Odd, I think of all the lives that could be saved by access to cheap energy in the developing world. Cheap energy and increased crop production will save far more lives vs your slow rise in sea level.Okay, be very afraid. But I’m more concerned about my immortal soul and the damage I’m doing to it by NOT mitigating CC to the best of my ability.
We all have our various fears. Spiders is not one of mine, even tho they have 8 legs
Since the opinions in this case are actually the kind of opinions you would expect scientists to express in academic papers, this is a reasonable (and cost-effective) approach. And the fact that the conclusions were based on papers and not on personal interviews is obvious to anyone looking at the paper. There was no attempt to hide that fact, or to misrepresent the results as one-on-one interviews.
Surveying all qualifying papers is even more accurate than surveying any subset of them.
See my first paragraph.
But apparently wattsupwiththat can. It’s funny that the same group that castigated Cook for changing “is partially a cause for global warming” into “is the main cause of global warming” has no compunction about changing “Might Be Causing Dogs…” into “Is Causing Dogs…” when it suits their purposes. This just confirms that wattsupwiththat is more interested in making a strong statement than in reporting the facts, making them more of an entertainment site, like The Onion.
The lede said “might be causing dogs”, but the concluding paragraph was more direct:She – like many scientists and meteorologists – puts this down to climate change and expects to see more bored dogs in the future as global warming unleashes increasingly frequent and intense bouts of winter rainfall.
Interesting, one site actually provides a link to the study, while the other essentially “makes stuff up” with absolutely no references at all. I think that comparing the Onion with Watts’ blog fails for many reasons, but the most obvious is that one is exclusively satire, and one is an open commentary that provides links to other sites that have strictly opposing views. The strain is definitely showing for the pro-AGW cheerleaders.
This sounds a lot like the defense of Cook’s exaggeration. (If you read his real original paper rather than his brief summary of that paper that he gave later, you will see that his more direct and thoughtful paper was not so exaggerated.) Come on! The parallel is obvious. Words were changed in the headline to reflect the bias of reporter. And they were changed by the same group that cries “foul” when others do it.
“Open” ?? Show me where on wattsupwiththat.com where lynnvinc can go and post her opions.
How would I know the poster lynnvinc’s relationship with Watts? I Fail to understand your comment in any context, and if you are concerned with the relationship with those two, I’d take it up with them. Forced perspective does not suit you, or serve you well.
That is exactly my point. Unless you have a relationship with Watts, or Watts has chosen your work for his own reasons, your work is not going to get posted on Watts. Thus Watts is not a “open” community of people posting a wide range of views. It is an extremely closed website pushing a very definite view. The word “open” cannot be used to describe it as you did. By contrast, CAF is open, as you can see from the variety of opinions posted here.
She, like everyone else, can post here opinions at the end of the article, right after the 130 comments that have already been posted.
Don’t you ever read the comments under the blog posts? They are quite active and often contain excellent commentary and additional information on the subject.
Entering comments way down at the bottom of a long article with Watts’ presentation is not quite the same thing as being able to start a thread. On the other hand, anyone can start a thread on CAF, because it is really open. The visibility of the comments on Watt’s blog is nowhere near as prominent as the main article that preceded it. Only Watts gets to decide what articles get posted, and what the headline reads. I’m still waiting for someone to defend Watts’ blatant exaggeration of the depressed dogs headline.
LOL! Oh my, you really have a bee in your bonnet about the Watts blog. I get it it, you don’t like, and in fact disapprove of the Watts blog. That in itself would encourage me to investigate further since you seem to be a perfect reverse barometer for things climate.
No more so than the bee in the bonnet some people have about Cook’s 97% paper.
Cooks methodology has been soundly rebutted, but you knew that I expect.
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them
Here are a couple examples that highlight his questionable methodology
‘Estimating future sea level changes from past records’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; “No Position on AGW”.
Question: Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Dr. Morner: “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%”
Question: Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
Because you are highlighting a few hand-picked examples of papers that were part of a statistic. A few mis-categorized papers does not invalidate the methodology or the result. You have to show that a statistically significant portion of the papers were mis-categorized.
I only inserted two papers as examples. If you bothered to follow my link, it’s exhaustive and irrefutable in showing the fallacy of Cooks research. Stop hiding from the truth, read my link in depth.
Do the math. Cook classified about 4000 papers as having taken a position on the cause of global warming, and claimed that 97% supported AGW. The link you provided cites at most 13 papers out of the 4000 that were misclassified. If you change the classification for those 13 papers, the 97% figure drops to 96.7%. Big deal.
Why is it necessary to point out that his is a blog site, not an open forum? Really, this objection is like panning a new Porche coupe because it can’t carry as much mulch as a pickup.
CAF is certainly more open. It is equally certain that it is also much less well informed.
If we are to ignore the Watts site because of this “deficiency” then this criterion would rule out nearly all information sites (at least 97%) on the web. If you truly believe this characteristic disqualifies a site from being taken seriously then you should have no objection to the restriction being applied universally. E.g., since I am unable to even comment on the IPCC website, let alone contribute an article, we should, according to your standard, ignore it.
I already responded to this. His assertion (which was actually a guest article, not one he wrote himself) was an exaggeration of the headline in the article he was critiquing. It was not, however, an exaggeration of the content of the article. It was the original article that created a headline that did not match the position of the interviewees. Which headline more accurately summarizes this assertion: "She…puts this [depression in dogs] down to climate change…"