Global Warming Scam - "The Debate's Over Folks."

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

I'll tell you where he's wrong if you answer why you choose to believe a man who "cites" scientists and then has those scientists call him out for lying about their position.

It's nothing to do with the 'man', it's about the methodology and use of the survey.

I will give you a clue, focus on the facts they present about the survey rather than things you find personally annoying about the messenger. If you still don't understand the flaws in those '97%' surveys here's another explanation from someone who hopefully won't annoy you.

 

[yerrag]

It's nothing to do with the 'man', it's about the methodology and use of the survey.

I will give you a clue, focus on the facts they present about the survey rather than things you find personally annoying about the messenger. If you still don't understand the flaws in those '97%' surveys here's another explanation from someone who hopefully won't annoy you.
[/QUO

The videos are very helpful in dispelling the untruths told. Thanks.

It's best at this point to not waste your efforts. I'm afraid your patience may wear thin. Those who worship at the altar of global warming can continue on with their lives.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Rekt.

 

[yerrag]

I think there might be quite an overlap.
Coal burning produces lots of directly health-harmful toxic air pollution in addition to the green house gases.
Shipping likewise.
Clean renewable energy technologies have lots of other advantages, along with contributing less GHGs. Amongst other things, they can provide useful employment and less lung damage.
Large-scale mass monoculture agricultural processes produces nutrient-deficient crops as well as releasing lots of GHGs.
Global deforestation has lots of downsides apart from it's effects on climate change - eg destruction of habitat for numerous specious - mass wave of extinctions is underway as a result.
Good urban design that reduces the need for lengthy commutes, provides more energy efficient transport systems for those that do need them, and make active transport modes (walking, cycling etc) both safer and more pleasant (as some cities have done) have many human and health benefits in addition to reducing GHG emissions.

I agree with all those points. I don't mean to give the impression that to be pro-carbon means we have to allow the indiscriminate pollution for the environment. But there is a proclivity towards simplication that undercuts our ability to be selective in our choices. It's not my way or the highway. Too often, or I must say, always, there needs to be a bandwagon for everyone to hop aboard on. In the process, real discussion is avoided because the narrators of a particular persuasion want a simple black and white element to the issue of the day. It is no wonder the cartoon genre in the movies is so successful, pitting the dark side vs. the good side.

It's understandable why this is so. When Athens reached its pinnacle in the old times, so much time was spent debating pro's and con's nothing gets done. There was gridlock. It took to tyranny to break the gridlock. We're now experiencing the rebirth of this kind of gridlock in the national discourse. And it's not surprising that people have elected Trump, because democracy has been hijacked, and all the circumlocution by politicians have lost their polish and credibility, and plainspeak is now ascendant.

The topic of global warming is now ensnared in such black and white thinking as well. Well, maybe not for most of the people in this forum. But outside this forum, it takes on that air. It is unavoidable because the more nuanced approach of well-though out weighing of pro's and con's gets lost in the conversation. I am convinced that the whole global warming narrative is a hoax, but I do not consider that as refuting the need for conservation of our resources. We still need to preserve clean air and water, for a land to be fertile and able to produce bountiful harvests, and to be be able to sustain life on earth, with balance.

The global warming narrative, as a lie, offers no crediblity to convince people to change their views. It will always be viewed with suspicion.

 

[jaa]

It's nothing to do with the 'man', it's about the methodology and use of the survey.

I will give you a clue, focus on the facts they present about the survey rather than things you find personally annoying about the messenger. If you still don't understand the flaws in those '97%' surveys here's another explanation from someone who hopefully won't annoy you.

No, but the quality of the man should make you suspicious of his claims. Remember that ad hominen stuff you accused me off? Those alarm bells exist for good reason. You should be very skeptical of his claims.

He uses 3 definitions of consensus:

1. Humans are causing some warming (Monckton and audience agree)
   
   
2. Humans are causing most of the warming (Monckton says the answer here should be we don’t know). Cook et al and IPCC use this definition. Surveyed scientists agree with this consensus.
   
