Sign in to follow this  
AFTiger

Time Blocks Science from Publication

Recommended Posts

TIME Declares Climate Change Settled Science, Refuses To Publish Global Warming Skeptics

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/09/12/time-declares-climate-change-settled-science-refuses-to-publish-global-warming-skeptics-n2552990

 

Is Time Magazine a moderator on this board?

Edited by AFTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




5 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

TIME Declares Climate Change Settled Science, Refuses To Publish Global Warming Skeptics

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/09/12/time-declares-climate-change-settled-science-refuses-to-publish-global-warming-skeptics-n2552990

 

Is Time Magazine a moderator on this board?

Except Time isn't wrong here.  This is from NASA.  Please note this key line:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

TIME Declares Climate Change Settled Science, Refuses To Publish Global Warming Skeptics

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/09/12/time-declares-climate-change-settled-science-refuses-to-publish-global-warming-skeptics-n2552990

 

Is Time Magazine a moderator on this board?

You dropped this:

pacifier+61MbivK8FML__AA1450_.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I am correct. Alarmists rule this board.  97% BS and all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Facepalm 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AFTiger said:

It seems I am correct. Alarmists rule this board.  97% BS and all.

And yet we allow folks who think they know better than freaking scientists to patrol this board and spew off nonsense.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AFTiger said:

It seems I am correct.  Alarmists rule this board.  People who have different views than mine post here.  97% BS and all.

Fixed for accuracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

And yet we allow folks who think they know better than freaking scientists to patrol this board and spew off nonsense.

Actually there are many scientists including Nobel winners that question the current alarmist rhetoric. But they have been barred from Time Magazine and ridiculed by this board.

The climate is changing and it always has. Our contribution is minimal. 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

 

If the models don't fit you must acquit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except Time isn't wrong here.  This is from NASA.  Please note this key line:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I don't buy the 97% figure simply because I doubt the honesty of the source. NASA was heavily pressured by the Obama Administration to support global warming. Now I suppose the Trump Administration is doing the opposite. High level gov't employees don't have to agree with the administration, but they must support the administration's position if they want to keep their jobs.

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mikey said:

I don't buy the 97% figure simply because I doubt the honesty of the source. NASA was heavily pressured by the Obama Administration to support global warming. Now I suppose the Trump Administration is doing the opposite. High level gov't employees don't have to agree with the administration, but they must support the administration's position if they want to keep their jobs.

If they were pressured into this by Obama, and now are not under that pressure (even perhaps pressured toward the opposite conclusion under Trump), then why would they continue to have this posted on their site?  Now that our hero Donald Trump has freed them from politically motivated biases on climate science, shouldn't NASA be joyfully and swiftly coming out and expressing their doubts?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Actually there are many scientists including Nobel winners that question the current alarmist rhetoric. But they have been barred from Time Magazine and ridiculed by this board.

The climate is changing and it always has. Our contribution is minimal. 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

 

If the models don't fit you must acquit

97% of the scientific community is in agreement.  If 97% of doctors you went to you and said stop doing something right now for the sake of your own health, you would probably listen. 

As for Time, that isn't a peer reviewed journal.  Those scientists you named are not barred from there.  But when peer reviewed studies are in 97% agreement, you need to listen.  That's how scientific research works.  Publish findings and let others in the community try to replicate, debunk, or build off of those findings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Actually there are many scientists including Nobel winners that question the current alarmist rhetoric. But they have been barred from Time Magazine and ridiculed by this board.

The climate is changing and it always has. Our contribution is minimal. 

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

 

If the models don't fit you must acquit

Looked up one of those guys. Admits he doesn’t know much about the technical facts involved.

“Dyson's views on global warming have been criticized.[23] Climate scientist James Hansen said that Dyson "doesn't know what he's talking about.... If he's going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework—which he obviously has not done on global warming."[23]:140 Dyson replied that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[62]

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AFTiger said:

It seems I am correct. Alarmists rule this board.  97% BS and all.

Yeah, it's a GLOBAL hoax perpetuated by scientists around the world.  You betcha.  ;)

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a total waste of time, but one could take all of these "skeptics" double or triple their number and you would still have a greater than 97% consensus that support AGW.

And this list is likely far outdated.  For example, I arbitrarily chose the last name on the list just to research. Here's what I quickly found:

(emphasis mine) 

Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry

Vahrenholt belongs to the minority that is skeptical about human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[6][7] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn't Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035.[4] Other contributors are Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta. Numerous scientists, including the Council for Sustainable Development[8][9] , criticised the book and considered its underlying assumptions to be either outdated or highly speculative.[10][11][12][13] The later events showed that in spite of a quite low activity of the sun during the Solar cycle 24, as had been forecasted in principle by Vahrenholt, the result of global cooling forecasted by Vahrenholt did not occur; the earth rather heated up even more.

