Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[MegansPrius]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

BTW, I find it interesting that the only climatologist that posted on Tim Lambert had this to say:

"Dr. Johnson Says:

1. October 19th, 2005 at 2:48 am The paleoclimatic research does not speak to the current, short term temp and CO2 swings and the theory of human CO2 induced climate chnage because that is not their purpose or theory. But it is obvious that any paleoclimatologist, when asked (and I know many since I are one)would tell you the earth has had numerous swings of large magnitude, and thus the current situation is a tempest in a tea pot, promoted by politically motivated persons, not sound, rigourous science, since the internal data inconsistency is too large and unexplained to have any level of confidence in the cause-effect couplet. If you want to see large swings in CO2 data, go to the IPCC 2001 Technical Summary and look on page 40, there the Vostok ice cores are shown (again fairly recent data) but the longer term data from geochemical analysis of just the past few hundred million years shows the large swings in recent past (please remember the earth is 4.5 billion years old)..."

Thanks for the link.

Pardon me if I find your "Dr. Johnson" less than convincing when he signed off of that site, rather than countering arguments, sounding like Berman or a twelve year-old in need of a spell-check:

"Obviously you people are truly hopeless, politically motivated hacks and not scientists, I have beeter things to do than spar with such ignorant fools."

I pity the fool! I pity the fool!

Dr. Johnson makes a similar (and again, semi-anonymous) argument in this thread, basically saying, if you're not a paleoclimatologist, your opinion doesn't matter. That's just ridiculous.

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

But keep in mind that during the last 100 years temps rose about 0.6 degrees C, with roughly half of that increase happening before around 1945.

Are you implying that there wasn't a man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 by 1945? Why wouldn't there be, given that the industrial revolution started in the late 1700s?

[MegansPrius]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

But keep in mind that during the last 100 years temps rose about 0.6 degrees C, with roughly half of that increase happening before around 1945. So even if you attribute the remaining 0.3 C degrees C entirely to CO2, this is well below what Hansen claims is "Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference".

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Are you implying that there wasn't a man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 by 1945? Why wouldn't there be, given that the industrial revolution started in the late 1700s?

Tim's off on his facts here too.

"Over the past 30 years, the Earth has warmed by 0.6° C or 1.08° F. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 0.8° C or 1.44° F. "
Source: NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade."
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

[richard schumacher]

EZ, do you believe everything you read on websites if it agrees with your political and economic leanings and was written by someone who has "Dr." in their signature?

Who is "Dr. Johnson", anyway?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Are you implying that there wasn't a man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 by 1945? Why wouldn't there be, given that the industrial revolution started in the late 1700s?

Judge for yourself...

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

EZ, do you believe everything you read on websites if it agrees with your political and economic leanings and was written by someone who has "Dr." in their signature?

Who is "Dr. Johnson", anyway?

I happen to have come across him in the past and have emailed back and forth with him. Who is "Richard Schumacher"?

[Fibb222]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Judge for yourself...

Thanks. Not that I doubt it's accuracy but what's the source and what exactly is the unit on the vertical axis?

[richard schumacher]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

I happen to have come across him in the past and have emailed back and forth with him.

And do you know his qualifications for making pronouncements on global warming? What is his doctorate in? If you don't know, why do you trust him?

I'm just this guy who only knows about global warming what I read in the literature. I don't ask you to trust me on global warming. Trust people who have spent years studying the matter.

[dragonfly]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Judge for yourself...

That's right, show a graph starting at 1900 because that looks like it fits more with trying to show your point. Now let's see the graph starting at 1700, ok?

[TimBikes]

Scott - you never answered my question. The Oreskes opinion piece - oh sorry - "essay" - is it peer reviewed or not?