ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction


Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

It’s worth noting how many authors agree with the basic fact of global warming – more than nine thousand. And that’s just in a single year. Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do. It’s not like we are seeing a 70-30% split, or even a 90-10% split. No, the split is more like 99.99-0.01%.

Isn’t it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

Those who think scientists keep silent on global warming presumably because they fear the barbs of the world demonstrate a peculiar kind of paranoia, especially since what they fear largely does not exist. More prosaically they need to recall Carl Sagan’s words again because the claim that scientist don’t dare to speak out against global warming in the literature is, quite definitely, an extraordinary claim. And it doesn’t seem to stand up to even ordinary evidence.

This chart should tell us why we need to move the debate beyond the fundamental fact of global warming, from disputing the basic science and effects of the process to disputing the details of consequences and the proposed solutions.

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 101 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Uncle.Al 6:10 pm 01/10/2014

    1) The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote, re flat Earth, heliocentric solar system…and in 1957, Yang and Lee telling half of particle physics it was empirical crap.*
    2) If it is not anthropogenic Global Warming, then derailing $trillion/yr global economies offers no solution, and the Carbon Tax on Everything is criminal. (Gee, ya think?)
    3) It cannot be CO2, for atmospheric CO2 IR absorption windows are fully saturated, as are those of water. Closing past IR open windows are HCFCs (Enviro-whiner substitutes for freons), CF4 (aluminum elecrolysis), NF3 (chip manufacture), SF6 (power distribution switches), CH4 (rice paddies, reservoirs, and hydroelectric water impoundments), N2O (fertilized farming).
    4)Climate models do not contain clouds and mountains. But wait! Anybody who criticizes Global Warming is thereby proven unfit to comment.

    *Yang and Lee in 1956 were not to first to demand particle physics was terrifically wrong for claimed mirror-symmetry of beta-decay. The first observation was shouted down for its being “impossible,”

    [1] Phys. Rev. 104(1) 254 (1956),
    http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v104/i1/p254_1
    [2] Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1413 (1957),
    http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v105/i4/p1413_1
    [3] Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1415 (1957),
    http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v105/i4/p1415_1
    [4] PNAS 14(7) 544 (1928),
    http://www.pnas.org/content/14/7/544.full.pdf+html
    And the fella who got screwed for seeing the truth.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Carlyle 6:45 pm 01/10/2014

    Saddam Hussein would be jealous.

    Link to this
  3. 3. jtdwyer 7:00 pm 01/10/2014

    “… based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one.”
    - I concur with the consensus of ‘scientists’ that human activity (particularly population growth and the increase in the percentage of population specifically served by industrial processes), especially over the past 200 years, is primarily responsible for producing global climate change.
    - All that said, I’m not a scientist, but it was not specified which journals were surveyed and which authors were included – were only journals specializing in climate studies included?
    - Moreover, a survey of ‘peer’ reviewed publications will likely yield biased results, effectively screening out unconventional research results…

    Link to this
  4. 4. M Tucker 7:20 pm 01/10/2014

    The detractors and deniers hate the solution. They cannot conceive of a world without burning fossil fuel. Many support or are supported by the oil and coal industry. And some, like Senator Inhofe, believe the solution is so economically devastating they would rather hold onto the argument that all these scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to hoodwink the public.

    These are the folks who are regular watchers of Fox and listeners to Limbaugh and Beck. Some of them actually troll the science web sites to propagate their nonsense.

    Link to this
  5. 5. sciencegal57 7:32 pm 01/10/2014

    @jtdwyer, if you click on the link to the original article, you will see that there is another link with all of the articles that were reviewed.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Jack Wolf 7:40 pm 01/10/2014

    This agrees with what I see in the American Geophysical Union journals I get. In fact, I can’t recall the last time I saw a paper that challenged the greenhouse effect. (Except one that was later retracted before the editor resigned in embarrassment but it wasn’t an AGU journal.)

    Link to this
  7. 7. leonardwaks 10:51 pm 01/10/2014

    There are no deniers. For X to deny a proposition P implies (1) X understands the proposition P, which implies (2) X understands the reasons that could confirm or deny the proposition P, and (3) that X believes other propositions Q,R,S which collectively entail that the proposition P is false. The mere fact that X gets a small thrill by uttering sentences whose ordinary practical meaning is that X believes such Q, R, S and believes that they collectively disconfirm P does not mean that X denies P, any more than would a parrot, or a robot’s uttering those sentences imply that they denied P. Denial is intensional; it depends upon meaning. In face the so-called deniers are merely expressing resentiment regarding being left behind. They just hate people who know things; they don’t believe that what those people believe is false.

    Link to this
  8. 8. schatzieD 11:26 pm 01/10/2014

    SHUT. UP. CARLYLE.

    You comment on every single SA article about global warming. Every single one. GO AWAY. I don’t know who is paying you to do this, but they need to GO AWAY as well. You nut cases make me wish there were a hell. You are on the wrong side of history.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Carlyle 1:33 am 01/11/2014

    Well now I know how much you appreciate reading my posts, I’ll do my best to keep up the good work. Saddam only claimed a 98% victory. Of course everyone believed him too. Did you? Personally, I thought it was implausible, but not as implausible as 99.9%. You see, some people can think for themselves. Happy to give you more insights, anytime. Love & kisses. Carlyle.

    Link to this
  10. 10. Carlyle 3:48 am 01/11/2014

    The conclusions are preposterous. I do not know anyone who rejects any climate effects as a result of human activity. It is the extent of human influence that is in dispute. The fact that so many predictions based on climate models have failed bears our scepticism out.

    Link to this
  11. 11. Carlyle 5:07 am 01/11/2014

    ?

    Link to this
  12. 12. Carlyle 5:42 am 01/11/2014

    5. sciencegal57
    What link?

    Link to this
  13. 13. centromere 6:42 am 01/11/2014

    @8. schatzieD

    Please stop being discourteous. Your antagonistic and ill-mannered post are just as disruptive and distracting as those you criticize.

    Please post on-topic.

    Link to this
  14. 14. jtdwyer 6:51 am 01/11/2014

    Carlyle,
    The link sciencegal57 was hinting at is http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
    - More specifically, the (apparently non-peer reviewed) ‘study’ author describes his methodology in http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    The primary qualification was made by a search of the “Web of Science” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_Science) for articles whose topic was classified specifically as “global climate change”.

    The primary issue I have with the methodology is encapsulated in the assertion promoted here that:
    “Now I understand as well as anyone else that consensus does not imply truth but I find it odd how there aren’t even a handful of scientists who deny global warming presumably because the global warming mafia threatens to throttle them if they do.”
    - The issue is not that scientists can’t speak of unconventional ideas (although expressing them does expose one to being dismissed and ignored), but that journals who are interested in maintaining their credibility among the scientific establishment are not fond of publishing papers who contradict well established ideas. The peer review process can often be used to restrict the ideas explicitly expressed in published articles to those that avoid ‘contrarian’ viewpoints.
    - IMO, it would be very difficult for anyone to publish an article that explicitly denied human affected climate change in a well respected scientific journal – thus the results of this ‘study’ are not valid.
    - Again, I am not a climate change “denier”.
    - I concur with the consensus of ‘scientists’ that human activity (particularly population growth and the increase in the percentage of population specifically served by industrial processes), especially over the past 200 years, is primarily responsible for producing global climate change.

    Link to this
  15. 15. Chryses 9:42 am 01/11/2014

    schatzieD (#8, @11:26 pm 01/10/2014),

    centromere does have a point. While I disagree with Carlyle, he only posted once – before you attacked him. Your post was counter productive.

    Link to this
  16. 16. sault 3:01 pm 01/11/2014

    Wow, some people posting on this article don’t know how science works. In order to prove your case, you have to supply EVIDENCE. This is the 3rd study in a row that looked at thousands of scientific papers and found that OVER 99% of them agree that human activity is changing the climate. Comparisons to Saddam Hussein and his electoral victories are total Non Sequitors and are only thrown out there by our resident denier peanut gallery to derail the discussion. But the climate deniers have no evidence, so they have to resort to shady tactics like this.

    But here’s the thing:

    - EVERY scientific and technical organization on the PLANET agrees that human activity is affecting the planet and are responsible for the vast majority of temperature increases since the 1970′s which matches with the conclusions of the IPCC.

    - The <1% of "scientists" who don't think human activities are affecting the climate have vastly less expertise in climate science compared to scientists who do, their papers are cited a small fraction of how many "consensus" papers are cited.

    - Many of these <1%-ers have received substantial funding from fossil fuel companies. Dr. Willie Soon received direct funding from Exxon and other polluters for example. There is also a whole cadre of industry-friendly "experts" that sit at polluter-funded think tanks like The Heartland Institute, The CEI, The Global Warming "Policy" Foundation and many other innocuously-sounding groups that together take in nearly $1B in "Dark Money" from fossil fuel companies in exchange for confusing the public on climate change.

    - Finally, reality is not waiting for us to make up our minds about climate change and its busy adjusting to the ever-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air regardless of how much those that have a vested interest in keeping the air open as their free sewer try to confuse us. 95% of the ice on the planet is melting, seas are rising, the Earth is accumulating the heat energy equivalent of 4 nuclear bombs a second and the pH of the oceans is dropping.

    Sorry deniers, but if you want to live in your own fantasy land, just leave the big problems of the 21st Century to the "Reality-based Community" and please just get out of our way while we solve them for you.

    Link to this
  17. 17. Carlyle 3:36 pm 01/11/2014

    14. jtdwyer
    Thank you. My problem with the report is one of incredulity & by extension, dishonesty. In every field there are people who are way outside normal bounds in their views. Certainly more than one in a thousand. I feel sure there are more than one in a thousand who give religious explanations or even aliens as the cause. As far as global warming is concerned, I would be much more easily convinced that humans were the primary cause but for such dishonesty. Though I rarely comment, I follow your views in the astronomy & physics articles with interest.

    Link to this
  18. 18. sault 4:57 pm 01/11/2014

    “In every field there are people who are way outside normal bounds in their views. Certainly more than one in a thousand. I feel sure there are more than one in a thousand who give religious explanations or even aliens as the cause.”

    Ah, but you fail to realize that getting to the level of publishing a peer-reviewed scientific paper filters out most of these unscientific explanations, just like it filters out climate denial. Thanks for highlighting the fact that you deniers hold a position just as silly as “crystal healing”, “Ancient Aliens” and other crockery.

    “As far as global warming is concerned, I would be much more easily convinced that humans were the primary cause but for such dishonesty.”

    A bunch of hogwash. I have probably show you OVER 100 scientific papers over the years yet you maintain the fossil fuel party line 100% of the time. If you think you can be swayed by evidence, you are lying to yourself.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Carlyle 5:46 pm 01/11/2014

    There is no other way to put it sault. You are a liar. Innumerable times I have decried the waste of fossil fuels where nuclear could be used. Not because of irrational concerns about CO2, but primarily the waste of irreplaceable resources & other pollutants. The solutions you propose have dismally failed to produce the benefits that would have resulted if the same efforts had been directed towards nuclear development. So how is that taking the big oil fossil fuel line? Your preferred path has been played out in Germany with the direct opposite results to what you call for. Increased fossil fuel consumption, destruction of landscape & energy prices twice those in the US. By default, your preferred policies are sustaining the continued unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels. There is another commenter who accuses you of being in the pay of Big Oil. I do not believe that but the effect is the same as if it were true.

    Link to this
  20. 20. Carlyle 7:55 pm 01/11/2014

    Peer review is meaningless. Theologians peer review each others work as do economists, drug & medical researchers, astrologers, alien researchers & innumerable other fields. Peer review simply means someone of similar standing has reviewed the work. Of all the hundreds of ‘Peer Reviews’ sault has referred to, who has actually read one of these reviews?
    Dime a dozen, devalued by mutual back slappers. The results are everywhere to be seen, from multibillion company collapses that had had their accounts peer reviewed by eminent auditors to drug company scandals where results were hidden or altered just as in the climate gate scandal where the perpetrators were cleared by their peers. It is a corrupt incestuous practice.

    Link to this
  21. 21. jayjacobus 8:11 pm 01/11/2014

    I am not a denier nor am I a blind advocate. Temperatures have risen. Nevertheless how many people can understand and interpret the statistics well enough to make a 100 year(!!!!) forecast.

    The solution is not making a CO2 tax which will penalize energy users unless there is a reasonable alternative. New cost effective energy that is environmentally kind is the answer.

    But realistically that is not a near term answer. A short term bridge might be a conversion of coal based energy to less polluting energy sources. All the screamers who have no practical ideas should be ignored by the people working on solutions.

    Link to this
  22. 22. jctyler 7:53 am 01/12/2014

    Carlyle,

    ‘As far as global warming is concerned, I would be MUCH MORE EASILY CONVINCED that humans were the primary cause but for such dishonesty.’

    LOL!

    Since when is your religion a matter of conviction? Naw, you will not change your BELIEF for anything. It would throw you in a depression to realize that for purely subjective reasons you fooled yourself for so many years for so obvious non-scientific reasons. And that your brain is not what you fool yourself into believing.

    If I hear of a viagra test for the brain, can I enter your candidacy?

    Link to this
  23. 23. sunshinehours 9:53 am 01/12/2014

    How many of those 2000 papers acknowledge the 15-17 year pause in global warming, and what was their explanations or excuses for the pause?

    Link to this
  24. 24. sault 3:26 pm 01/12/2014

    How many times do I have to show you deniers that the temperature record DOES NOT include much of the polar regions? And since the poles are warming much faster than the rest of the globe, when you include them, REAL global temperatures are tracking right along with climate models:

    “Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet’s surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.

    Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.

    Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract

    The deniers must admit that all their nonsense about a global warming “hiatus” was nonsense.

    Link to this
  25. 25. sault 3:34 pm 01/12/2014

    jayjacobus,

    Climate is not weather, so it is fairly straightforward to determine roughly how much warming we will have by a certain date given a certain CO2 concentration in the air. BTW, CO2 concentration is the BIGGEST variable in climate modeling, showing that emissions reductions efforts CAN make a difference depending on which emissions profile we choose to follow.

    As for solutions, energy efficiency and renewable energy are making huge gains right now and advanced nuclear reactors may be commercially ready in about 20 years. If not for the early investments by Germany and other forward-looking countries, renewable energy would be a lot further behind than it is now since it wouldn’t have moved down the steep learning curves as it has done over the past few years.

    And a CO2 tax is just what the market needs to send a signal to develop even MORE effective technologies and move down learning curves in order to make renewable energy cheaper and cheaper. And fossil fuels are only “cheap” because they’re allowed to dump billions of tons of pollution into the environment, causing myriad damages, without having to pay for the consequences. When ALL costs are accounted for, renewable energy comes out on top hands down and saves us tons of money in the long run.

    Link to this
  26. 26. sault 3:40 pm 01/12/2014

    “Peer review is meaningless.”

    Carlyle shows their true colors with this remark. No amount of data or analysis will convince them since their pro-pollution ideology must be defended at all cost. Carlyle’s utter disrespect for science and the Scientific Method specifically would be expected at places like RedState or Conservapedia, but SciAm is a bit of a stretch for this garbage.

    And while Carlyle DEMANDS unending rolls of evidence (the more to deny it, my dear!), they offer ZERO evidence of their own to back up their claims. Goalposts move right out of the stadium and valid claims are ignored in order to change the subject and derail the discussion even more. This nonsense must be ignored until the editors at SciAm wise up like the folks over at Reddit and ban this kind of science denial from this website!

    Link to this
  27. 27. Carlyle 3:43 pm 01/12/2014

    I admit it. I was wrong. I was in disbelief because one in a thousand disagreed with the AGW proposition. How could I have made such a mistake. It was one in ten thousand. Idiots.

    Link to this
  28. 28. Carlyle 4:08 pm 01/12/2014

    Peer reviewed study on the paranormal
    6350 results
    http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=Peer+reviewed+study+on+the+paranormal&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=g__SUr1nhuSSBcCvgOAF&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA
    Peer reviewed study on Alien visits to earth
    18700 results
    Iridology: a systematic review
    484 results

    You get the idea? Peer review by fellow believers is of dubious value. It is NOT gospel proof of fact.
    Some are deliberate fraud as in a recent drug company case were evidence pertaining to the drugs veracity & side effects were suppressed. That was in the science field too but their conclusions had been peer reviewed.

    Link to this
  29. 29. HeinrikRodl 4:28 pm 01/12/2014

    #26 @sault said:
    “This nonsense must be ignored until the editors at SciAm wise up like the folks over at Reddit and ban this kind of science denial from this website!”

    FYI The submission linking to this article was removed from /r/science over at reddit because it did not adhere to the guidelines for submissions.

    I’m surprised that Scientific American chose to highlight the study as the methodology is extremely flimsy. No definition is given for the consensus nor is any criteria given for accepting or “rejecting” (note: use of quotes in methodology) it other than author’s judgment.
    —-
    http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

    “…Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper “rejects” human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations…”
    —-

    Given the vagueness of the methodology and the overt political nature of the blog where this was originally posted (e.g. the “desmogblog manifesto” linked on their menu bar), I fail to see how this “study” is worth discussing at SciAm, especially under the pretext that it is in fact a scientific and trustworthy.

    Link to this
  30. 30. cls42 6:49 pm 01/12/2014

    Talk to someone who’s convinced AGW is a “hoax.” You’ll always find he has no idea how scientists *work*. The main talking points from the denial campaign aren’t about details of the science or its methodology. They’re an allegation that peer review is a sham, that scientists don’t compete with each other for grant money, that scientists routinely publish false findings to serve the agenda of their grant makers and other scientists, in on the conspiracy, don’t blow the whistle. It’s a grand conspiracy theory more preposterous than anything I’ve seen from the 9-11 Truthers.

    Link to this
  31. 31. Carlyle 6:49 pm 01/12/2014

    Yes, but facts are only relevant when they support sault’s beliefs :)

    Link to this
  32. 32. bflat879 8:24 pm 01/12/2014

    Personally, I don’t believe the argument is right. It’s not between Global warming and not global warming, I believe most people believe the earth is warming. It’s not between CO2 and something else, I believe most people have been brainwashed into believing CO2 is responsible. The point is the man is “somewhat” responsible for warming, to the extent that parking lots and highways, with asphalt applied to them, increase the temperatures of their surrounding areas.

    The fact is, if you read the “climate-gate” papers, the “scientists” know their data is wrong and they’re trying to correct it, not to make it correct, but to make it appear to be correct.

    Once that happens, you really understand the science is wrong. I believe what’s happened is, scientists have lined up behind scientists, not understanding that many of them are really trying to justify the unjusfiable, but also trying to make their claims seem plausible.

    If you read the “climate-gate” papers, they have realized their hypothesis are false and they’re trying to correct them. That’s not the sort of science you want to support. Now, how many of the people who support them have read the “climate-gate” papers? I’ll bet not many.

    Link to this
  33. 33. Carlyle 8:38 pm 01/12/2014

    :) They produced at least 8 ‘Peer Reviewed’ studies to prove there was nothing untoward in the emails & thought that would bolster their cause. as I said above, ‘The Peer Review’ process has been corrupted.

    Link to this
  34. 34. blue13326 8:47 pm 01/12/2014

    Seems like a straw man argument. The real debate is over the extent, not the existence, of a link between temperature rise and anthropogenic CO2.

    Although, if someone did submit a paper that denied the link would you publish it? Would any journal you know publish it?

    “Wherever the understanding is lamed, the mind limps.”
    -Wm. Gass

    Link to this
  35. 35. ldenton1 8:57 pm 01/12/2014

    What a ridiculous article. I’m sorry, if you have to agree with the theory of global warming in order to have your articles “peer reviewed”, then of course it’s 99.99% to .01%. More likely, the .01% slipped through by accident. Who exactly do you climate change nuts think you’re fooling? LOL And someone says comparing this to Saddam Hussein is not accurate? LMAO

    Link to this
  36. 36. MARCHER 9:14 pm 01/12/2014

    @33,

    Yeah, let’s ignore the findings of multiple independent panels that have actually reviewed the data on this and rely on the fantasies of fossil fuel funded hack bloggers who have been lauded by like minded anti-science back slappers.

    Thanks for showing off your hypocrisy.

    Link to this
  37. 37. MARCHER 9:15 pm 01/12/2014

    @35,

    “If you have to agree with the theory of global warming in order to have your articles “peer reviewed”

    Except that you don’t. But whatever makes your delusions more bearable.

    Link to this
  38. 38. rar777scientificamerica 9:23 pm 01/12/2014

    since i have not yet formed an opinion on agw, all i am going say is this article is 100% TRASH.

    there is no mentioning of the papers full title or journal it was published in; there is no mentioning of the cited paper’s methodology; there is no mentioning of study weaknesses or concerns (and no study is perfect, NONE). furthermore, upon clicking some links it is discoverable that the original work is not publish, yet alone peer-reviewed!

    again, THIS ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTELY 100% TRASH because no one reading could have any idea whether the information it presents is valuable (i.e. represents reality). everyone should be upset with this article because it makes supporters of agw sound like factless idiots, and it can’t logically convince anyone on the fence. no matter who you are or what you think: this piece is worthless.

    and when you read the methodology this is what you get: “Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper ‘rejects’ human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations.” (http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html) so a person clearly dedicated to agw has said he read through thousands of papers to determine their slant and exact conclusion…which often times is not categorizable within the dichotomic yes-no positions. good god!

    there is absolutely NO way to tell if either powell or jogalekar are just making data up. given irreproducibility is a HUGE problem in the peer-reviewed scientific community (http://www.nature.com/news/announcement-reducing-our-irreproducibility-1.12852), i am certain this article is rubbish, REGARDLESS of agw.

    Link to this
  39. 39. rar777scientificamerica 9:43 pm 01/12/2014

    **sorry for my typos. i did not proof my written very well.

    Link to this
  40. 40. rar777scientificamerica 9:45 pm 01/12/2014

    ****writing very well!!!!

    Link to this
  41. 41. justinavenger 9:48 pm 01/12/2014

    Man made global warming is a myth, made up with false numbers. Real truth is there is NO warming caused by man or fossil fuels but any warming is caused by the cycles which have warmed and cooled the earth since it beginnings. Men who spend to much time in school thinking they can find these answers through guesses and speculation can be very wrong. Show me the numbers and measurements from thousands of years ago, millions of years ago on which they base their assumptions then we will talk seriously other wise this krap is just make believe.

    Link to this
  42. 42. BillCarson 10:10 pm 01/12/2014

    Sorry, I don’t buy this at all. Do you think we’re stupid. For one thing, we’ve learned what happens to the career of virtually anyone who disagrees with the religion of the global warming types. They are viciously attacked, so no almost no wants to wreck their career by going against this crowd.

    And by the way, if you’re such great scientists, why did so many of you get caught lying and cheating with the fake data?

    Link to this
  43. 43. jfhaugh 10:12 pm 01/12/2014

    Greets,

    I’d like to address two points.

    The first relates to carbon taxation. In many developed parts of the world a “Carbon Tax” as a scheme for promoting carbon-free energy is rapidly losing effectiveness as energy efficiency and renewable energy become highly competitive against carbon-based fuels. Solar photovoltaic installations are growing rapidly in response to rapidly declining installation costs. Growth in electric vehicle sales, and increases in the use of parallel-hybrid (think Toyota Prius, not Chevy Volt) technology continue. Any “Carbon Tax” is already being paid by people who are rejecting the technologies out there today.

    Put in simpler terms, my carbon-free energy costs (electricity and transportation) are about $400 a month less than friends who haven’t yet switched. As an added bonus, I leave my lights on lots more — it’s hard to get excited about saving electricity when I barely pay anything for it.

    The second relates to proposals to move towards nuclear power. Ten or twenty years ago I would have agreed that nuclear power is an alternative to the construction of new coal or gas fired plants. However, the current rate of solar photovoltaic and wind power installation is exceeding anything that could be done on the nuclear power plant front. Average PV system size is increasing, as is the number of average systems being installed. Build-out of on-shore wind corridors and off-shore farms continues.

    Nuclear power had its chance. Short of someone finding a way to mass-produce nuclear reactors, the same way that solar and wind equipment is manufactured, nuclear will very likely play a declining role in energy production.

    Link to this
  44. 44. MARCHER 10:17 pm 01/12/2014

    @41,

    “Do you think we’re stupid.”

    You specifically, yes.

    “we’ve learned what happens to the career of virtually anyone who disagrees with the religion of the global warming types. They are viciously attacked, so no almost no wants to wreck their career by going against this crowd.”

    Actually, they usually get paid vast riches by the fossil fuel industry to act as lobbyists and publish garbage that is laughed out of peer review but endlessly trumpeted by hack bloggers as legitimate.

    “And by the way, if you’re such great scientists, why did so many of you get caught lying and cheating with the fake data?”

    Hack bloggers who repeat the outright lie you just said here.

    That clear things up?

    Link to this
  45. 45. BillCarson 10:19 pm 01/12/2014

    …and one other comment: So even if you’re tempted to agree with some of the lies of scientists who have been paid large sums of money to produce global warming stuff, you’re supposed to automatically be for the Democratic Party’s plan to destroy our economy with high taxes.

    Yeah, I’ve got a very liberal cousin who produces some of this “research.” Nobody ever reads the stuff he writes yet he applies for one grant after another because that is how he makes his money. You cannot get any funding from any source if you don’t play ball with the global warming crowd so why should we be surprised if it’s 99.99% to .01% when cheaters are running the game?

    Link to this
  46. 46. BillCarson 10:22 pm 01/12/2014

    #43–So all the British scientists who got world wide publicity for cheating were honest? This is why I ask if you think we’re stupid. Yeah, you can say it’s a lie, but you’re wasting your time, pal.

    Link to this
  47. 47. MARCHER 10:25 pm 01/12/2014

    @45,

    Let’s see, multiple independent panels found no evidence of wrongdoing, so your allegations of cheating is the only dishonesty here.

    That is why I say yes when you ask if I think you’re stupid.

    Clearly you have a problem with the facts, a common issue among deniers. Trying to convince you of anything using facts is clearly a waste of time.

    We’re in agreement on that.

    Link to this
  48. 48. StyleDoggie 10:27 pm 01/12/2014

    C’mon – this is so lame. Even skeptics admit that they’d be included in the consensus if it’s defined by the idea that CO2 tends to cause warming and man has contributed. That says nothing about the magnitude of future warming, will it be a big problem, is adaptation rather than prevention a better policy or will negative feedback outweigh positive feedback and tend to mitigate the effects? The author is either too ill informed to be writing about the subject, or he’s a hack that is using the ambiguity of ‘the consensus’ to make a point that’s not in fact true.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Asok Asok 10:30 pm 01/12/2014

    Wow! This is the best belly laugh I’ve had this year! And you know what’s even funnier: the sight of a 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers holding their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ montiors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort.

    Nice try, paid MicroShill. But all the paid MicroShills in all the world are not going to save Windows 8 from the rightfully harsh reception it’s receiving in the marketplace. And the Windows 8 disaster is just getting started. Microsoft jumped the shark trying to turn all PCs in the world into cellphones. Does Microsoft really expect 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers to hold their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ monitors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort? Microsoft management is lost in the wilderness and has utterly lost contact with reality. Steve Ballmer will be fired by the end of 2013 if the Microsoft board of directors wants to save their company.

