Posted on 05/21/2016 6:39:09 AM PDT by rktman
But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”
What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”
Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”
Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”
Papers that mentioned the search words, but what were they otherwise about? Papers by whom, climatologists, what?
The article/explanation can be seen here:
Here is a link for the PDF of the whole piece.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
From the first link:
“Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).”
I don’t see how this really helps our position. It might help to know how many of them are taking money to “believe” it.
Not only if they’re taking money(they are), but how much, and how much of what they get is our tax dollars. It would appear that ones claims put forth must somehow promote AGW in order to keep receiving the big bucks. They ain’t gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Congratulations on your great victory! But unfortunately you have not presented any arguments. You have done a lot of chest pounding, appeals to authority, name calling and citing stuff that has nothing to do with anything. You have claimed to have training in a scientific field but you don't understand even the basics of how "science" works. You have worked as a technician with chemicals, so have I. I was a leader on our Hazmat Team. I took a great deal of chemistry in college, as well, as years of continuing education classes. None of that has anything to do with what we are discussing.
The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have no idea how the nonscientific “theory” that you are advocating is suppose to work. Are you trying to argue that the recent observed 20 year “pause” in global temperatures as measured by satellites was from CO2 emersions reductions in the US?
World wide emissions of CO2 are continuing to rise greatly during “the pause” while temperatures remained stable. None of the computer models used by the UN’s IPCC predicted this, in fact they all had less predictive value than random chance.
Whatever minor reductions in CO2 we have made in the United States have been completely overshadowed by increases from China, India and other developing nations. There are no alarmist advocates that I know of that claim that anything we have done in the US has had any meaningful effect on worldwide temperatures.
You are obviously a new comer when it comes to “arguing” about “global warming”. You do not even do a good job of parroting Bill Nye. You haven't presented an argument; you don't even seem to know what the actual arguments are. If you have an argument then go ahead and present it.
Secondly, that applies to only one of the world's atmospheres. We also have an aqueous atmosphere where the temperature has continued to rise during that period
You can believe what you want, as can I. I worry that you have been taken in by the opinion shifters.
Everybody acknowledges that Myron Ebell at CEI, Joe Bost at Heartland, Tim Phillips at AFP, and others have done a whiz bang job of shifting public opinion by spending a lot of money. Now the question has arisen was Exxon footing the bill.
I may not have been clear in my last post. I didn't mean to say that mitigation had ended. That will continue. And there will be many battles fought over that, both legally and politically.
But the US and the world have begun to move beyond mitigation and focus also on resilience to change. And they are not waiting on your approval.
I'm glad that you have had some chem courses. But I also had 28 hours of biology, 8 hours of geology, and 8 hours of physics. Additionally, because most of my work experience in atmospheric chemistry centered around volatile organic compounds, which happen to also be flammable, I know a lot about fire codes/NFPA. And on top of that, it all had to meet OSHA codes.
Earth Systems Science, is mainly a function of biology, chemistry, and geology/geography surrounded by physics. The carbon cycle is just one cycle but it can't be separated from the other cycles. The carbon cycle is dependent on the nutrient cycle and the hydro cycle. And vice versa.
But you still refuse to make any kind of argument that has any support from real world observational data. A definition of “scientific theory is this, “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly tested and confirmed through experiment or observation.” The definition can vary a bit, but every definition contains some reference to confirmation. Every “scientific theory” must have a means by which it can be disproven.
According to advocates of global warming, it can make the world wetter, or I can make the world drier. It can make the world stormier or less stormy. It can make the world snowier or less snowy. It can cause more tornados or less tornados. It can cause more hurricanes or less hurricanes. It can make the world greener or it can cause deserts to expand. The only common theme is that whatever is considered bad to be bad is caused by global warming.
The advocates of “global warming” have advanced no proposals as to how the theory can be tested, therefore it is not a “scientific theory”. Global warming is a religious belief based on the faith of the believer. That is all it is. Because the true believers will ignore any evidence that disproves their position and further will attack those who have made the observations.
Increasing CO2 has had a measurable impact to the planet in the last 100 years. It has enabled plant life to grow more efficiently and with less moisture. Crop yields have continually increased even in places where modern techniques have not yet been incorporated. Despite vastly greater human population the earth is now a greener planet. So I will grant you that increasing CO2 levels have had a measurable impact. And this greening of the planet has no doubt had some local impacts on the local weather, just as cities are warmer than surrounding areas because of all the concrete and roofs.
If you want to tell us here that the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the earths temperature to rise is a “scientific theory” you first must tell us how the theory can be substantiated. This means that you must tell us how it can be disproved with observational data. Can you do that?
Not to your satisfaction. Because, you are poorly informed. But I am willing to say that you are very good with talking points and the FLICC
But if you were to try publish in a journal, you would be rejected. That problem takes you back to the article at the top of this thread. There are very few people with credentials that agree with you.
Instead you have to try to shoot holes in someone else's paper, then "teach the controversy". That never works so you have to bring it back on intervals.
Instead of reading notso Brightbart or listening to Santorium, you need to be reading the published peer reviewed papers. If you dis-agree with the papers then you submit your own paper for peer review, but as I said above, they are not likely to publish your talking points and FLICC.
I haven't made any attempt to “shoot holes” in anything. NO one other than propagandists ever took Cook's paper seriously, not even cook himself. There is nothing to shoot at. He made no attempt to do anything other than mislead.
Thank you for being such a good example of a global warming alarmist. Despite your claimed training in scientific disciplines, you apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of scientific method. You cannot even articulate what it is you are trying to argue. Can you at least tell us what point or points that you are trying to make? You have said nothing meaningful at all in any of your posts.
I would think that 100% of “scientists” would agree with the statement, “the climates on Earth are changing constantly”.
"The paper was the most downloaded paper for that week across all Institute of Physics' journals, and was widely cited across hundreds of newspapers, magazines, blog posts, and scientific papers from around the world. It also ranked as the 11th most discussed scientific paper of 2013. The paper was awarded the 'Best article of 2013' prize by the editorial board of ERL."
Even before this latest episode the Cook paper had already disgraced from virtually all quarters including anyone with even a hint of integrity on the alarmist side. It was intended to be a fraud from the moment the concept was conceived, to say it was ever intended to be anything other than pure propaganda is a lie.
You have refused to make any valid arguments concerning “climate change” in this thread. Is there something that you can actually share about why you are a true believer?
“The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
LOL! I’m beginning to think you might be Rick Sanitorium.
And I am beginning to think that you are Al Gore. He also refuses to present his actual arguments. In all of your wasted words you have not once provided any reason based on factual evidence as to why you believe that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have a meaningful impact on global temperatures.
I have conceded that as levels of CO2 have risen over the past 100 years from approximately 300 parts per million 00.03% to 400 parts per million 00.04% that it had a measurable impact on the ability of the world's plant life to thrive. This is actually quite amazing considering that at these levels CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is 19,500 times more nitrogen in the atmosphere, 5250 times more oxygen, and more than 20 times more argon in the atmosphere. And that is not mentioning water vapor, which is the gas that is responsible for the vast majority of the “greenhouse effect” of the worlds atmosphere.
I am going to give you a few hints so that possibly you can come up with a few meaningful arguments. This is in the hope that this conversation can move to a higher level. Maybe one day you will be able to get past name calling, appeals to authority, and insisting that consensus has any meaningful relationship to good science.
You seem to have no idea that the “theory” that you advocate is based on “positive feedbacks”. The thinking is that if the amount of CO2 increases that the temperature of the planet will increase a small amount and that this will result in an increased amount of water vapor being absorbed into the atmosphere which will result in a larger temperature increase. It sounds reasonable on its face except that the theory does not take into account the negative feedbacks that have been proven to be present in the atmospheric system.
As an example: as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, the planet has become measurably greener because of increased plant life. This increased plant life has a negative impact on temperatures. This is readily apparent if one compares the temperatures of forested areas to developed areas such as cities.