   
3. Humans caused warming should be intervened

Monckton says it’s a 0.3% consensus. He tallies this by counting the ⅔ of papers that make no claim as to the human impact as evidence in his favour, instead of doing the more honest thing and logical thing that Cook does which is to ignore those data points. Monckton's method is not the right way to analyze consensus as that’s not what the papers are all evaluating. It’s like taking a physics paper that looks at dark matter and counting it as evidence against a consensus on black holes. He’s either an idiot or dishonest, take your pick. I think there’s good evidence for both. By the way, the Cook paper isn’t the only way to evaluate consensus. I outline a few more sources below that show that the consensus is humans are the primary cause of global warming.


Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial


Doran (2009) asked scientists if they believed humans were significantly contributing to changing mean global temperatures. 77% of non-climatologist scientists answered yes. 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research answered yes. 58% of non-scientists answered yes.


http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...ts-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf


The Vision Prize online polling of climate scientists also finds things that disagree with Monckton’s claims. Of particular note is ~87% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of increase in ocean and air temperatures in the 20th century.


http://static.visionprize.s3.amazonaws.com/R2Q10.png


The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
  
  
• American Astronomical Society
  
  
• American Chemical Society
  
  
• American Geophysical Union
  
  
• American Institute of Physics
  
  
• American Meteorological Society
  
  
• American Physical Society
  
  
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  
  
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
  
  
• British Antarctic Survey
  
  
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  
  
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  
  
• Environmental Protection Agency
  
  
• European Geosciences Union
  
  
• European Physical Society
  
  
• Federation of American Scientists
  
  
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
  
  
• Geological Society of America
  
  
• Geological Society of London
  
  
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
  
  
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  
  
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
  
  
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  
  
• Royal Meteorological Society
  
  
• Royal Society of the UK

The 97% consensus on global warming


But you think we should believe this journalist who has been outed in multiple lies about what scientists claim on the topic by those very same scientists and who looks and acts like Rodney Dangerfield in a Monty Python sketch? Why?

Anyway, I can't hold your hand through this any more. Plus I'm way too antagonistic and you likely don't want to listen to me either. The only way you will learn is to if you want to know the truth more than you want to believe you have access to insider knowledge the experts and sheeple do not.

 

[jaa]

The videos are very helpful in dispelling the untruths told. Thanks.

It's best at this point to not waste your efforts. I'm afraid your patience may wear thin. Those who worship at the altar of global warming can continue on with their lives.

Please see my reply to this 97% claim and point out what you think is wrong. You must be able to easily pick apart my reply, lest you worship the alter of conspiracy and listening to those who make you believe you know more than experts.

 

[yerrag]

Please see my reply to this 97% claim and point out what you think is wrong. You must be able to easily pick apart my reply, lest you worship the alter of conspiracy and listening to those who make you believe you know more than experts.

You are essentially picking apart the findings that the data sets used to establish global warming are tampered with. The research report by Wallace III, d'Aleo, and Idso on June 2017 establishes convincingly the changes made in the NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU - all of them - to make the data fit the argument for global warming. You base your conclusion on writings that seek to discredit the researchers by tainting them as being fossil-fuel funded, which does nothing but to smear, and to say that the data they have are sloppy. They merely aim to discredit the report that discredits the validity of the GAST data, on which all these climatogists, to whom you attribute consensus, base their consensus on.

No matter how many these organizations and societies are that form that consensus, if their basis has been torn to shreds, it matters little what consensus they make. That these organizations are mere fronts or shills, with scientists and employees paid to parrot the climate change narrative, make 95% number even more laughable. They are irrelevant when they are built on flimsy sand, easily blown away. Only people who cannot be critical and rely on the strength of labels and seemingly authoritative institutions can be fooled by such ploys. Perhaps it is those like you who cling on to your degrees of note, and your titles, who would not consider the evidence because it makes a mockery of your club of "people who can write about how things work, but can never actually make them work." It exposes the "intellectual but idiot" framework that makes a bad name for the sciences and the humanities.

 

[jaa]

You are essentially picking apart the findings that the data sets used to establish global warming are tampered with. The research report by Wallace III, d'Aleo, and Idso on June 2017 establishes convincingly the changes made in the NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU - all of them - to make the data fit the argument for global warming. You base your conclusion on writings that seek to discredit the researchers by tainting them as being fossil-fuel funded, which does nothing but to smear, and to say that the data they have are sloppy. They merely aim to discredit the report that discredits the validity of the GAST data, on which all these climatogists, to whom you attribute consensus, base their consensus on.

