What consensus..........?

[Greatcloud]

this is so tiring. do you not realize that the results of conference of climate scientists such as IPCC and the BODY of the literature is much more indicative of the presence of a consensus than silly petitions or lists of scientists that will ultimately add up to less than a percent?

That is not the point. The point is that contrary to what some say,there is a large group of experts who disbelieve AGW.

 

[Psudopod]

That is not the point. The point is that contrary to what some say,there is a large group of experts who disbelieve AGW.

So, people are selfish, greedy and don't give a hoot about what happens to anyone other than themselves? Colour me surprised. It doesn't matter how many people you have (given how many people who can be found to put their name by statements like "the earth is less than 10,000 years"), what matters is the evidence.

 

[[serious]]

That is not the point. The point is that contrary to what some say,there is a large group of experts who disbelieve AGW.

except lists of names fail to establish such. Especially when they are heavily padded with meteorologists and other such fields.

 

[Greatcloud]

except lists of names fail to establish such. Especially when they are heavily padded with meteorologists and other such fields.

What.........? Could you explain your thinking behind such a statement ?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

That is not the point. The point is that contrary to what some say,there is a large group of experts who disbelieve AGW.

The question is experts in WHAT.

Apart from that scientist have always been a sceptical lot and long may that continue. I mean, if we all agreed all the time, we would be nothing more than priests tapping each other on the back and stating how wonderful our ideas are, because they must be right; no one questions them.

To question; is to do science.

 

[Greatcloud]

The question is experts in WHAT.

Apart from that scientist have always been a sceptical lot and long may that continue. I mean, if we all agreed all the time, we would be nothing more than priests tapping each other on the back and stating how wonderful our ideas are, because they must be right; no one questions them.

To question; is to do science.

Thank you ChordatesLegacy for that very good post. I have taken it to heart.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Editors are allowed to guide the content to reflect what they believe,its called free speech. You are free to read it or not.

What is your personal experience in peer review? I suspect many of us on here have significant expertise in this area and can say that for peer reviewed journals to have value is that there is no political agenda involved from the top down.

E&E is a peer reviewed publication you may not like it but its true.

A dog is an animal, but that does not make it a draft horse which is also an animal. If an editor says what she is quoted as saying, she forfeits the right to be considered an unbiased source of information. That probably explains why the journal is so poorly distributed in actual libraries and not particularly respected within the greater scientific field, if the ES&T article is any indication.

This thread is about consensus not weather you like an editor or not.

Well, then, consensus has been proven in favor of anthropogenic global warming. Consensus in science is never 100% absolute. Consensus in any human endeavor is never 100%. There are still people out there who claim the earth is flat. Do we live in the tails of the distribution or the closer to the mean?

 

[Greatcloud]

You are cherry picking the worst which has stood the test. Why not look at the body of the list and see perfectly good peer reviewed papers.

 

[[serious]]

You are cherry picking the worst which has stood the test. Why not look at the body of the list and see perfectly good peer reviewed papers.

and you are necroing a dead thread. We aren't cherry picking anything. The vast bulk of your list is absolute garbage. If you think there is some gold mixed in there, post that. However, don't complain when you are called on heavily padding a list with junk.

 

[Greatcloud]

and you are necroing a dead thread. We aren't cherry picking anything. The vast bulk of your list is absolute garbage. If you think there is some gold mixed in there, post that. However, don't complain when you are called on heavily padding a list with junk.

Every paper listed is peer reviewed the papers on a 1,500 year cycle are very Skeptic they say the Modern warm period is caused by the sun.

A rapid communication is just an abbreviation for a peer reviewed paper that exists.

E & E Periodical is peer reviewed and every editor picks and chooses what they include in their publication its called free speech,it makes the magazine good it makes it about something.

Now after your paper tigers I have some good peer reviewed papers.

It is frustrating to want to read some of those articles but of course you have to pay to do that. My point is that these peer reviewed papers exist and are anti-AGW.

 

[[serious]]

Every paper listed is peer reviewed the papers on a 1,500 year cycle are very Skeptic they say the Modern warm period is caused by the sun.

A rapid communication is just an abbreviation for a peer reviewed paper that exists.

E & E Periodical is peer reviewed and every editor picks and chooses what they include in their publication its called free speech,it makes the magazine good it makes it about something.

Now after your paper tigers I have some good peer reviewed papers.

So let me get this straight, your new strategy is to pretend the last 6 pages didn't happen?

It's already been explained that E&E fails to meet ISI standards for peer review. I've identified at least one paper that says the opposite of what you are arguing (says that the possibility of even greater warming than predicted can't be ruled out)

It's already been explained that half of your cited papers don't even address AGW.

This isn't going to magically change just because the thread has been dead for a month.

 

[Greatcloud]

So let me get this straight, your new strategy is to pretend the last 6 pages didn't happen?

It's already been explained that E&E fails to meet ISI standards for peer review. I've identified at least one paper that says the opposite of what you are arguing (says that the possibility of even greater warming than predicted can't be ruled out) They are peer reviewed they have a peer reviewed process that cannot be denied. The fact that the paper says that is not the main point and is cherry picking.

It's already been explained that half of your cited papers don't even address AGW.I just explained above how the 1,500 year cycle is anti-AGW.

This isn't going to magically change just because the thread has been dead for a month.

the points you bring up are every single one of them false please read the above,as I don't want to repeat myself.

 

[[serious]]

They are peer reviewed they have a peer reviewed process that cannot be denied. The fact that the paper says that is not the main point and is cherry picking.

The journal is not up to ISI standards of peer review. Just saying, "yeah, some one else reads it before we unquestioningly publish" might be enough peer review for you, but not for the ISI. So yes, they can say "yeah, we're peer reviewed" all they want. It's a free country after all. What they can't say is that they meet ISI standards.

I just explained above how the 1,500 year cycle is anti-AGW.

No, you made an assertion that it was so: "the papers on a 1,500 year cycle are very Skeptic they say the Modern warm period is caused by the sun." The problem is that most of those papers don't talk about the sun or the relative effect of the 1500 year cycle on current warming trends. Let's go over those first three 1500 year papers:
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates. No mention of solar origin, no mention of current warming trends.
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate A news release talking about another paper that suggests the 1500 year cycle is correlated with solar activity. Only mention if AGW is that the process may "add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries." In other words, the ns release in no way questions the greenhouse effect.
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic Suggests a solar corelation based on C14 and Be10 levels in Alaskan lake sediment. Does not address GW or current waming trends.

I could keep going,but you get the idea.

the points you bring up are every single one of them false please read the above,as I don't want to repeat myself.

If you don't want to repeat yourself, by all means, say something new.

 

[Greatcloud]

The journal is not up to ISI standards of peer review. Just saying, "yeah, some one else reads it before we unquestioningly publish" might be enough peer review for you, but not for the ISI. So yes, they can say "yeah, we're peer reviewed" all they want. It's a free country after all. What they can't say is that they meet ISI standards. No, you made an assertion that it was so: "the papers on a 1,500 year cycle are very Skeptic they say the Modern warm period is caused by the sun." The problem is that most of those papers don't talk about the sun or the relative effect of the 1500 year cycle on current warming trends. Let's go over those first three 1500 year papers:
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates. No mention of solar origin, no mention of current warming trends.
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate A news release talking about another paper that suggests the 1500 year cycle is correlated with solar activity. Only mention if AGW is that the process may "add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries." In other words, the ns release in no way questions the greenhouse effect.
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic Suggests a solar corelation based on C14 and Be10 levels in Alaskan lake sediment. Does not address GW or current waming trends.

I could keep going,but you get the idea.

Any paper about the 1,500 year cycle is contrary to AGW it says the sun is responsible. Some may believe there is GHG responsible too that is ok as long as they believe the sun is responsible. That is where the true battle lies the sun is responsible.


If you don't want to repeat yourself, by all means, say something new.

You keep saying the same thing after I answered you back.

 

[[serious]]

actually, I pointed out that the papers you linked don't actually say what you seem to think they say. Instead of actually going back and reading the papers you listed, you just insist on repeating false claims and hoping people will believe you in spite of the evidence. The evidence in this case being the actual text of the papers.

 

[Greatcloud]

I read them and as I said they say the 1,500 year cycle comes from the sun. That is all they need to convey right there. That is my position too. They do not all agree with all of my positions but that is needless; supporting the 1,500 year cycle is against AGW.

 

[[serious]]

I read them and as I said they say the 1,500 year cycle comes from the sun. That is all they need to convey right there. That is my position too. They do not all agree with all of my positions but that is needless; supporting the 1,500 year cycle is against AGW.

Just saying there is a 1500 year cycle doesn't mean that it is the sole, or even predominant, cause of the current warming trend. That's like saying summer doesn't exist because there is a 24 hour temperature change with night and day.

 

[Greatcloud]

Just saying there is a 1500 year cycle doesn't mean that it is the sole, or even predominant, cause of the current warming trend. That's like saying summer doesn't exist because there is a 24 hour temperature change with night and day.

The only reason to bring up the 1,500 cycle is to say the Modern warming period is caused by it. That is the only context it has importance by the scientific community. By that standard nearly all or all of the papers are skeptic.