The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[EternalOptimist]

So did he say that the top ten are rubbished?

He said there were two sceptical papers. do you agree with that ?

[EternalOptimist]

He said there were two sceptical papers. do you agree with that ?

no. it's clear he doesnt either

[speling bee]

He said there were two sceptical papers. do you agree with that ?

No. He said two peer-reviewed articles reject man - made global warming. Click on the link provided if you want more detail, although I am not convinced that this is a peer-reviewed literary review.

Now answer my question please:

So did he say that the top ten are rubbished?

[EternalOptimist]

So did he say that the top ten are rubbished?

I would go further than that. I would go as far as saying that in one post he claims two such papers and in another provides a link to a site i never heard of, which has a lot more.

hence the nub of my point - If you HAVE to subscribe to the concensus rather than the science, at least use a cohesive argument. The arguments must be consistent with each other

of course, thats just my opinion. you may disagree

[pjclarke]

No. My arguments are perfectly consistent, internally and with reality.

The site referred to is the blog of James Powell and the pie chart was this one

It is the result of a review of the climate science papers published last year quantifying those that reject AGW and it is inaccurate: he had to expand the 'rejection' slice x 5 to make it visible.

James describes his methods thusly:

I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. [...]

Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science

.

The list of 1000+ papers, brought to our attention by BB, was the result of a similar but different exercise. Andrew 'Popular Technology' Kahn, compiled a list of papers that in his opinion supported his scepticism. This list covers 30 years or more and suffers from the flaws I pointed out, including papers published in a Dog Astrology journal, at least one paper that actually confirms the concensus, papers that deny there is a greenhouse effect, others that confirm the greenhouse effect but assert it has been overstated, opinion pieces, book reviews, conference proceedings and so forth. Just a numbers exercise it seems to me, hence mypolite but so far unanswered request for someone to summarise the peer-reviewed evidence against AGW in 10 or so papers.

Propaganda. I am reminded of the list of 'several hundred prominent international scientists who reject manmade global warming' compiled by US Senator James Inhofe, a man largely funded by the oil and gas industry. He tasked his aide, Michael Morano, with trawling the English language media for any statement that could be represented as 'sceptical' from any person who could be described as a 'scientist'. The result was comical, pitching cuddly Alan Titchmarch, with his Diploma in Horticulture from Kew against the IPCC because he wrote a Telegraph article which includes the phrase 'I'm sure we are contributing to global warming. I mean ex-TV weathermen is one thing, but TV Gardeners?

[Troll]

Obvious caveat that it's the DM reporting

but

Is Antarctic sea ice increasing because of climate change or in spite of climate change?

or

Is it all bolloxs

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.

[pjclarke]

It is true, Antarctic sea ice is increasing modestly, as opposed to a modest decrease forecast by the models. But then Antarctica has both land and sea-ice, as opposed to the Arctic, which is all sea ice. To put the new 'record' in context ....

[DodgyAgent]

Surprised you didn't reply by smearing the people that brought the information to our attention like you tried to do throughout the rest of the thread

[speling bee]

It is true, Antarctic sea ice is increasing modestly, as opposed to a modest decrease forecast by the models. But then Antarctica has both land and sea-ice, as opposed to the Arctic, which is all sea ice. To put the new 'record' in context ....

Greenland is in the Arctic and has ice, ergo you're talking nonsense.

[pjclarke]

Greenland is in the Arctic and has ice, ergo you're talking nonsense.

Ah, fair point, if harshly expressed. I should have been clearer, but hey it was a one-line comment in CUK General. Most of Greenland is indeed inside the Arctic Circle. However the article was about (when not rehashing Goddard. Bang there goes the Mail's credibility. Again.) and therefore the comparison in my mind was between the parts of the world where sea ice is in decline or advance, that is the Northern Polar section of the Arctic Ocean and the seas around Antarctica.

The Arctic Ocean is - to a reasonable approximation - a body of water surrounded by land - with the Northern and Eastern parts of Greenland forming part of the 'coast'. It - again to first approximation - basically freezes over each NH winter and the ice melts over the summer, with a minimum in September. The trend in the amount of ice extent at minimum has been in serious decline since the satellite record began.

On the other pole we have the opposite, a land mass surrounded by the Southern Ocean, so naturally the factors affecting the sea ice extent between the two poles are also different. For albedo it is the sea ice loss and also where it is lost that is significant, for sea level rise it is the loss of land-based ice that makes the contribution.