Death knell for AGW

[Locutus]

Baseball's Tim McCarver: Global Warming Increasing the Number of Home Runs

There have been all kinds of reasons given for the increasing number of home runs in baseball over the decades including more tightly-sewn balls, steroids, improved fitness training programs, and bat technology.

On Saturday, renowned Fox sportscaster Tim McCarver blamed it all on Al Gore's favorite money-making scam (video follows with transcript and commentary):
"It has not been proven, but I think ultimately it will be proven that the air is thinner now, there have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that’s one of the reasons balls are carrying much better now than I remember," McCarver said during Saturday's game between the Milwaukee Brewers and the St. Louis Cardinals.


Read more: Baseball's Tim McCarver: Global Warming Increasing the Number of Home Runs | NewsBusters.org

​

 

[Tonington]

That's an easy one to knock out of the park. The atmosphere is warmer, and as a result the global average water vapour content of the atmosphere has increased by 4%, making the air heavier on average than it was before, not thinner. Climate change doesn't contribute to more home runs. Steroids and other performance enhancing drugs do.

 

[captain morgan]

Baseball's Tim McCarver: Global Warming Increasing the Number of Home Runs

Peer reviewed no doubt.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Tell ya what, how about you provide the research and I'll organize the peers. I'll wager that the research doesn't get the wholesale support that the AGW movement claims as their birthright

Would you like all the 13/1400 peer reviewed papers supporting Climate change that have been published in the last decade or so? Or would you want to go back further to Arrhenius and Fourier or Plass?

Would you also like the four or five that deny the warming and that have been so thoroughly refuted that you will never find references outside of denial blogs?

If you have a particular aspect of climate change in mind we can accommodate that, too.

 

[B00Mer]

[youtube]FzOcqgnqWG8[/youtube]

 

[captain morgan]

Would you like all the 13/1400 peer reviewed papers supporting Climate change that have been published in the last decade or so? Or would you want to go back further to Arrhenius and Fourier or Plass?

Would you also like the four or five that deny the warming and that have been so thoroughly refuted that you will never find references outside of denial blogs?

If you have a particular aspect of climate change in mind we can accommodate that, too.

Grreeeaaaaatttt... A whole bunch of papers that one group submitted to their buddies for 'peer review'.

Nothing like getting another true believer to rubber stamp your 'findings'

 

[taxslave]

Tell ya what, how about you provide the research and I'll organize the peers. I'll wager that the research doesn't get the wholesale support that the AGW movement claims as their birthright

Depends on which dictionary definition of peers you use.

 

[captain morgan]

Depends on which dictionary definition of peers you use.

I'm pretty sure that the qualified candidates for 'peer' are in fact 'peer reviewed' by the likes of Gore, Suzuki and the IPCC.... Can't have any unexpected surprises, you understand

 

[Cabbagesandking]

What "one group" would that be? All those papers from hundreds of scientists in dozens of countries and journals that compete for superior material. All thosw ho have managed to convince their peers that their arguments are cogent and worth further consideration EVEN IF the conclusions are not necessarily proved right or accepted as such by the reviewers are members of one group?

The world is full of conspiracy theories but don't you think that you stretch that one a little?

From scientists telling something about the peer review process and pointing to its flaws. Scientists tend to be honest and want truth to prevail.


"[Peer Review] is an undisputed cornerstone of modern science. Central to the competitive clash of ideas that moves knowledge forward, peer review enjoys so much renown in the scientific community that studies lacking its imprimatur meet with automatic skepticism. Academic reputations hinge on an ability to get work through peer review and into leading journals; university presses employ peer review to decide which books they’re willing to publish; and federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health use peer review to weigh the merits of applications for federal research grants.
​

Put simply, peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper’s conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.
Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid. The “leaks” in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work (especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or assessed by the community). Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of knowledge in the scientific research community.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol I am sure that Morgan, Boomer, etc. would love for ignorant deniers to be the peers. Mind you, "peer" has a specific meaning that they seem to be ignoring.
Must be a worldwide conspiracy among climatologists, right?

