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

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
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.

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..
Wrong. If you cant see the difference between the IPCC consensus and the Cook consensus then I am not sure there is much sense continuing this. Your statement that “I will adjust my position proportionally with a change in expert consensus” sums up the issue perfectly. It's obvious that you have outsourced your thinking to the experts.

I think Yerrag had it right
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.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Wrong. If you cant see the difference between the IPCC consensus and the Cook consensus then I am not sure there is much sense continuing this. Your statement that “I will adjust my position proportionally with a change in expert consensus” sums up the issue perfectly. It's obvious that you have outsourced your thinking to the experts.

I think Yerrag had it right

The Cook consensus is clear about what the 97% means. You can not say 97% humans are primary driver of climate change based on the consensus. All you can say is that 97% of papers agree humans are contributing to climate change.

My opinion has not changed. It was always in that sphere. Just to spell it out, my opinion is the above with the caveat that >80% of experts think humans are the primary driver of climate change. I've shown the supporting evidence for that and you're somehow claiming it as a win while solely focusing on the Cook stuff to knock down a straw man. I'm not surprised you want to bow out here and suspect you have nothing to say about the primary cause evidence I have shown. Cognitive dissonance is a mofo.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Jaa, you can preach your gospel elsewhere and you will find the acceptance you crave but not here. We're the minority opinion, and you need not worry for now.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Jaa, you can preach your gospel elsewhere and you will find the acceptance you crave but not here. We're the minority opinion, and you need not worry for now.

I thought this was a place for people who valued the truth and didn't know I stumbled into a safe echo chamber. Feel free to ignore me. I'm going to continue to engage with people who are up for open discussion in case there are any users (those who may not care to comment) who are interested in figuring out the truth.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I thought this was a place for people who valued the truth and didn't know I stumbled into a safe echo chamber. Feel free to ignore me. I'm going to continue to engage with people who are up for open discussion in case there are any users (those who may not care to comment) who are interested in figuring out the truth.
You're getting warmer. That's a good sign.
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
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.

Nope. Consensus is not a legit measure in the context of science, and no true scientist would participate in a consensus on a *scientific* issue because a true scientist understands the fragility of knowledge, the danger of silencing contrary voices, and the nature of the scientific method: it only has the ability to disprove. So beyond appealing to consensus being the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, its very nature of affirming 'proof' is antithetical to the negating-only empiricism of the scientific method.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Did somebody mention Orwell previously. I think this video sheds some light on how so many of the scientific community can be deceived. That is besides all the peer pressure, funding, job security, advancement, etc at stake if you don't get in line.

"Who controls the temperature datasets controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future."

 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Funny how Jaa would not even consider the possibility, or rather, the probability, that there is a design and an architect to this mass hoodwinking operation.

I wonder, Jaa, if you are truly earnest at all in defending the global warming narrative, or propagating the myth is your full-time job. In the face of all this, all you have is your consensus by the untrustworthy establishment colleagues who serves the interests of their donors, their own job security, and would place the dissemination of truth as a piece of distraction in the advancement of their career.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
The scam continues, with Hansen leading the way:

We're too late to stop global warming with renewables. We need to do something much more drastic, say scientists

An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”....

...The study is to be used as part of a ground-breaking lawsuit brought against the US Government by 21 children in which the plaintiffs claim their constitutional right to have a health climate in which to live in is being violated by federal policies.

This looks like #war to me.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
92
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":


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.
I've shown you at least three people explaining why those 97% surveys are so dishonest and yet you just keep referring to Lord Monckton. Telling me how many agencies back the IPCC viewpoint has nothing to do with those deliberately deceptive surveys.

It's not about the man it's about the facts. Not only have you been fooled by John Cook's survey, you've been fooled by his defence of it as well. Up to you to believe whatever you want to believe but if you still believe in the credibility of those two surveys then you are just in denial of the facts about them.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Nope. Consensus is not a legit measure in the context of science, and no true scientist would participate in a consensus on a *scientific* issue because a true scientist understands the fragility of knowledge, the danger of silencing contrary voices, and the nature of the scientific method: it only has the ability to disprove. So beyond appealing to consensus being the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, its very nature of affirming 'proof' is antithetical to the negating-only empiricism of the scientific method.

This is just wrong and it's explanation is used for non-experts to claim anything they wish. It doesn't mean the consensus view can't be overturned. It's just that the evidence provided must be sufficient to overturn it. At that point the consensus tends to shift.
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
I've shown you at least three people explaining why those 97% surveys are so dishonest and yet you just keep referring to Lord Monckton. Telling me how many agencies back the IPCC viewpoint has nothing to do with those deliberately deceptive surveys.

Break it down for me because I don't see where the 97% consensus view humans cause some amount of climate change is wrong.

