Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center has finally and convincingly dismissed the mythical '70s "consensus" that the planet was in imminent danger of cooling. In fact, his research shows that the overwhelming majority of scientific articles during that period were already predicting global warming.Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
What? No comment yet from
What? No comment yet from Rob, ZOG, or Paul S/G? Or are they unable to see their keyboards due to the tears that have welled up in their eyes because one of their most common strawmen has been killed off!
"No comment yet from Rob,
"No comment yet from Rob, ZOG, or Paul S/G?"
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll come up with something. After all, the ways of denialist logic are not our ways...
How about this: If Peterson's count of 7 global cooling papers became Oreskes's 0 global cooling papers, then obviously it means that 7 brave authors were burnt at the stake by the Evil Scientific Inquisition. Of course, the 7 -> 0 change is obviously _not_ due to a better understanding of climate processes, and definitely _not_ due to advances in combating forms of pollution other than CO2.
Or, how about this: Peterson only looked at _peer-reviewed_ papers, and by the very nature of this selection process, he limits himself to only papers supporting the Prevailing Religious Orthodoxy of the Day. The True Scientific Opinion, as (not) evidenced by the countless invisible research papers which are never published in non-journals, clearly shows that scientists were worried about global cooling. Come on, that's what the media said back then!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
If there was a "consensus"
If there was a "consensus" about GW in the '70s, scientists did a good job of keeping it a secret.
Thompson and Oreskes could review studies on childhood obesity and probably find most of them agree with AGW too.
Neither person is impartial to the cause they claim to study/aim to promote so I'll wait for a study done by someone not also pushing their own agenda.
please provide supportive evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes
The wikipedia article on Oreskes offers no support of impartiality (and to repeat John Mashey, coming from a mining background and having worked for EPA which doesn't want to regulate CO2, she doesn't have a background that suggests supporting action on AGW).
There is no wikipedia article for Thomas Peterson. What is your source for judging his partiality? Christ, you don't even have the right person -- you're sliming someone named Thompson. Did you read the article? Rob on one thread, Paul S on this one, next Zog will slander a wrong author without good cause.
No wonder you guys don't get it. You don't take the time to read.
You don't know who Thomas
You don't know who Thomas Peterson is Steve? Appears you are the one who needs to do a bit more reading.
I am sliming neither Oreskes nor Peterson. Knowing more about them then your simple wikipedia reference, I see neither as necessarily impartial enough to confer on their studies the credibility you believe they deserve.
Paul
Who's Thompson?
Who's Thompson? Beats me.
Who's Thompson? Beats me. That's the name I typed out in error after a very long tiring day at work.
Who are you? Wait, I know. You are an interent fact ninny whose job is to point out each, and every inconsequential mistake others make.
Yeah Tom, you fact ninny
Paul S knows things because, well, he says he knows. He knows he doesn't have to support claims. What he claims is fact. And if there are errors, he knows they are inconsequential. Those who think differently clearly do not know. They are fact ninnies. Facts are overrated anyhow!
Answered that question...
I asked a simple question.
I thought you had merely made a typo, but then perhaps I missed something....that happens more often than not...
But I was also curious what your response would be to my harmless little query. A test if you will...
The fact that you had to throw an insult settled MY opinion of you and of any of your posts...past or future.
Not good.
Fact Ninnies Rock!
Of course, that's only my opinion ...
Still, it would be nice if this narrowminded obsession to accuracy caught on, say, on the evening news or - here's a longshot - among a certain community of DeSmogBlog comment posters.
I couldn't agree more
I couldn't agree more Richard. ;)
No you don't...
You value your own opinion far more than mere facts.
No need to get all anal on
No need to get all anal on us. Lighten up Tom.
You are the one who needs to lighten up
Seems to me that just a few posts ago you were mocking me and being a complete a@#$%#e because I made a simple spelling error. There is a big difference between a simple typo and making a mistake like you just did. Mixing up two completely different people is a major faux pas.
Ian Forrester
Yes, it's always about you
Yes, it's always about you Ian, isn't it?
Seems to me that just a few posts ago you were mocking me and being a complete a@#$%#e because I made a simple spelling error.
I was mocking you and I was kiddin' Ian. Lighten up, loosen up, have a beer.
There is a big difference between a simple typo and making a mistake like you just did. Mixing up two completely different people is a major faux pas.
Of course Ian, of course. When you make an error, it is a "simple typo" and when I do, it is a "major faux pas". No surprise (from you) there.
The internet ninnies are out in full force it appears.
You are a repulsive liar,
You are a repulsive liar, Paul S. Don't bother pretending to be just a joker; no one is buying it.
As compared to what? An
As compared to what? An attractive liar? Gee, if I've got VJ upset, I must be doing something right on this thread.
