possibly just be a true-believer,Could he?

[waldo]

One of the problems I have noticed with science today is that once a consensus is reached it becomes an impossibility to present a contrary study to even be considered. This has been evident especially in the medical sciences. A few examples are the role of HPV in being a cause of vaginal cancer and the refusal of the recognition of heliobactal pylori causing ulcers. Both were denied and ridiculed and but for persistence on the part of "deniers" would have been lost to the world. The consequences of such blindness that a "consensus" will develop are devastating to sufferers of ulcers and cancer.

I think I have gone over this point before and Waldo probably thought he had taken care of that but I find it important.

It took twenty years to get a treatment to sufferers of ulcers when it should have been almost immediately recognized. It seems once a consensus is reached studies that are contrary are shelved never to see the light of day. I think this is Waldo's message.

We need to shelve all study where a consensus has been reached and proceed with the correct political plan.

Pliny, you're such a predictable... and easy mark! Your presumptive attempts to link examples within the 'medical sciences' to today's overwhelming consensus that accepts AGW... is simply another of your continued obfuscations pushing a common theme that the consensus is keeping the AGW denier-man down! Of course, your conspiracy reach would ignore the plain simple fact - that legitimate skeptical challenges to the status-quo consensus regularly come forward; however, none of those challenges (on merit), have stood the test of scientific scrutiny. Plain and simple, the skeptical challenges have not been able to propose any lasting substantive alternatives that can counter the prevailing science.

for what's it worth in simply bouncing another of your obfuscation attempts to the curb, the following linked article clearly and exhaustively pushes back your perpetuation of a false myth concerning H. Pylori - Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism? H. Pylori and the Making of a Myth... by the by... I trust you will take notice of the nature of the linked website that article appears within

Medicine’s purported ostracism of the discovery of H. pylori—to some extent, as we shall see, fostered by one of its discoverers—has achieved a mythical quality.

But it isn’t true. I have no reason to doubt that many physicians scoffed when first faced with the notion of a bacterial basis for peptic ulcer disease (PUD). It is not the case, however, that the medical mainstream dogmatically rejected the proposal for an undue period of time. A brief history shows that the hypothesis was accepted right on schedule, but only after “appropriate initial skepticism”—the premise of my challenge—was satisfactorily answered. Some of the other particulars of the mythical version of the story are also incorrect.

[waldo]

What a crock. Most of their input was provided by a U of T Systems Administrator who used Google Scholar to check on credentials. The Alarmists are going to great lengths to try and shore up their crumbling credibility but they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

whaaa! Hey Simple... do you have the NP's Lawrence Solomon on speed-dial! Solomon also carried that last bogus Simple MLW attempt you made related to Mike Hulme's paper/comments concerning the 'IPCC consensus'. You know, the one that I soundly pushed back on you based on Hulme's clarifications within this MLW post... do you think we'll ever see a NP/Lawrence Solomon retraction of that fallacious Solomon article, just another of the continued stream of falsehoods emanating from Solomon. A retraction? Fat chance, hey Simple?

but, yes, denialtown is in a frenzy over this latest paper published within PNAS - Expert credibility in climate change. There's a mighty gnashing and thrashing about - deniers are incensed! It is most telling that they also ignore the historical record of their own making... the repeated and ongoing attempts to qualify their own numbers and positions through a litany of suspect signed position statements or online 'surveys'.

what really has denialtown frothing about is this latest study demonstrates that those unconvinced by the mainstream climate science narrative are not only a significant minority within the scientific community, they're also disproportionately under-published, under-cited, and most telling, they're predominantly an elderly group, either retired or bordering on retirement... Simple... can you say, "out of touch... out of reality"? Sure, you can.

[waldo]

That study showing 97 to 98% in general agreement with IPCC findings also shows how small the group of so called experts are that the oil economy advocates have to draw on, and how ludicrous it is to give them equal time.

Stanford Study Exposes Lack of Credibility and Expertise Among Climate Skeptics That's an extraordinarily low number considering the gravy train offered to skeptics in funding research and speaking fees to offer themselves up as speedbumps to keep the economy oil-dependent into the future.

For everyone who has even casually followed the continually morphing creationist/intelligent design movements that impede the teaching of evolutionary theory in American schools, the similarities between these movements are startling and cannot be accidental!

yes - agreed! On a recent Pliny based distraction, I had a chance to revisit a website I hadn't touched upon for a while... a site that, typically, speaks to legitimate skepticism (at large)... not the usual type/degree of fake trumped up denialism we see surrounding the climate change debate. In any case, this article speaks to your astute observations recognizing the similarities between the climate change denier movement and the creationist movement:

Why climate scientists should refuse to engage global warming deniers in public debates.

During the 1980s, evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould famously agreed to abstain from engaging creationists in public debates. They did so because the scientific community had much more to lose than to gain from such spectacles. As Dawkins wrote, “Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don’t.”

The community of climate scientists would do well to adopt the same policy toward public debates with climate change deniers. Climate change deniers share more in common with creationists than an ideologically driven rejection of well established science. Like creationists, they benefit from the valuable publicity and the patina of respectability that surround public clashes with knowledgeable experts.

[Shady]

Why climate scientists should refuse to engage global warming deniers in public debates.

The biggest reason I can think of, is because they can never back up their claims!

This is a fun read. Here's a portion of the interview. But I suggest reading the whole thing. It's funny to watch him back away from all of his claims.

Also, here's a page with the audio. It's middle of the page, Wednesday June 9th. Link (It's about half way into the show)

How to Expose a Warmist: Andrew Bolt Interviews Australia's Al Gore

Bolt: Well, let's go through some of your own claims. You said, for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?

Flannery: And thankfully, Andrew, governments have taken that to heart and been building some desalination capacity such as in Perth.

Bolt: Only in Perth.

Flannery: No, there's plans in every capital city.

Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There's no desalination plant, there's no dam.

Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ...

Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly! 100 percent full.

Flannery: That's a lie, Andrew. I didn't say it would run out of water. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.

Bolt: I'll quote your own words: "Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months." That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.

Flannery: Yeah, sure. There's variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.

Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 century's first ghost metropolis.

Flannery: I said it was...may.

Bolt: It's all "may." Right?

RCP

[Pliny]

Pliny, you're such a predictable... and easy mark! Your presumptive attempts to link examples within the 'medical sciences' to today's overwhelming consensus that accepts AGW... is simply another of your continued obfuscations pushing a common theme that the consensus is keeping the AGW denier-man down! Of course, your conspiracy reach would ignore the plain simple fact - that legitimate skeptical challenges to the status-quo consensus regularly come forward; however, none of those challenges (on merit), have stood the test of scientific scrutiny. Plain and simple, the skeptical challenges have not been able to propose any lasting substantive alternatives that can counter the prevailing science.

for what's it worth in simply bouncing another of your obfuscation attempts to the curb, the following linked article clearly and exhaustively pushes back your perpetuation of a false myth concerning H. Pylori - [/b]... by the by... I trust you will take notice of the nature of the linked website that article appears within

Another post dispatched with ease. You are funny!

This article doesn't deal effectively with anything I said. All it says is the timeline is within accepted norms. My argument is that the accepted norms are a decade or two too long. In the case of helicobacter pylori and it's association with gastric, pancreatic or esophageal cancer I have heard nothing. Hear that, Waldo? NOTHING! If the acceptable timeline is true we should be hearing something about 3 years ago.

I did note the website - the true-believers top "Watchtower" of vigilance against blasphemers and if I had anything to complain about it would be his claim that the story was untrue. It was as he described it. I will say that the pharmaceutical companies did make their expensive "prescription" acid blockers available much more cheaply as over the counter treatments for upset stomach. They looked the other way for as long as they could. Repress information though? Never. Not like with Vioxx. OOPS!

Another obfuscation bounced back.

Are you head of your local CSICOP chapter?

[waldo]

This article doesn't deal effectively with anything I said. All it says is the timeline is within accepted norms. My argument is that the accepted norms are a decade or two too long. In the case of helicobacter pylori and it's association with gastric, pancreatic or esophageal cancer I have heard nothing. Hear that, Waldo? NOTHING! If the acceptable timeline is true we should be hearing something about 3 years ago.

no - the article nailed your claims as false... it offers quite an exhaustive analysis - hey, Pliny? It's certainly more than you've offered... which is simply nothing more than your say so! We'll need a translator to decipher your "hearing nothing... NOTHING" ramblings. Anyone... anyone, care to translate for Pliny? Anyone?