Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Peter Carroll on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Peter Carroll on AI Climate Math
- dm on AI Climate Math
- dm on AI Climate Math
- Bob G on AI Climate Math
- Russell Cook on AI Climate Math
- conrad ziefle on AI Climate Math
- Billyjack on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
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!