Tell me
How is calling me anal supposed to make me "Lighten up"?
Knee-jerk response: "Bias! Bias! Bias!" Who needs facts?
"I see neither as necessarily impartial enough to confer on their studies the credibility you believe they deserve."
See? See? I knew our resident denialists will come up with something that's not of this world.
Yeah, when _any_ person P comes up with _any_ study debunking AGW denialist dimwittery, simply insinuate that this person P is exercising some unspecified, invisible, undetectable bias. And suddenly it becomes the AGW theorists' duty to prove that this person P is _not_ biased.
And obviously no amount of proof of impartiality will ever be enough, because there's always another possible "bias" in yet another ill-defined corner...
With this sort of "argument", who needs facts?
- - -
"Who are you? Wait, I know. You are an interent fact ninny whose job is to point out each, and every inconsequential mistake others make."
And you're criticizing Peterson and Oreskes for the "mistake" of ... well, some totally unknown and unspecified mistake. Right.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
The study has not even been
The study has not even been published and I imagine you already see it as definitive on the subject, right Frank?
You haven't read the study but you wholeheartedly believe it. Why is that?
rob shifts the burden of proof
"You haven't read the study but you wholeheartedly believe it. Why is that?"
Let me turn that around: You haven't read the study but you "know" the author is biased. Why is that?
I never once said that Peterson's study is definitive. It was _you_ who insinuated that Peterson was biased in some totally unspecified way. The onus is on you to prove that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
Reading for meaning
Not only did you not read the study, you also didn't read who wrote the comment. F minus.
OK, my bad.(Or maybe I
OK, my bad.
(Or maybe I should just throw a hissy fit and complain about "fact ninnies", but I guess that's a perk reserved for denialists.)
But again, I _never_ said that Peterson's study is definitive.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
Tom Peterson is a very
Tom Peterson is a very prominent climatologist who authored a study debunking the "skeptics'" complaint that the urban heat island is significantly affecting the temperature record:
Peterson, T.C. (2003) Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found. Journal of Climate. 16 (18). 2941–2959.
His vast publication record in climatology is here on Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22author%3ATC+author%3APeterson%22
Question is, did Tom
Question is, did Tom Peterson ever visit any of these urban sites he claims to be free of UHI effect? This is not a trivial question.
Most studies purporting to support the quality and validity of surface stations never appear to actually visit any of these stations. Experts claim they can correct for unknown flaws at surface stations but never clearly explain how this magic is performed.
Expert or not, I'm not going to accept unseen a study by Peterson that hasn't even been published.
Are you blind, Paul S/G? It
Are you blind, Paul S/G? It WAS published in Journal of Climate!!!
Also, the stations used are WMO-certified, meaning there are no ventilation shafts, asphalt, or other structures present which may affect the temperature records. They have already been inspected and need not be inspected again by Peterson.
Are you blind, Paul S/G? It
Are you blind, Paul S/G? It WAS published in Journal of Climate!!!
According to the link, the article has not been published yet. Source Stephen?
Also, the stations used are WMO-certified, meaning there are no ventilation shafts, asphalt, or other structures present which may affect the temperature records. They have already been inspected and need not be inspected again by Peterson.
LOL. You are truly behind on the issues affecting surface sites and the quality of their records Stephen.
"According to the link, the
"According to the link, the article has not been published yet. Source Stephen?"
_This_ article, Paul S/G:
Peterson, T.C. (2003) Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found. Journal of Climate. 16 (18). 2941–2959.
"LOL. You are truly behind on the issues affecting surface sites and the quality of their records Stephen."
Yeah, the surface stations are built by pinkos, which means they've been tainted with Undetectable Liberal Bias! QED.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
You're confused Frank. The
You're confused Frank. The study that nobody has read because it hasn't been published yet is the study mentioned by Richard. In spite of it not yet being published, and not being read by anyone, it is considered authoritative, sight unseen. Why is that?
As for Tom Peterson's study on UHI, my question remains. Did he ever visit any of the temperature surface stations he used in his study? This is not a minor point.
You are wrong (once again) Paul S/G
Paul S/G said: "The study that nobody has read because it hasn't been published yet is the study mentioned by Richard". Just because you haven't read it doesn't mean that nobody has. Once again you fail a simple bit of logic.
Plenty of people have read it. It is available as a Powerpoint version (given at a meeting sponsored by the American Meteorological Society on January 15, 2008). Or as a pdf of the paper submitted to BAMS (William Connelly, one of the authors, confirms that this version is very similar to the submitted one).
http://www.ametsoc.org/Chapters/asheville/mythAshevilleJanuary2008.ppt
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
The difference between people who understand and appreciate what is going on is that they do a little bit of research first otherwise they are made to look stupid (not too difficult in your case) by talking about some thing which they know very little about. Pushing your personal biases and misconceptions over the accepted results and understanding of climate scientists just makes you look like a political hack.
