Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Recent Comments
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Robertvd on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
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!