Ice Cap increase 29%, Reality laughs at Models.

[mvanwink5]

Come on Skipjack, do you really think this is a voting issue?

[Skipjack]

Darn, this board screws up the formatting

[Skipjack]

Come on Skipjack, do you really think this is a voting issue?

Not quite sure where I said that this was a voting issue. I was simply trying to get an actual number of climate scientists that support the mainstream view on AGW versus the actual number of those skeptical rather than some propagandistic numbers that might be skewed in one direction or the other.

[mvanwink5]

Skipjack,
Counting how many knuckleheads are for and against a given point is worthless to either point of view. Even in politics it rarely means anything. Propaganda as you suggest is its only value, but reality is of no true concern with propaganda. I know you know this too, and that is why I was puzzled why you were wasting your time with such statistics. For me personally, I can't get enough enthusiasm to get to the bottom of such numbers even when my brother-in-law brings them up (it is such an absurd exercise).

[Skipjack]

I did that because people were debating about whether or not the majority of climate scientists supports AGW or not. I found that debate, which used only statistics provided by propaganda sources from both sides annoying. So I went and did the research myself. Like it or not, this is a collection of facts. 80% of the climate scientists listed on Wikipedia that have expressed an opinion on AGW (that I could find so far) are in favor of the mainstream view on AGW. This may or may not be considered relevant by you or others on this board, but it is a fact. Now you can add to this list, or make corrections to it, if you want to help making the list more accurate. Either way, this is a fact outside of the propaganda numbers that are being thrown around by biased news stations.
You can use or ignore this list of facts to your liking. Facts don't care whether you deny them or not. They just are.

[mvanwink5]

Skipjack, what a load of waffle. What is the "mainstream" view? What about counting dogs, cats, rocks and stars. Those numbers are facts. Are you saying that counting things is illuminating? And using unqualified numbers is useful? I take what you are doing as adding to the propaganda battle, pure and simple. I find that exercise disingenuous. Add that as a fact, FWIW.

Global warming subject is 99% propaganda, how is that for another "fact." LOL Blather on, nothing but hot air here.

[Skipjack]

Skipjack, what a load of waffle. What is the "mainstream" view? What about counting dogs, cats, rocks and stars. Those numbers are facts. Are you saying that counting things is illuminating? And using unqualified numbers is useful? I take what you are doing as adding to the propaganda battle, pure and simple. I find that exercise disingenuous. Add that as a fact, FWIW.

Global warming subject is 99% propaganda, how is that for another "fact." LOL Blather on, nothing but hot air here.

No, you misunderstand me. People here were throwing around numbers of climate scientists this and climate scientists that, that they had picked up "somewhere". I simply went and got some real numbers. "Mainstream" is the opinion of the majority. In this case the opinion of the 80% of climate scientists.

[mvanwink5]

Ok, so the useless numbers you found were just to counter other useless numbers as anti-propaganda cleansing. Strange logic to me.

Back to climate models. Here is a comment on the consensus crowd's nasty scientific antics on peer review payback for not toeing the propaganda line.
http://www.steynonline.com/6347/the-descent-of-mann

Meanwhile, Dr Nicola Gulley, the editorial director at the Institute of Physics, purports to give us the real reason why Environmental Research Letters declined to publish Lennart Bengtsson's latest paper. Don't believe all that stuff from Bengtsson about it being rejected because it was too "helpful" to "climate sceptics". Oh, no, Dr Gulley eighty-sixed Bengtsson because his paper "contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal".
So what were these "errors"? The anonymous peer-review Dr Gulley appends to her statement identifies only one: Professor Bengtsson's paper is about the way reality refuses to agree with the climate models, and the reviewer says this is a "false" comparison because "no consistency was to be expected in the first place”.
Oh.
As Steve McIntyre concludes his analysis:
Given the failure of the publisher to show any "error" other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it "contained errors", but for the reason stated in the reviewers' summary: because it was perceived to be "harmful… and worse from the climate sceptics' media side”.

So, it looks like the editor also thinks climate models are useless for making usable predictions. Doesn’t say why though or why do the modeling in the first place if they have no useful predictive skill.

[mvanwink5]

Looks to me like a consensus through fear. Nice. Real science stuff.

[ladajo]

Skippy,
You should be careful parading around your finding. It is suspect at best.
For example, out of a planet of 7 Billion odd folks, you can list 'all' or 'most' of the "climate scientists" in one post?
Also, you should question more vigorously the inclusiveness of names on teh list to represent a balanced sample of the population group.
Another example, your list does not include Lennart Bengtsson from above. I'll wager it is missing many, and is suspect at best for being a representative sample.

[Skipjack]

Skippy,
You should be careful parading around your finding. It is suspect at best.
For example, out of a planet of 7 Billion odd folks, you can list 'all' or 'most' of the "climate scientists" in one post?
Also, you should question more vigorously the inclusiveness of names on teh list to represent a balanced sample of the population group.
Another example, your list does not include Lennart Bengtsson from above. I'll wager it is missing many, and is suspect at best for being a representative sample.

