Malcolm wrote:Ben Franklin has an awesome analysis of anthropogenic climate change. He observed that whenever you cut down a lot of trees, the area would get warmer. Well, multiply this, add burning petroleum to the mix and you get what have today: acidification of oceans, increasingly intense storms, constantly rising global average temperatures, etc.
Yes, that's because of evapotranspiration, the effect is local, not because it absorbs carbon dioxide, which even under strict Anthropogenic Global Warming models would require deforestation many many many orders of magnitude larger than local lumber works.
Surface temperatures can only tell us so much. The fact that the troposphere is warming is slower than surface temperatures tells us a lot too. Particularly that the models relied upon by proponents of AGW have incorrect predictions.
And, why do you also claim that we have constantly rising global average temperatures? Even the IPCC admits that they are not rising any more.
Malcolm wrote:You appear to think that because there are uncertainties in one area of science, there must uncertainty in all.
Yup, that's right.
That's how science works.
When a theory is accepted as fact, it doesn't mean it is the truth without any uncertainties. Theories are constantly overthrown by better ones. May the best theory always overthrow the worse theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
Btw, I faintly remember you arguing if not for Marxism then at least for communism on E-Sangha. Or am I mistaken?
Is James Lawrence's chart peer reviewed? No.
Kim O'Hara wrote:The pie-chart I uploaded is a fair reflection of the state of the science. If you refuse to believe that, you are choosing to believe flat-earthers, and I say that not to denigrate you but to alert you to the true situation.
This is based on John Cook's flawed paper, which he retracted after it was shown to be flawed in a Peer Reviewed journal: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9647-9
. His response was not accepted by any peer reviewed journal.
This is because the results of his survey actually found that he stretched three definitions of climate change, and morphed them into one. In fact, only 0.3% of peer reviewed papers, fit the definition of accepting AGW.Newsflash, 0.3% is not a consensus.
Moreover, even if it was true, which it isn't, it is a simple logical fallacy, ad populum.
The reason you see stats like this is because no articles flat out in their titles "deny" or "confirm" AGW as a whole. It's simply cherry picking.
Arguments against AGW are based on individual studies, which are peer reviewed, in aggregation. I have already cited about a dozen, none of which make it their objective to prove or disprove a system of thought. Rather, the studies which lead people to doubt AGW are individual studies which may simply be measuring temperatures or change in one thing or another. If your goal is to report on a statistic, you don't then go on a tangent and try to put together all sorts of other data to create a grand unified theory. I thought you didn't like diversions Kim.“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
No consensus in other fields either, even with dreadfully broad definitions (Peer reviewed)
:Only 36% of Geoscientists and Engineers believe in AGW.Only 19% of American Meteorological Society meterologists believe in AGW.