Weather Channel Founder Sets the Facts Straight

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I'm sorry.  Maybe I didn't make myself clear.  I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.

I can post random links as well.

What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.

Try again.

Also, this statement:
"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."

Has been soundly debunked by more people than Peiser.

"Debunked" by yet ANOTHER Exxon funded group this time called "competitive enterprise institute"

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2003/exxon.htm

You still lose

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3

So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.

You lose.

Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material.  You should try more than just clicking links.

Actually, your paper WAS written by "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" which has a wesite called co2science.org. I'm not running down the rat hole of finding every citation, that may or may not even be relevant, on a crap paper funded by Exxon.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3

So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.

You lose.

Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material.  You should try more than just clicking links.

Actually, your paper WAS written by "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" which has a wesite called co2science.org

Nope.  The studies, more than two dozen of them, are used by co2, but not written by them, but nice try.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I'm sorry.  Maybe I didn't make myself clear.  I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.

I can post random links as well.

What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.

Try again.

Also, this statement:
"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."

Has been soundly debunked by more people than Peiser.

"Debunked" by yet ANOTHER Exxon funded group this time called "competitive enterprise institute"

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2003/exxon.htm

You still lose

Right...just like those "scientists" from IIPC who work for free...good one!

[iplaw]

Let me do the work for you [edit]:

Dahl-Jensen et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/282/5387/268

Rohling et al.
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2007/2007175.pdf

Wagner and Melles
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomin/wagner_publ.html

Those are just the first three and ALL were written and reviewed by entities OTHER than co2.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Let me do the work for you [edit]:

Dahl-Jensen et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/282/5387/268

Rohling et al.
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2007/2007175.pdf

Wagner and Melles
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomin/wagner_publ.html

Those are just the first three and ALL were written and reviewed by entities OTHER than co2.

These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.

The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.

The cited material is peer reviewed and published in real journals. What journal published this paper?

[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"

[iplaw]

quote:
These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.

Really?  Because I can bet you've read them all...or are you assuming that they're lying, or is it that you can smell your own?

The titles of most of these formal papers speak for themselves

quote:
The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.

How would you even begin to know?  You were the guy 10 minutes ago saying that these sources were written by CO2.  Now they are peer reviewed, but being misquoted, all in a period of 10 minutes.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.

Really?  Because I can bet you've read them all...or are you assuming that they're lying, or is it that you can smell your own?

The titles of most of these formal papers speak for themselves

quote:
The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.

How would you even begin to know?  You were the guy 10 minutes ago saying that these sources were written by CO2.  Now they are peer reviewed, but being misquoted, all in a period of 10 minutes.

I never said the cited sources in the paper were written by CO2, I said I didn't want to chase down every cited source. I said the paper was written by Co2.

And it's obvious you didn't read squat. The papers are mostly incomplete without subscription to The Journal Science or Nature. Did you not notice that? One was in German. I did read what was available and it's obvious these papers are not about what the paper that is citing them is about.  Again, the paper is drawing conclusions based on cited sources whose authors likely do not agree with what the paper states. Show me where these scientists agree with the conclusions of the paper you linked to.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Conan71]

Swake, turn the reverb down, there's an echo in the room...

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Swake, turn the reverb down, there's an echo in the room...

Haha,

I guess I was listening to my inner Conan too much:
"Crush enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women"