Schulte has published a reply to Oreskes' response. While Schulte claims not to be a contrarian, Kevin Grandia has been looking at his links with Christopher Monckton. Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte's reply and commenter "Chris" (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits against Oreskes and Lynch:
By making the allegations his own and endorsing them with such lamentably unscientific enthusiasm, however, he has exposed himself to the legal action which may well follow if Oreskes does not come forward quickly with an unreserved apology to Schulte.
Also posting is Fergus Brown who reckons that Monckton and Inhofe's gang are to blame for stirring up trouble between Oreskes and Schulte.
What interests me is that Schulte provides five more papers that he reckons reject the consensus, so we can further evaluate his skill at this task. So far he has a failing score of 3 out of 7.
Even before we look at any abstracts, it's clear that his reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Schulte writes:
>With all respect, the statement's declaration that the starting-point for Oreskes' research was that "we realized that the basic issue was settled" would, if true, cast considerable doubt upon the impartiality and reliability of her research.
But Oreskes said that that was the **ending point**:
>Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant. We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc.
Anyway, let's see what he says about these five papers.
>However, since she has seen fit to raise the question of unanimity in the peer-reviewed journals, I have now inspected the papers which she had reviewed. Some examples of papers which fell within her search criterion and within her timeframe, but which do not appear to me, prima facie, to support even her limited definition of the "consensus", are as follows -
Wow, impressive, he went through 900 odd papers in a couple of days.
>AMMANN et al. (2003) detected evidence for close ties between solar variations and surface climate.
Well yes, that's the consensus view. Trouble is that solar variations do not explain recent warming and the paper's [abstract](http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clima/unclassified/todo/127…) does not contradict this. Schulte gives an incorrect cite for this paper:
>AMMANN, C.M. et al. 2003. Close ties between solar variations and surface climate. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2): 191-201.
The correct cite is:
OH, H.S. et al. 2003. Multi-resolution time series analysis applied to solar irradiance and climate reconstructions. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65 (2): 191-201.
>REID (1997) found that "the importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies".
The [abstract](http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clima/unclassified/todo/629…) states:
>solar forcing and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing made roughly equal contributions to the rise in global temperature that took place between 1900 and 1955.
This seems to agree with the consensus that **since 1955** anthropogenic forcings have been more important.
>KONDRATYEV and Varotsos (1996) criticize "the undoubtedly overemphasized contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change".
Schulte gives another incorrect cite:
>KONDRATYEV, K., and Varotsos, C. 1996. Annual Review. Energy and Environment 21: 31-67.
The correct cite is:
KONDRATYEV, K.Y., and Varotsos, C 1995. Atmospheric Greenhouse-Effect in the Context of Global Climate-Change. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica C-Geophysics and Space Physics 18 (2): 123-151.
ISI classifies this as a review and not an article, so it was not included in Oreskes' sample and should not have been included by Schulte either.
>GERHARD and Hanson (2000): "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues ... there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time."
This is wrongly classified as an article by ISI when it is a review. But since the mistake is ISI's, I'll give him a point on this one.
>FERNAU et al. (1993):
This is in the Social Science Citation Index, not the Science Citation Index, so was not included in Oreskes' sample.
Schulte fails again with a score of one out of five.
But that's not his final score, because where have we seen those bad cites before? Look at the references in [Benny Peiser's rejected letter to Science](http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm):
>4.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405
>6) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change". K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67
>7) M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
>8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471
Not only did Peiser make the same mistakes in his cites, all of the Schulte's examples come from Peiser's letter. Schulte must have copied his examples and cites from Peiser. Schulte does not cite or acknowledge Peiser as a source. That's plagiarism, so I'm taking away the one point he got and giving him a final score of zero.
