Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
- Imaginary Cold And Snow
Recent Comments
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- arn on “Siberia might stay livable”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
I reposted that to Deviantart yesterday. One person who is on the fence asked two really good questions:
1) What does “Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it” exactly mean (especially the part about ‘minimising’)
2) The fact that close to 8000 climate scientists aren’t taking a position on this is very surprising….
My answer:
I think the best example of that would be Judith Curry. She believes that ‘man-made’ warming is substantial – less than 50% according to her Stadium Wave theory – BUT: she does not believe it to be ‘catastrophic.’
That point Is the Main Thing. In every argument with (pardon my language) shrieking hysterics on this site, if you do not believe that ‘man-made’ global warming is absolutely catastrophic to the environment, animals, plants, fish, humans…. then you are a ‘climate denier.’ This is why one cannot have a reasonable, calm argument with such people here on DA.
And you make an Excellent point about the ‘close to 8000′ climate scientists. In point of fact, there is usually more than one person involved in each of those papers, sometimes a 3, 4, maybe more. So now we’re talking substantially over 16,000 climate scientists who don’t take a position. This is another point that the vast majority of people are not aware of- it is Always spoken about, as if all the papers cited by the IPCC in its’ reports, are making the claim that they are all about ‘man-made’ global warming. They are NOT. They are just studies about the current cycle of climate change we are going through.
The Heartland Institute – “Research & Commentary: The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus (2014-05-14): http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus
stevengoddard,
How do we know the actual disaggregated numbers of Cook et al. 2013? I’ve read this his original here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
And I don’t see the 1-7 disaggregated at all. Specifically I’m trying to figure out how we know how many abstracts were category 1, how many were cateogry 2, and so on.
I’ve seen the breakdown disaggreagted in Monkton and on various blogs, but I never see a citation or a link to know how we know. Can you help me out here?
Thanks!