As I said (you did read my entire post). I used the list of climate scientists on Wikipedia. It seemed like the most complete list that I could find. I also said, that you can feel free to edit the list, if you think I missed someone, or if I put someone into a wrong category. I was trying to be as unbiased as possible. In fact, I think that I was very generous to the "skeptics" side.
So before you get all strung out and accuse me of bias, feel free to edit the list. I definitely trust my own list and numbers more than any numbers (pro or contra) thrown around here.

[Skipjack]

Ok, so the useless numbers you found were just to counter other useless numbers as anti-propaganda cleansing. Strange logic to me.

Back to climate models. Here is a comment on the consensus crowd's nasty scientific antics on peer review payback for not toeing the propaganda line.
http://www.steynonline.com/6347/the-descent-of-mann

Meanwhile, Dr Nicola Gulley, the editorial director at the Institute of Physics, purports to give us the real reason why Environmental Research Letters declined to publish Lennart Bengtsson's latest paper. Don't believe all that stuff from Bengtsson about it being rejected because it was too "helpful" to "climate sceptics". Oh, no, Dr Gulley eighty-sixed Bengtsson because his paper "contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal".
So what were these "errors"? The anonymous peer-review Dr Gulley appends to her statement identifies only one: Professor Bengtsson's paper is about the way reality refuses to agree with the climate models, and the reviewer says this is a "false" comparison because "no consistency was to be expected in the first place”.
Oh.
As Steve McIntyre concludes his analysis:
Given the failure of the publisher to show any "error" other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it "contained errors", but for the reason stated in the reviewers' summary: because it was perceived to be "harmful… and worse from the climate sceptics' media side”.

So, it looks like the editor also thinks climate models are useless for making usable predictions. Doesn’t say why though or why do the modeling in the first place if they have no useful predictive skill.

Full statement on the rejection:
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/st ... -the-times

[mvanwink5]

The IOP May 16, 2014 rejection statement was well parsed by Steve McIntyre here:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/16/iop- ... more-19225
Make up your own mind, as that is the only honest way to know. I have read and for my part have decided the IOP statement is a load of waffle. Further, the subject of the rejected paper was not the first of inconvenient to the "cause" papers rejected on that very issue. The whole climate science "consensus" view is so soaked with political activism as well as soaked with intimidation to maintain the "cause" narrative that the "consensus climate science" is in disrepute. Australia in this regards has cut their budget for such "science" work from 5 billion to 0.5 billion (likely Australian dollars). Eventually the backlash will reach other nations. If you can't find the force to open your eyes to what is going on to contaminate the science, then there won't be the understanding that the loss of science funding is no real loss to progress.

By the way, it is now nearly 18 years of no "global warming." Which means here in the US, a person of voting age will have experienced no "global warming" their entire life, and the PDO and AMO ocean cycles have just started turn to cold cycle, and the solar cycles have begun what looks like a repeat of a Dalton or Maunder minimum. So believe what you want, just remember, flat earthers at one point were holding the consensus view, and we (rightfully so) look down our noses at them.
Best regards to all

[ladajo]

Skippy,
You should be careful parading around your finding. It is suspect at best.
For example, out of a planet of 7 Billion odd folks, you can list 'all' or 'most' of the "climate scientists" in one post?
Also, you should question more vigorously the inclusiveness of names on teh list to represent a balanced sample of the population group.
Another example, your list does not include Lennart Bengtsson from above. I'll wager it is missing many, and is suspect at best for being a representative sample.

As I said (you did read my entire post). I used the list of climate scientists on Wikipedia. It seemed like the most complete list that I could find. I also said, that you can feel free to edit the list, if you think I missed someone, or if I put someone into a wrong category. I was trying to be as unbiased as possible. In fact, I think that I was very generous to the "skeptics" side.
So before you get all strung out and accuse me of bias, feel free to edit the list. I definitely trust my own list and numbers more than any numbers (pro or contra) thrown around here.

Skippy, I did not accuse you of bias. I pointed out that your argument basis was suspect. Big difference. I offered you at least one name to add to your list. I am aware that you used a cut and paste from the wiki page. My point is only that that list seems very short and is also from a notoriuosly unvetted source, and is more than likely not a representative population sample of the group you are trying to characterize. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am certainly not strung out about it. I was merely trying to point out that you should not base an argument on what you did for 'research'. It was not really research in the true sense that is accepted academically and professionally.

[Skipjack]

Skippy, I did not accuse you of bias. I pointed out that your argument basis was suspect. Big difference. I offered you at least one name to add to your list. I am aware that you used a cut and paste from the wiki page. My point is only that that list seems very short and is also from a notoriuosly unvetted source, and is more than likely not a representative population sample of the group you are trying to characterize. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am certainly not strung out about it. I was merely trying to point out that you should not base an argument on what you did for 'research'. It was not really research in the true sense that is accepted academically and professionally.

I will add Lennart Bengtsson to the list.
Thanks!
Please bring more! Lets do this right. Also, if you have a better, more extensive list, bring it on! I took what I could find, but I never claimed the list was complete (in contrary).