Ian Forrester
Thanks Ian, I will read the
Thanks Ian, I will read the study then.
I also read the last paragraph in your post. You have me mistaken for someone else. :)
great, funny, depressing
That's a good article. It's not the first to debunk that silliness, but I guess the most thorough. I think Pat Michaels is quite funny -- scientists at the time were trying to explain the cooling, he says, so ??? Of course they were, and they explained it with pollution blocking out the sun. And the same explanation is used today. What is his point? The depressing part is that of course equal time had to be given to one pro and one con opinion, of which Michaels was the representative. Gack. And even more depressing is that the same myth about 70's Global Cooling worries will be propagated over and over (for very little money, even).
Well, you've got us dead to rights
Well, this certainly settles it. Which is exactly what happens whenever someone creates a "study" which, by pure coincidence, promotes their own agenda. But then, this fellow is a scientist, which makes him completely objective -- as opposed to any other scientist with whom you disagree, since they are obviously paid by Exxon.
So, at what point did you believe someone connected with a political organization like the UN IPCC would impress us skeptics (or, "denierificationalists", or whatever your latest term is?)?
Do you think it would be too cynical to suggest that this Peterson has a vested interest in promoting the UN IPCC agenda?
No facts, no facts, no facts...
"Do you think it would be too cynical to suggest that this Peterson has a vested interest in promoting the UN IPCC agenda?"
You've repeatedly insinuated that Peterson is biased, and you have literally _nothing_ to show for it. Again, the onus is on you to prove that. And you've produced _no_ _proof_ _whatsoever_ except a continual torrent of bullcrap.
It's like if someone said, "rob murdered an undefined person at an unknown time in an unspecified place using an indefinite weapon", and somehow suddenly it's _rob's_ duty to disprove that. Guilty until proven innocent (and the standard of proof is literally impossible to meet). Of course rob will object vehemently to such an accusation, but he in his Great Denialist Wisdom has no problem with charging other people of unnamed crimes.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk
I did it, and I'm glad
"You've repeatedly insinuated that Peterson is biased, and you have literally _nothing_ to show for it."
Yes, perhaps I've been guilty of making that insinuation. Let me fix that: Peterson is almost certainly biased. See? Now it's not merely an insinuation. Feel better?
"Again, the onus is on you to prove that."
No, it's not. Since you are a proponent of Peterson's claims, and the veracity of his claims are based entirely on his supposed reputation, then the onus is on you to demonstrate Peterson's lack of bias.
Given that Peterson is heavily connected with the UN IPCC, a political body with a self-interested agenda, like any other political organization, his likelihood of bias is a virtual certainty. Therefore, the onus is, in fact, on you to demonstrate Peterson's lack of bias. Good luck with that.
"It's like if someone said, "rob murdered an undefined person at an unknown time in an unspecified place using an indefinite weapon"
Uh-oh. I think Frank is on to me.
"and somehow suddenly it's _rob's_ duty to disprove that."
Well, actually it would be, if there were sufficient circumstantial evidence. People are convicted on largely circumstantial evidence all the time. If I were to stroll around covered in blood, and someone happens to be found in pieces next to my wood chipper, I guess I'd have a lot of explaining to do.
Similarly, Peterson's connection with the IPCC and history of promoting the Global Warming agenda is very strong circumstantial evidence to suggest he is very likely biased. Strange how AGW supporters never seem to let much weaker circumstantial evidence bother them when it comes to pillorying their ideological enemies. Seems rather intellectually dishonest, if not inconsistent.
Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy... again
"Given that Peterson is heavily connected with the UN IPCC, a political body with a self-interested agenda, like any other political organization, his likelihood of bias is a virtual certainty."
Great, so it's the theory of the Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy again. So _this_ is your "evidence" of "bias"?
And...
"history of promoting the Global Warming agenda"
Wow, so the fact that a scientist concludes that global warming is real is, ipso facto, evidence that the scientist is biased against the Skeptical Truth! Great circular denialist "logic".
This isn't even anywhere near the "I were to stroll around covered in blood, and someone happens to be found in pieces next to my wood chipper" kind of "circumstantial evidence".
To draw an analogy, it's like saying, hey, a lot of people including rob hate this guy, now this guy's dead, therefore let's arrest rob!
"Strange how AGW supporters never seem to let much weaker circumstantial evidence bother them when it comes to pillorying their ideological enemies."
Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it, Clinton did it, ...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, http://globaldumbing.tk