AGW Update: AGW on Ellesmere Island - 2 Million Years Ago

[Saipan]

Yes, but if it's merely a simple matter of "follow the money"--to indict an overwhelming majority scientific consensus as a money conspiracy--than the anti-AGW beneficiaries become pretty starkly laid out, don't they?

Who are the anti-AGW beneficiaries?

And how they benefit?

[bloodyminded]

Who are the anti-AGW beneficiaries?

And how they benefit?

I don't take your questions seriously.

And why? Because they're not meant seriously.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

an overwhelming majority scientific

That's another myth associated with AGW. There isn't an overwhelming majority. That's just another lie in the many lies pushed by climate alarmists. When will you people ever stop lying?

[bloodyminded]

That's another myth associated with AGW. There isn't an overwhelming majority. That's just another lie in the many lies pushed by climate alarmists. When will you people ever stop lying?

So...a majority of scientists don't believe in AGM?

(By the way, you really gotta stop accusing evrybody of lying all the time. You'll get nowhere with behaving like a shrieking little tantrum-thrower.)

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

So...a majority of scientists don't believe in AGM?

Who cares? "Belief" is a religion.

[bloodyminded]

Who cares? "Belief" is a religion.

I was responding to another poster directly.

Interestingly, you don't reply this way to him.

But then, that's because of your religion.

[Shady]

So...a majority of scientists don't believe in AGM?

So now it's back to a majority huh? What happened to the overwhelming majority?

[GostHacked]

Yes, but if it's merely a simple matter of "follow the money"--to indict an overwhelming majority scientific consensus as a money conspiracy--than the anti-AGW beneficiaries become pretty starkly laid out, don't they?

I mean, by your own standards.

Who in the 'anti-agw' crowd would benefit?

How and why would they benefit?

[bloodyminded]

So now it's back to a majority huh? What happened to the overwhelming majority?

An overwhelming majority is a majority. Sorry to make math so difficult.

Now, how about answering the question? Or would you prefer screaming "Liar!" at everyone some more?

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

An overwhelming majority is a majority. Sorry to make math so difficult.

Yes, but an overwhelming majority is much different than just a majority of something like 50 + 1. I guess you decided to go with just a majority because your description of overwhelming is stretching the truth. Or hiding the decline as I like to put it.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, but an overwhelming majority is much different than just a majority of something like 50 + 1. I guess you decided to go with just a majority because your description of overwhelming is stretching the truth. Or hiding the decline as I like to put it.

No, it is an overwhelming majority.

And you know this.

Which makes you the liar...doesn't it?

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

No, it is an overwhelming majority.

Oh nice, now it's back up to an overwhelming majority. Is it like the stock market, where it goes up and down until the bell closes?

Define overwhelming.

[bloodyminded]

Oh nice, now it's back up to an overwhelming majority. Is it like the stock market, where it goes up and down until the bell closes?

Define overwhelming.

Define pedant.

[Shady]

Define pedant.

Are you dodging the issue now? You clearly stated an overwhelming majority. I'm just wondering what that means. Is that 75%? Is that 80%? Is that 90%?

[Saipan]

But then, that's because of your religion.

What is my religion?

[Saipan]

No, it is an overwhelming majority.

Overwhelming majority loses in Commodity Market. Meaning overwhelming majority (10:1) is wrong where they actually have to put their money where their mouth is.

[bloodyminded]

Are you dodging the issue now? You clearly stated an overwhelming majority. I'm just wondering what that means. Is that 75%? Is that 80%? Is that 90%?

It is impossible to get any precise measurement (and I assume you're not asking for hard science on the question, since you automatically distrust science anyway); but according to wiki, 97% of climate scientists, and 82% of "all respondents" (ie scientists generally) agree.

That would constitute "overwhelming majority."

Now, if it's way off, and only, say, 78% of all scientists (and, say, 92% of climate scientists) agree...well, that still would be an overwhelming majority.

Now that this is settled, would you care to stop dodging the question asked of you?

Or was dodging the quesiton the whole point of your pedantic little exercise here?

[bloodyminded]

Overwhelming majority loses in Commodity Market. Meaning overwhelming majority (10:1) is wrong where they actually have to put their money where their mouth is.

Ants, almost every one of which you see is female, depend more on scent trails than eyesight, even when face-to-face with a potential enemy.

[bloodyminded]

What is my religion?

Evidently a heady mixture of cheap booze, LSD and right-wing politics.

[Saipan]

according to wiki, 97% of climate scientists, and 82% of "all respondents" (ie scientists generally) agree.

Wiki said that? What it then means?

Now that this is settled, would you care to stop dodging the question asked of you?

1) FAR from settled. We have colder than usual weather in Asia, America, and Europe.

2) What is your question?

[bloodyminded]

Wiki said that? What it then means?

1) FAR from settled. We have colder than usual weather in Asia, America, and Europe.

2) What is your question?

Who knows how to make love stay?

Of course, that's the question.

[Saipan]

Who knows how to make love stay?

Of course, that's the question.

OK, I have to admit the mountains appear blue at a distance.

Even when making love standing up.

[WIP]

Two million years ago, Al Gore would have had a field day. Apparently, at some point, the climate warmed enough to allow foresting of Ellesmere Island.

Do we need to point out that there were no humans living on Earth at the time? Let alone a modern civilization that is dependent on good weather to sustain. As our weather has become more and more extreme in the last few years, take a look at what has been happening to global food production.

Here's a niece little article about some recent new discoveries of another time when the poles were covered with tropical vegetation: Cache in Chinese Mountain Reveals 20,000 Prehistoric Fossils Only problem is that the high carbon levels produced by prolonged volcanic activity in Siberia 250 million years ago, also poisoned the Earth's oceans, and cut oxygen levels to what we now find at 10,000 feet altitude. More than 90% of animal species became extinct at the end of the Permian Age....and today, we are making a headlong rush to create the same conditions in a matter of decades, that occurred over hundreds of thousands of years at that time.

[jbg]

Do we need to point out that there were no humans living on Earth at the time? Let alone a modern civilization that is dependent on good weather to sustain.

I have no doubt that the impact of natural climate change could well be catastrophic for that reason. If we do have a new full-blown ice age, moving Toronto, New York and Montreal about 10000 kms, or 620 miles south of their current locations would be a neat trick.

[dre]

I dunno about him, but I have. Peer review can vary quite a lot depending on the reviewer. Generally, it is just one or two people that review the paper in the peer review process. Some scientists are quite critical and thorough when performing peer review, while others are more lax. One of my friend's papers got brutalized in the peer review process, with every statement put under a microscope, and several pages of proposed revisions and comments. My own paper received a "good paper, please submit" and nothing more, even though I later myself found several errors (which I eventually fixed).

The reality is that in the peer review process it is quite possible to miss various errors. While some reviewers are very thorough, even they will rarely go and re-derive formulas, double-check models and their results, or perform their own analysis of any data to see if it matches. That would, of course, be far far too much work. The reviewers have their own research to do.

The real test of a scientific paper is in the response it gets after publication. Many, perhaps most, scientific papers are seldom read and seldom referenced, realistically contributing little to their field of science. Others are widely cited, and others are referenced for the purpose of demonstrating where they have gone wrong and how the current work does something better or more correctly.

The real test of a scientific paper is in the response it gets after publication.

Thats PART of the peer review process... its called postpublication review.

This earlier statement is incorrect because it assumes that pre-publication review by a small ammount of experts is the entire body of the process but it isnt.

Generally, it is just one or two people that review the paper in the peer review process.

The bulk of the process happens post-publication, when any other person that chooses can pick the hypothesis apart, and recreate the underlying experiment.