    Don’t forget the option of taking your crappy Windows 8 system back to Best Buy for a refund, and then buying a Dell business class Latitude or Optiplex PC with Windows 7 Pro at the Dell web site. All of Dell’s business class PC configurations default to Windows 7 Pro. Dell doesn’t dare repeat attempting to screw their business customers with Windows 8 like they attempted with Vista. Dell has decided they want to try and stay in business this time around. At least with their business customers. Dell is still screwing their consumer customers with consumer models that are Windows 8 only.

    There’s beaucoup hostile paid Microsoft shills all over the Internet right now, attacking anyone who doesn’t like Windows 8. Usually they don’t bother to present countermanding information, but simply make vicious attacks. When they do bother to present information, they almost invariably lie.

    It’s not going to help, though, as it won’t impact the marketplace’s decision about Windows 8 a single iota. It does, however, show just how truly desperate Microsoft is regarding Windows 8.

    Touch screen laptops were a miserable failure two years ago when they were promoted as the next “must have” gadget. Don’t know why Microsoft thought things would be different now. No one really needs touch on a PC, and all Windows 8 does is turn a vastly overpriced touch-screen-enabled PC into a cellphone anyway. Gosh, who woulda thunk consumers wouldn’t jump at a deal like that!

    And does Microsoft really expect 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers to hold their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ monitors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort?

    Microsoft totally jumped the shark with Windows 8, and the unfolding Windows 8 disaster shows how totally out of touch Microsoft management is with reality. Steve Ballmer will be fired by the end of the year if the Microsoft board wants to have any chance of saving their company from totally clueless management.

    The Windows 8 Disaster Continues to Unfold, Just as Predicted
    “Looks like 2013 is not going to be a good year for PC vendors.”

    It’s going to be one of the worst years in a very long time for PC vendors and retailers, and it’s all because the fools stupidly drank the Windows 8 Kool-Aid.

    Touch screen laptops were a miserable failure two years ago when they were promoted as the next “must have” gadget. Don’t know why Microsoft thought things would be different now. No one really needs touch on a PC, and all Windows 8 does is turn a vastly overpriced touch-screen-enabled PC into a cellphone look-alike anyway. Gosh, who wouda thunk consumers wouldn’t jump at a deal like that!

    And does Microsoft really expect 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers and knowledge workers to hold their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ vertical monitors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort?

    Microsoft totally jumped the shark with Windows 8, and the unfolding Windows 8 disaster shows how totally out of touch Microsoft management is with reality. Steve Ballmer will be fired by the end of the year if the Microsoft board wants to have any chance of saving their company from totally clueless management.

    As for the rest, maybe the next time Microsoft comes out with a “game-changing” operating system, maybe they’ll take a cold hard look at reality themselves to make sure “game-changing” doesn’t actually mean “game-destroying”.

    Microsoft could sell 60 million licenses for an operating called “PoopOnaStick” because they are a monopoly and because their “partners” are forced to buy in bulk just in case they manage to sell any devices running “PoopOnaStock”. But said license sales bear no relation to actual number of devices sold, nor how many of said sold devices may have been “downgraded” to an earlier and better OS than “PoopOnaStick”. My guess, though, is that after the Windows 8 (aka PoopOnaStick) debacle has come to complete fruition in the next 6 months, vendors won’t be so eager to buy bulk licenses on Microsoft’s next wonder OS, “PoopOnaStick II”.

    And the Windows 8 disaster continues to unfold, just as predicted six months ago by tens of thousands of analysts and technical evaluators, all of whom were 100% ignored by supremely arrogant and completely tone-deaf Microsoft management. It’s going to be one of the worst years in a very long time for PC vendors and retailers, and it’s all because those fools stupidly drank the Windows 8 Kool-Aid without considering what was in the cup.

    Touch screen laptops were a miserable failure two years ago when they were promoted as the next “must have” gadget. Don’t know why Microsoft thought things would be different now. No one really needs touch on a PC, and all Windows 8 does is turn a vastly overpriced touch-screen-enabled PC into a cellphone look-alike anyway. Gosh, who wouda thunk consumers wouldn’t jump at a deal like that!

    And does Microsoft really expect 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers and knowledge workers to hold their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ vertical monitors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort?

    Microsoft totally jumped the shark with Windows 8, and the unfolding Windows 8 disaster shows how totally out of touch Microsoft management is with reality. Steve Ballmer will be fired by the end of the year if the Microsoft board wants to have any chance of saving their company from totally clueless management.

    As for the rest, maybe the next time Microsoft comes out with a “game-changing” operating system, maybe they’ll take a cold hard look at reality themselves to make sure “game-changing” doesn’t actually mean “game-ending”.

    And the Windows 8 disaster continues to unfold, just as predicted six months ago by tens of thousands of analysts and technical evaluators, all of whom were 100% ignored by supremely arrogant and completely tone-deaf Microsoft management. It’s going to be one of the worst years in a very long time for PC vendors and retailers, and it’s all because those fools stupidly drank the Windows 8 Kool-Aid without considering what was in the cup.

    Touch screen laptops were a miserable failure two years ago when they were promoted as the next “must have” gadget. Don’t know why Microsoft thought things would be different now. No one really needs touch on a PC, and all Windows 8 does is turn a vastly overpriced touch-screen-enabled PC into a cellphone look-alike anyway with an interface that looks like it was ripped off from 1996 AOL. Gosh, who wouda thunk consumers wouldn’t jump at a deal like that!

    And does Microsoft really expect 100 million CAD/CAM designers, accountants, and other industrial content makers and knowledge workers to hold their arms up all day inaccurately poking smudges on their 42″ vertical monitors with their fat fingers, working at 1/100th the speed as before Windows 8 with 1000 times the physical effort?

    Microsoft totally jumped the shark with Windows 8, and the unfolding Windows 8 disaster shows how totally out of touch Microsoft management is with reality. Steve Ballmer will be fired by the end of the year if the Microsoft board wants to have any chance of saving their company from totally clueless management.

    As for the rest, maybe the next time Microsoft comes out with a “game-changing” operating system, maybe they’ll take a cold hard look at reality themselves to make sure “game-changing” doesn’t actually mean “game-ending”.

    Wow, this guy is smart! He’s the only one doubling down on the failure of Windows 8, while the rest of the Kool-Aid drinking PC industry continues to mindlessly chug towards the Windows 8 iceburg as if their companies’ throttles are stuck on full steam ahead, or I suppose one could aptly say, stuck on stupid.

    Anybody with half a brain has known for well over six months that Windows 8 was going to be an epic failure, and yet almost the entire PC industry has pretended that everything was going to be OK, nay, even making enormous investments in something already doomed to total failure.

    And yet, here we have a lone CEO willing to take full advantage of what everybody in the world already knows but is fearful to admit or act upon, namely that Windows 8 has no clothes. Gabe Newell and his plans for the future are truely impressive!

    Gosh! For that kind of bucks, you could buy a REAL laptop, like a very loaded Dell E5530 i7 business-class Latitude running a REAL operating system like Window 7 Pro 64bit!

    It’s highly doubtly the 2Q MS report will shed light on anything. If anything, it willl simply add another layer off obfuscation. Windows 8, Windows RT, Metro UI, and the Surface tablets are all disasters of epic proportions and Microsoft will never admit that, even after its stock plunges like it did after the Vista fiasco and after the board is finally forced to eject Steve Ballmer.

    Well, we can add the removal of easy Safe Mode entry to the list of “improvements” to Windows 8. Other “improvements” are:

    1. Removal of the Start Menu.

    2. Forced entry into the execrable Metro UI each and every logon.

    3. Removal of native ability to play DVDs.

    4. Removal of ALL Aero and shadow effects so only a flat display is possible.

    5. Previous Versions feature.

    6. Backup and Restore feature.

    7. Windows Media Center.

    8. Windows update notifications on the desktop.

    9. Inability to enter Safe Mode directly.

    10. Failure to recognize mouses and keyboards as anything other than generic devices unless you download and install Microsoft Mouse and Keyboard Center.

    Gosh, I can’t wait to ditch my inferior Windows 7 PC and run out and pay big bucks to replace it with the “improved” Windows 8! How about you?

    Wow! Pretty amazing that the left hand of Microsoft is admitting that the right hand of Microsoft made an Operating System completely unsuitable for doing real work! Of course, anyone with half a brain has known that for months, but still, it’s amazing that the Office division of Microsoft refused to drink the Windows 8 Kool-Aid. I guess someone decided Microsoft needed to maintain at least one functioning division that could still make money. Too bad Microsoft’s “partners” didn’t know about this before they sunk billions into developing products for a doomed ecosystem.

    Who the hell wants to lean over their desk a thousand times a day to inaccurately poke dirty smudges all over their screen when they could just sit back and click, click, click their mouse a 100 times faster and with 1000 times less effort?

    Microsoft is already out of time “to get it right”
    Wow, a very thoughtful analysis! I’m going to assume your motivation was remorse for your earlier facile statement and not pressure via the howling mob of paid Microsoft MicroShills. The though and energy you put into your analysis would indicate remorse to me.

    But on to the more interesting topic embodied by these two statements of yours:

    “I guess now I can modify that to: “it is worthless, today”. An objective assessment of iOS and Windows RT demonstrates that Windows RT could get there. It’s just unfinished.”

    “The question remains is whether at the pace the post-PC market is developing, does Microsoft have time to make Windows RT great? Or will iPad, Android tablets, Kindle Fire and — dare I say it — the next generation PlayBook (if there is such a thing), render it worthless after all?”

    So, indeed, you’ve pretty much summed up why Windows RT is worthless today, but you’ve also asked the question as to whether Microsoft will have the time to make it “not-worthless”.

    I think the answer is pretty clearly a resounding “No!”; Microsoft does NOT have the time to fix the Windows 8 ecosystem disaster.

    First, Microsoft really screwed the pooch by releasing Windows RT, Windows 8, the Surface RT and the Surface Pro all at about the same time, and then 100% confusing almost all non-technical consumers about what was what and what was the same and what was the difference. As a consequence, weaknesses perceived in one are indubitably linked to all.

    Windows 8 is already (rightfully) the most hated operating system of all time. Windows RT is ,as you’ve accurately pointed out “useless for now”. And finally, you’ve got a half-baked version of Windows RT embodied by Metro UI in Windows 8. You’ve pretty much got a situation as if Ford and Coke had introduced the Edsel and New Coke together in a 1.5 billion dollar joint ad campaign. How do you suppose that would have worked out?

    And second, the world is moving at a MUCH faster pace than when Microsoft had it’s last major disaster, namely Vista, in which they had three years to “finally get it right” when they released Windows 7, which was basically just Vista that worked.

    Today, Microsoft doesn’t have three years to get it right, they have six months. But they don’t really even have six months because they botched things so badly to start with. Microsoft has already poisoned the well with their massive product-release and marketing incompetence, trying to stuff the hated Windows 8 down the throats of the masses and the enterprise when tens of thousands of advanced testers and analysts told them it would be a disaster, and producing over-priced, half-baked, me-too products like the Surface RT.

    In six months, the debate will be over. The evidence will be overwhelming by then that the Windows 8 ecosystem is the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft, and furthermore, their “partners” will also have lost billions as well by uncritically gulping gigantic cups of the Windows 8 ecosystem Kool-Aid.

    Indeed, the whole Windows 8/Windows RT/Metro UI ecosystem is dead.

    Tens of thousands of advance analysts and testers told Microsoft many months ago that Metro UI was a horrible interface, particularly on PCs, WHICH DO NOT NEED touchscreen interfaces in the first place. This latter fact was proved two years ago when vendors tried to convince consumers that the next “improved” laptop that they must buy had a touchscreen, and that whole push flew about as well as a lead balloon. And yet Microsoft obviously learned nothing from that fiasco.

    And then you have a few hundred million enterprise and government users performing tasks like CAD/CAM design, accounting spreadsheets and auto title registration on their PCs. Did Microsoft REALLY believe these millions were going to lean over their desks thousands of times a day to inaccurately poke smudges on their vertical “touch-screen” monitors instead of just click, click, clicking their mouses 100 times faster and with 1/1000 the effort as screen-poking? What on earth was Microsoft thinking?

    And to top this off, Microsoft really screwed the pooch by releasing Windows RT, Windows 8, Surface RT and Surface Pro all at about the same time, and then 100% confusing almost all non-technical consumers about what was what and what was the same and what was different among the bunch. As a consequence, weaknesses perceived in one of the bunch are indubitably linked to all of them in the minds of consumers since they were confused about what was what to start with. Thus if a consumer hates Windows 8 they’re not going to want to try a Windows RT device and vice versa.

    So, we have Windows 8 which is already (rightfully) the most hated operating system of all time, and Windows RT, which many are finding out is essentially useless, and you’ve got a half-baked version of Windows RT embodied by Metro UI in Windows 8. And then Microsoft spends 1.5 billion on a horribly confusing advertising campaign about all of this. You’ve pretty much got a situation as if Ford and Coke had introduced the Edsel and New Coke together in a 1.5 billion dollar joint ad campaign. How do you suppose that would have worked out?

    And even worse for Microsoft, the world is moving at a MUCH faster pace than when Microsoft had it’s last major disaster, namely Vista, in which they had three years to “finally get it right” when they released Windows 7, which was basically just Vista that worked.

