Global Warming Thread XVI

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .From Dr. Roy Spencer:
.
.
.

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: No where does our friend Jim Clark claim to be a climate expert but IMO, he can read as well and research political cometary as well as our other BL.C friend KeithE. And Keith Flick said nothing about Jim being an expert he simply said and I agree, that it was/is "Excellent commentary on economics and the climate change hoax."

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

Well it seems we can add 2012 as a year where polls of the scientific community shows they believe in AGW.


It appears that 100% of the 171 experts thought GW was caused by human activity (90% say humans are the primary cause of GW and 10% said it was a secondary cause, 0% that humans had no impact and 0% the earth has not warmed in the last 250 years)



That is 6 straight years of polling and I can now say the consensus about AGW is 95-100% instead of 95-99%.

.
This poll asked for not only their personal, professional opinion (“actual answers”) but also what they thought scientists as a whole believed (“expected answers”). Interesting polling idea. It’s major conclusion is that the true scientific consensus is even stronger than the scientists themselves believe.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

Some quick retorts to David’s most obvious misunderstandings. Keith in Black, David in Brown.

2) I refuse to acknowledge the myth that 95-100% of climate scientists are AGW. It's simply not true. As far as your "various polls" are concerned, there are only three such polls (i.e. a) the Naomi Oreskes survey, b) the Doran/Zimmerman survey and the c) Vision Prize Poll). And they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, credible. They are all bogus and there are no credible scientist anywhere who accept these three polls as valid.

5 polls were documented and covered the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. The sixth one the VisionPrize poll was in 2012 and documented . The Oreskes was not a poll but a literature search and happened much earlier. You can claim all 6 polls were bogus all you want David. But that is not true. When 6 polls year after year say the same thing, that is validated truth. Further your claim that “no credible scientist anywhere” accept these polls is plain nonsense and not supported by any fact - just your own “misunderstanding” and that is being kind.

"hoax" - Definition: "something intended to deceive or defraud." There's no doubt that the alarmists honestly believe AGW is true.

Then it is not a genuine “hoax” and ascribing “intent to deceive or defraud” to the well meaning climate scientists is plainly wrong.

Gleick, as you are well aware, faked that document and lied about it. Romm promoted Gleick's thievery, lies and the creation of the fake document. I have no respect at all for anyone who supports thievery and dishonesty.

Gleick denies faking any document but has admitted to misrepresenting himself in obtaining the Heartland documents. Those documents and Bast’s incendiary comments have proven to be of such an embarrassment that have dropped them and their next year’s meeting cancelled. So I am not aware that Gleick faked any document. And I betcha you hold in high regard the thief that hacked into CRU’s mail server if that hacker were to be known.

The alarmist data related to AGW are "cooked data." No doubt about it. This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this.These explain the "cooked data" quite well. Nuff said...

4 independent review bodies have exonerated Jones’ surface air temp measurements since 1850 including the BEST study partially funded by the Koch Brothers. Their DATA still stands and is validated by both GISS analysis of temp measurements and the totally independent satellite data whether reduced by UAH or RSS.

have also exonerated Mann paleoclimatic DATA - the Hockey Stick as well as Penn State exoneration of his research integrity.

Dream on David. I’m a busy guy as well. So just because I don’t take the time to study all of your "This, This, This, This" links , does not mean I agree. I have found them vacuous in the past - all from the GW/CC skeptic, vested interest, propaganda machine and refutable. Frankly I’m tired of your factless bluster.

[Matto]

I refuse to believe that the bubbles in my beer are a pollutant.

[David Flick]

[Matto]

[KeithE]