No matter how many these organizations and societies are that form that consensus, if their basis has been torn to shreds, it matters little what consensus they make. That these organizations are mere fronts or shills, with scientists and employees paid to parrot the climate change narrative, make 95% number even more laughable. They are irrelevant when they are built on flimsy sand, easily blown away. Only people who cannot be critical and rely on the strength of labels and seemingly authoritative institutions can be fooled by such ploys. Perhaps it is those like you who cling on to your degrees of note, and your titles, who would not consider the evidence because it makes a mockery of your club of "people who can write about how things work, but can never actually make them work." It exposes the "intellectual but idiot" framework that makes a bad name for the sciences and the humanities.

So you don't have a real rebuttal to my post that demonstrates the consensus in climatology field? Show me what's wrong with what I posted. Otherwise you're just writing noise.

 

[yerrag]

So you don't have a real rebuttal to my post that demonstrates the consensus in climatology field? Show me what's wrong with what I posted. Otherwise you're just writing noise.

Not real? The flimsy basis of tampered data sets not good enough? Can you stand at all on quicksand?

 

[jaa]

Not real? The flimsy basis of tampered data sets not good enough? Can you stand at all on quicksand?

Don't link me to a video. I'm not wasting my time watching every video you guys post. I've already wasted a half hour on the Monckton one and responded to that.

Respond to my post. What about it is wrong and why? If you can't explain that, it's you who is standing on quicksand.

 

[yerrag]

Don't link me to a video. I'm not wasting my time watching every video you guys post. I've already wasted a half hour on the Monckton one and responded to that.

Respond to my post. What about it is wrong and why? If you can't explain that, it's you who is standing on quicksand.

What video?

You're showing the consensus of climatologists. Climatologists with either their careers on the line, acting on peer pressure, trained under the same lens of viewing data and with a bias towards a narrative inculcated into them, under a system of patronage that is inherent in academia that doesn't reward independent thought. This is the same academia that denies Gilbert Ling his Nobel Prize, and instead awards Obama with a Peace Prize hardly ever stepping into office.

If you are going to persuade us with the consensus of such people whom you expect to be revered as experts and whose word is substantial to convince us, you're only kidding yourself. Arguments based on sound data and sound reasoning is the best way to an actual determination of the condition of our earth. As I said, the climate data your climatologists base on us is tampered with, and the conclusions made by your consensus is definitely not beyond reproach.

Couple good data with good arguments backed up by data and we will listen. Don't use the consensus. It's flawed.

 

[DrJ]

The idea that consensus should have any weight in science is beyond silly. Consensus is easily broken by the observation of single key new piece of evidence. There was probably at least a 97% consensus at one point that the sun revolved around the earth and we all know how that turned out. Further, appealing to consensus is just the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" and is of course not a logically sound argument.

 

[jaa]

You are essentially picking apart the findings that the data sets used to establish global warming are tampered with. The research report by Wallace III, d'Aleo, and Idso on June 2017 establishes convincingly the changes made in the NOAA, NASA, and Hadley CRU - all of them - to make the data fit the argument for global warming. You base your conclusion on writings that seek to discredit the researchers by tainting them as being fossil-fuel funded, which does nothing but to smear, and to say that the data they have are sloppy. They merely aim to discredit the report that discredits the validity of the GAST data, on which all these climatogists, to whom you attribute consensus, base their consensus on.

No matter how many these organizations and societies are that form that consensus, if their basis has been torn to shreds, it matters little what consensus they make. That these organizations are mere fronts or shills, with scientists and employees paid to parrot the climate change narrative, make 95% number even more laughable. They are irrelevant when they are built on flimsy sand, easily blown away. Only people who cannot be critical and rely on the strength of labels and seemingly authoritative institutions can be fooled by such ploys. Perhaps it is those like you who cling on to your degrees of note, and your titles, who would not consider the evidence because it makes a mockery of your club of "people who can write about how things work, but can never actually make them work." It exposes the "intellectual but idiot" framework that makes a bad name for the sciences and the humanities.