I've also shown a non-Cook research paper that surveys experts in the field and finds that >80% of experts think humans are the primary cause of climate change. This is consistent with the Cook data. That paper also shows that the more expertise one has, the more they likely it is they think humans are the primary cause. I've also shown another online poll of experts that demonstrates >80% of experts are in agreement with this. I'll ask again, what do you think is wrong with these pieces of evidence?
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Break it down for me because I don't see where the 97% consensus view humans cause some amount of climate change is wrong.

I've also shown a non-Cook research paper that surveys experts in the field and finds that >80% of experts think humans are the primary cause of climate change. This is consistent with the Cook data. That paper also shows that the more expertise one has, the more they likely it is they think humans are the primary cause. I've also shown another online poll of experts that demonstrates >80% of experts are in agreement with this. I'll ask again, what do you think is wrong with these pieces of evidence?
Though it's already been shown how these consensus numbers are manufactured, the main point is that consensus in science doesn't mean anything as has been said many times before. If you want to actually engage in a debate on climate change then I think we should stick to the science and not the popularity contests.
Here are 18 Inconvenient Facts from Jay Lehr PhD who was one of the scientist that briefed Trump on AGW. Try to read these with an open mind and maybe you can begin to see the obvious fraud for what it really is.

SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT MANKIND HAS AN INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CLIMATE OF PLANET EARTH by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Science Director of The Heartland Institute

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
1- Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary it makes crops and forests grow faster. Mapping by satellite shows that the earth has become about 6% greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions. The Amazon rain forest was the biggest gainer, with two tons of additional biomass per acre per year. Certainly climate change does not help every region equally, but careful studies predict overall benefit, fewer storms, more rain, better crop yields, longer growing seasons, milder winters and decreasing heating costs in colder climates. The news is certainly not bad and on balance may be rather good.

2- Someday the world will wake up and laugh when they finally understand that the entire pursuit of economic ruin in the name of saving the planet from increasing carbon dioxide is in fact a terrible joke. You see it is an unarguable fact that the portion of the Earth’s greenhouse gas envelope contributed by man is barely one tenth of one per cent of the total. Do the numbers your self. CO2 is no more than 4% of the total (with water vapor being over 90% followed by methane and sulpher and nitrous oxides). Of that 4% man contributes only a little over 3%. Elementary school arithmetic says that 3% of 4% is .12% and for that we are sentencing the planet to a wealth of damaging economic impacts.

3- The effect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is limited because it only absorbs certain wave lengths of radiant energy. As the radiation in the particular wave length band is used up, the amount left for absorption by more of the gas is reduced. A simple analogy is to consider drawing a curtain across a window – a large part of the light will be shut out but some will still get through. Add a second curtain to the first and most of the remaining light will be excluded. A point will quickly be reached where adding more curtains has a negligible effect, because there is no light left to stop. This is the case with the absorption of energy as more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.

4- If greenhouse gases were responsible for increases in global temperature of recent decades then atmospheric physics shows that higher levels of our atmosphere would show greater warming than lower levels. This was not found to be true during the 1978 to 1998 period of .3 degrees centigrade warming.

5- 900,000 years of ice core temperature records and carbon dioxide content records show that CO2 increases follow rather than lead increases in Earth temperature which is logical because the oceans are the primary source of CO2 and they hold more CO2 when cool than when warm, so warming causes the oceans to release more CO2.

6- While temperatures have fluctuated over the past 5000 years, today’s earth temperature is below average for the past 5000 years.

7- A modest amount of global warming, should it occur would be beneficial to the natural world. The warmest period in recorded history was the Medieval Warm Period roughly 800 to 1200 AD when temperatures were 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today allowing great prosperity for mankind, and Greenland was actually green.

8- Temperature fluctuations during the current 300 year recovery from the Little Ice Age which ended around 1700AD, following the Medieval Warming Period , correlate almost perfectly with fluctuations in solar activity. This correlation long predates human use of significant amounts of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.

9- The National Aeronautic and Space Agency (NASA) has determined that during the time the Earth was warming so was Mars, Pluto, Jupiter and the largest moon of Neptune.

10- We know that 200 million years ago when the dinosaurs walked the Earth, average Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was 1800 ppm, five times higher than today.

11- All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley UK, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama Huntsville, and Remote Sensing Systems Santa Rosa) have released updated information showing that in 2007, global cooling ranged from 0.65C to .75C. a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one years time.

12- NASA satellites measuring Earth atmosphere temperature found 2008 to be the coldest year since 2000 and the 14th coldest of the past 30 years. US climate Monitoring Stations on the surface show greater warmth, but pictures of most of the 1,221 US temperature stations show 90% to be located near human sources of heat (exhaust fans, air conditioning units, hot roof tops, asphalt parking lots and so forth). the conclusion is inescapable: The US land based temperature record is unreliable.

