tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post111187386377384267..comments2024-03-18T18:14:34.278+00:00Comments on Stoat: More myths of the Near FutureWilliam M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-12067827523003968392020-12-10T12:59:22.908+00:002020-12-10T12:59:22.908+00:00I deleted a pile of old spam here, leaving just on...I deleted a pile of old spam here, leaving just one as a token. But I'd missed a couple of comments which, whilst wrong (;-) deserve a reply:<br /><br />"Global warming started some where near 27,000 years ago" is "it's all recovery from the ice age" which is more commonly "it's all recovery from the Little Ice Age" but whichever one you pick it is, ermm, wrong. But I can't find a good link for that right now, alas.<br /><br />As to the old favourite "consensus"... people seem to get confused again and again on this, and you've just (well, in 2007) done the same: you need to distinguish "in science" and "in public". Naturally, "in public", what is reported is the consensus view, if there is one, and the lack of consensus, if there is no overall agreeement. You may find <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/scott-adams-is-a-tosser/" rel="nofollow">Scott Adams is a tosser</a> helpful.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-3948273733659127242007-10-29T00:52:00.000+00:002007-10-29T00:52:00.000+00:00Science isn't done by consensus "...but so what: n...Science isn't done by consensus "...but so what: no one is saying it is"<BR/><BR/>I absolutely disagree with this statement. Confirmation bias maybe?<BR/><BR/>This is way off the mark, not even by a slim difference of opinion, not even a hairs-breadth of interpretation. It's simple nonesense.<BR/><BR/>The public marketing of AGW is incredibly dependant on us believing the consensus amongst people who know a lot more about everything than us is - experts in their fields! Thousands of respected scientists! Peer-reviewed! In agreement! Beyond doubt! Wake up and smell that ash tray Mr Stoat!<BR/><BR/>There may be some peer reviewing by the converted going on behind the scenes, but publicly there is very little offered other than 'experts have said' - assertion, condescending arrogance, cynical media pandering and rubber-stamping.badcop666https://www.blogger.com/profile/04560727397918985373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1156260198364560292006-08-22T15:23:00.000+00:002006-08-22T15:23:00.000+00:00Global warming started some where near 27,000 year...Global warming started some where near 27,000 years ago. The last glacial maximum was 18,500 years ago. The peak interglacial has yet to be determined. Global warming, so called, is riding on a natural phenomena. Reference to data from the Eemian (the last interglacial period ) predicts a possible 2C higher temperature yet to come and 5 to 8 meters sea level rise. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian<BR/><BR/>The real question to ask is: Has Global Warming stopped? When will the next ice age begin?<BR/><BR/>For a much broader view take a look at: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1112754838581373502005-04-06T02:33:00.000+00:002005-04-06T02:33:00.000+00:00In regard to point 6, there was a recent Science a...In regard to point 6, there was a recent Science article that gave some hard number estimates for CO2 atmospheric concentrations that would eventually be reached if we burned all of our estimated fossil fuel resources [K. Hasselmann et al., Science. Vol. 302, pp. 1923-1925 (Dec. 12, 2003)]. Their estimate (which presumably depends somewhat on the time over which they are consumed) is that concentrations would reach 1200 ppm if conventional estimated fossil fuel resources were used and 4000 ppm if conventional + exotic estimated fossil fuel resources were used. So, we are talking something between ~4X and ~15X the pre-industrial levels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1112559747204972072005-04-03T20:22:00.000+00:002005-04-03T20:22:00.000+00:00Hesitate, perhaps, but then still do it. In TSE he...Hesitate, perhaps, but then still do it. In TSE he wiggles and quibbles, doing his best to weaken the std consensus without ever really finding anything wrong with it (from a WGI perspective). The CC, as I understand it, starts from the TAR, so maybe he is shifting his position somewhat. As to the best way of solving it: yes, thats another matter.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1112444008051694322005-04-02T12:13:00.000+00:002005-04-02T12:13:00.000+00:00I’d hesitate to describe Lombog as a GW sceptic. M...I’d hesitate to describe Lombog as a GW sceptic. Most of his comments start with it is happening and we are causing it....and then goes on to talk about what might be the best way to solve it.<BR/>Sceptic on Kyoto, for sure, but not on GW.Tim Worstallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13161727860817121071noreply@blogger.com