• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Reality of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus

Jack Hays said:
Peer review is not (or should not be) consensus. Done properly it is quality control. Done poorly it degenerates into consensus enforcement.
I don't seek consensus of any sort.
Climate science is not a conspiracy, but it is bedeviled by confirmation bias and a lack of rigor.
Click to expand...

I do not think that you understand that by consensus that what they mean is peer review/quality control. The argument is that there is an consensus among scientists, you dishonestly tried to say that it is a popular thing rather than peer reviewed as they are arguing. Which is why so many posters find your argument lame. It just is not a logical argument to misrepresent what you are arguing against. In essence your argument is confirmation bias since it seems that you have set out to discredit climatology. Every thread that you start on the subject leads with that as your main argument. Then you try to provide data and links confirming that premise. The problem is that just about every link that you give in support of your argument it turns out that they are extremely biased. So I see those and my take away is that you are just dogmatically pushing an idea void of actual science to back it.

And this thread is no different you just parroting conservative think tanks that aim to discredit known science for political reasons. Perhaps I would not get that impression if your arguments were not merely parroting of said think tanks? It would be extremely easy to post links showing conservatives making the same arguments that you are politically. What makes your argument not political then?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I do not think that you understand that by consensus that what they mean is peer review/quality control. The argument is that there is an consensus among scientists, you dishonestly tried to say that it is a popular thing rather than peer reviewed as they are arguing. Which is why so many posters find your argument lame. It just is not a logical argument to misrepresent what you are arguing against. In essence your argument is confirmation bias since it seems that you have set out to discredit climatology. Every thread that you start on the subject leads with that as your main argument. Then you try to provide data and links confirming that premise. The problem is that just about every link that you give in support of your argument it turns out that they are extremely biased. So I see those and my take away is that you are just dogmatically pushing an idea void of actual science to back it.

And this thread is no different you just parroting conservative think tanks that aim to discredit known science for political reasons. Perhaps I would not get that impression if your arguments were not merely parroting of said think tanks? It would be extremely easy to post links showing conservatives making the same arguments that you are politically. What makes your argument not political then?
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. If "consensus" infected peer review then peer review would lose all meaning and value. Peer review, in theory, establishes a baseline of quality control and fairness that enables divergent hypotheses to be judged on their merits. That has sadly been lost too often in climate science, as demonstrated most recently by the blog-compelled corrections to Resplandy et al. As Judith Curry has pointed out, it is hard to imagine that paper would have sailed through peer review as it did without its headline grabbing (but error-based) conclusion.

I am unaware of any think tank, conservative or otherwise, which argues the position I take on climate.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "at least" is what tips it into the cooling bin. Without that you'd be correct.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.

If effect A at least partially compensates for effect B, the implication is that effect A either partly or fully cancels out effect B. That is, effect A is less than or equal to effect B.

In this case, effect A is cooling due to land use changes, and effect B is greenhouse warming from CO2. Sagan paper is therefore suggesting that cooling due to land use is less than or equal to greenhouse warming. He is certainly not claiming that the cooling effect is greater than the warming effect.

TL;DR: The morons at WUWT are incapable of parsing English sentences.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, it doesn't.

If effect A at least partially compensates for effect B, the implication is that effect A either partly or fully cancels out effect B. That is, effect A is less than or equal to effect B.

In this case, effect A is cooling due to land use changes, and effect B is greenhouse warming from CO2. Sagan paper is therefore suggesting that cooling due to land use is less than or equal to greenhouse warming. He is certainly not claiming that the cooling effect is greater than the warming effect.

TL;DR: The morons at WUWT are incapable of parsing English sentences.
Click to expand...

I think the plain English prevails, "at least."
And even setting that one aside, the author's case is compelling.
 
Jack Hays said:
I think the plain English prevails, "at least."
And even setting that one aside, the author's case is compelling.
Click to expand...

There is nothing compelling about a case that relies on misrepresentations. The author's case is complete :bs
 
Jack Hays said:
I understand it is important for you to believe that.
Click to expand...

It's not a belief; it's a simple statement of fact. Back to school for you, Jack!

The author of this piece of WUWT idiocy has quite obviously misrepresented the papers on which its conclusions are drawn, as I have pointed out. It is therefore not remotely compelling to anyone with some intelligence - not WUWT's target readership, admittedly.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's not a belief; it's a simple statement of fact. Back to school for you, Jack!

