AGW denial is anti-science

[Chester35]

I commented earlier about reduced biodiversity due to man not being forgotten with AGW and then the BBC posted this :-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-506...

In bold

"As the climate warms, birds are shrinking and their wingspans are growing, according to a new study."


and then not in bold

"The birds had died after colliding with buildings in Chicago, Illinois."

and

"In 1978, he started walking around buildings in the mornings during spring and fall migration to collect birds that had collided with buildings.

Birds usually migrate at night and are attracted to the artificial light from buildings, causing fatal collisions with windows. Hundreds of millions of birds are estimated to be killed in building collisions each year."


Man's footprint on the world in December 2019 is rather big one way or another.

[kerplunk]

[redacted]

[Esceptico]

kerplunk said:

grumbledoak said:

Politicians were quick to see it as a massive lever to massive power.

classic

All the nonsense on here about conspiracies and how governments are overreacting to “fake” AGW yet the reality is that the gap between what is being done to combat AGW and what needs to be done continues to grow and that the main polluters (China, US, Russia and India) are not even committing to do anything and in the case of the US actively ignoring AGW.

[Jinx]

RobM77 said:

A point I've made several times that they ignore. Kind of convenient that these mistakes they're all accusing scientists of all add up in one direction isn't it? The truth of course is that science is very conservative and historically, AGW has been underestimated, not overestimated:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/...

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-conse...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/climate-changin...

https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/climate-cha...

Obviously the likes of Nature, Scientific American, Universities etc are really unreliable sources. No doubt someone will be along soon with some links to the Daily Mail.

Furthermore, there's actually a motive to cover up AGW, especially in the US where many climate scientists have recently lost their jobs for saying that AGW is real. This is the great irony in AGW denial: there is actually a cover up, in the US at least, but it's the opposite of what these denialists are claiming!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul...

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_administ...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/31/trumps-shadow...

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 4th December 11:21

Have a read of this link Rob - https://medium.com/@ProfByron/how-i-changed-my-min... Not from a climate scientist but a forecasting expert.

[stew-STR160]

Esceptico said:

kerplunk said:

grumbledoak said:

Politicians were quick to see it as a massive lever to massive power.

classic

All the nonsense on here about conspiracies and how governments are overreacting to “fake” AGW yet the reality is that the gap between what is being done to combat AGW and what needs to be done continues to grow and that the main polluters (China, US, Russia and India) are not even committing to do anything and in the case of the US actively ignoring AGW.

Weird, I'm sure Al Gore doesn't look like that cartoon character in real life...

[Gadgetmac]

Apparently the latest review of published peer reviewed papers now shows a 100% consensus amongst research scientists after analysis of 11,602 papers published in 2019.

So, no longer 97%...this conspiracy now encompasses every single publishing research scientist in the world.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027046761...

So not one peer reviewed paper in this study of over 11,000 papers is supportive of the deniers arguments.

Remarkable.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

Apparently the latest review of published peer reviewed papers now shows a 100% consensus amongst research scientists after analysis of 11,602 papers published in 2019.

So, no longer 97%...this conspiracy now encompasses every single publishing research scientist in the world.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027046761...

So not one peer reviewed paper in this study of over 11,000 papers is supportive of the deniers arguments.

Remarkable.

So the author read the titles, and where anything might have sounded like arguing against it, he read abstract and very rarely the whole thing. I wonder how many were discarded...So, he's really basing the 100% on just the titles? Sounds legit.


Oh, and his last line is a corker- "Denialists have long run out of excuses for inaction and humanity has almost run out of time".

Having looked further into who James Powell is and his history, it appears he published a 99.99% paper a few years ago that was littered with errors in his analysis.

So I'm going to take this article with a pinch of salt. I'll be asking him for his list. Scratch that, I've found the list.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Thursday 5th December 09:22

[stew-STR160]

After only a few minutes of selecting random articles from the list and reading abstractions, it appears Powell didn't do a very good job. I'm going to continue this random selection of papers listed and see what's what.

So far, that 100% goes straight into the bin.

ETA- I'm actually going to withdraw my comment on the 100% for now. Because so far of the 20 or so articles I've looked at, they either have nothing to do with AGW, agree with AGW, or give no opinion. So in other words, that 11000+ list looks like it could be reduced by a few thousand at least, given enough time.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Thursday 5th December 09:34

[Gadgetmac]

I look forward to reading your list of papers he reviewed that have nothing to do with AGW.

I'll then forward it on to him and we can see what he says about that. I understand he replies to genuine enquiries.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 5th December 09:43

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

I look forward to reading your list of papers he reviewed that have nothing to do with AGW.

I'm not making a list. He's already done that. It's VERY VERY easy to open his list, copy and paste the article headings into Google, and read for yourself. Which you won't do, because you can't have anything challenge your faith.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

I look forward to reading your list of papers he reviewed that have nothing to do with AGW.

I'm not making a list. He's already done that. It's VERY VERY easy to open his list, copy and paste the article headings into Google, and read for yourself. Which you won't do, because you can't have anything challenge your faith.

You've made an accusation that the papers he's reviewed are not relevant to his published review.

Please back that up (as I can't see it) with your list which I'll put to him. As I said, these professors will usually answer genuine questions. So then we can see if your list holds water.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

I look forward to reading your list of papers he reviewed that have nothing to do with AGW.

