"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Mr Quatro]

Many years ago (I forget how many) Al Gore said that people were causing the global warming problem and that it wouldn't snow for the next twenty years.

I couldn't find that quote, but I found this:


Climate Change: Where is the Science?

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_science.html

So, how is that predictive power working out so far? And more to the point, what effect have those results had on the public's confidence in the supposedly infallible science and scientists? In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter. In 2001 they predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India. From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink. In 2006 they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes. In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole.

None of these predictions have come to pass. The Reef is still there, as is the arctic ice. Children make more snowmen than ever in Britain and the rains returned to Australia with a vengeance.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

So, let me see, if I got this right: Man-made climate change/global warming is not true because a survey miscategorized (allegedly) abstracts from six (.02%) people (all of whom are skeptics, btw)?

What about their second method? You know, the one where they contacted authors to self-rate their papers and came up with very similar results? What about the other surveys that all point to overwhelming consensus? Let's just throw all the thousands of papers on climate change from the past 100+ years to the bin while we're at it.

Six abstracts were miscategorized (allegedly). The science is settled! There's no man-made global warming!

[Rockstar]

The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)


Politicians love Cooks famed 97% consensus and so too their weak minded followers

[Rockstar]

0.2 percent? If only it was so simple

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.


I can point out why it snowed in the Sahara I don't need to intimidate six year olds into believing its their fault because what someone's flawed report says. Way to many variables in such a dynamic thing called our climate. For you or anyone to presume to think they have the end all be all answer that its man made warming I think is folly.

[Rockstar]

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...consensus.html

Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.

Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.

Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.

Cook's a.k.a. "Mr. Skeptical Science" expertise is in cognitive science which is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the mind and its processes. It examines what cognition is, what it does and how it works.. HE's NOT EVEN A CLIMATE SCIENTIST NOT EVEN A FREAKING WEATHERMAN ON THE LOCAL NEWS yet everyone falls head over heels for his internet word searches. Though I'm sure he meant well his work in climate change it seems, is crap.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Also, I can't believe someone cited American Thinker as a source..

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

[...] Also, I can't believe someone cited American Thinker as a source..

So true.. well this is where all the new self-proclaimed experts have their home.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Thinker
Regarding the article of the "thinker" mentioning the Great Barrier Reef and that there would be no problem at all – short search:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7761351.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-surveys-show
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-...ficially-dying
a.s.o.
And this is only one of the "Thinker"'s statements.


Not to bore you, it's only the MPI and i am sure Trump knows it all better, so just for your amusement about what the sun or CO2 has to do with global warming, or not (Google translation from here https://www.mpg.de/forschung/bedeutu...-globale-klima), quote of the last two paragrahphs:


" [...] Two researchers from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated the three major parameters of the Sun, their total radiation, their share in the ultraviolet range and their magnetic field (which determines the intensity of cosmic radiation) for the last 150 years using current measurements and the latest models.

They conclude that the changes in the sun have kept pace with climate variability for much of the time, suggesting that the sun has had an impact on the climate in the past. How strong this influence was is the subject of further research. It is clear, however, that since about 1980, the total radiation of the sun, its ultraviolet radiation, as well as the cosmic radiation has fluctuated with the 11-year solar cycle, but has not significantly increased.
In contrast, the earth has continued to warm up during this period. This excludes the sun as the cause of the current global warming.


These findings place the question of the relationship between the fluctuations of solar activity and the climate on Earth into the focus of current research. On Earth, the influence of the sun - in addition to the emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, gas and oil - plays an increasing role as the cause of global warming observed since 1900.
Exactly how big this role is must still be explored, because even after our new findings on the fluctuations of the solar magnetic field, the strong increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is attributable, above all, to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research."


I guess the best way for Trump is to stop scientific research on this matter altogether, or put his own "experts" in charge. See Pruitt and the Environmental Protection Agency EPA.
http://mashable.com/2017/02/03/trump.../#kMzrgF_KxSq1
And as if crippling the EPA was not enough, it will be closed entirely at the end of 2018:
http://mashable.com/2017/02/15/bill-.../#WHiPDJXxykqP
Unbelievable.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Indeed, he does say that.

He also endorses AGW, disagreeing with your overall position.

***

Originally Posted by Rockstar

0.2 percent? If only it was so simple

Apparently, it indeed is not. The figure is 0.02%, not 0.2%

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause).

Where does the 65 papers (abstracts) come from? Cook et al.'s data shows 42 abstracts.
Why ignore the other categories completely? That only 42 abstracts explicitly say AGW is the primary driver of global warming, doesn't mean that as a whole only those 42 papers out of the ~12,000 endorse AGW. It plain and simple means that the other authors don't mention it in their abstracts.

