• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers Don't Dispute Mainstream Climate Science

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Drop-out, Non-scientist JOKE, Willard Anthony Watts' web-slight (WTFUWT) often unwittingly admits that Mainstream opinion on Warming is true... especially when trying to make another point on some aspect, or quoting a fellow paid Quack.

HotWhopper: WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
JULY 14, 2016

Scientists will be surprised to find their papers featured on a list that claims they are science deniers. They won't be surprised to find that the list is being circulated by disinformer Anthony Watts and a rabid denier, Pierre Gosselin (archived here...).

Pierre is the same person who, eight years ago in 2008, predicted that by 2020 the surface temperature would have dropped by 2.5 °C. That prediction isn't looking too hot right now. It would have to drop by 2.83 °C from 2015.
Pierre is as woeful at understanding science papers as he is at predicting global surface temperature.

Anthony Watts is the same. He wouldn't understand a scientific paper if he had a year to digest it. That's not his job. Anthony linked to a list of supposed denier papers on Pierre Gosselin's blog and wrote:
[......]
Notice there are only Six papers in the list that supposedly are about "the small effect of CO2" and only One on "low climate sensitivity". Not even the "No effect of CO2". By my generous reckoning, that means that 99.1% of the papers do not support the fake sceptics' position, which is 2.1% higher than 97% :^) Note also that he's included three papers on stratospheric cooling, which is an indicator of global warming.
[......]
Deniers really are desperate. This is as bad as PopTech's list of so-called denier papers.

In this cursory examination I only found One paper that could properly be called a denier paper and that wasn't published in a proper journal. Even if one allowed nonsense journals, One out of 770 would raise the 97% to 99.87%. If not allowed, the entries on this so-called denier list could well show 100% consensus that humans are causing global warming :^)

​
 
Last edited:
Here come the deniers with their blogs that "show" climate change is actually a liberal conspiracy. Obviously essentially every climate scientist on earth is in on it.

You don't find many published climate denial papers because their arguments aren't based on science and the evidence is beyond clear.
 
mbig said:
The Drop-out, Non-scientist JOKE, Willard Anthony Watts' web-slight (WTFUWT) often unwittingly admits that Mainstream opinion on Warming is true... especially when trying to make another point on some aspect, or quoting a fellow paid Quack.

HotWhopper: WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
JULY 14, 2016

Scientists will be surprised to find their papers featured on a list that claims they are science deniers. They won't be surprised to find that the list is being circulated by disinformer Anthony Watts and a rabid denier, Pierre Gosselin (archived here...).

Pierre is the same person who, eight years ago in 2008, predicted that by 2020 the surface temperature would have dropped by 2.5 °C. That prediction isn't looking too hot right now. It would have to drop by 2.83 °C from 2015.
Pierre is as woeful at understanding science papers as he is at predicting global surface temperature.

Anthony Watts is the same. He wouldn't understand a scientific paper if he had a year to digest it. That's not his job. Anthony linked to a list of supposed denier papers on Pierre Gosselin's blog and wrote:
[......]
Notice there are only Six papers in the list that supposedly are about "the small effect of CO2" and only One on "low climate sensitivity". Not even the "No effect of CO2". By my generous reckoning, that means that 99.1% of the papers do not support the fake sceptics' position, which is 2.1% higher than 97% :^) Note also that he's included three papers on stratospheric cooling, which is an indicator of global warming.
[......]
Deniers really are desperate. This is as bad as PopTech's list of so-called denier papers.

In this cursory examination I only found One paper that could properly be called a denier paper and that wasn't published in a proper journal. Even if one allowed nonsense journals, One out of 770 would raise the 97% to 99.87%. If not allowed, the entries on this so-called denier list could well show 100% consensus that humans are causing global warming :^)

​
Click to expand...

these theories u posted dont hold much weight. "science" is nothing more than being a mormon. its believin in somethin but its probably not real. ill believe it when the vatican approves
 
mbig said:
The Drop-out, Non-scientist JOKE, Willard Anthony Watts' web-slight (WTFUWT) often unwittingly admits that Mainstream opinion on Warming is true... especially when trying to make another point on some aspect, or quoting a fellow paid Quack.

HotWhopper: WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
WUWT shows that 99.9% of recent papers don't dispute mainstream climate science
JULY 14, 2016

Scientists will be surprised to find their papers featured on a list that claims they are science deniers. They won't be surprised to find that the list is being circulated by disinformer Anthony Watts and a rabid denier, Pierre Gosselin (archived here...).

Pierre is the same person who, eight years ago in 2008, predicted that by 2020 the surface temperature would have dropped by 2.5 °C. That prediction isn't looking too hot right now. It would have to drop by 2.83 °C from 2015.
Pierre is as woeful at understanding science papers as he is at predicting global surface temperature.

Anthony Watts is the same. He wouldn't understand a scientific paper if he had a year to digest it. That's not his job. Anthony linked to a list of supposed denier papers on Pierre Gosselin's blog and wrote:
[......]
Notice there are only Six papers in the list that supposedly are about "the small effect of CO2" and only One on "low climate sensitivity". Not even the "No effect of CO2". By my generous reckoning, that means that 99.1% of the papers do not support the fake sceptics' position, which is 2.1% higher than 97% :^) Note also that he's included three papers on stratospheric cooling, which is an indicator of global warming.
[......]
Deniers really are desperate. This is as bad as PopTech's list of so-called denier papers.

In this cursory examination I only found One paper that could properly be called a denier paper and that wasn't published in a proper journal. Even if one allowed nonsense journals, One out of 770 would raise the 97% to 99.87%. If not allowed, the entries on this so-called denier list could well show 100% consensus that humans are causing global warming :^)

​
Click to expand...
You would first have to define what the consensus is in agreement about.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's level can cause warming,
vs, the entire suite of IPCC catastrophic predictions.
The two things are not linked, a Scientist could accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
while being skeptical of the VERY subjective predicted amplified feedbacks necessary
for the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Here come the deniers with their blogs that "show" climate change is actually a liberal conspiracy. Obviously essentially every climate scientist on earth is in on it.

You don't find many published climate denial papers because their arguments aren't based on science and the evidence is beyond clear.
Click to expand...

I note you never responded to my earlier reference to Svensmark's landmark Cosmoclimatology paper.
 
mbig said:
The Drop-out, Non-scientist JOKE, Willard Anthony Watts' web-slight (WTFUWT) often unwittingly admits that Mainstream opinion on Warming is true... especially when trying to make another point on some aspect, or quoting a fellow paid Quack.
Click to expand...

Watts will be presenting this week (Wednesday I believe) at the American Geophysical Union Fall convention (AGU16).
 

Proprietor: “Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera” aka Miriam O’Brien of Mt. Beauty, VC, Australia
miriamsmall.jpg
Miriam O’Brien aka “Sou” from Hotwhopper​
Some of Miriam’s skills: being a “a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science“, sniping at WUWT, snark, Twitter snark, photography, business consulting, being on a board of directors. Mistress of Histrionics. She also runs a business consulting outfit http://www.miriamobrienconsulting.com/ where I presume that like with me, she denigrates clients she does not agree with, especially those who have doubts about climate change.
Reason for creating the blog: nowhere else to go. She found no traction for her style of commenting at WUWT, which was really flypaper for her getting comments to reinterpret/repeat as nastiness on her Twitter feed, catching even the attention of our most tolerant and beloved late moderator, “REP”. Given her daily rants, she has now qualified for “Internet stalker” levels of infatuation and invective. Assigned to the permanent troll bin.
 
Open Letter to Miriam O’Brien of HotWhopper (a.k.a. Sou)

I wanted to thank you for admitting you had little grasp of the subject matter in a recent post at your blog HotWhopper. Your post was Human influence on the Californian drought. (Archived version is here, just in case you decide to change your post.) Under the heading of “Disclaimer and further reading” you wrote (my boldface):
I make no assurances that I’ve interpreted the work properly. I think I’ve got the gist of it but please point out if you think I’ve gone astray anywhere.
​
If I may suggest, it would be helpful to your readers if you would preface all of your posts with the reality that you can make no assurances that you’ve interpreted anything properly at any time, and that you’re going to yak about it anyway, regardless. That way your readers can respond as I do to your absurd writings, with laughter. . .
He also commented:
HotWhopper’s Miriam O’Brien broadcasts so much ignorance on the topics she explores that she has created her own form of gravity. That HotWhopper gravity field sucks in other persons of comparable ignorance, in turn creating a black hole from which truth and reality can never escape.
​
And here is an example:
Hotwhopper’s Miriam O’Brien – Hoisted by Her Own Petard!

The blog Hotwhopper, operated by Miriam O’Brien, of Mount Beauty, Victoria, Australia, is the most non-scientific yet the rudest of all websites discussing climate change. Although Carl Sagan’s science baloney alert warns against attacking the arguer instead of the argument, the main tactic of Miriam O’Brien (aka Slandering Sou) is to denigrate all skeptics with waves of insults that always begin with blank “is a science denier”. She then indulges in creating sham arguments, which she then attributes to whoever she is insulting. And as a further indicator of her lack of integrity, she deletes posts that contradict expose her slander. Her dishonest Internet sniping is a cover up for how badly she misunderstands well founded science presented by skeptics. Examples of her failures are far too many to recount here, but her most recent tirade is another classic worth exploring. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
I note you never responded to my earlier reference to Svensmark's landmark Cosmoclimatology paper.
Click to expand...

And I noted that fishing out one paper out of thousands and holding it up as proof for your point is not how science works. You have to take it as an aggregate, not cherry pick the papers you like while dismissing the mountain of papers that completely contradict that one.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And I noted that fishing out one paper out of thousands and holding it up as proof for your point is not how science works. You have to take it as an aggregate, not cherry pick the papers you like while dismissing the mountain of papers that completely contradict that one.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that those who do not accept the primacy of AGW are not scientists and do not publish in scientific journals. The Svensmark citation refuted you. Others were available as well, but I like that one because it has been so durable.
 
Jack Hays said:
Watts will be presenting this week (Wednesday I believe) at the American Geophysical Union Fall convention (AGU16).
Click to expand...
Watts, of course, being the extreme minority/Exception
The AGU, and virtually All other Science orgs Support AGW.
So Alpaca has it right.
You're daily BLOG Link Dump array (and nothing but except 8 word non-conversant posts), are still bitsy BS exceptions.
 
longview said:
You would first have to define what the consensus is in agreement about.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's level can cause warming,
vs, the entire suite of IPCC catastrophic predictions.
The two things are not linked, a Scientist could accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
while being skeptical of the VERY subjective predicted amplified feedbacks necessary
for the catastrophic portion of the IPCC predictions.
Click to expand...

Person 1 - "I believe that horses are secretly sentient aliens observing humanity and waiting for the right time to enslave us all."

Person 2 - "I think that theory requires a lot more evidence than you have yet provided..."

Person 1 - "Look at this picture of a horse. I ran it through photoshop to sharpen the old, blurry image and as you can see in revised version there is a thought bubble above the horse and it is dreaming of enslaving humanity!"

Person 2 - "The thought bubble is entirely artificial and added by you in the process of photoshopping the picture..."

Person 1 - "HORSE DENIER!!!"
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Person 1 - "I believe that horses are secretly sentient aliens observing humanity and waiting for the right time to enslave us all."

Person 2 - "I think that theory requires a lot more evidence than you have yet provided..."

Person 1 - "Look at this picture of a horse. I ran it through photoshop to sharpen the old, blurry image and as you can see in revised version there is a thought bubble above the horse and it is dreaming of enslaving humanity!"

Person 2 - "The thought bubble is entirely artificial and added by you in the process of photoshopping the picture..."

Person 1 - "HORSE DENIER!!!"
Click to expand...

Don't you lover how they sharpen then past thermometer reading?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom