UK energy future

[DodgyAgent]

I think she's Canadian. Lucia found the graph you posted (or a nearly identical one from His Fraudship) had the IPCC trend 75% larger than could possibly be correct. Some might think an apology was in order. And she's right - over the 7 year period plotted the models over-projected temperature, but then nobody expects the models to capture such short term variability, and the planet is rapidly catching up.

I am quite surprised you have the brass neck to come up with this when you have admitted that you have little interest in solving the problem

[pjclarke]

So just to get this straight, your response [... ] is to ad-hom attack

[...]
You are a twat.

[LucidDementia]

Further evidence of your lot's ability to remove all context for your own ends. Quite twattish in and of itself.

[EternalOptimist]

above, we have an illustration of the number of false or dodgy peer reviewed papers
below, we have an accurate number of the false or dodgy Global warming peer reviewed papers





according to the eco-looney fruit-loops

[pjclarke]

above, we have an illustration of the number of false or dodgy peer reviewed papers
below, we have an accurate number of the false or dodgy Global warming peer reviewed papers

Cite your sources, man!

The diagram shows a retraction rate rising to 5 retractions (in PubMed) per 10,000 papers. Not sure this is far away enough from zero to be worrying.

But there have been some howlers in climate science that somehow got through peer-review. Check out 'Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature' by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter

Or, of course the Soon/Balliunas kerfuffle, that even has its own wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_a...as_controversy

[LucidDementia]

[EternalOptimist]

If you want to talk about howlers, how about the 32,000 year old man who responded to a global warming survey and was then included in the analysis by age.


I sh!t you not

[pjclarke]

If you want to talk about howlers, how about the 32,000 year old man who responded to a global warming survey and was then included in the analysis by age.


I sh!t you not

PLOS ONE: Correction: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Fascinating paper, though.

We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population and show that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science, in contrast to their weaker and opposing effects on acceptance of vaccinations. The two worldview variables do not predict opposition to GM. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, predicts rejection of all three scientific propositions, albeit to greatly varying extents. Greater endorsement of a diverse set of conspiracy theories predicts opposition to GM foods, vaccinations, and climate science.

Conclusions

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested. We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators.

[oracleslave]

More evidence that sas was right.

PJ continues to destroy you clowns with facts, evidence and peer-reviewed detail and not one of you have anything concrete to refute him with.

[DodgyAgent]

More evidence that sas was right.

PJ continues to destroy you clowns with facts, evidence and peer-reviewed detail and not one of you have anything concrete to refute him with.

Apart from the fact that he has admitted that the problem is being exploited for political gain and that he does not deem it a big enough problem to want to solve it.