The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

They didn't contact all 29,083 authors, but a smaller sample of 8547. Comparing the resulting sample size (1189 authors) of the second part to their sample size for the first part is misleading.
And no, 63% did not disagree with the abstract ratings. Here are the figures from the second part:

All 2142 papers (incl. no AGW position):
Endorse: 62.7% (1342 papers)
No position: 35.5% (761 papers)
Reject: 1.8% (39 papers)

Excluding no AGW position (1381 papers):
Endorse: 97.2% (1342 papers)
Reject: 2.8% (39 papers)

***

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management.

Google search for "climate change journals" gives 15 journals at the top, let's see how many papers from those 15 are in Cook's paper.

Climatic Change: 250
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS): 157
Global Change Biology: 273
Global and Planetary Change: 81
Journal of Climate: 202
Global Environmental Change: 54
Climate Dynamics: 104
Climate Research: 86
Nature Climate Change: 3
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: 31
Geophysical Research Letters: 304
Climate and Development: 0
Nature: 125
Science: 82
International Journal of Climatology: 75

Total: 1,827

"Only a small minority"

Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.

Baseless accusation is not an argument of any sort.

[Rockstar]

The fact of the matter is the 97% consensus report has been shown to be flawed confirmed by actual climate scientists. Therefore to use the 97% as your sole argument to promote man made global warming is flawed. My position has been that man made warming is not the end all be all answer to the warming trend. I have agreed the planet is warming but I also understand there are other factors involved which cause a planet to warm. I brought to you Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations, Milankovitch Climate Cycles and solar activity which some say has caused 40to 50% percent of it alone.

And true to form the only response batted about by here by the alarmists is the old 97 percent consensus derp based on flawed 1980's data that its all man made.

I read the NOAA periodically, 2017 is I think in the top three warmest years. But they discuss every factor involved and its much more than what your beloved 97% consensus report scares you into thinking it is.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The fact of the matter is the 97% consensus report has been shown to be flawed confirmed by actual climate scientists.

Wrong, and proven wrong. But i guess that even with only 95 percent of scientists supporting man-made influence and greenhouse gases as the driving factor, this will never be accepted by wingnuts.

Since the Milankovich cycles have been used again and again for being responsible for climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
So yes and no, but if you compare ice cores of the last million years none shows such a strong rise of the CO2 level in such a short time.

Plants use CO2 and sunlight to produce energy, while giving O2 away as a byproduct. When plants die and decay, they give away the CO2 they have stored during their lifetime.
So, O2 versus CO2 level = even.

A lot of those plants did not decay properly, due to flooding or sediment cover that took away the oxygen necessary to "recycle" them. This led to a higher O2 concentration, in the atmosphere.
When plants first appeared and became so abundant that the O2 level in the atmosphere rose, this was one of the first crises in the earth creatures' history. Because O2 was toxic, for them.

After millions of years, we have a lot of O2 in the atmosphere, there have been times where it was more, and where it has been less. The CO2 has also fluctuated accordingly, always with major implications and impact to life on earth.
While a rise in O2 led to e.g. insects being able to grow larger due to their limited trachea system, a drastically rising CO2 level has led to evolutionary crises (read: mass extinctions). Always.

[...] I have agreed the planet is warming but I also understand there are other factors involved which cause a planet to warm. I brought to you Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations, Milankovitch Climate Cycles and solar activity which some say has caused 40to 50% percent of it alone.

No. Not solar activity. And it is 28 percent at best, not 40 to 50. But even then, the recent rise in CO2 levels stems from us "draining the earth's batteries" ("fossil fuels" is nothing else than stored sun energy), by burning the fossil "fuel" (coal and oil), that, which' creation under anaerobe circumstances has taken CO2 out of the atmosphere while pushing O2 levels, sets free all the CO2 that has been taken out of the cycle.

It is really that simple: If we set free the CO2 that has accumulated over millions of years in natural deposits by lack of O2 able to oxidise it (immensely large swamps being covered by water and sediment, covering plant material and letting no oxygen get in there), so that the dying plant material was withdrawn from the cycle, we now create a man-made CO2 crisis that has, in the past, almost solely been triggered by volcanic activity.

If CO2 levels rise, plants are being able to compensate this for a short time. But man denudes areas the size of Germany per year. Next, the frozen methane hydrates in the russian tundra may thaw, which puts CO2 to shame regarding greenhouse gases; and this will be a self-fueling effect.
(There are also large methane-hydrate depots under the Mexican gulf's ocean floor.)
Third, a lot of CO2 is being bound in CaCO3 in the oceans, certain plants, plankton and living reefs being able to compensate a CO2 abundance, too, for a while. However due to ocean pollution and rising temperatures, those reefs are now dying. (And yes, the Great Barrier Reef is indeed dying, whatever the "American Thinker" and certain other "media" may fabricate).
Due to the above and some other influence, the "ocean buffer" of being able to collect and witdraw CO2 from the atmosphere is at its limit. Further rising ocean temperatures will even dissolve the accumulated CaCO3 and release the CO2 into the atmosphere.

So if volcanic activity, the earth's precession and a general natural fluctuation of the sun's activity (ok) has influenced life on earth, why should we now try to repeat that with our human "methods", and idiocy? The existing equilibrium is weak enough. Or better, was.


Also two posts north from here, regarding the sun's influence:

"They conclude that the changes in the sun have kept pace with climate variability for much of the time, suggesting that the sun has had an impact on the climate in the past. How strong this influence was is the subject of further research.
It is clear, however, that since about 1980, the total radiation of the sun, its ultraviolet radiation, as well as the cosmic radiation has fluctuated with the 11-year solar cycle, but has not significantly increased.
In contrast, the earth has continued to warm up during this period. This excludes the sun as the cause of the current global warming."


"On Earth, the influence of the sun - in addition to the emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, gas and oil - plays an increasing role as the cause of global warming observed since 1900.
Exactly how big this role is must still be explored, because even after our new findings on the fluctuations of the solar magnetic field, the strong increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is attributable, above all, to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research."



Another thing. I can perfectly understand coal miners wanting to have a job. I can also understand the oil industry, jobs, money and all. But do not try to make up fake arguments to justify perfectly understandable and necessary human needs. We ask the wrong questions and give fabricated answers.
This is not the way to solve problems.

[FullMetalADCAP]

Human overpopulation is the problem. That's to be expected with 7.5+ billion (and growing alarmingly fast) humans inhabiting it. And I don't see much being done to cull back our growth but something needs to be done about it and soon.

I'm not talking wide scale forced abortions or killing anyone who is currently living. What needs to be done is a globalized multi-nation joint effort between lots of wealthy nations contributing money to a sole fund distributing entity (the UN?) that pays individual people around the world to have their reproductive organs snipped or tied BEFORE having children. Anyone who's had a child would not qualify.

Offer these sacrificing volunteers the procedure for free and in sterile environments and offer them major incentives in life for having it done, like free college education and/or a monthly stipend paid to them for life for their sacrifice. Let's say $1000 a month for life for their sacrifice plus a free college education? Gotta make the incentive worth it to people to get them to sign up. And maybe $1000 is too much? Might have to start at $100 a month and free college education and see how many bite. If not enough do then raise it. These people would be giving up something major in life for the betterment of tomorrow's world. I think it's important they are rewarded/compensated handsomely for their sacrifice but within reason also. Since there's so many people alive the money amount might have to be lowered, especially if there's too many volunteers.

The goal is to reduce the overall world population to 1 billion souls total. I think that's more than enough humans for this planet. Imagine the impact that would have on the planet to have 6.5 billion less humans polluting it and killing off all the animals? It would give the billion who live a lot more resources to survive and more space to themselves and the planet would be able to repair itself.

And once the goal is met, the UN (or whoever runs the program) would stop running the program and reintroduce it every so many generations to keep population overgrowth at bay and keep the world population size to roughly 1 billion souls.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Therefore to use the 97% as your sole argument to promote man made global warming is flawed.

My, what a big straw man you have there, it would be shame if something was to happen to it.

[Rockstar]

The fact that its just a few here and politicians who continue to glom on to and defend the 97% consensus as if it were gospel truth says a lot in my book. Defending like a bunch of religious zealots even after its been shown to be "fatally flawed". Defending it with cartoons and for some odd reasons bringing up accusation that Trump followers are anti science, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)


Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al.

[Catfish]

I give a [expletive here] on the opinion or "democratic poll" on the subject of climate chage. Not even Trump and Pruitt will be able to "vote" it away, not even using methods like trying to shut up scientists by force, or closing the EPA at the end of 2018.


What is this about the "97 percent"?

No, it indeed is not 97 percent of the scientific community who says or is convinced that climate change is man-made!
It is 97 percent of climate scientists who have this opinion. And (shocking) it probably may be even less. So? How much?



From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...mate-change/2/



"Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

[But when used for climate scientists, the number is right? Not quite, because:]


In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated."


Again:
The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.
Make it 90 to 96 percent then for normal and climate scientists? With one study of all, reaching 84 percent?
“From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”

Does that "prove" in any way that man-made climate change by burning hydrocarbon or carbon is non-existent?!
You (ab)use the existence of a minority to prove the majority wrong, or what?

[Rockstar]

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...sus-ian-tuttle


Who knew that for some, 97 is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.