 

[captain morgan]

lol indeed.

Tim Ball would be a 'peer'... I'm guessing that he probably isn't invited into the club though. The peer review process relative to AGW is founded on leveraging those 'peers' that are of a pre-determined view... Really, it's nothing more than a punch-line at this point.

Face facts, the movement is dying as we speak.. Not even the nations that signed onto the accord(s) are keeping up to their obligations and the entire go-forward process has stagnated. That ought to be a clear sign as to the future of the movement

I just calls them as I sees them

 

[L Gilbert]

You may be right that "the movement" is dying. That's irrelevant. So are the opinions of politicians, deniers, etc. that refuse to face what the data shows.
As far as thinking that all climatologists are into this "conspiracy" goes .... lol Sure there is bound to be a few who are "leveraged", but so what? There's also a few that are "leveraged" the other way.
Science is self-correcting. The whole idea behind peer reviews is to catch mistakes and scams.
So what are the grounds of your denial? Are they actually scientific, or are they just because you don't want to believe it, don't like Gore and Snoozuki, don't like the carbon cap crap, etc?

 

[captain morgan]

Science is self-correcting. The whole idea behind peer reviews is to catch mistakes and scams.

In this case, groups like the IPCC failed miserably in their use and reliance on peer review. As a self appointed authority, mandated by the UN no less, they made numerous critical errors in the area of 'peer review'. Also, one of the signature scientific groups that the UN/IPCC relied upon was East Anglia University and we all recall what transpired at that research facility.

In part, the above events acts to severely undermine any strength that is associated with 'peer review'

So what are the grounds of your denial?

I still get a kick out of the 'denial' label... It is indeed highly theatrical.

Regardless, I certainly do not 'deny' that any living organization (incl humanity) has some form of impact on the climate (however marginal that may be), but the basis of my 'denial' is founded in the millions of years of history that exemplified dramatic swings in the climate record that resulted in kilometer-thick sheets of ice covering continents to lush tropical-like vegetation in the same area millenia earlier (or later).

 

[petros]

It's Sunday AM, go walk into any Evangelical so called church and you'll hear all the same doom and gloom and it's all based on belief.

100 Million born yeterday christians are confident the rapture (a fiction) is well under way.

They have "proof" too, just ask.

 

[captain morgan]

They have "proof" too, just ask.

... And you'll get a form of peer reviewed proof that supports that contention as well... The only kicker is that you have to 'review' with a true believer

 

[petros]

Pew reviewed by the Church of Jesus Christ the Scientist.

 

[captain morgan]

I totally forgot about that... Not only does 'scientology' have the science part, but also the 'ology' component that gives it a double-extra-more-gooder basis of credibility.

So, when can we expect Tom Cruise to be invited to the peer review panel?

 

[petros]

The latest audit says we need more Thetans to hold the "clear" blue sky up so it doesn't fall on the Rhode Island reds.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The reason that Tim Ball would not be "invited in," is that he is not qualified to be "in." Tim Ball might be invited "in" wrt a paper on geographical climate zones; his area is something like that but nothing to do with climate science. Even then, I doubt that anyone would trust to an unbiased review from Tim if it did not include free cigarettes - his former passion and source of funds.

The IPCC does not use and "rely on" peer review. The IPCC does no science. It merely collects and collates the science. All the science, including any contrary views. But, since there are no longer any7 credible contrary vies or papers, it is not posible for them to be included in the reports.

Thus, it makes no mistakes in "peer review:" and no mistakes in its reports. There has not been a single error found in the reporting of the science of climate in any of the four reports it has issued to date.

 

[captain morgan]

So, Tim Ball, PH.D, MA, BA; that has studied climatology for years is not qualified by virtue that he disagrees with the IPCC.

Are ya picking up what I'm putting down here? You starting to piece the puzzle together?