Sorry, I was confusing you with Dr. Winston.

So you don't refute the consensus? Good. That's a start. And you believe in a grand conspiracy and think that recent Wallace report demonstrates evidence of it. Anyone can read the following Guardian article to see why that's wrong. I'll even put in more effort than you by linking it.

Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

If that report you held up is not to be believed, and if you think the climate scientists are in consensus, what is your reasoning for believing in this conspiracy?

 

[jaa]

The idea that consensus should have any weight in science is beyond silly. Consensus is easily broken by the observation of single key new piece of evidence. There was probably at least a 97% consensus at one point that the sun revolved around the earth and we all know how that turned out. Further, appealing to consensus is just the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" and is of course not a logically sound argument.

Exactly! It would have to be a strong piece of evidence, but yes. Until you have that evidence, consensus is the best measure. And that evidence doesn't exist, which is why there's a consensus.

 

[schultz]

If 90% of physicists believe one thing, and 10% another, then you'd be best served putting your money on the 90% without any additional information.

I don't know about physics, but if you were to use this logic in nutrition and medicine you would probably do better betting on the 10%. Pretty much everything the mainstream believes is likely wrong in some way, even down to the cell (think Gilbert Ling and pumps arguement).

Cholesterol, serotonin, sun avoidance, PUFA, sugar, saturated Fat, estrogen, chemotherapy, x-rays, 100% oxygen therapy. Ray even disagrees with the idea that HIV causes AIDs, which if you told a mainstream scientist he would look at you like you're absolutely bonkers. They probably would even refuse to listen to the arguments of such an idea because they are so convinced. They could be wrong.

Isn't that why we are all here on this forum, because we disagree with the mainstream view? (That doesn't mean we have to disagree with everything to the point of lunacy. I am just trying to make some kind of point)

 

[x-ray peat]

Don't link me to a video. I'm not wasting my time watching every video you guys post. I've already wasted a half hour on the Monckton one and responded to that.

Respond to my post. What about it is wrong and why? If you can't explain that, it's you who is standing on quicksand.

I just read through the Cook paper http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...3D2652408EB68D5A3B8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org and its amazing how simplistic the deception they are trying to pull off. This is exactly why you cant rely on experts to do your thinking for you. Its because experts, like all humans, can lie. The paper is performing a sleight of hand trick by grouping together scientists who believe that Man is the primary cause of global warming with scientists who believe that Man "contributes" to global warming, without regard to how large or small the contribution is. There is a major difference between the two and the paper is purposely conflating them. It then incorrectly recategorizes all of the scientists as saying that they all support the IPCC consensus than Man is the primary cause of global warming.


Here are the categories that they used to categorize the papers.

Category 2 just says that many is causing some global warming without any reference to how much. Here is the example they give. ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change.’ Who disagrees with this?

I too would be placed in this category. It would also be correct to say that my dog is causing global warming because of his heavy breathing but that doesn’t mean we should go out and euthanize all the dogs.

Category 3 is just ridiculous. Here is there example “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for
mitigating global climate change. ’ What this has to do with the IPCC consensus that man is the primary cause of climate change is beyond me.

The paper then goes on to combine categories 1,2 & 3 and treat them as the same. “To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7). “

This is how the 97% is arrived at. All three categories are now classified as "Endorsing AGW." But this "Endorsing AGW" is very different than the actual IPCC consensus.It’s just a bad parlor trick and not very convincing in the slightest.

“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. “

I would also add that an analysis of papers written on climate is not the same as asking scientists directly what they think is the main cause of global warming. It is well known except by maybe the most militant alarmists, that most journals will not publish any papers that denies anthropogenic warming. Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'. In addition to the above BS methodology, the results from surveying climate journal articles is no different than the expected results from surveying articles in car enthusiast magazines for the importance of the 100 yard slalom course. Its called self selection bias.

In summary the 97% Consensus is Bull Sh*t:

 

[jaa]

I don't know about physics, but if you were to use this logic in nutrition and medicine you would probably do better betting on the 10%. Pretty much everything the mainstream believes is likely wrong in some way, even down to the cell (think Gilbert Ling and pumps arguement).

Everything everyone believes is wrong in some way. The map is not the territory. But some maps are more accurate than others.