**Update:** Oh good grief. Compare Schulte with [Monckton](http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consen…):
| Schulte | Monckton |
|---|---|
|
Some examples of papers which fell within her search criterion and within her timeframe, but which do not appear to me, prima facie, to support even her limited definition of the "consensus", are as follows -
Two abstracts, in particular, directly rejected the "consensus" as Oreskes had defined it GERHARD and Hanson (2000): "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the supposition of human-induced climate change since the committee's inception in January 1998. This paper details the progress and findings of the committee through June 1999, At that time there had been essentially no geologic input into the global climate change debate. The following statements reflect the current state of climate knowledge from the geologic perspective as interpreted by the majority of the committee membership. The committee recognizes that new data could change its conclusions. The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time." FERNAU et al. (1993): "This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult. Because of inadequacies in the knowledge and depiction of physical processes and limited computer technology, predictions from existing computer models vary widely, particularly on a regional basis, and are not accurate enough yet for use in policy decisions. The extent of all these uncertainties is such that moving beyond no-regrets measures such as conservation will take political courage and may be delayed until scientific uncertainties are reduced." I am given to understand that Oreskes has pointed out that the paper by Gerhard and Hansen was not peer-reviewed. However, it is not clear to me that her essay was peer-reviewed either. It was published as an "Essay" in the comment section of Science under the subhead "Beyond The Ivory Tower" - an essay series which, according to the editors of Science, "highlights the benefits that scientists, science, and technology have brought to society throughout history". It may or may not be that the authors of the above-cited abstracts personally believe that humankind is responsible for more than half of the observed warming of the past half century. It may or may not be that most climate scientists published in the journals believe that. However, the published papers which I have cited above, and the numerous papers which I have cited in my own study of papers published after the end of Oreskes' study, do raise grave doubts about the unanimity which Oreskes said she had found in the papers which she had reviewed when preparing her 2004 essay. |
Some examples of papers which fell within Oreskes' search criteron
Two abstracts reviewed by Oreskes directly and bluntly rejected the GERHARD and Hanson (2000): "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Ad Hoc Committee FERNAU et al. (1993): "This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in
Though Oreskes has challenged Dr. Peiser's analysis by pointing out
It may even be the case |
Now Monckton makes it clear that he is reporting Peiser's work but Schulte carefully removed the references to Peiser after he cut and pasted from Monckton. Schulte plagiarised his text from Monckton and his references from Peiser. And he's not some first year student who doesn't know how to cite properly -- he's a published researcher who should know better.
It's funny that Dr. Schulte cited Caspar Ammann not once but twice in his list of publications that reject the consensus. Dr. Ammann is a member of RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/caspar-ammann/
and would definately support the consensus position on climate change as defined in the original Oreskes paper, and is clearly supported by his publication record http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/
I wonder what Dr. Ammann would think if he knew that his research was being claimed to reject the consensus position? Methinks that Schulte is out of his depth on this one.
Ouch!
Schultes example from Kondratyev and Varotsos is clearly a direct copy-paste from Peisers rejected letter. Peisers bad Kondratyev-cite ("1996. Annual Review. Energy...")is of course an honest mistake, a mix up with the Linden cite above. But Schulte couldn't possibly make the exact same mistake unless he copied it from Peisers letter.
Embarrassing..
Galmud, suggests a simple strategy.
Someone should take a representative sample of the authors of the papers that supposedly either rejected the consensus or were neutral and ask them if Schulte accurately interpretted their views.
i have some serious doubts about Schultes claims, that he has been misrepresented"
i think it was reasonable for Oreskes to reply to a "press release", as the original paper is not out yet, and Schulte did NOT make any attempts to correct the published version.
Oreskes said:
2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"?
http://tinyurl.com/3bww8o
while the Schulte press release said:
she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change.
and
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
his reply does not address this issue AT ALL. if there was any "misrepresentation, then it was not by Oreskes!
http://tinyurl.com/37dsrx
I like Fergus Brown's math. By reckoning, 99.73% of papers support the consensus, while 0.27% do not. That's good enough for me.
#5: Point of order, Stewart; 0.27% (attempt to) challenge the hypothesis, whilst 99.73% do not. Is there any sense in which this is not a consensus?
Regards,
If we were conservative right-wing Republicans we would already have a press release out claiming that Schulte is a plaigarist. And we would have a quote from Dr. Ammann refuting the claim that his papers are anti-consensus. Unfortunately, we haven't managed to buy the media and this is the real problem.