The author of this piece of WUWT idiocy has quite obviously misrepresented the papers on which its conclusions are drawn, as I have pointed out. It is therefore not remotely compelling to anyone with some intelligence - not WUWT's target readership, admittedly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just denial. And your insults add an unseemly patina of desperation to your head-in-the-sand reaction.
 
Jack Hays said:
I think the plain English prevails, "at least."
And even setting that one aside, the author's case is compelling.
Click to expand...

Your copied and pasted blog post is only convincing to the "useful idiots" who gullibly and lazily accept and parrot whatever they read on conspiracy blogs, no matter how dishonest, without ever bothering to check the facts.
 
Quaestio said:
Your copied and pasted blog post is only convincing to the "useful idiots" who gullibly and lazily accept and parrot whatever they read on conspiracy blogs, no matter how dishonest, without ever bothering to check the facts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but a non-substantive post does not merit reply.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are simply wrong. If "consensus" infected peer review then peer review would lose all meaning and value. Peer review, in theory, establishes a baseline of quality control and fairness that enables divergent hypotheses to be judged on their merits. That has sadly been lost too often in climate science, as demonstrated most recently by the blog-compelled corrections to Resplandy et al. As Judith Curry has pointed out, it is hard to imagine that paper would have sailed through peer review as it did without its headline grabbing (but error-based) conclusion.

I am unaware of any think tank, conservative or otherwise, which argues the position I take on climate.
Click to expand...

https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_conservative,_neoconservative_and_libertarian_think_tanks

And here is an article that sounds a lot like your argument.

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...record-straight-climate-change-and-hurricanes
 
FreedomFromAll said:
https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_conservative,_neoconservative_and_libertarian_think_tanks

And here is an article that sounds a lot like your argument.

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...record-straight-climate-change-and-hurricanes
Click to expand...

Other than the Cato Institute I don't have much to do with your list. Cato is useful mainly because of Ryan Maue, and that brings me to your second link. The falsity of any connection between warming and more or stronger hurricanes is easily demonstrated statistically. That's not an ideological argument.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
https://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_conservative,_neoconservative_and_libertarian_think_tanks

And here is an article that sounds a lot like your argument.

https://www.heritage.org/environmen...record-straight-climate-change-and-hurricanes
Click to expand...


Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue


policlimate.com/tropical/

 
WUWT said:
The combined PCF-08 and KR-16 databases form the benchmark database for the current review. It was intended to significantly extend the benchmark database but, on searching the relevant journals, only 2 additional papers were found and these were added to form the database for this review.

It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant.*
Click to expand...

Back in 2016 Quaestio, Deuce and I reviewed around sixty of those 285 'imminent cooling' papers from the beginning, middle and end of the list and found only two which actually qualified (plus one which was clearly warming, and at least one which wasn't even a scientific paper).

A very generous extrapolation would therefore imply perhaps ten 'imminent cooling' papers which, perhaps, were missed by Patterson et al. So that would bring the totals up to 44 warming papers from the period against fewer than twenty cooling.
 
Mithrae said:
Back in 2016 Quaestio, Deuce and I reviewed around sixty of those 285 'imminent cooling' papers from the beginning, middle and end of the list and found only two which actually qualified (plus one which was clearly warming, and at least one which wasn't even a scientific paper).

A very generous extrapolation would therefore imply perhaps ten 'imminent cooling' papers which, perhaps, were missed by Patterson et al. So that would bring the totals up to 44 warming papers from the period against fewer than twenty cooling.
Click to expand...

I'll bet using a similar criteria, you would get similar results on papers classed as warming papers.
 
Mithrae said:
Back in 2016 Quaestio, Deuce and I reviewed around sixty of those 285 'imminent cooling' papers from the beginning, middle and end of the list and found only two which actually qualified (plus one which was clearly warming, and at least one which wasn't even a scientific paper).

A very generous extrapolation would therefore imply perhaps ten 'imminent cooling' papers which, perhaps, were missed by Patterson et al. So that would bring the totals up to 44 warming papers from the period against fewer than twenty cooling.
Click to expand...

Try joining us in 2018.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom