Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

The supposed warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2. As it has not been occurring, so too has the supposed consequent thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of glaciers not been occurring.

And doesn't when it isn't. Basic physics.

 

Nah! That was not his explanation and your “basic physics” is a fail

 

Where in that article does it address the point of local variances in sea level rise?

 

No author has any obligation to write the paper you would have preferred rather than the paper he/she wrote.

 

It self-evidently was his explanation, and my basic physics is indisputably correct.

 

Nope! Complete fail and as usual you have no validation for your stance

Me? I go by the IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/

 

Actually you are wrong there
ANY paper to be of scientific worth must meet certain criteria. This is not about me. You want to convince people climate change is not happening then you have to address the science and you cannot do that with made up *****

 

The paper was peer-reviewed and published. Again you have decided to attack people rather than discuss the data.
I never try to persuade anyone of anything, but I'm determined to present the data.

 

Hmm yes but there is peer review and then there is PEER review. Why do you think I take the trouble to google up the impact rating on these journals? You yourself have a thread questioning the validity of publication - well there are criteria one can and should use to evaluate research. If you want to learn them then listen to people like Willreadmore,Centerfield and others who actually look at research

 

And you continue to attack people rather than discuss the data.

 

Now I am getting very cross and may go back to just never replying

What part of my answer is “attacking” anyone? Critiquing research is a learnt skill that you start learning with a masters degree, continue through a doctorate and finish when they bury you. It takes years. The “data” is useless if it has not been analysed correctly, the corresponding statistic used and interpreted properly the variable accounted for etc etc etc

Now, going back to the variables your research article did not address the main variables cited in nearly every other paper on this subject. That makes the paper worthless

IF you are so well versed in this topic then analyse this please

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/08_SROCC_Ch04_FINAL.pdfhttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/08_SROCC_Ch04_FINAL.pdf

 

Either discuss the data or follow up on your promise to cease replies. I have no interest in your attacks on people.

 

Yep!

False again. The validation is in the clear context of the sentence.

Too bad none of that actually offers any credible empirical support for your claim or in any way contradicts the facts I identified. All they can manage in terms of demonstrating that post-LIA warming has been caused mainly by increased CO2 is to note that it "is attributed" thereto. That just means someone attributes it. Like the IPCC.

So as usual, an UTTER FAIL on your part. You FAILED. You merely repeated your FAILURE. You are still FAILING. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

And then there is PAL review, such as is the universal practice among anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers....

To avoid discussing actual data, logic, and methodologies in favor of your preferred ad hominem and ad verecundiam fallacies, obviously.

That's right: methodology and logic.

It is O B V I O U S that you are not numbered among those of us who actually do look at research, and can discuss it rationally, competently, and honestly.

 

No, he is clearly correct.

Which do not include being a paper that someone other than the author would prefer the author to have written.

But you are trying to make it about other people and their supposed credentials rather than the science.

That is (surprise!) an absurd, grotesque, and disingenuous strawman fallacy. We all know climate change is happening. What YOU want to do is convince people that absent CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption, climate change would somehow NOT be happening, or that it would somehow happen in a more favorable direction. Yet you have not made any such case, nor will you ever be doing so.

Almost all Jack's posts that quote scientific analysis link to sources that cite peer-reviewed science, and address it fairly and competently.

 

They don't get it and they never will. A cherry-picked paper or two is not a consensus.

And even then, when you read the papers in question, even the poor ones acknowledge limitations. Then the skeptic blogs take this poor, theoretical or narrowly-focussed paper and then change the title, misrepresent (or fabricate) the findings and also claim any conjectures to be a proven certainty.

From the perspective of scientific integrity it's the equivalent of vomiting onto a plate and saying "dinner is served."

 

Not just that but this same member has a thread going that is trying to discredit all science on the basis of a few papers found to be poorly written - then turns around and insists some paper in a low impact journal whose peer review process is one level worse than the step method for grading term papers (you take all the class papers to the nearest steps and throw them down - the ones that land on the top get honors the ones mid steps credits etc etc etc) is somehow the paper of the century. Then when I point out that this paper has not addressed the variables it should I am accused of “attacking the people”.

What I should do is go on a statistics website get some fancy terms (and doesn’t stats have some doozies) then waffle on about how the affine transformation does not affirm the antecedent within Bayes rule and the Chi square curve did not fit within the continuity connection just to see what the reaction would be

 

Still not posting any links to the ‘thousands of papers proving climate change is not occurring”

And you didn’t read my link did you?

 

Actually, the thread in question is about an effort to protect science.

The Center For Scientific Integrity


The mission of the Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent organization of Retraction Watch, is to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science.

The goals of the Center fall under four broad areas:

• A database of retractions, expressions of concern and related publishing events, generated by the work of Retraction Watch. The database will be freely available to scientists, scholars and anyone else interested in analyzing the information.
• Long-form, larger-impact writing, including magazine-length articles, reports and books.
• Scholarship on scientific integrity and incentives in science.
• Aid and assistance to groups and individuals whose interests in transparency and accountability intersect with ours, and who could benefit from shared expertise and resources.

The Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit. Its work has been funded by generous grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust.

Learn more about our Board of Directors here. And read our 2020 tax return here, our 2019 tax return here, our 2018 tax return here, our 2017 tax return here, our 2016 tax return here, our 2015 tax return here, and our 2014 tax return here.

 

You think the paper you cited would pass muster?

 

Not for me to judge. It was peer-reviewed and published.

 

Hmm yes, about that. Seems this author has a habit of publishing in journals that have poor peer review

https://theconversation.com/peer-review-isnt-perfect-and-the-media-doesnt-always-help-11318

https://www.desmog.com/albert-parker/

 

No I investigate the integrity of the author - but I tire of these constant Ad Hominems and accusations especially since I have analysed the data and found it to be lacking the requisite variables cited in other papers AND if you had read my link they also analysed the earlier “paper” and found similar misrepresentation of data

You really can pick them eh? First it was Monckton - who has NO credible standing in the scientific community due to a propensity to make up **** out of whole cloth and now this guy who is not even a climate scientist and who writes dodgy papers for dodgy journals

 

I criticised the blog writers fairly. They do what I said they do.

The people that copy/paste them are at the very least ignorant.

More specifically, skeptics on the board are only capable of incorporating data that supports their narrative.

All objecting truths. Not my problem if anyone gets butt-hurt about having this pointed out.

 

If you call that attacking someone there is no hope.