Okay, Fergus, point taken. 99.73% accept or do not challenge, while only .3% of climate scientists are contra at this point. How long did it take biology to reach that point regarding evolution, or astrophysics regarding stellar evolution? This argues that the greenhouse theory of climate change is actually pretty mature. I like it.
"Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte's reply and commenter "Chris" (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits against Oreskes and Lynch:"
Lawsuits again? Good! Hopefully the plaintiffs won't chicken out like Timmy Ball.
Shannon,
We could send this to Boxer, and her staff can put it opposite Inhofe/Morano's crap-of-the-day.
Or we can take the high road.
(But I'd rather take the low road.)
re: lawsuits
Well, Tim Ball was at least suing somebody in the same country.
In this case, we have:
SPPI: Washington, DC, where all this got published.
Stranger Fruit: US
Oreskes: San Diego
Sure looks American to me. If somebody thought they could stretch British libel laws somehow to fit that, I'd guess they're wrong, although I'm no lawyer. I do know US libel laws are different from those in the UK anyway, and as for the free-for-all of blogdom, who knows?
By the way, Schulte's original letter was on an official-looking NHS email form. Does NHS have any relevant rules? {I just don't know].
Plaudits to Tim for nice analysis.
Thanks, Tim, this is probably what I've been looking for all this time. Am I right that 99.73% of peer reviewed scientific papers accept or do not challenge that the human contribution to global temperature is more than 0.2 C throughout the past 50 years? It does not say that the contribution was the burning of fossil fuel. Breathing of meanwhile 6.5 Billion people, deforestation, arson, urban heat island effects are part of it, right? Then I accept this consensus view, but I remain a strong skeptic of "An Inconvenient Truth".
From Schulte's letter to Oreskes:
"the author of the statement has used the word "foolish" about me when he or she had not done me the usual professional courtesy either of contacting me or even of reading what I had written before making haste to comment upon it."
Apparently it is a "professional courtesy" to contact someone before you call them "foolish".
My Lord, these (British?) rules of cat-fighting are all so quaint.
Entertaining, though.
Markus- I don't have the relevant data to hand, but I'm pretty sure the IPPC report has many pages on atribution of CO2, and I'm afraid the main contributor is definitely fossil fuel use.
The UHI is not a contributor of CO2, although land changes can contribute to CO2 increases.
Markus: if you actually want to learn about this ...I have Swiss ancestry from long ago, so I always try to help Swiss out, once anwyay, so:
Google: attribution co2 fossil is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change is useful.
Then, goto RealClimate, a far more credible source than people like Warwick Hughes:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20…
which explains why simpler percentages are inappropriate, and gives an example of the sort of forcing chart you need to understand.
Then, goto the IPCC AR4 site:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html,
and download the 18-page Summary for Policymakers PDF.
Look at figure SPM.2, which has a newer, more detailed forcing chart.
This is careful, pretty readable, typically conservative, and unlike people who are *sure* of everything, gives uncertainty levels.
You might also try Chapters 1 & 9.
Swiss scientists contribute to the IPCC reports (see the Annexes section), so you can find knowledgable people nearby. Switzerland also has one of the best sets of historical glacier data in the world, nicely presented in http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/?locale=de
The CO2 (and other GHG forcings)effects are from radiative physics effects understood for decades. For various reasons, warming is predicted to happen faster in higher Northern latitudes than nearer the Equator, and that's what we see, especially as the Arctic Ocean heads towards being ice-free in the Summer.
UHI certainly heats things locally, but the global effects are miniscule, and if UHI wre doing it, it's rather hard to explain why the "heavily-urbanized" Arctic, Northern (Canada & Russia) are warming fastest :-)
Maybe the polar bears are building cities these days? To replace the arctic ice that is melting?
That much of the CO2 increase is from burning fossil fuels (rather than humans) is absolutely rock-solid. The historical C14/C12 isotopic ratios are precisely measured via ice-cores, tree-rings, etc, etc.
