So much for the "consensus" myth....

[mamooth]

Nah, don't have to.

Translation: "BAWKBAWKBAWKBAWKBAWK!"

Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Like I thought. No one is eager to burn their house down by believing in gslack's retard physics. He's all alone now on that stupidwagon.

 

[Liberaservative]

Nah, don't have to.

Translation: "BAWKBAWKBAWKBAWKBAWK!"

Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Like I thought. No one is eager to burn their house down by believing in gslack's retard physics. He's all alone now on that stupidwagon.

Perhaps there's not as direct a correlation between your light bulb and blanket analogy and global climate dynamics as you would like us to believe because if greenhouse gases (and their attendant effects on the atmosphere) are your blanket and the earth is your light bulb, the past couple of decades would seem to disprove the hypothesis that wrapping a light bulb with a blanket won't cause it to get hotter.

Skepticism over Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is warranted when reality consistently disproves the models predicting more warming with higher concentrations of CO2.

Perhaps the consensus is wrong. It's been wrong before.

**I apologize if my assumption you were defending AGW with the light bulb analogy was wrong; I didn't read the entire thread before posting and now realize, after reading, that you appear to actually be discussing light bulbs.

 

[gslack]

Nah, don't have to.

Translation: "BAWKBAWKBAWKBAWKBAWK!"

Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Like I thought. No one is eager to burn their house down by believing in gslack's retard physics. He's all alone now on that stupidwagon.

No need to lie junior.. Please point to where I said that...

I'll give you one chance to do it....Point to any post anywhere where I said those words or made that claim in any words..

If you can't I expect an apology and an admission you're a liar..

 

[depotoo]

Still waiting for someone to post a Scientific Society, National Academy of Science, or major University with a policy statement that says they disagree with AGW.

here is food for thought from a couple of prineton scientists -

Princeton Alumni Weekly: Temperatures rising

a tidbit for you-

Climategate” prompted Austin, Happer, and three others to circulate another letter to APS members in which they characterized the East Anglia e-mails as “an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership” and renewed their call for the society to withdraw its 2007 policy statement and “clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society.”

If the evidence supporting the implications of global warming is as flimsy as skeptics claim, why do so many prominent scientists agree that it is being driven by human greenhouse-gas emissions and should be curbed? Happer suggests that only a few actually have looked at the raw data and that others, too busy to do so themselves, have accepted what their colleagues have told them, falling into a dangerous form of groupthink. Furthermore, that consensus has become self-perpetuating. “A huge constituency has grown up that makes a living off” advocating action to combat global warming, Happer insists. For example, he dismisses U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a former professor of physics and molecular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, as someone who has “convinced himself that he needs to save the world, even if it doesn’t need saving.”

 

[mamooth]

I'll give you one chance to do it....Point to any post anywhere where I said those words or made that claim in any words..

Coming down with amnesia already? How convenient for you. Sucks for you how your posts are all still there.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7229385

"Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence..."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7229479

"Now he claims insulation will raise the temperature inside the house. It won't of course, it will just allow it to reach a given temperature more efficiently. Not warmer than the heater or thermostat will allow, just be able to maintain that temperature easier and with less energy input to make it happen."

Your theory says an insulator can't make a heat source (the house or planet surface) warmer.

A light bulb is a heat source, and a blanket is an insulator, meaning your theory thus says that a blanket can't make a light bulb warmer.

If you can't I expect an apology and an admission you're a liar..

I expect you to squirm in a most amusing manner now. Please proceed. Are you standing by your theory that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat source, or are you denouncing it now and admitting Spencer and all those dirty warmers have been right all along?

 

[gslack]

I'll give you one chance to do it....Point to any post anywhere where I said those words or made that claim in any words..

Coming down with amnesia already? How convenient for you. Sucks for you how your posts are all still there.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7229385

"Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence..."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-4.html#post7229479

"Now he claims insulation will raise the temperature inside the house. It won't of course, it will just allow it to reach a given temperature more efficiently. Not warmer than the heater or thermostat will allow, just be able to maintain that temperature easier and with less energy input to make it happen."

Your theory says an insulator can't make a heat source (the house or planet surface) warmer.

A light bulb is a heat source, and a blanket is an insulator, meaning your theory thus says that a blanket can't make a light bulb warmer.

If you can't I expect an apology and an admission you're a liar..

I expect you to squirm in a most amusing manner now. Please proceed. Are you standing by your theory that an insulator can't raise the temperature of a heat source, or are you denouncing it now and admitting Spencer and all those dirty warmers have been right all along?

So then you can't show where I said what you claimed making you a liar..

Your claim...
"Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?"

Now you can't show where I said that, because that's not what I said at all is it junior...Your claim is a lie on its face.

And contrary to your twisted view of science,an insulator does not add ANY ADDITIONAL HEAT to a heat source. What it does is slow heat loss and make the temperature more uniform and reach its equilibrium quicker. If the maximum heat coming from the source is a certain amount, the equilibrium point between the heat source and the insulator will be the same amount barring any other interference or outside force.

I know you can't understand the difference junior and it's okay, but if it weren't that way we could have perpetual heat duplication machines, which we can't.

Whatever the energy output of the source will allow is the maximum temperature it will reach baring any disturbance or outside force. Simply put, adding an insulator will not create more heat or more energy. The heat source will be the same and so will the energy output. What will change is the rate at which the source and the insulator reach equilibrium, and the rate at which energy escapes from the system..

Slower energy discharge in the system (heat source, blanket) does not mean more heat. it just changes the rate at which it leaves. It (heat from the insulator) cannot warm the already warmer source because energy cannot flow that way. It can effect a more uniform and more efficient heat dispersion, as well as maintain that temperature more efficiently, But it cannot, it will not warm the source more than it already is.

I know what your probably thinking.. You're most likely thinking that throwing a blanket over a lamp will overheat the bulb and thereby meaning more heat. But that's actually not the case, whats happening is we are now using conduction (blanket surface contact with heat source) and no longer using exclusively radiation (IR radiation from the heat source to the blanket), and we have eliminated convection, whereby eliminating the ability to funnel heat away through air movement. By adding a conduction to the matter we have changed the situation away from being one involving merely IR radiation heat/energy transfer, to a different energy transfer system. And then take into account the blanket actually eliminates air flow and natural convection to funnel away heat, we know have a situation completely different. The blanket will reach equilibrium with the lamp or light much quicker and lack of airflow allows even slower heat release allowing a higher overall temperature and eventual burn out of the bulb, burnt blanket or any number of problems..

Now please if you want to try and poke holes in my claim, you should first actually use my claim, not one you pulled out of your butt, and learn to understand how an insulator works...

Also, try and use the big boy voice in here.. The whiny punk voice grates...

 

[skookerasbil]

Clearly there are a handful of people in this forum that would love to be part of a group navel contemplation session.

 

[idb]

It is unfortunate that you are in a position where you find that you must pick someone to beleve rather than depend on your own intellect and even more unfortunate that you based your choice on such a rediculous factor as your political position

Surely by now, you must be getting a clue that the AGW hypothesis is headed for the dustbin of scientific history with all the other failed hypotheses. How far from, and how long must the predictions diverge from reality before you wake up?

Or is it your intention to ride the crazy train to the bitter end and become one of the poor conspiracy theorists who mill around the decaying remains for years to come?

You're basic misunderstanding of the paper that you refer to does nothing to support your position.
Try to find something else.

LOL.....the berserkers live in this internet bubble-land. As Ive been saying, its a connect the dots issue for these people. They think its all about the science.


Meanwhile, here we are in 2013, and all the "conspiracy theorists" are winning!!! The bomb throwing warmist contingent has been falling all over themselves for two decades and havent moved the goalposts a single inch.


As we shall see when climate change legislation comes up later this year in congress!!!









Bubble-land is gay s0n!!!

LOL.....the berserkers live in this internet bubble-land. As Ive been saying, its a connect the dots issue for these people. They think its all about the science.

So you're saying that science has nothing to do with the AGW discussion?
If not science, then what?

 

[idb]

John Cook of skeptical (cough, cough, laugh) science has been working on a paper in an attempt to prove....something. I can't wait to see how he actually spins wat he thinks he learned in the final product.

From his press release he says:



Nearly 12,000 papers and a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW. So much for the consensus. 32% doesn't constitute much more than a fringe. Then he goes on to say that 66.4% stated no position. I suppose that will be where he turns his distortion/spin machine to. 66% state no position because there is no evidence of AGW there...and the clear majority aren't playing chicken little seeing AGW under every rock. If it isn't there, then there is no point in even mentioning it.

in his press release he goes on to say:



From his own numbers, the strong scientific agreement clearly lies in the postion that AGW is not a factor that even merits mention in the majority of papers. It would be damned interesting to see how many of those that comprise the 32% endorsing AGW actually reported finding evidence of AGW or simply mentioned AGW so as to breeze through pal review and get published.

Clearly, the vast majority of scientific work being done does not support the AGW position and this from your very own John Cook. Maybe he is starting to view his own exit from the sinking ship AGW.

A pretty good description of how cook's claim went from 97% concensus on AGW to a 32% fringe can be seen HERE:




Now let the circumstantial ad hominems begin...complaining about the source rather than addressing the actual issue.

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

If you were writing a paper about the effect of climate change on polar bears, would you put something in your summary to the effect of "I really believe that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing"?
Of course you wouldn't, because the assumption of the article is that AGW is real and you are just reporting on the effects on polar bears.
I'd like to give you the benefit of some doubt and suggest that the point is rather subtle and hard to grasp BUT IT ISN'T, I think you're too dumb to figure it out.
But that's OK...as long as you're happy in your ignorance I'm happy for you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stop global warming, ride a bike

 

[idb]

Nah, don't have to.

Translation: "BAWKBAWKBAWKBAWKBAWK!"

Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Like I thought. No one is eager to burn their house down by believing in gslack's retard physics. He's all alone now on that stupidwagon.

Perhaps there's not as direct a correlation between your light bulb and blanket analogy and global climate dynamics as you would like us to believe because if greenhouse gases (and their attendant effects on the atmosphere) are your blanket and the earth is your light bulb, the past couple of decades would seem to disprove the hypothesis that wrapping a light bulb with a blanket won't cause it to get hotter.

Skepticism over Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is warranted when reality consistently disproves the models predicting more warming with higher concentrations of CO2.

Perhaps the consensus is wrong. It's been wrong before.

**I apologize if my assumption you were defending AGW with the light bulb analogy was wrong; I didn't read the entire thread before posting and now realize, after reading, that you appear to actually be discussing light bulbs.

No, we were discussing the OP's misunderstanding of a scientific study of peer-reviewed papers.
gslack has no idea either.
I don't know about light bulbs and blankets.

 

[Old Rocks]

The 'Conservatives' have made a scientific issue a political issue. Unfortunetly for them, it is an issue that is going to bite them in the ass, bigtime.

 

[SSDD]

[

No, we were discussing the OP's misunderstanding of a scientific study of peer-reviewed papers.
gslack has no idea either.
I don't know about light bulbs and blankets.

Spin till your hearts content. That was the predicted and expected result of anything the galloping cartoonist does.

The fact is that a minority of papers, and scientists take a pro AGW position. The consensus is and always was just smoke and mirrors.

 

[skookerasbil]

You're basic misunderstanding of the paper that you refer to does nothing to support your position.
Try to find something else.

LOL.....the berserkers live in this internet bubble-land. As Ive been saying, its a connect the dots issue for these people. They think its all about the science.


Meanwhile, here we are in 2013, and all the "conspiracy theorists" are winning!!! The bomb throwing warmist contingent has been falling all over themselves for two decades and havent moved the goalposts a single inch.


As we shall see when climate change legislation comes up later this year in congress!!!









Bubble-land is gay s0n!!!

LOL.....the berserkers live in this internet bubble-land. As Ive been saying, its a connect the dots issue for these people. They think its all about the science.

So you're saying that science has nothing to do with the AGW discussion?
If not science, then what?

Im saying that the dicussion on the science is nothing more than an internet science debate in 2013........a veritable hobby. All the "consensus" data we've seen over the past two decades hasnt budged the goalposts one smidgen in convincing the folks that this is man-made. I see these warmists truthers knocking themselves out for years now and for what? They are being used by the profiteers in the green energy arena. Look at any graph on energy sources come 2040 and it is almost a carbon copy ( no pun intended) of what we see now. In other words, nobody is taking these prophets of doom seriously.





There are about 4 billion graphs on the internet that look exactly like this one. Why? Because cheap and dependable energy WILL be the future no matter how many bombs the warmist nutters throw. The carbon k00ks insist that we need to shut down the whole world immediately and spend 76 trillion ( UN estimate) to go 100% green. Guess what s0n.....no matter how many ******* gay icebergs melt, it aint happening. For a watershed, watch the crash and burn of the climate bill when it comes up later this year. Translation? The people might be somewhat concerned about climate change, but not so much that they are OK with having their electric bills double.


Because costs matter in that big world outside the world of the bubble dwellars..

 

[skookerasbil]

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

They get nuttier all the time don't they

It's like some kind of mass stupidity. Earlier mamooth tried to argue that 2 heat lamps operating at 150 F can heat one another beyond 150 F.. The fact they are both 150 F seems to beyond his comprehension. I posed the thought experiment just to see how many people would miss the fact both are 150 F and sure enough, not one of the numan fan base could grasp it. And the funniest part, Ian, rather than admit that his god Roy Spencer has been lying to him, decides he no longer understands the english language and pretended to not understand it..

Imagine a whole world where probably 2 out of every 5 people are that damn willfully ignorant. They would rather be a fool than confront their chosen messiahs.. I said it before it was like a religious cult, and all these has just confirmed it to me.

GSLACK........to the true believers like Mamooth, if the world fell into a total polar freeze for 6 months, she'd still be on here ranting about global warming. People like this......perpatually miserable.......absolutely must have a "cause" to get behind or their world comes apart. All these activist assholes have this in common......they gotta find some meaning in the world or the walls start creeping in at all 4 corners.

Indeed.......sceptics could spend 100 years and nothing is going to change in the attitude of the climate OC's, no matter what goes on in the real world. To me, its all about posting up important stuff for the people who come into this forum without a compass.......to identify this stuff for what it is: a far left fantasy that is out of step with the mainstream.

Thankfully......our side is winning in dominating fashion, thus, the goal is to continue that effort. For me, I want people to know that if they follow the lead of these ******* nutters, their house will be in foreclosure in the blink of an eye due to mega-electric bills and additional taxes. The bubble dwellars dont give a shit about them.......as long as their wealth redistribution agenda is met.


GSLACK.....you'd laugh your ass off. My 13 year old son already humilates adults entangled in the web of the whole global warming matrix. Its hysterical to watch........

 

[idb]

[

No, we were discussing the OP's misunderstanding of a scientific study of peer-reviewed papers.
gslack has no idea either.
I don't know about light bulbs and blankets.

Spin till your hearts content. That was the predicted and expected result of anything the galloping cartoonist does.

The fact is that a minority of papers, and scientists take a pro AGW position. The consensus is and always was just smoke and mirrors.

In your desperation to get your message across you've ignored the point of this thread, that the study in the OP does not support your argument - it's a total fail because it was completely misunderstood.

 

[gslack]

Sorry, you've misread the paper.

The 12,000 papers had their abstract summaries examined for rejection, no opinion or explicit/implicit endorsements of AGW.
Unless the summaries actually used language that made the author's position on this specific matter clear then they were marked down as 'no opinion'.
His explanation for this is;

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Do you understand what this is saying?
It means that, if I wrote a paper detailing Jesus' rise from the dead I would assume that everyone that read my paper already agreed that the event occurred...I wouldn't feel the need to state in my summary that I believed in the resurrection.

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

If you were writing a paper about the effect of climate change on polar bears, would you put something in your summary to the effect of "I really believe that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing"?
Of course you wouldn't, because the assumption of the article is that AGW is real and you are just reporting on the effects on polar bears.
I'd like to give you the benefit of some doubt and suggest that the point is rather subtle and hard to grasp BUT IT ISN'T, I think you're too dumb to figure it out.
But that's OK...as long as you're happy in your ignorance I'm happy for you.

Well it seems if it were in dispute enough to warrant a study prove its consensus acceptance like this paper I would... See the problem yet?

If they had 12,000 papers on climate change to begin with, and 66% of them didn't picka side at all, there is no consensus... The majority are undecided by their own numbers. Case of consensus is closed.

 

[gslack]

Translation: "BAWKBAWKBAWKBAWKBAWK!"

Anyone else out there think that gslack is correct, and that a light blub won't get hotter if you turn it on and wrap it in a blanket?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Like I thought. No one is eager to burn their house down by believing in gslack's retard physics. He's all alone now on that stupidwagon.

Perhaps there's not as direct a correlation between your light bulb and blanket analogy and global climate dynamics as you would like us to believe because if greenhouse gases (and their attendant effects on the atmosphere) are your blanket and the earth is your light bulb, the past couple of decades would seem to disprove the hypothesis that wrapping a light bulb with a blanket won't cause it to get hotter.

Skepticism over Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is warranted when reality consistently disproves the models predicting more warming with higher concentrations of CO2.

Perhaps the consensus is wrong. It's been wrong before.

**I apologize if my assumption you were defending AGW with the light bulb analogy was wrong; I didn't read the entire thread before posting and now realize, after reading, that you appear to actually be discussing light bulbs.

No, we were discussing the OP's misunderstanding of a scientific study of peer-reviewed papers.
gslack has no idea either.
I don't know about light bulbs and blankets.

Tell ya what, I'm right here. Instead of talking about me,why don't you try talking to me.

As you said previously you didn't bother reading earlier posts before jumping in, so why not start now? Got a whole mess of them before this one. If you're going to say I have no clue to somebody, start with showing how..

 

[idb]

Sorry but I'm afraid you misread and are misrepresenting the article by cherry picking..

They took 12,000 papers on climate science, and all but nearly 2000 of them made no pro or con AGW claim in the abstract.Of that 2000 left he claimed it was 97% supported AGW.

The ridiculous part is the excuse for the papers left out because they didn't express a pro or con in the abstract.. Your words from a cherry picked statement in the article..

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious."

So then why did he have 2,000 papers which did make the statement???

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

And the last line which really summarizes the whole thing nicely...

"For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Really? and the fact the paper may be trying to prove this very thing has no bearing at all? You know... Kind of like this paper is trying to do... And let's not forget there were 2000 who DID say it in the abstract as crazy as it may seem..

Thats called BS logic, and fuzzy math...

If you were writing a paper about the effect of climate change on polar bears, would you put something in your summary to the effect of "I really believe that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing"?
Of course you wouldn't, because the assumption of the article is that AGW is real and you are just reporting on the effects on polar bears.
I'd like to give you the benefit of some doubt and suggest that the point is rather subtle and hard to grasp BUT IT ISN'T, I think you're too dumb to figure it out.
But that's OK...as long as you're happy in your ignorance I'm happy for you.

Well it seems if it were in dispute enough to warrant a study prove its consensus acceptance like this paper I would... See the problem yet?

If they had 12,000 papers on climate change to begin with, and 66% of them didn't picka side at all, there is no consensus... The majority are undecided by their own numbers. Case of consensus is closed.

Why would they state a position on an issue that, by the very nature of their paper, is assumed to be true by the writer and the reader.
Why would the writer of a paper on clouds put in his summary that he believes that clouds are made out of water droplets?
I have no doubt that you can't understand this oh-so-subtle point though.

 

[idb]

Perhaps there's not as direct a correlation between your light bulb and blanket analogy and global climate dynamics as you would like us to believe because if greenhouse gases (and their attendant effects on the atmosphere) are your blanket and the earth is your light bulb, the past couple of decades would seem to disprove the hypothesis that wrapping a light bulb with a blanket won't cause it to get hotter.

Skepticism over Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is warranted when reality consistently disproves the models predicting more warming with higher concentrations of CO2.

Perhaps the consensus is wrong. It's been wrong before.

**I apologize if my assumption you were defending AGW with the light bulb analogy was wrong; I didn't read the entire thread before posting and now realize, after reading, that you appear to actually be discussing light bulbs.

No, we were discussing the OP's misunderstanding of a scientific study of peer-reviewed papers.
gslack has no idea either.
I don't know about light bulbs and blankets.

Tell ya what, I'm right here. Instead of talking about me,why don't you try talking to me.

As you said previously you didn't bother reading earlier posts before jumping in, so why not start now? Got a whole mess of them before this one. If you're going to say I have no clue to somebody, start with showing how..

Try reading my earlier posts then, I thought I explained it pretty well.
Where did I say that I didn't read earlier posts?
I even found the study mentioned in the OP.