Posted on 04/09/2016 7:42:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
All-talk Cruz is chairman of the Senates Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness ..... WHAT HAS HE DONE???
NASA currently supports Global warming research more than ever. They even fund propaganda groups to convince the public of their false claims... meanwhile other Space and Aeronautical programs slide!
“Climate change” (aka: weather) is used by fascists top control and tax. Their “scientists” are in it for the grant money and control. Losers all.
It is just socialism on a global scale. The totalitarian socialists are just coming at us from a different angle.
The end result is the same. Tyranny and everyone is equally miserable.
Saw a TRAVELTALKS short film from MGM on TCM about Glacier and Waterton Parks.
In it the narrator states the glaciers have been receding since the last Ice Age and will be gone in about one thousand years IF there is NO climatic change.
This film was made in 1942, seventy four years ago.
Our activities can no more affect the overall world climate than a pinprick can affect an elephant.
All those scientists in a consensus were force fed a database of made up numbers then provided with the climate model that when executed would spit out the results desired by the dark forces.
Don’t think so?
Show the chain of custody documents for every number from sensor to the database that was distributed. Don’t have that? Sorry your data may have been compromised. Start over and do it right this time.
+1
November 5, 1982 issue of SCIENCE magazine:
The worlds total of termites emits 10 times the CO2 than does the entire population of humans, all their factories and all their vehicles combined. Makeup of CO2 in the atmosphere: .04%. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 billion tons. Man's contribution is .83% of .04% of the atmosphere. Manmade CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at those numbers. Water vapor accounts for up to 95% of all solar radiation attenuation.
My favorite is the Chinese government which is intent on building a military base at sea level in the south China sea. Don’t they know that the rising ocean level will make their efforts useless? They don’t believe in ocean rising? Oh dear, more deniers.
Actually, there are three sources for that 97% figure.
One is the survey you mention, which is boundless hilarity when you dig into the details (only 97%? Given the specific questions? - and that was only one of the questions, the others actually had lower agreement)
The second, is the list selected, minus those who signed a statement opposing the IPCC conclusions...which is an absurd way to conclude anything in its face.
Another is a study done where they selected a sample of scientific papers. Say paper A concludes to a specific singular point which seems to support the current AGW theory. That was tabbed as supporting. Now a couple of papers disproving the conclusion of that paper. Each of theses counted as support, because none of them directly state they rebuff AGW as a whole. Some papers by well-known skeptics are included as “supporting” - both papers which don’t address a point which supports AGW theory, and papers which debunk points..
Barbers...landscapers...high school students...the concerned...
Barbers...landscapers...high school students...the concerned...
You do not even need to know how to spell scientist to be one.
Here it is. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor, and the actual source of the fraud.
A I recall the progression, 4000 or so surveys were sent out to self-define climate "scientists."
Of those only between 1000 & 1500 replied.
Then it got really interesting. The authors of the study arbitrarily decided that if the respondents did not specifically disagree that warming was anthropogenic, they surely must agree that it was.
Last, but not least, the reduced the total number to >89<
Of those 89, 87/89 = 97% agreed that Climate change was anthropogenic.
Glad to see you’re still spamming away with your infantile drivel. You’ve missed quite a few threads on the topic, though.
Here’s the Oreskes study I am familiar with, and further excerpted pieces:
https://climateaudit.org/2005/05/04/science-con-sensus-and-censorship/
Letter Details:1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004
On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change”. However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords “climate change” for the years 1993 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?
These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords “climate change,” but on “global climate change” (3).
Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UKs ISI databank the keyword search “global climate change” comes up with 1247 documents). Since the results looked questionable, I decided to replicate the Oreskes study.
[Replication attempts failed, even with the new keywords.]
There’s also the more recent SKS studies
Skeptic opinions (according to true-believers posing as skeptics)
https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/
Evaluations of papers, and lying about it
https://climateaudit.org/2014/07/26/cooks-fake-ethics-approval/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/
These were the six questions.
1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Mans emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
At a conference of 600 climate change deniers, then, not one delegate denied that climate changes. Likewise, not one denied that we have contributed to global warming since 1950.
One of the many fundamental dishonesties in the climate debate is the false impression created by the Thermageddonites and their hosts of allies in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that climate skeptics would answer No to most if not all of the six questions.
That fundamental dishonesty was at the core of the Cook et al. consensus paper published last year. The authors listed three levels of endorsement supporting some sort of climate consensus.
Level 1 reflected the IPCCs definition of consensus: that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. Levels 2 and 3 reflected explicit or implicit acceptance that Man causes some warming. The Heartland delegates unanimous opinion fell within Level 2.
Cook et al., having specified these three levels of endorsement, and having gone to the trouble of reading and marking 11,944 abstracts, did not publish their assessment of the number of abstracts they had marked as falling into each of the three endorsement levels. Instead, they published a single aggregate total combining all three categories.
Their failure to report the results fully was what raised my suspicions that their article fell short of the standards of integrity that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have expected of a paper purporting to be scientific.
The text file recording the results of Cooks survey was carefully released only after several weeks following publication, during which the article claiming 97% consensus had received wall-to-wall international publicity from the MSM. Even Mr Obamas Twitteratus had cited it with approval as indicating that global warming is real, man-made and dangerous.
The algorithm counted the number of abstracts Cook had allocated to each level of endorsement. When the computer displayed the results, I thought there must have been some mistake. The algorithm had found only 64 out of the 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, marked as falling within Level 1, reflecting the IPCC consensus that recent warming was mostly man-made.
I carried out a manual check using the search function in Microsoft Notepad. Sure enough, there were only 64 data entries ending in ,1.
Next, I read all 64 abstracts and discovered not greatly to my surprise that only 41 had explicitly said Man had caused most of the global warming over the past half century or so.
In the peer-reviewed learned journals, therefore, only 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3% and not 97.1% had endorsed the definition of the consensus proposition to which the IPCC, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, had assigned 95-99% confidence.
Now that we have the results of the Heartland Conference survey, the full extent of the usual suspects evasiveness about climate consensus can be revealed.
Cook et al. had lumped together the 96.8% who, like all 100% of us at ICCC9, had endorsed the proposition that we cause some warming with the 0.3% who had endorsed the IPCCs proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
In defiance of the evidence recorded in their own data file, they had then explicitly stated, both in their article and in a subsequent article, that 97.1% had endorsed the IPCCs proposition.
JC comments: In case you missed it the first time, check out my recent publication No consensus on consensus. So, what the heck does the climate change consensus even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%. IPCC and other leading climate scientists cant agree on the cause of the lack of surface temperature increase for the past 15+ years (i.e. see the recent article in the New Republic).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/
In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous 97% consensus claim.
For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article, all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. They wrote:
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered risen to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
The basis for the 97% consensus claim is this excerpt:
[of] the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change)
97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
But that is a false statement.
The two questions were:
Q1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered risen.
Q2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered yes.
...
This was the full set of questions that Zimmerman asked in their survey:
Q1. When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don’t know
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasnt asked if they answered remained relatively constant to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I’m not sure
Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasnt asked if they answered remained relatively constant to Q1]
Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
Q6. Age
Q7. Gender
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?
Do you see it? If a respondent answered remained relatively constant to the first question, then he wasnt asked the second question!
Thats obviously why only 77 answers were reported to the second question. Two of their 79 top climate specialists had answered remained relatively constant to the first question, and those two were not asked the second question, and were not included in the calculation of the supposed 97.4% agreement.
That means only 75 of 79 (94.9%) of their most specialized and knowledgeable respondents actually gave them the answers they wanted to both of their questions.
So, despite asking dumb questions that even most skeptics would answer correctly, and despite excluding over 97% of the responses after they were received, they still did not find 97% agreement. They actually found only 94.9% agreement.
They really like that 97% number...so it’s hard to keep track of which silliness is which.
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.