Fossil fuel-generated CO2 (and that from volcanoes) essentially lacks C14, unlike living plants, animals, and the atmosphere. I.e., there is a distinct fingerprint, and volcanoes are nowhere near close to having the necessary effects.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwar…
Thanks Guthrie and John for your valiable imputs. John, yes, I really want to learn a lot more about this. Thank you for your time. I particularly like your article about the role that ozone plays ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/ozone-impacts-on-…). But this thread is about Schulte and Oreskes. They both gave a precious imput to me of what is going on. I don't think that Doctor Schulte's patients got hospitalised JUST because of worries regarding a consensus of a human attribution of 0.2 C (+...) on global temperature. (On a scale like that I am convinced with you that UHIs could actually be neglected). Btw a new study just came from Switzerland where climate actually warmed up by even 1.5 - 2.0 C. (I'll catch up on it). But please allow me one last thing regarding Oreskes' consensus. I still maintain that many of those who are considered as global warming skeptics don't necessarily challenge the consensus as defined by Oreskes. Some of the names who are not skeptics according to Oreskes' definition are listed as skeptics in this incomplete listing here. (Let alone the many names that don't meet Oreskes' 99.7%-consensus-standard.)
He's not just A denialist, he's a laughable, precious, fraud.
Check out his genuinely deranged abstract:"fear of anthropogenic 'global warming' can adversely affect patients' well-being" - puts a justification for carrying out the latest denialist hoax right up front where you'd expect to see science! At no point does arguing by scare quotes become science or academia. But he is so sure it does he re-used the scare quotes argument for "consensus" too.
He's not "as bad" as the others, I agree. He's far, far worse. I hope he carries out his barratrous SLAPP threats.
Actually, there's not much overlap of Schulte and Orekes - he's doing a different time period, a shorter one, and using different criteria. The connection is that his sloppy crap is aimed at her work. If he's caught out, he can say it's a different time period. If you apply the same standards he can say those weren't his standards. Meanwhile, his nonsense is being cited as if it were a failed replication.
#16 Markus: It doesn't take research for a doctor to answer the question 'am I sick because the government is doing nothing about climate change?' (to paraphrase Schulte). I would, though, defend his right to question whether the medical profession can 'assume' that AGW is a real phenomenon. I would not, though, have used his way of finding this out; I would have read the AR4 SPM, or something similar.
You are still attempting to introduce a notion of 'consensus' which is not consistent with Oreskes' work. She does not posit the terms under which a 'consensus' can be deemed to exist, merely observing that, having looked at 928 abstracts, the absence of a challenge to the 'consensus view' looked like pretty good evidence that a consensus does exist. Ask yourself this question; what does the balance of evidence (from the 1467 abstracts looked at by both authors) suggest about whether there is a 'general agreement' in climate science about the causes of global warming?
Okay Fergus, thanks. You have a point there. But Schulte probalbly just did not trust the UN world governance. Isn't it that Einstein once said something like: "If it is a fact, why does it take so many scientists to prove it?". So when it comes to mitigation, I will contineously look at the latest findings and will not blindly follow the AR4 SPM. There is a wide array of views between the alarmist view of Al Gore and straightforward denial of climate shifting on a global scale. I have a lot to catch up with now...
Markus: if I knew little about Endocrinology and wished to find out more, what would be the best way to go about this? And if there existed an up-to-date report by several hundred endocrinologists, who had managed to agree what to publish on the subject, and which directed me to certain conclusions about the science, on what grounds would I be justified in thinking that they were wrong in what they said?
As far as quoting Einstein (now there's an 'appeal to authority'), you seem to want it both ways; first, a demand that many scientists agree on AGW, then a complaint that if AGW were true, it wouldn't take so many scientists to 'prove' it. This is just fatuous.
I agree with you that there are a wide array of views, and even concede that there is a range of views on mitigation within climate science, but this is hardly significant. But you are mistaken if you believe that the IPCC, or Al Gore (what he has to do with this subject is a mystery to me) are 'alarmists'. For 'alarm', you should look at Lovelock, or Mark Lynas.
The question then remains, will you 'continue to remain skeptical about the AR4' because you feel you have grounds to doubt its conclusions, or because you are predisposed to disbelieve it, and therefore refuse to place your trust in what, by any reasonable measure, would be considered to be an authoritative and conservative statement on the subject?