There are lots of others on this list - a few of whom I recognize - whose theories and assertions have been disproven.

But like I said, it's a waste of time to try to change the minds of determined deniers.  They are going to cling to their fiction in spite of the overwhelming scientific - and now observational - evidence they are wrong.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another working up the list from the bottom:

Anastasios Tsonis

More recently, Tsonis has become known for his research pertaining to global warming, especially natural influences on global temperatures. In 2009, Tsonis, with Kyle Swanson, published a paper reporting that natural climate shifts are superimposed on the warming trend observed during the 20th century. They concluded that "a break in the global mean temperature trend from the consistent warming over the 1976/77–2001/02 period may have occurred."[6] The authors also argued that "there are times when different types of natural variation in the climate synchronize, which shifts the climate to a new state",[7] and that this may explain the supposed cessation of warming that, according to him, began in 2001 or 2002.[8] They contend that this shift changed the climate state from "warming" to "cooling".[9] Tsonis has argued that natural factors, especially ocean currents, may contribute more to climate change than human activity, and that the Earth is "now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years."[10] In 2013, he reiterated his view that this cooling trend was occurring, and might continue for the next 15 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasios_Tsonis

 

Whoops!  Seems he was WRONG:

According to the American Meteorological Society's State of the Climate in 2017, the year brought an end to the three-year streak of new record temperatures that were set each year from 2014­­­­­–2016. Depending on the data set used, 2017 came in second or third warmest, after 2016 (warmest) and 2015 (second or third warmest). The near-record temperatures occurred in the absence of El Niño, which is usually a factor in extreme global warmth. For much of 2017, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions were neutral, and October 2017 brought the start of La Niña, which typically drops global temperatures. Despite this, 2017 readings were 0.38­–0.48° Celsius (0.68–0.86° Fahrenheit) above the 1981–2010 average, depending on the dataset. It was the warmest non-El Niño year in the instrumental record.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

I could go on.  Maybe work my way up the whole list?

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except Time isn't wrong here.  This is from NASA.  Please note this key line:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the pitfalls of the scientific process.

Scientists aren't immune to biases, and in fact, many of them suffer among the worst hubris imaginable.  The validity of the peer review process is highly debatable, and in highly theoretical fields like "climate change" the flaws are amplified.  Let me guess, you believe that "science" is a field of only truths and facts? That once something is "peer reviewed" it becomes dogma? Science is in fact littered with politics, egoism, and self-indulgence.  Read over your key line carefully: "97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING"...who is granted the right to actively publish? 97% of a sample agreeing on ANYTHING is highly dubious at best, and yet how can the agreement level be so high on something so vague and open ended as "climate change"? Do you honestly believe that "97% agree", or is it possible that "climate science" has become a field wherein only one opinion is permitted and as such only those that parrot said opinion are "peer reviewed" and published?

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

 

 

 

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

Today In: Opinion

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

color 4 panel3Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#f4b538c3f9ff

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, metafour said:

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the pitfalls of the scientific process.

Scientists aren't immune to biases, and in fact, many of them suffer among the worst hubris imaginable.  The validity of the peer review process is highly debatable, and in highly theoretical fields like "climate change" the flaws are amplified.  Let me guess, you believe that "science" is a field of only truths and facts? That once something is "peer reviewed" it becomes dogma? Science is in fact littered with politics, egoism, and self-indulgence.  Read over your key line carefully: "97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING"...who is granted the right to actively publish? 97% of a sample agreeing on ANYTHING is highly dubious at best, and yet how can the agreement level be so high on something so vague and open ended as "climate change"? Do you honestly believe that "97% agree", or is it possible that "climate science" has become a field wherein only one opinion is permitted and as such only those that parrot said opinion are "peer reviewed" and published?

First, what's your recommendation to replace the established scientific process?

Secondly, this has been one of the most researched topics of the last 50 years.  It's more than plausible for their to be such a high consensus if the thesis is true, which it is.

What's "dubious" is the conviction that deniers display in the face of such scientific consensus, not to mention actual, real time observation of temperature records and incidences of large storms:

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html

Hurricanes and Climate Change

......... Scientists are continuing to refine our understanding of how global warming affects hurricane activity. Cutting edge research is beginning to be able to attribute individual hurricanes to global warming. For example, new research estimates that as the Earth has warmed, the probability of a storm with precipitation levels like Hurricane Harvey was higher in Texas in 2017 than it was at the end of the twentieth century. Because of climate change, such a storm evolved from a once in every 100 years event to a once in every 16 years event over this time period.....

......Recent research in this area suggests that there has been an increase in intense hurricane activity over the past 40 years....

The category system classifies the strength of Hurricanes on a scale from 1 to 5 according to wind speed. One 2005 peer-reviewed study showed a large increase in the number of North American hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 when comparing the most recent 15-year period to the prior 15-year period. Indices for hurricane activity based on storm surge data from tide gauges further indicate an increase in intensity.

In 2017, Hurricane Harvey produced unprecedented levels of precipitation. The National Weather Service added two more shades of purple to its rainfall maps to effectively map Hurricane Harvey's rainfall amounts.

There is some evidence that in the western North Pacific Ocean, hurricanes—known as typhoons in this region—are also intensifying. Whether hurricanes are intensifying in other regions is less clear, though other recent evidence suggests that the trend toward more intense hurricanes may extend globally.

Factors that increase the destructive potential of hurricanes

The oceans have taken in nearly all of the excess energy created by global warming, absorbing 93 percent of the increase in the planet’s energy inventory from 1971-2010.

Human-made global warming creates conditions that increase the chances of extreme weather. In some ocean basins, the intensification of hurricanes over time has been linked to rising ocean temperatures. Since 1970, sea surface temperatures worldwide have warmed by about an average of 0.1°C per decade. This warming is especially pronounced in the North Atlantic basin.

Sea levels are also rising as the oceans warm and seawater expands. This expansion, combined with the melting of land-based ice, has caused global average sea level to rise by roughly 7-8 inches  since 1900—a trend that is expected to accelerate over coming decades.

Higher sea levels give coastal storm surges a higher starting point when major storms approach and pile water up along the shore. The resulting storm surge reaches higher and penetrates further inland in low-lying areas. The risk is even greater if storms make landfall during high tides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes?  Alex Epstein?  :laugh:

Epstein is no scientist or even statistician.  He is a shill for the oil industry and other right wing deniers.  And Forbes is a notorious, biased platform for the same:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/#35344c285a56

Alex Epstein is the author of the New York Times best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an expert on energy and industrial policy. Called “most original thinker of the year” by political commentator John McLaughlin, he champions the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and has changed the way thousands of people think about energy. He has risen to prominence as the nation’s leading free-market energy debater, promoting a philosophy that is “anti-pollution but pro-development.” He challenges many popularly held ideas about energy, industry, and the environment, including the big picture benefits (and costs) of fossil fuels and nuclear power. He draws on cutting-edge research and original insights to offer an alternate perspective on the energy debate and shares eye-opening thoughts into how fossil fuels and technology will improve the lives of people – safely, cleanly, and effectively – for years to come.

(See site link for examples of his articles.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, once again, Homer attacks the author but not the content. The 97% consensus story has been debunked six ways from Sunday. Just as with Michael Mann's paper, you cling to false narratives to maintain you beliefs.

Fossil fuels are absolutely necessary for modern life, else we go back to pre-industrial life. Many studies indicate that CO2 is not the volume knob for climate warming. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/.

 

Also https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1986049/Hurricanes-are-not-caused-by-global-warming.html.

 

There is always room for skepticism in science. Questioning "consensus" leads to breakthroughs. Try it sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, metafour said:

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the pitfalls of the scientific process.

Scientists aren't immune to biases, and in fact, many of them suffer among the worst hubris imaginable.  The validity of the peer review process is highly debatable, and in highly theoretical fields like "climate change" the flaws are amplified.  Let me guess, you believe that "science" is a field of only truths and facts? That once something is "peer reviewed" it becomes dogma? Science is in fact littered with politics, egoism, and self-indulgence.  Read over your key line carefully: "97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING"...who is granted the right to actively publish? 97% of a sample agreeing on ANYTHING is highly dubious at best, and yet how can the agreement level be so high on something so vague and open ended as "climate change"? Do you honestly believe that "97% agree", or is it possible that "climate science" has become a field wherein only one opinion is permitted and as such only those that parrot said opinion are "peer reviewed" and published?

LOL!  Dude, I have a Master's Degree and had offers to get my Doctorate for free before deciding to go into the private sector.  I'm gonna bet that I'm the only one of the two of us who has papers that have been accepted to conferences and published.  I know what the process is and understand it quite well.  And yes, I believe the 97% number because I believe in the academic community and their pursuits.  Science denying dumb-asses make up a large number, but the professionals who MAKE THIS THEIR F'ING JOB are in overwhelming agreement.

But please, keep perpetuating myths in the name of politics.  The movie "Idiocracy" becomes more accurate every damn day.  Soon you guys will be arguing that Mondo is what plants crave.

Edited by Brad_ATX
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to study the 97% number more. There is plenty of information. The peer review system has been corrupted by the science community see Dr. Roy Spencer. But you are wedded to your version and vehemently reject the input of respected scientists. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

You need to study the 97% number more. There is plenty of information. The peer review system has been corrupted by the science community see Dr. Roy Spencer. But you are wedded to your version and vehemently reject the input of respected scientists. 

Make you a deal.  When freaking NASA backs off of it, I will too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA is part of the problem. Why do they adjust historical data? The temps in 1939 didn't change to meet current theories. 

  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this