Human biochemistry is more complex than climatology is more complex than physics. That doesn't mean physics is easy, just that making predictions about particles is once you know how.

Also, with nutrition, you're not hurting anyone else if you have dumb ideas. And you can experiment to see what works for you in a way you can't with the other domains.

You can't point to something you think the mainstream is wrong about in nutrition and therefore through out all mainstream science whenever your pet theory tells you. Especially when you go from a very murky domain such as nutrition, to a much more clearly defined domain as climatology.

 

[jaa]

I just read through the Cook paper http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...3D2652408EB68D5A3B8.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org and its amazing how simplistic the deception they are trying to pull off. This is exactly why you cant rely on experts to do your thinking for you. Its because experts, like all humans, can lie. The paper is performing a sleight of hand trick by grouping together scientists who believe that Man is the primary cause of global warming with scientists who believe that Man "contributes" to global warming, without regard to how large or small the contribution is. There is a major difference between the two and the paper is purposely conflating them. It then incorrectly recategorizes all of the scientists as saying that they all support the IPCC consensus than Man is the primary cause of global warming.


Here are the categories that they used to categorize the papers.

View attachment 5979

Category 2 just says that many is causing some global warming without any reference to how much. Here is the example they give. ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change.’ Who disagrees with this?

I too would be placed in this category. It would also be correct to say that my dog is causing global warming because of his heavy breathing but that doesn’t mean we should go out and euthanize all the dogs.

Category 3 is just ridiculous. Here is there example “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for
mitigating global climate change. ’ What this has to do with the IPCC consensus that man is the primary cause of climate change is beyond me.

The paper then goes on to combine categories 1,2 & 3 and treat them as the same. “To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7). “

This is how the 97% is arrived at. All three categories are now classified as "Endorsing AGW." But this "Endorsing AGW" is very different than the actual IPCC consensus.It’s just a bad parlor trick and not very convincing in the slightest.

“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. “
View attachment 5978


I would also add that an analysis of papers written on climate is not the same as asking scientists directly what they think is the main cause of global warming. It is well known except by maybe the most militant alarmists, that most journals will not publish any papers that denies anthropogenic warming. Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'. In addition to the above BS methodology, the results from surveying climate journal articles is no different than the expected results from surveying articles in car enthusiast magazines for the importance of the 100 yard slalom course. Its called self selection bias.

In summary the 97% Consensus is Bull Sh*t:

I don't have time to pour through this right now as I have to catch a flight for my vacation so I'll give you this. Cook's methods may be wrong. Monckton's criticisms are clearly wrong too and he's an idiot. [edit: nope, not even giving you this one see my next comments. 97% is fine as long as it is described as consensus papers on AGW]

Now please comment on the other consensus pieces of evidence I posted? They include a non-cook research paper and an online survey of climatologists. Both show +80% of experts agreeing that humans are the primary driver for climate change. The research paper also shows that as the level of expertise increases, so does the consensus. Before you start to try to poke at that please post whether you will change your mind if it turns out to be true. I will adjust my position proportionally with a change in expert consensus.

 

[jaa]

Category 2 just says that many is causing some global warming without any reference to how much. Here is the example they give. ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change.’ Who disagrees with this?

Some people. Anyway, what's your point? They're categorizing it. If emissions of a broad range of gg contribute to global climate change that is stating that humans contribute to climate change without quantifying it.

Category 3 is just ridiculous. Here is there example “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for
mitigating global climate change. ’ What this has to do with the IPCC consensus that man is the primary cause of climate change is beyond me.

I can explain this. When humans clear land, carbon is released from the soil. Therefore it's implied human activity contributes to global warming.

Anyway, as long as they saw it's human AGW and not primary cause, it's fine.

I would also add that an analysis of papers written on climate is not the same as asking scientists directly what they think is the main cause of global warming.

Yes! I look forward to your comments on the research paper and online poll finding >80% climatologists agreeing that humans are primer driver of global warming.

 

[yerrag]

Jaa, you probably use Colgate as your toothpaste because Colgate says 95% of dentists prefer using Colgate. Well and good for you. That is how Colgate sells toothpaste, and that is the way the schemers sell global warming. Rope a dope.