Respectfully,
Fergus, if you would like to know more about my personal convictions, for what I stand for, what I am skeptical about, what I disapprove of and why, I invite you to visit my URL and maybe we could continue our very interesting debate by e-mail. As I already mentioned, I am within Oreskes' consensus definition. I accept that human attribution is probably more than 50% of the warming of the last 50 years. You mentioned a Gaia worshipper. I agree with you that this is a good example of an alarmist. I wouldn't have mentioned Al Gore to be an alarmist if he hadn't travelled to my country last year to alarm us, and if he hadn't participated AGAIN by video at the recent national climate forum of Switzerland. My last statement to this comment thread is this: Neither should Oreskes' consensus (or lack of rock solid consensus) presentation lead us into fatalism nor into accepting any foolish mitigation by not taking into account the cost. And I am talking about the cost affecting the poor more than the rich!
Markus; thank you for the invitation; I shall visit your blog shortly. You have mischaracterised Lovelock as 'Gaia worshipper'; he is no such thing. I'll accept that Gore alarmed you/his Swiss audience. I am unsure why you still persist in comments like 'lack of rock-solid consensus'; this is peculiar to say the least. You will find a discussion of 'cost' on my blog, to which I also invite you.
"fear of anthropogenic 'global warming' can adversely affect patients' well-being"
Sometimes there are very legitimate reasons for worrying about things.
The ones who really need psychological help are those who deny reality and never lose any sleep over it (George Bush, for example).
Some have all the luck! I've been calling out that Chris thing on several forums and no lawsuits so far! How hilarious if it were Monckton - peers of the Realm after all don't get that way usually by brains.
At any rate, "Chris" is the most transparent shill I've ever seen.
Whenever I need information about hormone therapy, I seek out an interpretive dancer. But when I need to look at the history of the scientific consensus on global warming, I always consult an endocrinologist. Especially a plagiaristic, weaselly one - that's the richest kind! How many endocrinologists are so concerned with their patients' well-being that they'll go the extra distance of putting their name on a slightly altered version of a previously discredited shill study, just adding more scare quotes? Not many!
Thank you, Dr. Schulte! Now, would you be interested in kicking in some of your AEI money so me and my fellow non-junk scientists can chase down dinosaurs - the real source of the so-called AIDS virus?
Dear me. Searching for +Monckton +"IP address" +Wikipedia shows that edit wars over articles about Monckton and 'Eternity Puzzle' have been going on -- the problem user is coming in anonymously via an ISP that assigns a new IP address each time a customer logs on, so was never identified.
One of several pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.100.250.218
".... as things stand, innocent editors are clearly being routinely libelled by the Wiki system. When the latter gets its act together and starts acting within the law perhaps then there will be an atmosphere more conducive towards civilised people revealing more re personal identity. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.109.131 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
N.b., the 'HagermanBot' has given me a different I.P. address there, even tho I am the same person editing from the same PC(!)."
--- end excerpt ----
Someone clearly didn't understand the need to find an ISP that offers a fixed IP in order to, well, have one.
How hilarious if it were Monckton - peers of the Realm after all don't get that way usually by brains.
That would be very funny. "Chris" left a series of lengthy comments responding to my own post, all of them assuming a tone of authority and expertise that (as I pointed out to him) I had no reason to believe he possessed. Alas, none of my goading prompted him to give any particulars about himself. If he was a Peer, though, then clearly I was in the wrong for Questioning My Betters.
Before Lord Monckton moved efforts to SPPI, he provided material to Frontiers of Freedom [funding by tobacco & oil cos, among others, according to Sourcewatch.]
December 11, 2006 MONCKTON: SNOWE AND ROCKEFELLER APOLOGISE OR RESIGN
Monckton writes "Uphold Free Speech About Climate Change or Resign, An Open Letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller", 8 pages.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
"You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators."
"We need honest science. Therefore we do not need the UN." (referring to IPCC).
"You commend Britain's Royal Society, once a learned body and now a mere Left-leaning political pressure-group, for having clumsily attempted to interfere with ExxonMobil's funding of groups that are sceptical of what you inaccurately call a 'consensus' to the effect that climate change is a 'global problem'."
"In the circumstances, your comparison of Exxon's funding of sceptical scientists with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold."
Doing the Schulte rag
I had already decided to become an alarmist... I deduced from ecology that there is a 100% chance that wildlife species extinctions, already programmed by habitat clearance and fragmentation, would be greatly accelerated by even mild climate change, due to the sensitivity of many species to heat and moisture changes, and the inability of many species to migrate quickly enough, or across human habitation.
And now, I have added Stephen Hawking on my side! Beat that! At a seminar in Beijing, June 21, 2006, Dr. Hawking said he is "very worried about global warming," and that he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-22-hawking-warming_x.htm
No doubt Professor Hawking was having his inimitable fun... But I urge everyone to join The Alarmists. We are just cooler people!
John MAshey- Monckton proves that he is a paranoid weirdo. The Royal Society is a left leaning pressure group? Only if you are a politician with no idea of what goes on in the real world. Meanwhile, in the real world, the science proceeds without Monckton, and despite his Yorkie like yapping.
John MAshey- Monckton proves that he is a paranoid weirdo. The Royal Society is a left leaning pressure group? Only if you are a politician with no idea of what goes on in the real world. Meanwhile, in the real world, the science proceeds without Monckton, and despite his Yorkie like yapping.
HHmmmm, according to my computer it timed out before my comment posted, yet a couple of hours later, here are two comments. Something isn't working properly.
Tom Hilton dinna fash yersel - they've INVITED "Peer" review.
And from a scientific survey - re-reading Lady Chatterly's Lover - I've concluded they're not really our "betters" If you ken.
Markus, you should either nail that Einstein quote down precisely or stop using it. As written it looks completely insane and stupid. For instance, serious confirmation of Einstein's General Relativity didn't come until very recently, and it took, between then and the time Einstein proposed it, the work of thousands of scientists.
If you want to do witchcraft or voudon or Scientology or something, fine. But if you claim to be scientific and then maintain that a theory can't be correct if it takes a lot of scientists to prove it, you're a charlatan.
Hi all
So 99.73% support the hypothesis/consensus?
I bet this was about the same ratio around 100 years ago when Newton's law of gravity was the 'consensus'. Thank god the 0.27% (Albert Einstein) did not accept this consensus. I bet Einstein was labelled a denier, contrarian etc.
As we all know with AGW, the answer = man made warming, how do we work backwards to support this?
Regards
Peter Bickle
#36
You are just showing how little you actually know about science. Your idiotic statements about Newton and Einstein are laughable.
Einstein did not change any of Newton's well established laws he merely added to them so that the laws of physics could be extended to certain previously unexplored circumstances.
"(Albert Einstein) did not accept this consensus."
So the 99.73% of scientists are accurate on global warming to better than 0.0000001%.
Thanks for reminding us that the credulists are atomistic quibblers.
Peter,
The flaw in the Newtonian consensus was broken, not by Einstein, but by Mickelson and Morley's observation that the speed of light is the same in all directions for a given frame of reference. Virtually every physicist and interested and informed citizen knew, consensually, that the paradigm of universal ether as a medium for the propagation of light waves was falsified. Lorenz had already described the mathematical dimensions of the dilemma. What Einstein did was provide an explanation, that space is curved by gravity, which solved the apparent conundrum.
If there is an ineluctable metaphysic of belief inherent in Science, then the First Doctrine and Dogma of that belief is "follow the data". Theory must be born out by observation.
As far as I can discern, the only observation that the global warming critics are able to present against the consensus view of what we are observing with respect to empirically obvious changes in the earth's climate and its proximate causes, is that there are unresolved uncertainties.
Since, in a field as complex, multi-faceted and filled with chaotic non-linear, multi-dimensional feedbacks and forcings, as the Earth Sciences, there will probably always be unresolved uncertainties, that does have some apparent naive attractiveness of being a logically unassailable argument. Indeed, there is a certain implicit uncertainty in any observation.
However, in the real world, Achilles eventually gets close enough to the tortoise to just reach out and grab it.
It's also a good thing that Revelle and Suess (and other pioneers) didn't follow the prior consensus that "man is incapable of altering the climate," otherwise we'd be in even worse shape than we are now.
