Weather Channel Founder Sets the Facts Straight

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Again, I have to post this:

In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality. Peiser urged Science to withdraw the study.

Less than two years later, on Oct. 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he examined denied global warming -- and it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, hardly a neutral source. Peiser was writing for an organization that has received at least $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Out of 928 real published and peer reviewed studies and one single study disagreed and it was from "American Association of Petroleum Geologists"

And again, I point out that Naomi Oreskes admitted in  subsequent erratum that her search of articles and journals DOES NOT correspond to the conclusion proffered.  No Exxon official or scapegoat needed.  She admitted it herself.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:

A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.


Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?

Are you purposefully being obtuse?  You take ONE PARAGRAPH from a source and attempt to characterize the entire source from that clip.  You must have a PHD in cluelessness.

In fact, swake, do you even know what a Kelvin is?

Lastly, I stated, this being the THIRD time, that the peer reviewed material was NOT BEING OFFERED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING A MYTH.  It was offered to prove that ARCTIC ICE IS NOT MELTING AT RAPID RATES like you and AOX are asserting.  

I know that multiple step analyses are complicated for you, but I hope this THIRD REITERATION clears the issue up for you, but I admit it's a bit optimistic on my part.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:

A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.


Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?

Where does it say it isn't?  That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.

Exactly,

The paper is drawing conclusions that the cited sources do not. And the paper is not published or reviewed. And it IS paid for by Exxon.

Yet you still haven't bothered to prove that their thesis is incorrect, other than stating you believe it not to be.  Please cite EXAMPLES of where they either: (1) misinterpret the given source material; or (2) draw unwarranted conclusions from that material.  Until then, go fish.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:

A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.


Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?

Where does it say it isn't?  That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.

Just when I think reading comprehension and critical thinking around here has reached an all time low....then BAM!...something like this comes around.  

He can't even understand the simple distinction you drew.

Lord Kelvin takes a paragraph from a source and thinks it summarizes the entire source.  He'd fit in well at the Tulsa World.

It's almost as if I'm dealing with someone who....GASP... has no scientific education whatsoever (either that or he's hiding it well), but hey, I bet he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.