The biggest fail of the “global warming” theory is not that worldwide temperatures have not increased by the amount predicted by computer models over the time that satellite data has been available. The biggest fail is that rising CO2 levels have had no measurable correlation to the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. When relative humidity measurements begin rising in lock step with rising CO2 levels then maybe I will be willing to take a closer look. That is THE CENTRAL PREMISE of the “theory” that you advocate. And it has NOT been happening.
The only way that a gas that makes up only 400 MILLIONTHS of the atmosphere could have any effect on worldwide temperatures is if it caused an increase in the primary “greenhouse gas” which is water vapor. This has not been happening and in fact the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere has actually been DECREASING. This is the opposite of what had been predicted.
I am a weather nut and have been for many years. This is because in my early twenties I purchased a hang glider. Hang gliding is a sport which relies very heavily on the weather. So I got into the study of the atmosphere as the result of a genuine interest and not just a check box for a major at college.
I also fly both ulralight and general aviation aircraft, also activities which are very weather dependent. And like you I have many years of training in other science related fields most of which have little relationship to the climate. But the training in my case resulted in an acute awareness of scientific method. To me it is very upsetting that many practitioners of “climate science” have largely decided to ignore traditional scientific method. I blame the influence and corruption of politics and big money.
As a side note, Rick Santorum has never been a candidate who was of interest to me. I am glad to hear that he apparently recognizes that the “global warming” agenda is a huge fraud. But this is not a big secret. UN officials from the IPPC have gone on record for years now unapologetically admitting that the true goal of their agenda has always been to redistribute the worlds wealth and has little to do with global temperatures. I guess that they forgot to send you the memo.
Excuse me for the Typo should be: UN officials from the IPCC.
Scientific and legal consensus has been reached. Political consensus always takes longer to achieve.
In the meantime it is a rearguard action to delay the inevitable. You need to try to differentiate between rhetoric and reality.
Its really just a sequence of identifiable events that began in 2001 when George Bush asked the Academy of Sciences for a report.
I don't have a lot of time available to hold your hand and lead you thru it, and I certainly didn't take you to raise.
Once again you have made no attempt what so ever to make even one valid point supporting your position. Do you even realize this? Let me analyze your latest post to me paragraph by paragraph.
1. I am accused of knowing nothing.
2. You cite the purported consensus.
3. You claim my position is rhetoric.
4. You make another appeal to authority.
5. You claim to have superior knowledge.
In all of your posts you have not made one attempt to present even one rational argument supporting your position. And yet you accuse me of using talking points? I have practically begged you for substance. All that you have provided is insults, repeated reference to the purported consensus, appeals to authority, ridicule and smugness. None of that has any relationship to science at all.
I have repeatedly presented arguments based on observational data. You have not once tried to refute even one of them. I assume this is because you cannot. It is becoming embarrassingly obvious that you have nothing of substance to share. Do you actually have any knowledge of scientific method as you have claimed, or are you nothing more than a rude pompous buffoon?
The process which we are discussing takes place at a much higher location than Free Republic. Places like the White House and/or the Supreme Court
George asked the Academy about global warming and they told him that it was likely and it was likely caused by humans, but to be certain, more study was needed.
Bush got the money appropriated and started handing out lots of research grants to study it. It took a few years but all the dirty commie scientists confirmed that it was underway. And somehow the dirty commies infiltrated the Academy and they told Bush it was underway. The GOP likes to blame Bush for a lot of things that happened, and this is one of them.
About that same time IPCC released their report, the global warming movie was released, and SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. It was a quadruple whammy.
They decided the best thing to do was to try to shift public opinion so all the NGOs got involved by setting up their PR campaigns to do that. All of it is funded by dark money from Donors Trust.
Since SCOTUS told EPA to regulate, everybody thought it might be better if Congress pre-empted EPA and enacted legislation to regulate CO2. That was a big debate but they all agreed in 2008, but when Congress convened in 2009, the dems controlled the presidency, the House, and a 60 vote majority in the senate.
But they went thru the motions and the House passed the carbon cap and trade bill, leaving it up to the senate.
Meanwhile, after Obama became the Head Negro in Charge, the Teaparty movement exploded onto the scene, and the NGOs found great success in their opinion shifting efforts.
So even tho the GOP had won the debate on regulating CO2 in 2008, at the end of 2009 and 2010, they decided to walk away from it.
They knew that Obama would move forward with EPA using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 because SCOTUS had ruled that way. But they knew that they could delay Obama with a lawsuit, which would give them time to co-opt the tea party, and ride it back into to power in 2010 and 2012.
2010 worked out OK for the GOP and they won the House back. But in 2012 Obama beat Romney and the GOP lost one seat in the Senate.
Then, in 2014, SCOTUS ruled for Obama on the lawsuit, so Obama's first set of CO2 regs are in place, approved by SCOTUS. Obama would also release his second set of CO2 regulations in 2014, which is known as the Clean Power Plan. And of course, the GOP sued to delay Obama until after the 2016 elections.
Know one can predict how SCOTUS will rule, but since there are only 8 justices, it could be decided by the DC Court of Appeals, which is why the DC Court decided to hear the case with a full panel.
And it is even more of a problem with Trump winning the GOP nomination because he might favor a carbon tax, and his advisor has said he could tolerate a "small" carbon tax. And on top of that, it could be that Hillary wins. And the Dems could possibly retake the senate.
You can take it up with the court but you have no standing. Nor do the sources of authority that you use have standing before the courts.
The courts give high authority to the Academy, the federal agencies, Natl Research Council, EPA Advisory Board, IPCC, Universities and such.
If you want to, you can submit testimony to congressional committees. All you need is a word processor and fax machine. You can also submit comments to EPA when the comment period is open.
You can also submit at the state level. Even though Obama's Clean Power Plan is tied up in court, the state eviro agencies are moving forward in setting up their state's plan to conform to the regulations.
Good Luck!
So what is false about it? And why isn't it relevant to respond to your nasty, patronizing and nonsensical comments?
1. I am accused of knowing nothing.
in response to: I don't mean to keep pointing the finger at you but your knowledge of this issue is very superficial and limited to the talking points.
2. You cite the purported consensus.
in response to: Scientific and legal consensus has been reached. Political consensus always takes longer to achieve.
3. You claim my position is rhetoric.
in response to: In the meantime it is a rearguard action to delay the inevitable. You need to try to differentiate between rhetoric and reality.
4. You make another appeal to authority.
in response to: Its really just a sequence of identifiable events that began in 2001 when George Bush asked the Academy of Sciences for a report.
5. You claim to have superior knowledge.
In response to: I don't have a lot of time available to hold your hand and lead you thru it, and I certainly didn't take you to raise.
As for your current post. Once again you make no arguments based on any type of data, nor do you make any attempt to refute any of the arguments I have presented or the data that they are based on. You mention politics and a court ruling. All is completely irrelevant to any type of scientific discussion.
I am very disappointed in you. If you have any actually do have any knowledge from any branch of science... you have chosen not to share any of it with those of us who have commented on this thread. You have provided a very good example of a typical conversation with a global warming alarmist. You provide no facts based on observational data. You make constant appeals to the authority of judges, politicians, agencies, activists and anyone you believe might influence the ignorant. That my friend is not a valid argument. But what we hear from you the most is name calling and posing as intellectually superior to others. It is all very sad and very disappointing.
You are either afraid or unable to discuss the actual issues. You appear to be completely ignorant of any of the actual facts and even the details of the “theory” that you believe in. Your ability to form a rational argument seems to be completely lacking as well.
You need to publish your paper in a peer reviewed journal, like everybody else does. But as I have already pointed out to you, your paper will probably be rejected because they won't publish "talking points".
But if somehow you become successful with you published paper, then you can offer your opinion to presidents, congressional committees and judges.
Good Luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.