    Today, Microsoft doesn’t have three years to get it right, they have six months. But they don’t really even have six months because they botched things so badly to start with. Microsoft has already poisoned the well with their massive product-release and marketing incompetence, trying to stuff the hated Windows 8 down the throats of the masses and the enterprise when tens of thousands of advanced testers and analysts told them it would be a disaster, and producing over-priced, half-baked, me-too products like the Surface RT. Not to mention the execrable Metro UI which was ripped off from the 1996 AOL interface, only WITHOUT being the least intuitive!

    In six months, the debate will be over. The evidence will be overwhelming by then that the Windows 8 ecosystem is the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft, and furthermore, their “partners” will also have lost billions as well by uncritically gulping gigantic cups of the Windows 8 ecosystem Kool-Aid.

    The paid MicroShill claim that people are “afraid” of change just because they don’t like something new because the new things sucks. There are tons of new things that are awful and not as good as the old things. Edsel, New Coke, Microsoft Bob, Vista, Olestra, Qwikster, Zune, The Newton Apple, Segway, and a few 100 other equally hated products. Are all the people who hated these things “afraid” of change. (BTW, notice that Microsoft dominates in terms of sheer numbers of product disasters?)

    Also, change simply for the sake of change is worse than useless; it’s a direct inhibitor of ease of use and productivity. Why doesn’t Honda replace the old-fashioned steering-wheel on all of their car models with a floor tiller that you bat back and forth with your feet, move the starter into the glove box, and put the brake pedal next to the radio? That would be a new, “modern” interface wouldn’t it, replacing that simply antique, fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned set of controls that have been around for a hundred years? Would you label anyone who didn’t like that “afraid” of change?

    Buy a Dell Latitude. They all have Windows 7 Pro installed by default. The enterprise and government are going to skip Windows 8 like they did Vista, and Dell knows that. Because Dell wants to stay in businss at least a few more months, they’re forced to sell products they know their customers will actually buy, at least their customers that is. Dell continues to screw their consumer customers like always by offering only Windows 8.

    And don’t forget the 4 hour battery life! So we have a PC-priced device with PC performance except for the storage capacity of a $15.00 thumb drive. Sounds like a sure winner to me

    CNNmoney: Windows sales rose 24% to $5.8 billion in the quarter that ended Dec. 31. Microsoft unveiled its years-in-the-making Windows overhaul on Oct. 26.

    But [windows 8] pales in comparison to prior launches of the operating system: Windows sales soared 76% during the quarter that Windows 7 launched, and rose by 65% when Windows Vista debuted.

    Every day now a new data point is coming out showing that the whole Windows 8/Windows RT/Metro UI ecosystem is DOA, just as predicted many months ago by tens of thousands of analysts and advance testers.

    Now we have additional proof that Windows 8 is doing only ONE FOURTH as well as Windows 7 during comparable first quarter release periods. In fact, based on revenue numbers published by CNNmoney a week ago, Windows 8 is doing only ONE THIRD as well as Vista did during its initial release quarter! Apparently most people actually learned something from the Vista fiasco: look to see exactly what’s in the Microsoft Kook-Aid cup before gulping any of it down.

    Analysts and testers told Microsoft many months ago that Metro UI was a horrible interface, particularly on PCs, WHICH DO NOT NEED touchscreen interfaces in the first place. This latter fact was demonstrated two years ago when vendors tried to convince consumers that the next “improved” laptop that they must buy had a touchscreen, and that whole push flew about as well as a lead balloon. And yet Microsoft obviously learned nothing from that fiasco.

    And then you have a few hundred million enterprise and government users performing tasks like CAD/CAM design, accounting spreadsheets and auto title registration on their PCs. Did Microsoft REALLY believe these millions were going to lean over their desks thousands of times a day to inaccurately poke smudges on their vertical “touch-screen” monitors instead of just click, click, clicking their mouses 100 times faster and with 1/1000 the effort as screen-poking? What on earth was Microsoft thinking?

    And to top this off, Microsoft really screwed the pooch by releasing Windows RT, Windows 8, Surface RT and Surface Pro all at about the same time, and then 100% confusing almost all non-technical consumers about what was what and what was the same and what was different among the bunch. As a consequence, weaknesses perceived in one of the bunch are indubitably linked to all of them in the minds of consumers since they were confused about what was what to start with. Thus if a consumer hates Windows 8 they’re not going to want to try a Windows RT device and vice versa.

    So, we have Windows 8 which is already (rightfully) the most hated operating system of all time, and Windows RT, which many are finding out is essentially useless, and you’ve got a half-baked version of Windows RT embodied by Metro UI in Windows 8. And then Microsoft spends 1.5 billion on a horribly confusing advertising campaign about all of this. You’ve pretty much got a situation as if Ford and Coke had introduced the Edsel and New Coke together in a 1.5 billion dollar joint ad campaign. How do you suppose that would have worked out?

    And even worse for Microsoft, the world is moving at a MUCH faster pace than when Microsoft had it’s last major disaster, namely Vista, in which they had three years to “finally get it right” when they released Windows 7, which was basically just Vista that worked.

    Today, Microsoft doesn’t have three years to get it right, they have six months. But they don’t really even have six months because they botched things so badly to start with. Microsoft has already poisoned the well with their massive product-release and marketing incompetence, trying to stuff the hated Windows 8 down the throats of the masses and the enterprise when tens of thousands of advanced testers and analysts told them it would be a disaster, and producing over-priced, half-baked, me-too products like the Surface RT. Not to mention the execrable Metro UI which was ripped off from the 1996 AOL interface, only WITHOUT being the least intuitive!

    In six months, the debate will be over. The evidence will be overwhelming by then that the Windows 8 ecosystem is the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft, and furthermore, their “partners” will also have lost billions as well by uncritically gulping gigantic cups of the Windows 8 ecosystem Kool-Aid.

    Though most consumers don’t know this, they can still buy Dell Latitudes and Optiplexes with Windows 7 Pro installed by default. The enterprise and government are going to skip Windows 8 like they did Vista, and Dell knows that. Because Dell wants to stay in business at least a few more months, they’re forced to sell products they know their customers will actually buy, at least their customers that is. Dell nearly went out of business unsuccessfully trying to push Vista on the enterprise a few years ago, and apparently learned a little something from that fiasco. However, Dell continues to screw their consumer customers like always by offering only Windows 8 on consumer models.

    “My 6 year old laptop was working fine with Windows 7, but I decided to upgrade to Windows 8.”

    Sure you did. Windows 8 drivers for six year old laptops were just lying around all over the web, just waiting for you to pluck them. This “I’ve upgraded my x year old laptop with 1 GB ram and 80 GB HD with Windows 8 and it runs 10 times faster than with XP” meme is being plastered all over the web by a legion of paid MicroShills who obviously are just cutting and pasting a bunch of talking points from some onlne master list.

    Oh, and I thought I’d save some time for the paid MicroShills who have inundated the web with a torrent of lies and insults in response to the tsunami of legitimate posts regarding how awful Windows 8 is.

    I’ll pre-post the most common of your taking-points right now so you don’t have to go to the trouble of cutting and pasting them from the MicroShill Talking-Points Web Site:

    1. Anyone who says they don’t like Windows 8 has never used it.

    2. Anyone who doesn’t like Windows 8 is stupid.

    3. Anyone who doesn’t like Windows 8 is “afraid” of change.

    4. I’ve upgraded my 8 year old laptop that has 1 GB ram and 80 GB HD with Windows 8 and it runs 10 times faster than with XP.

    5. I bought a Windows 8/Window RT device for each and every member of my family and they ALL simply LOVE it!

    6. Windows 8 is EXACTLY like Windows 7, only better!

    7. Metro UI is REALLY the same as the Start Menu.

    8. Poor acceptance of the Windows 8/Windows RT/Metro UI is all the fault of the “Apple Fanboi” and “Windows 8 hater” writers and blog posters. Their negative comments are what have caused the average non-technical consumer who never reads these web sites in the first place to stay away from Windows 8 in droves. If only the “press” had given Windows 8 a “fair” shake, it would have been a roaring success (even though the public doesn’t read the tecnical press in the first place).

    9. I’m a business consultant and ALL of my business clients have been clammering for Windows 8 and they ALL just love it when I install it and they now realize how much FUN computing can be!

    10. I’m in IT and NONE of our employees have trouble learning Windows 8, and they LOVE it!

    11. You must be old!

    12. My 75 year old mother and my 5 year old girl are running Windows 8 with no problems.

    13. You are obviously a troll!

    Wrong. The internal components may be similar, but Apple quality control and build quality are light years ahead of most junky PCs. There are in fact a few VERY good PCs quality-wise as well (e.g., Panasonic Toughbooks), but they cost about the same or more than an equivalent Mac. Basically, with electronic goods, you get what you pay for.

    Either you are stupid or a liar: there is no patch to bring back the Start Menu. Actually, I’m leaning towards “stupid” rather than “liar”, based on your remark that you “heard someone wrote a program”. Actually, there are MANY 3rd party programs to emulate the deliberately removed Start Menu, and one of the best, Classic Shell, is free.

    The best you can do is call everyone liars? You are the most PATHETIC paid MicroTroll I’ve ever seen! Tied for WORST place with Bob1god, unless you two idiots are the same “person”, and I use that term loosely in this case.

    You can buy all the Dell Latitude and Optiplex PCs you want with Windows 7 Pro preloaded. In fact, W7 is the default preload option on ALL Dell business class systems, the reason being that the enterprise is skipping Windows 8 just like they skipped Vista. Dell wants to stay in business a few weeks longer, so they’re forced to sell systems the their customers (at least their business customers) want to buy. Dell was almost destroyed by the Vista fiasco, and they didn’t want to repeat that disaster with Windows 8. (On the other hand, Dell continues to screw their consumer customers as ususal: they’re offering only Windows 8 on their consumer models.)

    I’ll pre-post the most common of your taking-points right now so you don’t have to go to the trouble of cutting and pasting them from the MicroShill Talking-Points Web Site:

    1. Anyone who says they don’t like Windows 8 has never used it.

    2. Anyone who doesn’t like Windows 8 is stup!d.

    3. Anyone who doesn’t like Windows 8 is “afraid” of change.

    4. I’ve upgraded my 8 year old laptop that has 1 GB ram and 80 GB HD with Windows 8 and it runs 10 times faster than with XP.

    5. I bought a Windows 8/Window RT device for each and every member of my family and they ALL simply LOVE it!

    6. Windows 8 is EXACTLY like Windows 7, only better!

    7. Metro UI is REALLY the same as the Start Menu.

    8. Poor acceptance of the Windows 8/Windows RT/Metro UI is all the fault of the “Apple Fanboi” and “Windows 8 ha8er” writers and blog posters. Their negative comments are what have caused the average non-technical consumer who never reads these web sites in the first place to stay away from Windows 8 in droves. If only the “press” had given Windows 8 a “fair” shake, it would have been a roaring success (even though the public doesn’t read the tecnical press in the first place).

    9. I’m a business consultant and ALL of my business clients have been clammering for Windows 8 and they ALL just love it when I install it and they now realize how much FUN computing can be!

    10. I’m in IT and NONE of our employees have trouble learning Windows 8, and they LOVE it!

    11. You must be old!

    12. My 75 year old mother and my 5 year old girl are running Windows 8 with no problems.

    13. You are obviously a tr011!

    I know that my own first thoughts when the spring blossoms and tender green leaves first burst forth is to rush out and buy a second generation of a disastrously failed technical product. You know, I’m just positive the new will be SO much better than the old crapolla one. Sort of like rushing out to buy New New Coke as soon as it comes out to fix New Coke.

    You forgot to mention the extremely high return rate of the Surface RT because of the non-intuitive interface and lack of useful apps.compared to iOS and Android.

    Both issues spell “doom” for the Surface RT, and in particular, developers aren’t going to develop for Windows RT if sales don’t warrant development and buyer aren’t going to buy Windows RT if there aren’t killer apps. In fact, given the integral part Metro UI plays with Windows 8, and which requires the very same non-available apps as Windows RT, most likely the entire Windows 8/Windows RT/Surface ecosystem is already deader than a door nail.

    Here’s the main problem with retailing the Surface Pro. When you walk up to it, it looks just like the Surface RT. If you’ve already tried the UI on Surface RT or Windows 8, and you hate either, then you’re not even going to walk up to a demo Surface Pro and start poking germy smudges on its screen. Or maybe you do, and then you find out the price is $1000.00. Or that it has 23GB available storage.

    I predict retail sales of the Surface Pro are going to be abysmal, even worse than Surface RT.

    Wow! So, apparently laptops aren’t dead, just Windows 8 laptops are dead!

    BTW, this article completely fails to mention that HP made a move into low-margin Chromebooks (as have several other PC vendors) because Windows 8 sales have been so dismal, turning a slide in PC sales into a rout.

    It’s too bad the PC vendors refuse to offer Windows 7 PCs to the consumer public like they still offer to the enterprise. The vendors would make more money and many consumers would be better served with Windows PCs than Chromebooks. I just don’t understand how the PC vendors can continue to destroy themselves by swilling the Windows 8 Kool-Aid. I can only assume that Microsoft won’t let them offer Windows 7 to consumers anymore. The PC vendors couldn’t be THAT stupid to continue to offer only Windows 8 to consumers otherwise. Could they?

    Wow! So, apparently laptops aren’t dead, just Windows 8 laptops are dead!

    HP has been forced to make a move into low-margin Chromebooks (as have several other PC vendors) because Windows 8 sales have been so dismal, turning a slide in PC sales into a rout.

    It’s too bad the PC vendors refuse to offer Windows 7 PCs to the consumer public like they still offer to the enterprise. The vendors would make more money and many consumers would be better served with Windows PCs than Chromebooks. I just don’t understand how the PC vendors can continue to destroy themselves by swilling the Windows 8 Kool=Aid. I can only assume that Microsoft won’t let them offer Windows 7 to consumers anymore. The PC vendors couldn’t be THAT stupid to continue to offer only Windows 8 to consumers otherwise. Could they?

    “and get some answers from the Windows brass in person. ”

    That’s a hilarious conclusion. I’ve never seen an article with more words and less new information than this one. Of course, it’s because it’s about an interview with the chief Microsoft flak for Windows 8/Windows RT who did nothing but spew obfuscating gobbledegook. But then again, her job is to spew obfuscating gobbledegook. You don’t really expect her to tell truth, namely that the Windows 8/Windows RT ecosystem is shaping up to be the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft, do you?
    [quote] I do technical support in small businesses and know my clients(users) strenghts and weaknesses. . Make computing fun again! and half the fight is won. [/quote]

    Really? You do tech support for small businesses and half the fight is to make computing “fun”. Too funny, paid MicroShill.

    I make my living doing exactly what you claim to do, and have for years. Not one single time have I had a business customer demand to have me make computing “more fun”. Not one single time. And none were “afraid” of change either. They all, however, detested pointless, useless, productivity-killing change simply for the sake of change.

    Tami, honey, just close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself, “the learning curve is not a problem, the learning curve is not a problem, the learning curve is not a problem
    “.

    “It’s just not interesting or widespread enough yet for many developers and companies to commit resources to it.” And without apps it will never be interesting or widespread enoght for many developers an companies to commit resources to it. And that’s the point of the article. Basically, Windows RT is DOA. The UI is one of the worst every made, the Surface devices are incredibly over-priced and under-specified, the public is incredibly confused over Windows 8, Windows RT, Surface, etc. because of a horrendously botched advertising campaign, vendors are backing out of making Windows RT devices right and left, and developers are waiting around on the sidelines to see if Windows RT is worth developing for. Pretty much a recipe for disaster.

    “Sorry, but this is Zune 5.0.”

    Indeed. And like the Zune, with MS support being completely withdrawn in a year for both the Surface RT and Surface Pro after it’s evident to Microsoft that they’ve scored a near goose egg against their established competitors with me-too products issued a day late and a dollar short, leaving, once again, a legion of formerly-loyal Microsoft customers angrily stranded on the plains of miserably failed Microsoft ambitions.

    Still, one of these days, Microsoft is going to run out of formerly-loyal customers to screw. Afterall, most people do wise up sooner or later, particulary where spending their money is concerned.

    “Doing things differently with Windows 8 is a massive change happening in the middle of an economic environment that none of us experienced before and in the middle of a technology [platform] change.”

    Epstein added that the new operating system was an “ambitious change and people have different levels of comfort with change, Windows 8 was never going to be explosive on its first weekend”

    Sounds like Microsoft is getting tuned up for the excuse symphony they’re gonna be needing soon regarding the miserable failure of the Windows 8/Windows RT/Surface ecosystem.

    Comcast doesn’t offer IMAP. Neither does RoadRunner. In fact, MOST big ISPs DO NOT support IMAP! And neither do Yahoo or MSN/hotmail, ironically enough when it comes to Windows RT or Metro UI.

    Basically, not supporting IMAP email is like selling a $40,000 automobile that has no reverse gear.

    Uh, what exactly is the compelling business case for adopting Windows 8?

    1. Does it save business money? No.

    2. Does it do anything better than Windows 7. No.

    3. Does it make employees more productive. No.

    4. Does it fix critical flaws in Windows 7. No.

    5. Does it have some killer app? No.

    Microsoft has no one but themselves to blame. Their biggest problem, the disastrous Metro UI, which is universally loathed by almost all but the legion of paid MicroTrolls inundating these blogs, could have been avoided if Microsoft had but listened to the tens of thousands of advance testers who universally told Microsoft that it sucked. This failure to listen to their customers and testers is an indication of the arrogance and total isolation senior Microsoft management has achieved from the world of reality.

    To top this disaster off, Microsoft management then launched a bizarre smorgasbord of confusedly half-baked software and hardware products into the marketplace in a confusing fashion with a very confusing marketing campaign. A fatal consequence of this confusion is that any weakness in one product is associated with all. Thus Metro UI indelibly tars the whole product line, while the horrific drawbacks of Windows RT, such as the impossibility of accessing email via POP3, become associated with Windows 8 in general and the Surface Pro in particular. After all, to the average confused retail consumer, they all seem like the same product, because after all they all have THE SAME UI. Thus, this unified UI, which Microsoft touted as one of the most important strengths of their new future, turns out to probably be their biggest weakness.

    Unfortunately, the Windows 8/Windows RT/Surface ecosystem is DOA, and Microsoft really has nobody but themselves to blame. Even worse, this is no garden variety Vista disaster for Microsoft: this is basically the whole ball of wax for Microsoft. Microsoft is unlikely to recover from this debacle in terms of remaining a real powerhouse player of the future in anything but the enterprise, even with a total change out of management, which obviously is desperately needed. With this final, ill-conceived roll of the dice, Microsoft has come up snake eyes, revealing its utterly hollowed-out management competence for the whole world to see.

    “On the very first day, virtually everyone launches an app from the Start screen, finds the desktop, and finds the charms.”

    You know, that’s pretty much like saying that after someone buys a new car, that almost everyone managed to get it started, find the brake and accelerator pedals, and figure out where the steering wheel is, though perhaps not necessarily how it works. Would Honda, for example, declare victory with results like that for such a new car model?

    Tami, honey, just close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself, “the learning curve is not a problem, the learning curve is not a problem, the learning curve is not a problem
    “.

    But, but, but I thought Forrester said that almost ALL office workers were demanding a Surface.

    “I was skeptical of the whole “tablet” trend from the start”

    I still am. I too think it’s just the next netbook fad, and when people realize that they’re basically just toys for the most part, the fascination will wear off. Tablets are unlikely to replace PCs, though it’s possible that they will be an adjunct in terms of utility. To me, it’s complete foolishness to pursue some mythical Holy Grail that there’s one single form factor that will do it all and will be the only information device anyone will ever need. Fundamentally, it’s pretty much like saying a house needs only a single appliance if only we could get the form factor right for a combo TV/hot water heater/refrigerator/stove/freezer/washing machine/dryer/furnace appliance. People do very many very different things with their computing devices, and each device needs vastly different physical and logical properties optimized for each class of usage such that the usage class can be performed quickly and with ease.

    Likewise, a universal interface is pie in the sky nonsense as well. Again, just think of the universal control interface for our combo TV/hot water heater/refrigerator/stove/freezer/washing machine/dryer/furnace appliance. How easy or intuitive would that be to use?

    I strongly suspect that the people coming up with ideas at Microsoft right now have never done much more with a digital device other than post a Tweet or make a telephone call and therefore that’s all they think everyone else in the world does, which is why we see this insanity called Windows 8/Metro UI which turns every PC in the world into nothing but a fancy cell phone.

    BTW, I chuckled to myself when a good friend came by and wanted to show off his new Samsung tablet. He whipped it out to do a google search and then immediately bogged down several minutes while he tried to poke at the virtual keyboard to type in a simple search. Personally, I thought that summed up the tablet experience perfectly. I can’t even imagine him attempting to use it to send out the lengthy email travelogues that he always sent from around the world via his laptop. Assuming he persists with his tablet, I imagine his multi-page musing will now be reduced to: “Having great time!”.

    Offering a tablet (basically whose sole function is to surf the web and read email) WITHOUT the ability to READ email is pretty much like making a sports car than can only run in first gear.

    It’s all pretty much unfolding just as I (and many other analysts) have been predicting for weeks. At this point in the game, Windows RT/Metro UI is in a death spiral. No apps, no sales, no sales, no apps. Besides, who in their right mind would invest financial resources into making quality apps for a device (any Windows RT device) where it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for hundreds of millions of users to read their POP3 email? And that on a device that is designed PRIMARILY for reading email and surfing the web!

    With the death of Windows RT goes the whole rational for the excrable Metro UI on Windows 8, and Windows 8 is already the most hated operating system ever because of Metro UI.

    Metro UI on Windows 8 (not skippable without 3rd party software) and a Desktop without the Start Menu is the most anti-productive OS interface ever made. And the enterprise knows this. Microsoft abandoned the one and only market segment they had a lock on in ephemeral pursuit of marketplaces they have no chance at all in competing with established players.

    Indeed, Windows 8 is a gigantic factor in reduced PC sales, and will continue to be unless Microsoft fixes the UI problem pronto. The UI is not the only horrible part of Windows 8 (e.g., it can’t play DVDs, etc.), but it is the horrible part that is killing Windows 8 and killing PC sales.

    Microsoft top management appears to be clueless, and the “idea” people who appear to be listened to strike me as 25 years olds who’ve pretty much just used IT devices to post tweets and such and therefore think that that’s all the rest of the world does.

    Metro UI on Windows 8 (not skippable without 3rd party software) and a Desktop without the Start Menu is the most anti-productive OS interface ever made. it was utter insanity on the part of Microsoft to attempt to foist a cell-phone interface on every PC in the world. And the enterprise knows this. Microsoft abandoned the one and only market segment they had a lock on in ephemeral pursuit of marketplaces they have no chance at all in competing with established players.

    Indeed, Windows 8 is a gigantic factor in reduced PC sales, and will continue to be unless Microsoft fixes the UI problem pronto. The UI is not the only horrible part of Windows 8 (e.g., it can’t play DVDs, etc.), but it is the horrible part that is killing Windows 8 and killing PC sales.

    Microsoft top management appears to be clueless, and the “idea” people who appear to be listened to strike me as 25 years olds who’ve pretty much just used IT devices to post tweets and such and therefore think that that’s all the rest of the world does.

    In six months it will be evident that Windows 8/Metro UI/Windows Rt/Surface is the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft. And even worse, it’s not just a garden variety disaster like Vista. This is the disaster which will indisputably mark the start of Microsoft’s downward spiral.

    “Seriously, it’s by summer (earliest) when Surface Pro will show how well it gets accepted by customers.”

    Insiders such as the CEOs of Microsoft and Best Buy will know within two weeks whether Surface Pro has a chance or not. Basically, with all the publicity about this thing, it’s either going to fly off the shelves are languish, collecting dust. Quite frankly, I think the latter will be the case.

    I just don’t envision a scenario where word of mouth slowly builds as friends and co-workers see Surface Pros in the hands of early adopters and then want to rush out and buy one. While there are significant drawbacks to the device, the real deal breaker is price. For the price of this roller skate you can buy a truck of a PC.

    Microsoft may have been better off to concentrate sales efforts of the Pro to the enterprise rather than the consumer, but all accounts say Microsoft has deliberately neglected their channel partners. For some reason, Microsoft has lately had a fetish for gaining market share for small consumer devices and has totally eschewed the one and only market they currently have a lock on, namely the enterprise. Why, I don’t know. I suppose they figure no matter how horrible their new products are with respect to corporate productivity, that the enterprise won’t leave Microsoft, and I suspect that this attitude is a consequence of the fact that Microsoft is now being driven internally by “hip” 20-somethings who’ve never used IT devices for much more than tweeting, texting, and telephoning and therefore think those are the only things anybody else do on a PC or PC-like device. Either that, or Microsoft is being run by a bunch of clueless old farts who’ve managed to convince themselves that they know what tweeting, texting, and telephoning are all about and their answer is Metro UI. Or perhaps a combination of the above two scenarios.

    At any rate, whatever the internal causes, in six months it will be evident that Windows 8/Metro UI/Windows Rt/Surface is the biggest disaster in the history of Microsoft. And even worse, it’s not just a garden variety disaster like Vista. This is the disaster which will indisputably mark the start of Microsoft’s permanent downward spiral.

    But you’re correct, while the CEOS will be in the know, the rest of us will be forced to read tea-leaves for a few months.

    Microsoft is now apparently following the philosophy of “Apple is as Apples does.”, i.e., Microsoft wants to be Apple instead of being Microsoft. This is evident in all that Microsoft is doing now, including brick and mortar stores, the execrable Metro UI cell-phone interface force-fed onto ALL IT devices, the failing Windows RT and the failing Microsoft Apps Store. The real problem of course is that Microsoft is executing their “We’re Apple Too!” strategy like Microsoft instead of like Apple.

    Microsoft would be better off to be Microsoft, and concentrate on the enterprise. To have abandoned their one and only strength and gone ineptly chasing after the tweet, text and telephone crowd, Microsoft may doom themselves. It’s true Microsoft’s growth would slow considerably to remain concentrated on actual PCs, but it’s really better to be a live dog than dead lion. The death of the PC is highly exaggerated, and it’s too bad Microsoft has bought into that nonsense lock, stock and barrel.

    “What were the inventories?”

    You need to update your article.

    Yeah, according to all of the reports on Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite, each Best Buy and Staples store was allocated 1-2 units per store! That’s at best 6,000 total units if true. If true, this is not mere incompetence, but an incredibly clumsy attempt to create the false illusion of a sell out.

    Hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! But such a claim is completely absurd of course. Yet THAT’S what’s going to be reported on the braindead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! That also means that both Best Buy and Staples were willing to participate in such a scam to the detriment of their customers’ needs.

    Microsoft must be frightened beyond imagine if they feel that they have to limit availability to a few thousand devices in order to assure the illusion of a grand slam home run sell out!

    Yeah, according to the reports on Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite (and others sites now), each Best Buy and Staples store was allocated 1-2 units per store! That’s at best 6,000 total units if true. If true, this is not mere incompetence, but an incredibly clumsy attempt to create the false illusion of a sell out.

    Hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! But such a claim is completely absurd of course. Yet THAT’S what’s going to be reported on the brain dead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! (NBC is already reporting a SELL OUT!) This also means that both Best Buy and Staples were willing to participate in such a scam to the detriment of their customers’ needs.

    Microsoft must be frightened beyond imagine if they feel that they have to limit availability to a few thousand devices in order to assure the illusion of a grand slam home run sell out!

    So, does ANYBODY in ANY part of the press ASK QUESTIONS anymore, or do all of you just edit press releases? For instance: “How MANY Surface Pros were available for sale at retail stores, Microsoft Stores and online today?” and “How MANY sold today?” How hard would that be to do?

    According to the reports on Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite (and others sites now), each Best Buy and Staples store was allocated 1-2 units per store! That’s at best 6,000 total units if true. If true, this is not mere incompetence, but an transparently cynical attempt to create the false illusion of a sell out.

    Hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! But such a claim is completely absurd of course. Yet THAT’S what’s going to be reported on the brain dead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! (NBC is already reporting a SELL OUT!) This also means that both Best Buy and Staples were willing to participate in such a scam to the detriment of their customers’ needs.

    Microsoft must be frightened beyond imagine if they feel that they have to limit availability to a few thousand devices in order to assure the illusion of a grand slam home run sell out!

    According to countless posts across the web, many Best Buy and Staples stores were allocated only about 1-2 units per store, and that is TOTAL allocations, not just demos. Many stores apparently received none. So, that’s at best 6,000 total units if true. If true, this is not mere incompetence, but a transparently cynical attempt to create an illusion of a sell out.

    Hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! Oh, and now it’s a CRISIS! GIVE ME A BREAK! WHAT A PATHETIC PUBLICITY STUNT!

    Such claims are patently absurd. Yet THAT’S what’s going to be reported on the brain dead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! (NBC is already reporting a SELL OUT!)

    (So, does ANYBODY in ANY part of the press ASK QUESTIONS anymore, or does everyone just edit press releases? For instance: “How MANY Surface Pros were available for sale at retail stores, Microsoft Stores and online today?” and “How MANY sold today?” How hard would that be to do?)

    Here’s the main problem with the supposed sell out. The “shortage” appears to be a deliberate, cynical attempt to create an illusion of a sell out. Reports say that many (most?) stores got one or two units and that many got NONE. This, on the BIG opening day of sales? I don’t think so.

    (I can just see the discussion at Microsoft World Heaquarters:

    “Gee, we just spent a billion dollars advertising this thing, how many should be ship to each store for the grand opening?”

    “Oh, I don’t know. One or two?”

    “Yeah, that sounds about right.”)

    So, hurray! The Surface Pro is an amazing success! It sold out within hours across the nation! Oh, and now it’s a CRISIS! GIVE ME A BREAK! WHAT A PATHETIC PUBLICITY STUNT!

    Such claims are patently absurd. Yet THAT’S what’s going to be reported on the brain dead alphabet network news and the bird-cage-liner press this evening! (NBC is already reporting: A SELL OUT!)

    (So, does ANYBODY in ANY part of the press ASK QUESTIONS anymore, or does everyone just edit press releases? For instance: “How MANY Surface Pros were available for sale at retail stores, Microsoft Stores and online today?” and “How MANY sold today?” How hard would that be to do?)

    BTW, anybody want to bet that suddenly a virutally unlimited number of Surface Pros will be available within a couple of days?

    Actually, I agree with you. I’m not a google/apple fanboi as so many think. I’ve exclusively used Microsoft products since Windows 95. I support Microsoft products for a living. l am, however, royally pissed off at the clueless management in charge of Microsoft right now because they are driving their products and the company into the ground with insane decisions producing horrific crap like Metro UI, Windows RT, Windows 8, and “The Ribbon”, things that most people hate and/or do not want. Microsoft has obviously abandoned the one market they have a lock on, namely the enterprise, in pursuit of the mass market for computing toys. Microsoft appears to be headed by a clueless bunch of old farts who pretend to be hip by listening to 25-somethings who have never done anything digital other than tweet, text, and talk, and therefore think that’s all anybody else does with an IT device.

    http://blog.surface.com/b/surface/archive/2013/02/09/surface-pro-available-now.aspx

    “C’mon, guys. Don’t you think the Softies would rather have the money?”

    That’s a good question. But the answer is unlikely to be “Yes”. For that to be true, some version of the following conversation had to have taken place:

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Gee, we just spent two billion dollars designing and manufacturing this thing and a billion dollars advertising it; how many should we ship to each store for the WORLD PREMIER GRAND OPENING?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 2: “Oh, I don’t know. One or two?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

    There’s really two choice as to why this product release disaster happened:

    1. Monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations.

    2. Stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    So the real question is: “Which of those two is the most likely”?

    Well,if they DID have a million, then for some reason they made only a few thousand available for retail sale on Saturday.

    Hundreds of posts across the web indicate that most retail stores received at most 1 or 2 Surface Pros to sell.

    Here’s what Surface Pro buyers had to say about availability at surface.com in response to Panos Panay’s public announcement about the grand unveiling:

    http://blog.surface.com/b/surface/archive/2013/02/09/surface-pro-available-now.aspx

    As you can see, there are A LOT of pissed of Surface Pro customers who believe the “sell out” was simply a stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    Of course the “sell out” is a total scam. Just look at the comments of those who attempted to buy this thing on Saturday:

    http://blog.surface.com/b/surface/archive/2013/02/09/surface-pro-available-now.aspx

    At best, only a couple of units were delivered to each store.

    The only other possibility besides the “sell out” being a scam is monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations. For the latter to be true, some version of the following conversation had to have taken place:

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Gee, we just spent two billion dollars designing and manufacturing this thing and a billion dollars advertising it; how many should we ship to each store for the WORLD PREMIER GRAND OPENING?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 2: “Oh, I don’t know. One or two?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

    Naturally Microsoft is staying mum about this disastrous product release, so we’ll have to decide ourselves. So, take your pick:

    1. Monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations.

    2. Stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    Surprise, surprise! as Gomer Pyle used to say.

    I wonder if it will be more than 1 per store this time? Somehow, just somehow, I think there will be plenty this time. After all, no need to create a phoney grand opening sell out now. Microsoft done been there and done that.

    Surprise, surprise! as Gomer Pyle used to say.

    I wonder if it will be more than 1 per store this time? Somehow, just somehow, I think there will be plenty this time. After all, no need to create a phoney grand opening sell out now. Microsoft done been there and done that already. Now I suppose they may actually try and sell some this time.

    “It’s the latest proof that Microsoft has got its numbers completely wrong”

    Or not. The “sell out” may simply be a scam. Just look at the comments of those who attempted to buy this thing on Saturday:

    http://blog.surface.com/b/surface/archive/2013/02/09/surface-pro-available-now.aspx

    At best, only a couple of units were delivered to each store, and as can be seen, there are A LOT of pissed of Surface Pro customers who believe the “sell out” was simply a stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    Of course, the other possibility besides the “sell out” being a scam is monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations. For the latter to be true, some version of the following conversation had to have taken place:

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Gee, we just spent two billion dollars designing and manufacturing this thing and a billion dollars advertising the grand opening; how many should we ship to each store for the WORLD PREMIER GRAND OPENING?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 2: “Oh, I don’t know. One or two?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

    Naturally Microsoft is staying mum about this disastrous product release, so we’ll have to decide ourselves. So, take your pick:

    1. Monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations.

    2. Stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    “Sell Out”: Stupid Microsoft Marketing Trick?

    “It’s the latest proof that Microsoft has got its numbers completely wrong”

    Or not. The “sell out” may simply be a scam. Just look at the comments of those who attempted to buy this thing on Saturday:

    http://blog.surface.com/b/surface/archive/2013/02/09/surface-pro-available-now.aspx

    At best, only a couple of units were delivered to each store, and as can be seen, there are A LOT of pissed of Surface Pro customers who believe the “sell out” was simply a stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    Of course, the other possibility besides the “sell out” being a scam is monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations. For the latter to be true, some version of the following conversation had to have taken place:

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Gee, we just spent two billion dollars designing and manufacturing this thing and a billion dollars advertising the grand opening; how many should we ship to each store for the WORLD PREMIER GRAND OPENING?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 2: “Oh, I don’t know. One or two?”

    Microsoft Exec No. 1: “Yeah, that sounds about right.”

    Naturally Microsoft is staying mum about this disastrous product release, so we’ll have to decide ourselves. So, take your pick:

    1. Monumental ineptness on a scale beyond comprehension by one of the world’s largest marketing corporations.

    2. Stupid Microsoft marketing trick.

    Two comments:

    1. Haswell will be no secret weapon available only to Microsoft; it will be available to all hardware builders. So if indeed there is a market for $1200.00, 10″-screen tablets, then Microsoft will still have to compete with a bevy of already-established hardware heavy-weights who will also have access to Haswell.

    2. With regards to:

    ” It will also render Surface RT pointless.”

    Surface RT will never be pointless as it’s primary purpose was to demonstrate the market for Windows RT and jump-start its joined-at-the-hip Windows Apps Store. If Surface RT fails, then Windows RT and the Windows Apps Store fails (and vice versa), and if either/both fail then the whole concept of Metro UI fails, and if Metro UI fails, then Windows 8 fails (or again vice versa). Still, while Surface RT may never be pointless, it may very well be a failure. And a failure in any one of the heavily-interdependent Windows 8/Windows RT/Metro UI/Surface RT ecosytem components means the death of the whole ecosystem. And the death of this ecosystem may very well mark the beginning of Microsoft’s permanent downhill slide, even with Ballmer being fired, because such a disaster is no garden-variety Vista disaster that can be easily recovered from.

    “It’s important to point out, though, that Microsoft’s leaders surely foresaw weak enterprise sales when they devised their Windows 8 strategy.”

    I think that is an entirely unfounded assumption and the probability of that being true is less than 50%. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine WHAT Microsoft was thinking when they decided that the cell-phone-like Metro UI with only a single possible full-screen window at a time for ALL applications would be the primary, non-skippable UI for ALL computing devices, including, for goodness sake, Server 2012!

    My guess is that the company is being run by old farts who pretend like they’re hip by letting run amuck a pack of 25-somethings who’ve never done anything in their lives except for text, tweet and talk, and they think that’s all anybody else does too. As to what Microsoft thinks about adoption of this garbage by the enterprise, it’s obvious they totally ignored the advice of the tens of thousands of advance testers and analysts, and my guess is they figure they have a monopoly in the enterprise and that the enterprise will be quite happy to gobble up whatever crap sandwich Microsoft decides to serve up.

    I think Microsoft is going to find out that’s not true anymore, which can already be seen in the abysmal slide in sales of PCs that has been accelerated by the Windows 8 disaster. Windows 8 has been such a disaster that the PC

    So, before he left us, can anyone imagine Steve Jobs having to defend the iPad as a real business? It is, it is! It REALLY is a REAL business! REALLY REAL! REALLY Anyone think Ballner doth protest too much?

    “The retailer said Friday it decided to launch the promotion after recent surveys the company conducted showed the consumers who bought touchscreen Windows 8 devices were significantl

    Link to this
  50. 50. Asok Asok 10:31 pm 01/12/2014

    At one time, nearly of scientists believed:

    1. The Earth is flat.

    2. The Sun and Moon rotate around the Earth.

    3. Fire is caused by too much or not enough Phlogiston.

    4. Cells sre filled with a jelly-like substance called protoplasm.

    5. The continents don’t move.

    6. The atom is indivisible and indistructible.

    7. The contents of the atom is like a plum pudding.

    8. The montions of solar system bodies are governed by a Ptolemaic system of epicycles.

    9. Dinasours are cold-blooded animals.

    So, what is exactly the relevant point of this article in So-Called Scientific American?

    Link to this
  51. 51. sedna2 10:33 pm 01/12/2014

    It’s the Sun, stupid! Human activities and cow flatulence are but a small part of the Earth’s climate change as compared to the Sun’s influence on our weather. Other (uninhabited) planets are heating up, too.

    Dr. Dmitriev had it right with extreme weather in 1997:

    http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html

    If you believe Al Gore and his starry-eyed followers, please pay my share of the proposed carbon-tax and increased utility bills!

    Link to this
  52. 52. pacific!waters 10:46 pm 01/12/2014

    Powell’s “peer reviewed study” was nothing more than a web review that left out studies he didn’t want to acknowledge. It fails as science. The AGW theory specifically said more CO2 means more warming, and gave specific temperature predictions. Not one of the computer models predicted the temperature series of the past 17 years.

    Science requires observation, hypothesis, testing and, THEN, theory. Make predictions, run tests, and look at the evidence. If the evidence disagrees with the predictions, then theory is wrong.

    The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science M.L. KHANDEKAR,1 T.S. MURTY,2 and P. CHITTIBABU3
    “During the long geological history of the earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth has been warming and cooling at highly irregular intervals and the amplitudes of temperature change were also irregular. The warming of about 0.3 °C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”
    to

    Link to this
  53. 53. pacific!waters 10:55 pm 01/12/2014

    Casting the “denier” appellation to those who disagree is no better than the church calling those that disagree heretics and it serves the same purpose, to silence opposition. The fact is that Mann’s hockey stick was a fabrication. The fact is that global warming is part of the climate cycle. The fact is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a necessary nutrient for plants to thrive. The fact is that there are science is not about consensus. It is questioning consensus. The arrogance of you climate change zealots is astounding. “THE” science is NEVER in. Consensus changes over time. In my early years studying statistics (1971-1978) it was scientific consensus that global cooling was anthropogenic. Now the religious babble, pardon me, scientific consensus is purported to be one of AGW. Make up your mind.

    Link to this
  54. 54. MARCHER 10:59 pm 01/12/2014

    @52,

    The fact is that none of the opinions you just stated are facts. Simply saying the word fact after each of your beliefs does not make it a fact.

    Additionally, most of the beliefs you misrepresented as facts have been thoroughly debunked many times over.

    As for the global cooling consensus myth, see below:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be

    Link to this
  55. 55. sedna2 10:59 pm 01/12/2014

    The “unscientific” American sees the so-called Arctic Vortex coming down from the North Pole, and at the same time icebreakers frozen in place during the Antarctic Summer in the South Pole.

    Just where is this GW when you need it??

    ‘Nuff said…

    Link to this
  56. 56. dunce 11:11 pm 01/12/2014

    What kind of “scientists” were these, political, social, or what?

    Link to this
  57. 57. Carlyle 12:18 am 01/13/2014

    Doesn’t it just say it all? 8 Peer Reviewed studies cleared those scientists of any wrongdoing in relation to Climategate when we can freely read those emails ourselves, (which have not been denied by the way) & clearly see they were lying, yet we are asked to believe in the Peer Review system. What a joke.

    Link to this
  58. 58. Carlyle 12:23 am 01/13/2014

    This article has certainly sucked in the credulous. Perhaps it was a setup? Sadly I think not. Just more snake oil for rent seekers.

    Link to this
  59. 59. jackdale 12:27 am 01/13/2014

    @ 52

    The scientific consensus in the 1970′s was warming.

    A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

    Link to this
  60. 60. jackdale 12:34 am 01/13/2014

    @50

    NASA says you are wrong, The Stanford Solar Center says you are wrong. CERN says you are wrong.

    “The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

    Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

    But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. ”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.UtN64Z47um5

    Link to this
  61. 61. ryanmn 1:36 am 01/13/2014

    Nothing about the question of AGW posed in the poll necessitates solutions.

    Guess it’s still up for debate.

    Link to this
  62. 62. AnastasiaBastet 2:06 am 01/13/2014

    To commentator #1, Uncle Al -

    Forgive the off-topic nature of this comment but are you the same Uncle Al that I “knew” from the Mensa newsgroup R.O.M. years ago?

    To everyone else, sorry for butting-in on your discussion. Today I randomly decided to start regularly reading the Scientific American science news site and this is the first article and/or blog posting I’ve come to after clicking several links. Obviously I’m curious about global warming or I wouldn’t have landed here. I’m also exceedingly curious about randomness, patterns and even “non-scientific” synchronicity.

    Link to this
  63. 63. jctyler 2:53 am 01/13/2014

    Carlyle,

    You are in no position to call anyone a liar. You are constantly denying AGW, you comment on anything from the present US cold wave to polar shelves with disregard for all facts as proof of global cooling. At the same time your own place is suffering from an unexpected and heavy heatwave, Perth is burning, but that, you don’t mention ever. That is lying in the form of cheating. So

    Do not call anyone a liar simply because you don’t understand their line of argument, you cheat!

    Link to this
  64. 64. Dr. Strangelove 3:40 am 01/13/2014

    Ash,
    About that consensus strawman, even Roy Spencer believes anthropogenic CO2 has some effect on global temperature. Your strawman consensus includes the skeptics. How much warming is due to man? 10, 50 or 90%? How much will temperature increase when CO2 is doubled? 1, 2 or 3C? Is it catastrophic? Can we control the climate? Tell us what’s the consensus on these issues. We need to move from propaganda to science.

    Link to this
  65. 65. jwmedina 5:16 am 01/13/2014

    Does this imply a consensus among scientists or a consensus among editors? This evidence would be stronger if we knew how many dissenting articles were submitted but rejected?

    Link to this
  66. 66. Carlyle 7:49 am 01/13/2014

    63. jctyler
    So what is unexpected about extreme heat in summer or drought in Australia. You are so knowledgeable about Australia, tell us about The Great Federation Drought of late 1800s early 1900s. The temperature records have been wiped from the official records. No temperature records prior to 1910 are used by the official Australian weather site. Last week they claimed that the record had been broken in Darwin. Check for yourself all records prior to 1941 are missing. these records still exist in old newspapers & history books but unless you are an old bloke like me you wouldn’t realise what the lying frauds have done. the email scandal writ large. The hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia was recorded in Cloncurry in the 1800s. 53.1C. That is 127.58F. In the old history books, gone from the records.
    Or you might explain why this was written in the 1800s:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ntiVQnuV I hope that helps to remove the smug know it all attitude you hold.

    Link to this
  67. 67. funkdm1 7:53 am 01/13/2014

    This article demonstrates the effectiveness of the campaign of the climate mongers to quash other viewpoints in published papers.
    One one out of thousands of scientists wanted to publish a ‘denier’ paper? Are you serious? Do you really expect anyone other than the Al Gore fan club to believe this. Have you read any of the ClimateGate emails. The whole thing is dirty. Scientific American is now Popular Science (is that name already taken? Sorry.)

    Link to this
  68. 68. Sisko 8:52 am 01/13/2014

    Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar tries to “spin” the climate change issue/debate.

    It is not an issue of the basic physics of AGW. I agree that if other conditions remain unchanged more atmospheric CO2 will lead to slightly higher temperatures. Pointing that out as he does is meaningless to the debate about what actions should be taken today and in the future.

    The issue(s) are
    1. how much it will actually warm how fast in the actual climate system where conditions other than CO2 are changing.
    2. what other conditions (such as annual rainfall) will change where and how quickly as a result of #1. Some places will benefit and some will be harmed and the impacts will not necessarily be the same over the same timescales.

    Global warming alarmists who BELIEVE they know the answers to points #1 and #2 think it is appropriate behavior to tell others how they must act and to disparage others who disagree with their BELIEF system. As one alarmist wrote in a comment here” In order to prove your case, you have to supply EVIDENCE.”

    What is the evidence that we know the answers to points #1 & #2 with even reasonable fidelity? The range of estimates vary greatly and do not mean that conditions will necessarily be worse for US citizens overall or for the world.

    Link to this
  69. 69. Shoshin 12:44 pm 01/13/2014

    All this article demonstrates is that by asking an invalid question you can get whatever answer you want.

    Case in Point? I’d be counted in the consensus on this one.

    If that doesn’t demonstrate how invalid the question is, I don’t know what would.

    Link to this
  70. 70. monkeylogic42 1:15 pm 01/13/2014

    I used to read Scientific American when i was younger up until the global warming scare mongering started. Most of the posters on here seem to think 9000 AUTHORS means something. Who were these authors, what are their qualifications, and why do people still listen to them after EVERY prediction model is wrong? Some ill-informed poster above me claimed 95% of earths ice is melting… hah, mustve been the same quy that counted authors who BELIEVE global warming is real. As to that 95% number, polar ice is 50% larger than the past year winter. Now, where was the due diligence to make sure youre not putting your foot in your mouth on that one? I’d say there are more pressing matters to worry about, such as antibiotic resistant bacteria cropping up all over due to over prescription. Imagine if everyone demanded change that would actually make their lives better? Im not advocating a coal plant on every street corner, they can be dirty, im just saying most of you are wasting your time and brain power worrying about something that isnt even a certainty outside of the MSM that claims its no longer open for debate. Whether you close your eyes to it or not, more people with ulterior agenda seem to be on the side of climate cultists, which is more than enough for me to BELIEVE we are being fleeced and wagged.

    Link to this
  71. 71. monkeylogic42 1:17 pm 01/13/2014

    oh yeah, the fact that the climate has been its most stable in its history should point to the fact that we are in for a ride based on natural cycles. Im gonna go burn something to keep warm.

    Link to this
  72. 72. Noone 2:29 pm 01/13/2014

    .

    “I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by DR. Josef Goebbels in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications by German PhDs, he counts the number of authors from November, 1935 to December, 1936 who explicitly deny Aryan supremacy – that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for the rebirth and rise of the Deutsches Reich. The number is exactly one.”

    .

    Link to this
  73. 73. curiouswavefunction 4:09 pm 01/13/2014

    I am going to let that comment stay, just to illustrate the hilarious lunacy of the commenter.

    Link to this
  74. 74. sault 4:38 pm 01/13/2014

    LOL, Noone is single-handedly responsible for Godwin’s Law!!!

    Link to this
  75. 75. TerryC123 5:30 pm 01/13/2014

    Did any of you actually LOOK at the list of 2259 articles before you started arguing with each other? if you did, and looked at just the titles of the articles, you would have seen what a straw man this article and useless pie graph are. Here are the titles of a few of the articles:

    A knowledge-aid approach for designing high-performance buildings

    Aflatoxins in home produced cereals?

    College students’ understanding of atmospheric ozone formation

    Energy efficient residential house wall system

    Green Mobile Networking and Communications

    Lubricity of environmentally friendly HFO-1234yf refrigerant

    Qatar water challenges

    Simulation of hydrological processes in the Zhalong wetland within a river basin, Northeast China

    I took these at random from the alphabetical list. If you think I cherry-picked them, go look at the list for yourself. Unfortunately, a hack-job article and pie diagram like this will be picked up by the media, and they will run with it hook, line, and sinker.

    Very few of the 2259 articles actually deal with anthropogenic global warming, and many are about computer models and simulations. Very few are actually from climate scientists who collected raw data from around the world and/or physical observations and measurements. These are the only articles that should be on the list. Then, if there were about 20 or so of them, one could actually read them critically. But, since so many of them are phony in the sense that they do not matter to the point at hand, there is no way you can take this author seriously. He should be ashamed to call himself a chemist. If he has a PhD, I’m sure he won’t be showing this hack job off to his dissertation committee. They would throw out his research in a second.

    Unfortunately, too much of the discussion of warming is political (read that money involved, and industry/taxes/country output at stake). The science has been completely lost in all the shouting.

    Link to this
  76. 76. Noone 6:07 pm 01/13/2014

    .

    Sault then must be double-handedly responsible for the mutually assured group cluster self-pleasuring of the affirming community.

    .

    Link to this
  77. 77. Carlyle 9:05 pm 01/13/2014

    No doubt this report will be peer reviewed & published with relish by sault’s favourite reference site, SKS.

    Link to this
  78. 78. MARCHER 9:57 pm 01/13/2014

    @77,

    No doubt this report will be vigorously denied by Carlyle’s favorite hack blogger and fossil fuel shill Watthisname.

    Link to this
  79. 79. schatzieD 12:50 pm 01/14/2014

    @9 Carlyle – not if you were the last smudge of pond scum on earth.

    Whether the deniers who badger the scientists are being paid to do so, or they’re just idiots, these tactics were perfected by big tobacco to block government action based on the (already well-known to the tobacco lobby) dangers of smoking. A tobacco executive put it best, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

    So, in summation to those of you either being paid to throw those red herrings around or to those of you with your heads up your arses, (with the exception of Asok Asok @49 who seems to be lost), MOVE ON to another issue, but pick one that science doesn’t even care to do research on, like feng shui or intelligent design.

    Link to this
  80. 80. Noone 3:40 pm 01/14/2014

    .

    God does intelligent design, not butt-warmers.

    .

    Link to this
  81. 81. Crasher 4:29 pm 01/14/2014

    Ash, I couldn’t agree more with your conclusion. The Science is in and it is time to move on with finding a viable, economically feasible solution to the impending disaster that is happening. To stick ones head in the sand and pretend that it isn’t happening will only waste time and make the solution much nastier.
    It is a total waste of time to argue about an issue as proven as this. If we humans survive long enough to write a history of this period I am sure that our future selves will wonder why we failed to act for so long to the bleeding obvious????? Power, greed blind stupidity.

    Link to this
  82. 82. schatzieD 5:56 pm 01/14/2014

    @80 aka No One – there is no a) god and b) intelligent design, c) easter bunny, d) tooth fairy, e) no internet job that pays $200/hour that you can do from home, etc.

    @ Crasher, I totally agree with you and it would be a waste of time to argue with these morons about whether there is or is not such a thing as AGW except that they should not be the only “voice” in the wind. They aren’t trying to actually understand the subject matter any more than they do, or, for the most part, add anything towards a possible solution. They are just being disruptive. The problem is that if they are left to blabber on in a vacuum, well, you’d hate to have anyone think they were even in the country-code of reality.

    It’s kind of like Bill Nye (the Science Guy) who is going to debate intelligent design at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He will not change any of their crazy notions. And they just want him there for their own attempt at legitimacy. The deniers in these comment sections want to think that they’re somehow “scientific.” They should not get to sit at the grown-up table UNTIL they have earned that right by being a part of the solution instead of trying to muddy the waters.

    Link to this
  83. 83. PTripp 9:37 pm 01/14/2014

    Virtually all of you missed the main problems with this story. Besides the obvious question of which papers were selected – there had to be more than 2000 papers written.

    My problem is the constraint put on the ‘denier’ side. It had to offer a cause other than AGW as driving global warming. So all the papers counted are ‘pro’ global warming.

    That said, I don’t know of anyone on any side that says man has zero effect on climate. The real question is how much? It seems the scientists not connected to the IPCC tend to think less of man as the driver of change, and natural cycles as the true drivers. The IPCC’s charter explains that. Their mission is to prove man as the major cause.

    If that were the case, don’t you think their models would bear that out? Instead they have to fudge the formulas and even the data (ClimateGates I & II) yet the next year they’re no better.

    I have yet to hear any AGW cheerleader explain the Medieval Warm Period, or the Little Ice Age we’re still recovering from according to many. Why not claim that man ended the last ice age when we started using fire?

    The real deniers are the people who think that the Earths climate would be static without man’s influence. Facts say that it’s negligible, but not zero.

    Link to this
  84. 84. FrankTrades 4:58 am 01/15/2014

    I don’t know how many places I have to post this to get a valid scientific response:

    This natural scientist remains completely unconvinced of significant man-made influence on climate change. The climate is warming for sure, but that has been the case for 12,000 years since the last of 4 glacial periods, over the past 3 to 4 million years, has ended. As a result sea level has risen and continues to rise. The last 3 times this happened, the earth somehow snapped back to cooling — to cooling that resulted in an ANOTHER ICE AGE! Since this has happened NATURALLY, there is no reason to believe that it won’t happen again.

    Furthermore, I do not see the influence of man’s activity in the data for sea level increase. That would be the place to look because air temperature data is 1) unreliable and 2) extremely volatile. Indeed my experience with earth temperature data is that it is prone to extremes. So let’s look at some unbiased data for seal level rise:

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    Sure, we see sea level rising, but (and what comes after the BUT is always the most important information) since the mid-1800s, on a linear plot, would you not expect to see some “upward bend in the line” (an increase in the rate of rise) due to the obviously increasing activity of man, commensurate with population growth? Where is it? It isn’t there! My conclusion is that there are buffers in the system that control CO2 concentrations relative to temperature influence. And that there are other factors involved besides CO2. The trend you see for sea level rise can be nothing but natural. Man has little, if any, influence on climate change and throwing trillions of dollars into programs to stop the earth from turning will have the same result. Nothing.

    Link to this
  85. 85. chrisgoodwin 10:10 am 01/16/2014

    My ha’porth. I never “believed” agw, (it is a faith, a religion, not “science”) because it started out with its conclusion, and then set out to establish some (any!) evidence. Cart/horse. I got even less enamoured by the argument – (propaganda ?) – that you have to agree because so many other have jumped on the band waggon. This is how to sell snake oil, but not science: unanimity precedes revolution. The climategate e-mails revealed how few in numbers were the “vast” majority, and the dishonesty of the review peerage. This is faith, this is politix, this is ordure from a penis endowed bovine.

    I am still waiting for any coal/oil/carbon based fuel company to pay up: all contributions gratefully accepted.
    Alas, I doubt I will “earn” a tithe of the money that corrupt politicians will steal from bemused tax payers and pay in “research grants” to the “greeny/greedy” hacks who peddle agw.

    I am an old man. I will go to the end of my garden, and piss in the sea (when it gets a little warmer, otherwise my willie will freeze.) Every little helps.

    Link to this
  86. 86. stevensod 1:45 pm 01/16/2014

    For anyone who has the alternative to the rise in temperatures being linked to CO2, please state what those alternatives are, with evidence. The Sun isn’t brighter now than it was 100 years ago; there are no more sunspots now (or in 1998) than there were 100 years ago and there is no evidence to support a change in the Earth’s orbit. So, what drives this almost mystical “natural cycle” that climate sceptics keep referring to? I am yet to see what drives this “natural cycle”. I’d really believe in the alternative if there was any credible scientific basis for the rise in temperatures over the last 200 years. And as one commentator says the pause in global temperature rise can be accommodated by two factors: one is incomplete temperature sampling and the other is the disproportionate effect on average temperature rises by the Pacific. The latter, dominated by La Ninas, in recent years has had a disproportionately negative effect on global climate. Now, of course, if the Sun was the key driver of climate change in the last 1-200 years would not the temperature be falling now that sun spot numbers are low? They aren’t falling but broadly steady (although I “believe” (and I may be wrong) that 2013 was one of the warmest years in recent decades. Now, if the Sun drives these natural cycles then I’d expect lowering temperatures. This isn’t seen. Moreover, of course as September 12th 2001 saw (in the US), other man-made factors counter rising temps: air-plane contrails reflect light and hence heat – and there are an awful lot more of those now than there were even 20 years ago. Additional aerosols from industrialisation in China, Indonesia and Russia (amongst others) also block light and have a negative effect on temperatures. Let’s see what happens to global temps if you turn off the engines of industry for a week and stop plane flights. That might be illuminating.

    Oh, and having looked at the first of those “incredulous” peer-review articles on mystical healing referred to by “Carlyle” it’s clear why it was accepted for publication. It looked at evidence, found no link after statistical analysis, made clearly evidenced conclusions from the data and thus met the criteria for a publishable peer-review piece. No, I don’t believe in homoeopathy; faith healing or anything like that for precisely the reasons laid out in the article. That said, I do love a good Ancient Aliens show – particularly for the outrageous haircuts of the presenters…

    Link to this
  87. 87. rshoff2 4:27 pm 01/16/2014

    It’s obvious that ignorance prevails. Very few rational minds would deny what is before us. But the real crux is how to get people to agree what to do, if anything, about it. That moves from the specialty of science to the manipulations of politics. After all, many humans may want to stay comfortable and accept that the climate is changing regardless of the consequences. Are you and I shutting off our power? Disconnecting from the grid? Turning our backs on stoves, ovens, and microwaves? Hot water? Tossing out TVs, Computers, and lightbulbs? Are we willing to forage for food from our gardens? Are we eschewing all use of any product that has plastic or chemicals created any pollution in its production? There are 7 billion of us alive. Without the forces of global warming at work (energy production and use of chemicals) billions of people would die, today, not millions of people a few hundreds from now.

    Separate from the current global warming trend as a result of human activity, the environment changes. That is what it does. It is not a static phenomenon. So it could be said that the environment is changing in ways we do not like. But change is what the universe is all about.

    So, yes, global warming is happening. Yes, I’m against it. But what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Not much. Move onto fresh water and chemical pollution next. Then of course there will be radioactive pollution. etc, etc, etc.

    We are over populated.

    Link to this
  88. 88. rshoff2 7:23 pm 01/16/2014

    …a few hundred ‘years’ from now….

    Link to this
  89. 89. stevensod 2:13 am 01/17/2014

    I was interested in what the alternatives to anthropogenic global warming were, which was the crux of the discussion (bar the Windows 8 detraction). Obviously, you can’t turn the clock back and I have a car etc. However, on the subject of what you can do, which will benefit you, is save energy and hence save cash. I saved a large proportion from my energy bills simply by switching to low energy light bulbs. Our city council has begun doing the same with street lamps. I’m happy to eat packaged food, I approve of chemical pesticides 9within reason) for cheap and plentiful food (7+ billion mouths to feed and growing), etc, etc. That wasn’t the point. The point I made was a scientific one to address some of the diatribe about “naughty scientists fixing data” (wrong) and the “perils of peer-review” (downright silly) which was “the stream of conciousness” from some commentators above. Once again, all I want to see is whether the alternative ideas can be “validated”.

    Link to this
  90. 90. tonynemo 2:44 pm 01/17/2014

    No nation is going to dump the trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuel infrastructure in time to avert the rising sea levels in store. The only policy I can see with a chance of mitigating these effects is radical conservation which, if fully implemented, could reduce energy demand by one third.

    Link to this
  91. 91. jstahle 4:52 pm 01/17/2014

    Great idea!

    Let’s vote on global warming.

    Do you believe the Earth is gettin warmer and warmer?

    Y __ N __

    Link to this
  92. 92. stevensod 8:45 am 01/18/2014

    Yes. And if you look at the “slowdown” its clear from data that the “missing heat” is in the oceans. Ocean water temperature has been rising ant depth and that accounts for one third of the sea level rise (which is more than predicted, by old models). What the neo conservatives forget is that it was Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher than originally broadcast the issue of global warming. They did this because they believed in data and planning ahead. You don;t have to dump fossil fuel burning, but you do have to do more to save money (and energy). As a parent and home-owner that’s always a good idea. I really don’t like the fact we spend billions throwing light into space, for example.

    Link to this
  93. 93. CaliforniaJoe 9:22 pm 01/18/2014

    In other publications it has been reported that fully 94% of American scientists and engineers identify their political party as either Democrat or Independent, and only 6% identify themselves as Republican.

    I think I see a trend here. The smarter one is, the less likely that one will agree with the Republican Party platform.

    Link to this
  94. 94. TBT999 11:46 am 03/13/2014

    Has any of this august group ever read “Heaven and Earth”
    by Prof. Ian Plimer-500 pages with over 2000 footnotes referencing supporting studies. If you haven’t read it, you should.
    Senator Levin’s energy staffer last year said CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 40%.
    The NRDC climate scientist was honest and admitted that she did not know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after giving me a 10 minute dissertation on the evils of CO2.
    30 Senate Democrats held an all night talkathon on GW while the Great Lakes are 91% frozen over (not seen since 1976-cyclical?)highlighted by NJ Senator Booker stating that he once drove to Hawaii (in an electric car I’m sure!)
    Why do AGW supporters always advertise the millions of tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere without breaking out the weight of O2?
    What are the plans/solutions for leveling out AGW? ( I do not believe that cap and trade will work as evidenced by EU/Canada failures with Kyoto goals). What are the achievable goals in a real world economy that will actually work? What monitoring systems are used for sea level rising and global temperature increases for those claiming a consistent increase in sea level and global temperatures and those saying that there hasn’t been an increase in global temperature in 15-17 years.
    Why does the UNIPCC models only consider 5 terrestrial volcanoes while ignoring the 20 or so sub ocean volcanoes?
    Are all the terrestrial temperature monitoring stations for temperature and sea level used in the IPCC models per specification an in stable locations?
    What are the error +/- rates for data inputs to IPCC models and are these rates significant?
    Why did the Micheal Mann temperature graph leave out the “little ice age” and the mid evil warming?

    Enough food for thought for now.
    Please respond with constructive comments rather then snark.

    Link to this
  95. 95. NorthernSentinel 8:28 pm 03/20/2014

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,029 with PhDs

    Link to this
  96. 96. Jfreed27 8:41 am 03/27/2014

    Of course, the denial industry will send its army of flying monkeys and its legions of suicidal morons to waste our precious time . Each second, the extra energy equal to 4 Hiroshima atom bombs accumulate in our air, land and seas. We have years, not decades before it becomes irreversible.

    A powerful solution (or is it already too late?) is to put a national price on carbon, refund all fees to citizens. BC, Canada has lowered both emissions and personal income taxes in this way.

    The fossil tools in Congress will scream “socialism!! taxes!!) but we know why, don’t we?

    Link to this
  97. 97. heathergirl 9:45 pm 03/28/2014

    Why attack fossil fuels? The UN itself identifies raising animals for food as the most significant cause of human caused greenhouse gases….. so why aren’t we all being told to become vegans?

    Why is everyone focusing on fossil fuels when it is not the primary problem?

    Maybe because its easy to attack big oil, but you don’t win over voters by telling them they have to become vegans?

    Link to this
  98. 98. VeritasVosLiberabit 11:17 am 05/8/2014

    Wow… you’re way off.

    * 1350+ Peer-reviewed papers Support Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm. — http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    * Even 97% In Agreement? Not. A study by Cook in 2013 claimed that 97% of scientists concur regarding AGW. Actually there are .54% in agreement. As to the Cook study, under careful analysis we learn: “The recent Cook et al (2013) began with the broadest possible ‘consensus’ definition – rendering the idea of ‘consensus’ meaningless. Only 0.54% (or 64 scientists) explicitly agreed. Though Cook’s graphics on The Consensus Project website focus on fossil fuels, his study used the 1996 Houghton declaration which includes other human factors like agriculture and land-use change. Scientific evidence at the joint NOAA/NASA press conference Jan. 21, 2014 shows no global warming in 16+ years despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2); as climate models continue to fail, the Dutch government calls for the IPCC reform to include natural factors, not limited to human-induced climate change.” — http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11550514.htm

    * Over 100 international scientists wrote the following in a group letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on Dec. 13, 2007: “The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.” – http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/sourcefiles/UN_letter.pdf

    Link to this
  99. 99. laurac414 11:32 am 06/23/2014

    I am currently involved in a debate regarding the claim that of 9,136 ‘scientist’ (and/or the 2k articles written by them)only 1 disagrees that man has an impact on Climate Change. I’m frustrated because I cannot FIND a source to so much as one of the 2,000 articles OR even ONE name of the 9,135 who support man-created climate change. A new trend: Conservatives are having a field day with this because progressives cannot (easily) specifically name a bonafide SOURCE and include the NAMES to support the claims. If anyone can help, many of us would greatly appreciate it.

    Link to this
  100. 100. Quantummist 11:59 am 07/7/2014

    This is a Biased and Inaccurate article and starts with a fundamental flaw that is maintained throughout… While he may have seen but 1 paper that Specifically refutes the claim of Human Produced CO2 being the driving cause of climate variance he then Assumes the remainder Specifically state that CO2 Is the causation factor.. He does not say that only 6 to 10 of those 2000 Specifically State that Human Produced CO2 is the Cause of climatic variance…

    I could do the same from the other side of the debate and state that out of 2000 reviewed papers only 10 specifically state the human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change so 10 out of 2000 so 99.95% of publications in the study refute Human caused climate change….

    Link to this
  101. 101. jonpark 6:42 am 08/17/2014

    Carlyle: – ‘The conclusions are preposterous. I do not know anyone who rejects any climate effects as a result of human activity.’

    Then perhaps you need to re-read the article. Its starting point is that there have been over 9,000 such people in a single year.

    ‘The fact that so many predictions based on climate models have failed bears our scepticism out’.

    Oh really? Give me just 3 predictions based on climate models which have failed. I cannot think of a single one. There have been cases of initial predictions, which, in the light of changed and updated knowledge about climate science, have been updated and modified. This is hardly the same as predictions failing, simply that they have changed. This is a hallmark of conventional, peer reviewed science which continually re-evaluates its predictions and findings based on the most up to date information.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X