I'm not making a list. He's already done that. It's VERY VERY easy to open his list, copy and paste the article headings into Google, and read for yourself. Which you won't do, because you can't have anything challenge your faith.

You've made an accusation that the papers he's reviewed are not relevant to his published review.

Please back that up as I can't see it with your list which I'll put to him. As I said, these professors will usually answer genuine questions. So then we can see if your list holds water.

FFS...you really are pathetic. GO READ THEM YOURSELF. I've told you how to, it's super easy.
Once again you exhibit blind faith.

But fine, here's a few for you to get worked up over:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09238-2
https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p16...
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10...


And don't bother contacting him on my behalf, I'll do it. For some reason I have an image in my head of you as a person in church praying to God for answers.

[Gadgetmac]

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

5 articles from the list shown above. Get to it. Show me how they support AGW. Especially that last one. Go on...

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

5 articles from the list shown above. Get to it. Show me how they support AGW. Especially that last one. Go on...

I thought not!

I don't have to show you anything, he did the review not me. You don't like it so disprove his research.

That first link takes you to an abstract of the paper for which you have to pay. It does however say that chapter 2 is on climate.

You have said that the papers have nothing to do with AGW and you'll contact the reports author and now you are back pedalling like crazy.

You've simply read the abstracts.

So you won't be contacting him then?

Thought not.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 5th December 10:19

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

5 articles from the list shown above. Get to it. Show me how they support AGW. Especially that last one. Go on...

I thought not!

That first link takes you to an abstract of the paper for which you have to pay. It does however say that chapter 2 is on climate.

You have said that the papers have nothing to do with AGW and you'll contact the reports author and now you are back pedalling like crazy.

You've simply read the abstracts.o

Do you won't be contacting him then.

Thought not.

Where have I back peddled? I said I'm going to contact him, and I will. Seriously, you are a class A moron.

I said in a previous post - they either have nothing to do with AGW, agree with AGW, or give no opinion. Cherry picking, well done.

I have read abstracts, and where available I've read the conclusions too. They too are available if you use Google. So by reading abstracts and articles, I have done the same or more as the author, and clearly come to a different conclusion.

ETA- first article indeed says climate as chapter 2. Does that imply AGW automatically?

Edited by stew-STR160 on Thursday 5th December 10:23

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

5 articles from the list shown above. Get to it. Show me how they support AGW. Especially that last one. Go on...

I thought not!

That first link takes you to an abstract of the paper for which you have to pay. It does however say that chapter 2 is on climate.

You have said that the papers have nothing to do with AGW and you'll contact the reports author and now you are back pedalling like crazy.

You've simply read the abstracts.o

Do you won't be contacting him then.

Thought not.

Where have I back peddled? I said I'm going to contact him, and I will. Seriously, you are a class A moron.

I said in a previous post - they either have nothing to do with AGW, agree with AGW, or give no opinion. Cherry picking, well done.

I have read abstracts, and where available I've read the conclusions too. They too are available if you use Google. So by reading abstracts and articles, I have done the same or more as the author, and clearly come to a different conclusion.

You are an idiot.

He used the web of science core database to search for peer reviewed articles published in 2019 on climate change and global warming that reject AGW and found none.

You say that is wrong. You are calling his research flawed in a fundamental way.

Now, back up your accusation and challenge him, he is available.

[kerplunk]

stew-STR160 said:

Oh, and his last line is a corker- "Denialists have long run out of excuses for inaction and humanity has almost run out of time".

yep they rely on old and knackered memes and when you point out their memes are old and knackered, they just ignore you.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Oh this is gonna be good!!!

Get to it then.

Because I have an image in my head of you as a Trump like figure who'll say anything to get himself out of a hole.

Can't wait.

5 articles from the list shown above. Get to it. Show me how they support AGW. Especially that last one. Go on...

I thought not!

That first link takes you to an abstract of the paper for which you have to pay. It does however say that chapter 2 is on climate.

You have said that the papers have nothing to do with AGW and you'll contact the reports author and now you are back pedalling like crazy.

You've simply read the abstracts.o

Do you won't be contacting him then.

Thought not.

Where have I back peddled? I said I'm going to contact him, and I will. Seriously, you are a class A moron.

I said in a previous post - they either have nothing to do with AGW, agree with AGW, or give no opinion. Cherry picking, well done.

I have read abstracts, and where available I've read the conclusions too. They too are available if you use Google. So by reading abstracts and articles, I have done the same or more as the author, and clearly come to a different conclusion.

You are an idiot.

He used the web of science core database to search for peer reviewed articles published in 2019 on climate change and global warming that reject AGW and found none.

You say that is wrong. You are calling his research flawed in a fundamental way.

Now, back up your accusation and challenge him, he is available.

Ball is in your court now, moron. I have emailed him. Perhaps you could spend a few minutes of your trolling time and have a look through his list?

[Gadgetmac]

Copy of your email please so that we can see what you've asked of him and his email address so that it can be checked. You say you've contacted him but then you likely write to Santa so who knows.

I have looked at the abstracts and find nothing that disagrees with his assertion but without access to the full papers it's impossible to tell and I'm not paying for them.

I appreciate that being a weapons grade numpty you can't get your head around the fact that I don't have to do anything, you have to disprove him but that's where we are at.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 5th December 11:02