Anyone else think that Godwin's Law should have a science variant concerning the citation of Einstein in any argument? ;-)
Ian Hopkins: I would agree, EXCEPT that I believe Einstein once said, talking to my parents-to-be, "you two kids should be a couple. I bet you'll produce a science genius who will be always right about everything."
Now, I know Mr. Einstein did not write that one down, but it's still a quote.
Also didn't Einstein once say (talking about An American Family), Jesus these reality shows are stupid! They should be cancelled!
And at a time when people were locked into a horribly mechanistic Victorian Newtonian consensus, didn't Einstein have the wisdom and vision to agree with me that cats are smarter than dogs and cookie dough is the best ice cream flavor? I sure think so!
re. Einstein vs Newton:
Peter,
Can you imagine the world if all those 19th-century physicists and engineershadn't accepted the consensus view on Newton?
Einstein went from total obscurity to Nobel prize within 16 years of his first publications. Not bad. Scientists were of course skeptical at first--that's their job--but Einstein's ideas were assimilated in due course.
Newton's laws fit the contemporary observations much better than Einstein's would have done. It was only with increasing sophistication of the observations that Einstein's theory became necessary--and relevant. Remember, science isn't about "right" and "wrong", but best fit. That's why Newton's laws were perfectly useful for hundreds of years, despite being "wrong".
Just wondering:
With all this fighting over whether there's consensus, has anybody bothered to actually ask the climatologists directly? Other than the IPCC, of course. But if you wanted an independent sample: why not perform the same search of Oreske's, or Shulte's, then instead of reading the abstracts, just call the freakin authors themselves and ask them if they suscribe to AGW?
Or why doesn't someone hire a respected polling firm to do a survey of climatologists asking them whether they've ever been peer-, financially-, physically-, or telepathically-pressured into accepting the consensus view? A good polling firm should be able to obtain even those truths the subjects are reluctant to divulge.
Tim: a few extra comments on your original post.
1) According to the PDF File, it was created (with the SPPI logos) July 10, from a Word file whose title includes "6-21-07".
2) The 5 references you quoted were in a section where Monckton was talking about Peiser, but also about other things that didn't come from Peiser, with about 5 paragraphs between the last mention of Peiser, and the references. It is indeed clear that Monckton got them from Peiser, but I'm not sure I'd say Monckton was careful to attribute those cites to Peiser, but maybe that's just sloppiness.
3) Then, one can summarize your side-by-side simply:
Schulte cut-and-past, word-for-word, including formatting (both have somewhat unusual arrow-bullets) the 5 cites, which I'd say.
Then, he copied Monckton's surrounding text and did a few edits.
Is that a fair summary?
With all this fighting over whether there's consensus
Who's fighting?
re: #45 a further note
The original Monckton PDF uses little arrowheads from the Wingding font, and so does the Schulte version. You can certainly do that
easily if you have the Monckton Word file to cut-and-paste from. However, if you cut-and-paste from the PDF, you get the words, but the Wingdings come out as quad boxes.
Maybe there's a PDF-to-Word converter, or maybe Schulte edited the Wingdings back in ... but the reader should assess the likelihood of those versus Schulte/Monckton just starting with the existing Word document....
Yes, I agree that a cut and paste from Monckton's Word document seems probable. Monckton seems to have gone quiet now.
Yes, I agree that a cut and paste from Monckton's Word document seems probable.
wow, impressive discovery.
so while claiming that his work was misrepresented, he cut and paste copied some counterexamples, erasing the source?
re: #49
Usually, plagiarists copy good stuff.
I thought it was especially amusing to cite an article by Caspar Amman (really Oh as first author), as rejecting the consensus.
Someone could write a paper rejecting the consensus, in the middle of a pile of papers that accept it ... but it seems unlikely.
Let's see:
Google Scholar: global climate change author:ammann
Google Scholar: wahl ammann
RealClimate contributor
an author on AR4
Oops.
Shultes will NOT be appearing in E&E:
http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-…
You mention shulte. I don't suppose he is any relation to sigfried shulte the guy that invented the evoline system? I'm sorry of that is a silly question. Cheers, Jo (UK)