13- While we hear much about one or another melting glaciers, a recent study of 246 glaciers around the world between 1946 and 1995 indicated a balance between those that are losing ice, gaining ice and remaining in equilibrium. There is no global trend in any direction.

14- On May 1, 2007 National Geographic magazine reported that the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro were shrinking as a result of lower precipitation rather than a warming trend.

15- Never mind that the overall polar bear population has increased from about 5000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today, and that the only two populations in decline come from areas where it has actually been getting colder over the past 50 years. Also ignore the fact that polar bears were around 100,000 years ago, long before at least one important interglacial period when it was much warmer than the present. Clearly they survived long periods of time when the climate of the Arctic was much warmer than today. Yet they are not expected to survive this present warming without help from government regulators. They must be kidding.

16- No computer model ever used to compute climate change has been able to calculate our recent past earth temperature though all measured data inputs were known and available.

17- The inability of current computer hardware to cope with a realistic climate model projection was put in perspective by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Institute who calculated that to run a 40 year projection using all variables across all spatial scales would require 10 to the power 34 years of supercomputer time. This is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the age of the Universe.

18- Nobody believes a weather prediction 7 days ahead but now we are asked to reorder our economy based on climate predictions 100 years hence which are no longer supported by current evidence.
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
This is just wrong and it's explanation is used for non-experts to claim anything they wish. It doesn't mean the consensus view can't be overturned. It's just that the evidence provided must be sufficient to overturn it. At that point the consensus tends to shift.

"This is just wrong" ... "is [a phrase] used "... "to claim anything" without making an actual argument. FTFY. Probably you'll get a lot of mileage out of this:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
92
Break it down for me because I don't see where the 97% consensus view humans cause some amount of climate change is wrong.

I've also shown a non-Cook research paper that surveys experts in the field and finds that >80% of experts think humans are the primary cause of climate change. This is consistent with the Cook data. That paper also shows that the more expertise one has, the more they likely it is they think humans are the primary cause. I've also shown another online poll of experts that demonstrates >80% of experts are in agreement with this. I'll ask again, what do you think is wrong with these pieces of evidence?
Surely you are not switching your hopes to the Doran & Zimmerman "97%" survey now?

I've also been referring to that survey since my first post in this thread. That survey is just as deceptive as the Cook et al one.

Here's a link explaining how that particular deception was manufactured. There really is no point in me explaining deceptions that are already well enough explained from other sources.

An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim

If you still can't understand the problems with those surveys then perhaps you should learn to be a little less trusting of those seeking power and money through taxation under the ruse of saving the planet.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I thought this was a place for people who valued the truth and didn't know I stumbled into a safe echo chamber. Feel free to ignore me. I'm going to continue to engage with people who are up for open discussion in case there are any users (those who may not care to comment) who are interested in figuring out the truth.
Yes we are interested in truth but consensus is not the same as truth. If we thought that consensus meant anything we would be on WebMD for our health advice. I am puzzled as to how you can be on this forum and think that posting opinion polls on science would get you anywhere.
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
People arguing against overwhelming expert consensus would do well to read the following

In defence of epistemic modesty - Effective Altruism Forum
Like I said before you have unfortunately outsourced your thinking to your perceived betters. Expert opinion should be used to inform your own opinion, not make it for you. It is only a heuristic but not a substitute for critical thinking. This type of disinfo is all over the Internet and mass media to shape what and how you think.

You would do well to read Jefferson on the Tyranny of Government and the importance of an educated populace.

The alternative to a democracy is the technocratic world order we are headed towards, correctly summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's handler and Barack Obama's creator.
“Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news.”

Is this what you are suggesting?
 

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
Like I said before you have unfortunately outsourced your thinking to your perceived betters. Expert opinion should be used to inform your own opinion, not make it for you. It is only a heuristic but not a substitute for critical thinking. This type of disinfo is all over the Internet and mass media to shape what and how you think.

You would do well to read Jefferson on the Tyranny of Government and the importance of an educated populace.

The alternative to a democracy is the technocratic world order we are headed towards, correctly summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's handler and Barack Obama's creator.
“Shortly, the public will be unable to reason or think for themselves. They’ll only be able to parrot the information they’ve been given on the previous night’s news.”

Is this what you are suggesting?

This is basic critical thinking and what I've been echoing in this and the other threads where conspiracy theory thinking is rampant. If you don't have more information than the experts, you're just being arrogant if you think you can glance at the information and form a better hypothesis. It has nothing to do with the nightly news. It has to do with aggregate expert opinions. It is why the stock market and sports betting is difficult to beat and becomes more difficult to beat as the participants, technology and money increases.

I doubt you read the link, or if you did, you didn't absorb it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom