"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Rockstar]

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein


Natural oscillations in earths weather patterns, milankovitch climate cycles, decreased solar activity. Or more CO2 derp and cashing in on it by blaming cow farts, humans, big oil and intimidating six year olds into believing it?

[Catfish]

re Schroeder ^^
hmm you mean we can democratically discuss and vote for, or against, the climate change?
Would be an elegant solution, if it only worked


I am not sure about the link above, or better what it stands for:

a) does this represent the real statistics, where 2 percent of the population are deniers and 98 are convinced?

or

b) does it mean that John Oliver is biased and brings two deniers, and 98 persuaded scientists?

Because to me it seems more like a critic against Oliver (?)

It is a bit like those "Like" buttons under political online reports. Do you click "Like" for a good article, or because you like the opinion expressed in the article, or do you like the person the article is about?

[Rockstar]

Real statistics? 97 percent has gone up to 98 now? Leaving only two percent left with their brains still in tact? According to this article its an outright lie.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#185aba103f9f

[Catfish]

^
a) this is not what my question is about.

b) it does not matter how much people or even scientists agree or not. Climate change is not subject to an opinion.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Catfish

a) does this represent the real statistics, where 2 percent of the population are deniers and 98 are convinced?
?

The 96 guys are scientists and it shows the proportion of scientists believing in man made climate change vs. those that don't. At least that was how I interpreted it and it's also in accordance with numbers I've heard earlier. Though the gifs are a bit unclear to whether the deniers are scientists too.

[Catfish]

Ah ok.. i think i tend to complicate things where's no need

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein


Natural oscillations in earths weather patterns, milankovitch climate cycles, decreased solar activity. Or more CO2 derp and cashing in on it by blaming cow farts, humans, big oil and intimidating six year olds into believing it?

Very funny and also thank you for bringing up the subject in today's subsim calss plus all of the trouble you have gone to to explain this on going serious situation that may or may not affect our generation, but surely will affect our children's children.

What's next?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/sc...opulation.html

Demographers can agree generally on a few measurable facts and some trends. The world's population, now 6.2 billion, quadrupled in the 20th century, and changed in drastic ways. In 1900, 86 percent of the world's people lived in rural areas and about 14 percent in urban areas. By 2000, urban communities were home to 47 percent of the population, with 53 percent still in the countryside.

Between now and 2030, when the global population is expected to reach about eight billion, almost all the growth will be in cities. But urbanization is not necessarily a bad thing for the environment, said Dr. Joseph Chamie, director of the United Nations' population division.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Ah ok.. i think i tend to complicate things where's no need

Did you raise your hand first? That's all you have to do in here

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Real statistics? 97 percent has gone up to 98 now? Leaving only two percent left with their brains still in tact? According to this article its an outright lie.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#185aba103f9f

Cook et al.(2013) actually contains two different ways they came up with two (slightly) different figures.

3.1. Endorsement percentages from abstract ratings

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.

3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...326/8/2/024024

There are over half dozen papers using different methods that show there is a overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made global warming is happening.

[Rockstar]

Yes Dowly 'skeptical science' is one of the sources of that famed 97% or as Catfish now claims 98%. The article I linked too addresses how he came up with that number and its utter bull poop how he did. It also links to the scientists 'skeptical scientist' used for his research and even they said their work and opinion had been misrepresented or manipulated.



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

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.

Contrary to popular belief John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are not climate scientists they are talk show hosts and comedians who make a living running their mouth. Using for their material opinions based on someone else's opinion that misrepresented the work and opinion of real climate scientists.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Yes Dowly 'skeptical science' is one of the sources of that famed 97% or as Catfish now claims 98%.

One of the authors founded Skeptical Science, the paper itself was peer-reviewed and published in Environmental Research Letters.

The article I linked too addresses how he came up with that number and its utter bull poop how he did. It also links to the scientists 'skeptical scientist' used for his research and even they said their work and opinion had been misrepresented or manipulated.

Which is why I pointed out they had two ways, the second corroborated the first, and again there are more papers that show the same kind of results of overwhelming consensus.

Contrary to popular belief John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are not climate scientists they are talk show hosts and comedians who make a living running their mouth.

He says after posting a number of articles and blog posts written by people who are not climate scientists.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

One of the authors founded Skeptical Science, the paper itself was peer-reviewed and published in Environmental Research Letters.

Which is why I pointed out they had two ways, the second corroborated the first, and again there are more papers that show the same kind of results of overwhelming consensus.

The second report corroborated the first, really?

You do know what it means when you say the second report 'corroborated' the first? The word corroborate means to verify, authenticate, give support too, validates, upholds, backs up or gives credence to the first. I have a real hard time understanding how anyone can support such corroboration. After its been found those scientists arbitrarily pooled into the first reports famed 97% have stated their work has been misrepresented and manipulated.

Meanwhile 15 inches of snow blankets Sahara desert
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ictures-photos

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

You do know what it means when you say the second report 'corroborated' the first?

I do, yes. Thanks for asking.

After its been found those scientists arbitrarily pooled into the first reports famed 97% have stated their work has been misrepresented and manipulated.

Six scientists have come out saying their papers were miscategorized (not manipulated, as you say), out of 29,083 authors that's .02%.

[Catfish]

^^ Regarding snow in the Sahara, it is also common knowledge since decades, that during a climate change to a hotter scenario, it first gets colder due to reasons me and others have already explained numerous times (keyword cloud coverage).
OT: The Sahara was indeed green some 2000 years ago, with forests and lots of animals in North Africa, elephants, rhinos and all that, and the uncontrolled overexploitation and denuding (wood needed for construction and those fleets led to its current situation).
As it is also well-known, the temperatures in a desert usually fall to -20 degrees Celsius at night, and rise to well over 50 degrees Celsius during the day. That a cloud buildup due to more evaporation through rising temperatures leads to rain and snow at night cannot really surprise.

(And just like with the "reasons" for brexit there with its "unelected eurocrats" (wrong), "net paying w/o getting it back" (wrong), "no border control" (wrong) and so on i will not explain all this again. Because it is of no use, you post something with evidence and links, and others prefer to overread or forget it, and again post some Express or Fox media links a few weeks later to once again "prove" their point of view. What the Express, Fox News, Breitbart, Wattsup etc. publish is not evidence and not even a reasonable point of view, but a platform to spread right-wing propaganda, desinformation, xenophobioa and hate. CNN or Washington post or even Reuters may be wrong now and then, but this is at least journalism and research. This is not what those soapbox heroes like Bannon or Farage have in mind. )

[Rockstar]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/#19f4e6ee499b

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
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.