Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[TimG]

Now, perhaps I'm missing something because I haven't been here that long, but I see clear evidence of Waldo presenting facts and no evidence of what the other two are saying.

There is a lot of history. Waldo, as a rule, ignores arguments he cannot refute and instead presents pages of crap which have nothing to do with the points being made. You may look at these pages of crap and think it is a lot substance but you are being fooled because none of it is relevant to the points he claims to refute. Edited March 4, 2014 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

I have been following this thread for a bit and I find it alarming how 'Keepitsimple' and 'Accountability Now' can get away with their accusations and insults towards Waldo. Now, perhaps I'm missing something because I haven't been here that long, but I see clear evidence of Waldo presenting facts and no evidence of what the other two are saying. Facts speak for themselves and facts have clearly been presented here.

How about the fact that I asked waldo to present a link to back up his quote four times and he wouldn't?

Or how about the fact that I presented a number of other studies that show the consensus ranges around 82-98%

Or how about the fact that this thread was about 97% of the scientists yet waldo decided to rely solely on his study regarding the consensus of abstracts....not scientists.

And of course my favorite....how about the facts that I bring up from the IPCC regarding their low confidence in extreme weather events and waldo's constant deflection from this....with his recent rebuttal being the prime example. Instead of addressing the IPCC statements he submitted a claim about pine beetles...again a claim that he refused to back up after being asked four times.

With that being said...don't let my facts get in the way if your issues!!

[Accountability Now]

If you choose your own conclusion prior to reading this, then I can't really help you and discussion will be pointless, but take a look at this on your point #2 about temperatures:

Good article so far. Haven't finished reading it so far. Definitely #2 goes out the window as a quick view of temps in that are show they used to get -40c weather but haven't since 1991. With that being said, it doesn't negate my point on their being a lot more pine compared to the past. Even you agreed that it doesn't affect them much in the lower mainland because they don't have as much pine there.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is a lot of history. Waldo, as a rule, ignores arguments he cannot refute and instead presents pages of crap which have nothing to do with the points being made. You may look at these pages of crap and think it is a lot substance but you are being fooled because none of it is relevant to the points he claims to refute.

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between crap and substance.

[jbg]

Facts speak for themselves and facts have clearly been presented here.

Sort of like a proof being a proof?

[WestCoastRunner]

Sort of like a proof being a proof?

Ok, hit me with the remarks. I'm ready.

[TimG]

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between crap and substance.

A bunch of correct facts that don't address the points being made are effectively crap. If you don't understand the original argument you cannot assess whether the response actually addressed it.

[Accountability Now]

If you choose your own conclusion prior to reading this, then I can't really help you and discussion will be pointless, but take a look at this on your point #2 about temperatures:

One other thing to add....I've been trying look at area outside the one you cited to see if there were any variations. As such I looked into Alberta and found a link on the provincial website. I found this quote interesting

"Why are the mountain pine beetle infestations becoming more extensive?

Modern fire suppression has resulted in large areas of pine forests with over-mature trees, which are more susceptible to beetle attack. In the past, most of Alberta has been outside the mountain pine beetle's normal range of distribution due to the harsh winter conditions. However, with the recent milder winters, these beetles have been more successful in parts of Alberta."

It still comments on the milder weather being a factor but again the main point is how fire suppression in the past has caused for over mature pine which is highly succeptable to the pine beetle.

http://mpb.alberta.ca/FAQs/GeneralQuestions.aspx

[jbg]

Ok, hit me with the remarks. I'm ready.

Well Chretien also said that if Canada didn't ratify Kyoto people would start dieing within 30 years. No one dieing prior to 30 years sounds like a pretty good tradeoff.

[jbg]

Good article so far. Haven't finished reading it so far. Definitely #2 goes out the window as a quick view of temps in that are show they used to get -40c weather but haven't since 1991. With that being said, it doesn't negate my point on their being a lot more pine compared to the past. Even you agreed that it doesn't affect them much in the lower mainland because they don't have as much pine there.

I'd like to know how often the temperatures went below -40 (C or F ??? ) before 1991.

Edited March 4, 2014 by jbg

[waldo]

Note the trumpeted "projection" of pine trees killed.

how is the "projection" trumpeted? It's a part of the 2-stage animation... the past and the projection. Both are shown; nether is given any prominence within the accompanying text. Don't let your perceived "trumpeting" get in the way of your summation or you adding anything of your own to the discussion.

[waldo]

There is a lot of history. Waldo, as a rule, ignores arguments he cannot refute and instead presents pages of crap which have nothing to do with the points being made. You may look at these pages of crap and think it is a lot substance but you are being fooled because none of it is relevant to the points he claims to refute.

yes, most certainly... there is a lot of history here. Your so-called "arguments"? You mean where you essentially make claims, without substantiating them? Those kind of arguments? You dropping a link to a fake-scientist/denier blog... those kind of arguments? There most certainly is nothing you've ever put forward that I've had any difficulty refuting - ever. How could I when real science trumps your flavour of misinformation and manufactured doubt?

[waldo]

How about the fact that I asked waldo to present a link to back up his quote four times and he wouldn't?

nice! Again, you never referenced the quote or its content ever... you have yet to. It was only after I mentioned I'd provided a quote with the image from day one that you actually began to make a reference to it... this was long past your continued nattering. Again, the prevailing accepted understanding is that warming is the causal tie to the change in the pine-beetle life-cycle... to the shifting of its elevation and northerly range. Although you still haven't formally offered a statement that you don't accept this, your implied contention with the prevailing understanding requires you to substantiate your contention. You've not done so.

.

Or how about the fact that I presented a number of other studies that show the consensus ranges around 82-98%

no - again, you simply dropped a graphic that was associated with a wiki link that member 'Michael Hardner' provided. You've never spoken to the lower numbers within that range of graphic numbers - ever. This has been mentioned to you several times; each time you've been challenged to do so and to specifically detail what those lower number graphics mean. You refuse to do so; now multiple times. On top of that, you have played the same charade that member 'Simple' has... as repeatedly pointed out to both of you, neither of you has, or is willing to, state/define your own interpretation of what the consensus is. You've been repeatedly challenged to do so; you repeatedly refuse to do so.

.

Or how about the fact that this thread was about 97% of the scientists yet waldo decided to rely solely on his study regarding the consensus of abstracts....not scientists.

no - again, that survey/study on peer-reviewed papers was offered as a qualification of the consensus... as was the recently released NAS/Royal Society document. When you repeatedly called this survey/study a thread derail, I pointed out to you that this same survey/study has become one of most associated references when the consensus is spoken of, particularly from head-exploding fake-skeptics/deniers! That seemed to stop your thread derail nattering, at least on that point!

.

And of course my favorite....how about the facts that I bring up from the IPCC regarding their low confidence in extreme weather events and waldo's constant deflection from this....with his recent rebuttal being the prime example. Instead of addressing the IPCC statements he submitted a claim about pine beetles...again a claim that he refused to back up after being asked four times.

no - there was no deflection. As is your penchant you continually bring up this same reference to the IPCC, yet it is never accompanied by an actual cited quote. Each time you've done it, each time you presume to dangle it before me, I suggest you take whatever point you want to make to an appropriate thread... because you always do it in other unrelated threads. In this particular case, it was most noteworthy in that you've been continually trumping up claims of the thread being derailed. As I've said repeatedly, as I said in this latest case of yours, take it to an appropriate thread, one related to weather extremes/climate change... you know they exist, as I keep pointing out to you.

let's make this clear for you again: take it to an appropriate thread. Detail what statement/position I've relayed in terms of particular extreme events... there are many, although you continue to collectively refer to "extreme events". Take my personal statements/positions, as expressed, and provide your presumed countering IPCC statements/positions to what I've stated. Additionally, add in any other extreme events you believe I haven't spoken to and/or you feel pertinent. And while you're affirming the authority of the IPCC, as I've just pointed out to again, feel free to reinforce your own rationale for selective affirmation of that authority; i.e., why you presume to cherry-pick from the IPCC yet you deny the main tenets of the IPCC summation/positions.

perhaps you will finally... finally... take up the challenge. As I said, please proceed, Governor!

.

With that being said...don't let my facts get in the way if your issues!!

your facts? What facts?

.

[waldo]

A bunch of correct facts that don't address the points being made are effectively crap. If you don't understand the original argument you cannot assess whether the response actually addressed it.

your comment fits your own standard modus-operandi... well, other than the fact your "correct facts" are neither facts... or correct!

[bush_cheney2004]

Sort of like a proof being a proof?

This is a very keen observation (Chretien reference is icing on the cake), and speaks well to the false notion of what constitutes "facts" around here. Much of it, regardless of any real or imagined consensus, would not meet the legal "finding of fact" standard. Internet "links" and/or "cites" as the ultimate arbiter of "proof" and "fact" is usually not so ironclad after all.

[waldo]

...and speaks well to the false notion of what constitutes "facts" around here. Much of it, regardless of any real or imagined consensus, would not meet the legal "finding of fact" standard. Internet "links" and/or "cites" as the ultimate arbiter of "proof" and "fact" is usually not so ironclad after all.

your lawyerly thought bubble notwithstanding, don't hesitate to actually add something relevant to the thread... proof, fact or otherwise.

[jbg]

... proof, fact or otherwise.

"A proof is a proof. What is a proof? It's a proof." - Jean Chretien 2003.

[waldo]

"A proof is a proof. What is a proof? It's a proof." - Jean Chretien 2003.

you're really working hard to get something out of your repeated references to Chretien. What thread relevant point would you like to make?

[Accountability Now]

I'd like to know how often the temperatures went below -40 (C or F ??? ) before 1991.

For the specific area that Squid is talking about (Cariboo-Chicolton....using Quesnel as the data point) I see that the temperautre dipped down 21 times below -40C from 1893 to 1991. Nothing since 1991. Again...this is for that specific area that Squid is talking about. Looking at other areas in BC, they never reached -40C and therefore this is nothing new to them and perhaps would explain why their pine population is not as high as further north.

1-2 is an average. Don't confuse average annual temperatures with other measures.

Severe winter colds no longer occur, when they certainly have in the recent past.

Again...the question comes up is Global Warming causing this issue to happen? As indicated its a two fold mechanism:

1. The large increase in pine hosts in the last 100 years has made this epidemic possible

2. Milder winter temperatures have not reduced/eliminated the pine beetle in its normal natural method.

I don't think #1 is up for debate as a number of sources cite the over matureness of the pine which is exactly what pine beetles like. I have conceded that the temperatures in that area have not seen drastic cold since the late 90s however I still don't believe this is because of global warming. After reading Squid's paper I am more assured of this fact as it states in the summary:

Even though data show a clear warming trend, there are large year-to-year variations in temperature. ENSO and PDO climatic cycles had a strong impact on temperature and precipitation

As described in the paper, these natural cycles seem to be the major force on temperature especially in that region and largely explain the milder winters. It has been expressed that we are dipped down into a PDO cold phase in the late 90s but its too early to tell if its going to last. Additionally, its the effects of the PDO can be negated or enhanced by a simultaneous ENSO phase. All in all, this area is being largely affected by climate variability that is largely natural in cause.

As you suggested, don't confuse annual temperatures with other measures. You were dead on. The PDO/ENSO cycles need to be considered.

[waldo]

As you suggested, don't confuse annual temperatures with other measures. You were dead on. The PDO/ENSO cycles need to be considered.

and you're considering them?

I note you now temper your earlier reference to, 'not accepting the warming attributed to humans as the causal tie'... to where you now state, you don't accept global warming as the causal tie. Rather, you're now explicitly all about 'natural variability' as the causal tie to warming impacting mountain pine beetle life-cycle and range expansion. And you top that off with a bold highlighted reference to, "ENSO and PDO climatic cycles had a strong impact on temperature". So... clearly, to you, "strong impact" can only equate to the resultant warming (warming temperature).

but let's be clear what you've done here. On one hand you're no longer subject to single-study syndrome... that's a win! But, you've entirely shifted away from that study (any study) specifically researching the mountain pine-beetle and you're completely basing your summation on the pine-beetle strictly through a selective climatic analysis of a singular regional area.

I trust in the consideration you've given to your referenced PDO/ENSO cycles, particularly in regard the last 15 years or so of the more prominent pine beetle destruction, you've captured a clear, precise and definitive assessment of those cycles. I trust you're aware that the cyclical PDO has no impact on the longer-term temperature trend... the warming trend. I trust you're aware the PDO doesn't actually create or retain heat, right? I trust that you're also aware the PDO is now principally in its cool phase and has been since about the mid-90s. I trust you're aware of the more prominent presence of the cooler La Nina cycles the last 10-15 years. I trust you can correlate actual El Nino (ENSO) cycles when they're amplified by warm PDO, muted by cool PDO, or when they're essentially neutral during transition.

but you've considered all that, right?

[Accountability Now]

but let's be clear what you've done here. On one hand you're no longer subject to single-study syndrome... that's a win! But, you've entirely shifted away from that study (any study) specifically researching the mountain pine-beetle and you're completely basing your summation on the pine-beetle strictly through a selective climatic analysis of a singular regional area.

That specific study and that specific area were provided to me from an honest MLW member looking for honest discussion. In turn I responded to his supplied requests within the realm of that study and chose not to deflect to multiple non-applicable items which is something that a dishonest poster like yourself would do. With that being said, if you have an issue with the study that was used or the information provided in the study then I suggest you take it up with MLW member 'The_Squid" as it was his request that we look at that area using that data. In the mean time....run along little waldo.

[Michael Hardner]

... which is something that a dishonest poster like yourself would do. ... In the mean time....run along little waldo.

I've been trying to follow this argument a little more, and given my previous plea to stick to the discussion - I really don't understand why you insist on calling the other poster names and chiding.

It's easier to characterize an argument as dishonest than a person - because the former only needs a single example of dishonesty, while the latter requires you to do an assessment of character.

[waldo]

That specific study and that specific area were provided to me from an honest MLW member looking for honest discussion. In turn I responded to his supplied requests within the realm of that study and chose not to deflect to multiple non-applicable items which is something that a dishonest poster like yourself would do. With that being said, if you have an issue with the study that was used or the information provided in the study then I suggest you take it up with MLW member 'The_Squid" as it was his request that we look at that area using that data. In the mean time....run along little waldo.

oh, have I touched a nerve? I see you're back to labeling me as dishonest. Again, please stop this. Again, I've given you no basis for you to continue your most juvenile accusations.

in your claimed honest discussion, in my most recent post I've simply extended upon your implied consideration of the natural cycles you now explicitly state/claim as the causal tie to warming and impact on the mountain pine beetle life cycle/range expansion. Is asking you to qualify your claimed consideration... dishonest to you?

[waldo]

I've been trying to follow this argument a little more, and given my previous plea to stick to the discussion - I really don't understand why you insist on calling the other poster names and chiding.

It's easier to characterize an argument as dishonest than a person - because the former only needs a single example of dishonesty, while the latter requires you to do an assessment of character.

thank you Michael... clearly, even after my many repeated raised objections and repeated requests to have the accusations of lying and being dishonest stopped, he still persists.

[Accountability Now]

I've been trying to follow this argument a little more, and given my previous plea to stick to the discussion - I really don't understand why you insist on calling the other poster names and chiding.

It's easier to characterize an argument as dishonest than a person - because the former only needs a single example of dishonesty, while the latter requires you to do an assessment of character.

Michael... is it or is it not forum policy to provide a citation after it has been requested to back up statements that you make? Do you consider it honest to refuse that claim four seperate times only to then on the fifth time claim that the reference was there all along and all I had to do was Google it? I certainly don't and i know other members in the past have been called out for not backing up their quotes. To add to this, other members on this forum ignore waldo because he consistently deflects from questions directly asked of him. In this particular thread KeepitSimple has asked waldo numerous times to answer the question in the OP and he won't. And you consider this honest?

If a person is making a dishonest arguement then that by nature means that he's dishonest. Its not name calling its what it is. If I made racist comments then you would call me a rasict. You yourself said that you need to have some intellectual buy in to have a conversation. I refuse to engage waldo because I don't buy into his dishonest tactics. I have let him know this everytime that he tries to engage and I have let him know why.

I'm not surprised by you missing out on KeepitSimple's repeated requests, or TImG's comments as I know where your true left wing allegiances lie especially after your big left wing rant against WWWTP.