Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

You can read it up from the paper I linked to a few pages back.

What that research that examine the studies on Climate Change did was quite simple:

They study all the Abstracts to all the research papers by specialist Climate Change scientists - they define these as, from memory, scientist who have published at least 20 papers on the subject etc.

In the abstract, scientific research guides require the researcher/s to summarise their aim, their method, their conclusion, way forward etc.

By counting the conclusions, they found that 97% of these researchers concludes that Climate Change is not accidental or "natural" - that it is caused by human activity; that it is real.

What's the specific evidence? That's the details in each of those papers.

-----

Noco,

As said before in reply to that 34k scientists' petition... Are those scientists Climate Change scientist?

Not all scientists are the same. Just as you don't go to a GP to have any part of your body operated on, you don't just get a bunch of GP together and ask them about Climate Change because, I don't know, they're all "doctors" and know science and stuff.

You believe that 4 out of 5 bushfires are caused by people - I take that to mean arsonist or improper BBQ or glass bottle zapping the grass or something... That you believe...

but all the toxic fumes, the coals, the methane, the god knows what our factories and power stations and cars and planes expels each day; the deforestation and run-offs from farm with their oil-based fertilisers and pesticides... these does not affect the air or the environment at all.

From a simple logical point of view, that kind of denial is nuts.

From the fact that 97% of research papers by specialists on the subject reaching the same conclusion...

It's pretty hard to deny the evidence. Maybe not so hard for some though.

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

from post #7578

So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.

You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.

 

[luutzu]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

from post #7578

So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.

You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.

Noco,

That study was pretty simple.

Get all the research paper on Climate Change by Climate Change specialists.

Specialist defined as, say, researchers with 20+ published research papers in a reputable climate science journal.

Count the paper's conclusion.

How many percent conclude CC is real and cause by human activity. 97%!

----

True, we all could go through each one of those 97% of papers and examine and replicate its findings to test for ourselves...

First, for a paper to be published in a journal requires many level of reviews. And checking grammar or spelling isn't part of that review process.

There's at least the questioning of sample sizes, the accuracy of the data, what instruments were use to collect data... are the authors real scientists; can the research methods described replicable; on and on...

Then it gets published.


You seriously think anyone have time to go through all that again just to please a few people with serious doubt for some reason?

Anyway...

 

[luutzu]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

from post #7578

So, if it is the case that more than four out of every five wildfires are caused by people, this study indicates that those ignition events are taking place in an environment that increases the likelihood of wildfires taking hold. It seems to me that any further discussion of this paper should entail a critical review of the methodology, the models constructed, the research design and the statistical analysis employed by the researchers, but obviously such a review/critique entails the next level of skills and competence.

You still don't appear to know how many of those 97% represent the total number of scientist...There is no point in quoting 97% if you don't know how many.

Since you like headcounts so much. Check this out.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/

1999 figures, I guess they don't train too many scientists there anymore... but let's assume figure remain the same.

So...

Around 2.2M Scientists working in Science/Engineering roles.

Say only the 341, 900 in the Life and Related Sciences know anything about CC.

Assumes the 34K of "scientists" from that site are among these scientists... That's only 10% noco.

If Scientists are defined as all those with Science degree... there's some 10M of them in the US...

Do the maths. 34,000 / 10, 000, 000 = ???%


I personally take the "opinions" of the 97% specialists over the 34 thousand "scientist".

 

[explod]

I have asked you before....97% of how many so called scientist.......Were they the ones hand picked by the UN who are sympathetic to their GLOBAL WARMING cause?....

I have also told you there are 31,478 scientist who think the opposite to your 97%????????????????

OK noco, shouldn't bother but will walk you through it.

You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%. On that surmation there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.

And on Ph.d's, only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation. Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.

 

[luutzu]

OK noco, shouldn't bother but will walk you through it.

You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%. On that surmation there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.

And on Ph.d's, only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation. Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.

That's a good point.

 

[cynic]

Noco,

That study was pretty simple.

Get all the research paper on Climate Change by Climate Change specialists.

Specialist defined as, say, researchers with 20+ published research papers in a reputable climate science journal.

Count the paper's conclusion.

How many percent conclude CC is real and cause by human activity. 97%!

----

True, we all could go through each one of those 97% of papers and examine and replicate its findings to test for ourselves...

First, for a paper to be published in a journal requires many level of reviews. And checking grammar or spelling isn't part of that review process.

There's at least the questioning of sample sizes, the accuracy of the data, what instruments were use to collect data... are the authors real scientists; can the research methods described replicable; on and on...

Then it gets published.


You seriously think anyone have time to go through all that again just to please a few people with serious doubt for some reason?

Anyway...

If you do not have the time to examine them yourself, then how do you know that you haven't been sold a pile of opinionated and unproven conjecture?

 

[luutzu]

If you do not have the time to examine them yourself, then how do you know that you haven't been sold a pile of opinionated and unproven conjecture?

You for real?

Should I also buy a few chemistry test to check if all the food I buy to eat does not contain poison too? Or get a few degrees to then be sure whether the medicine prescribed are good enough or not.

The paper was a study of all the published research; research published in peer review scientific journals.

I think it's pretty safe to believe the scientists. I mean, sure they could be like those high priests feeding us the flat Earth theory but Scientific societies have gone a long way from "just take our words for it" kind of argument.

Anyway... all these record-breaking weather events and natural disasters happening all over the place over past couple years... all are just part of the cycle of climate changing everyday, all the time.

 

[cynic]

You for real?

Should I also buy a few chemistry test to check if all the food I buy to eat does not contain poison too? Or get a few degrees to then be sure whether the medicine prescribed are good enough or not.

The paper was a study of all the published research; research published in peer review scientific journals.

I think it's pretty safe to believe the scientists. I mean, sure they could be like those high priests feeding us the flat Earth theory but Scientific societies have gone a long way from "just take our words for it" kind of argument.

Anyway... all these record-breaking weather events and natural disasters happening all over the place over past couple years... all are just part of the cycle of climate changing everyday, all the time.

Yes I am for real!

For one thing it appears that the seasons are shifting forward in our calendar year. Hence the seasons are starting and ending later than they once were. So a temperature that is considered a record for a particular month in our year, might actually be quite normal for the actual season to which it truly belongs!

Even if these "purported" extremes can be proven to be seasonal records, the question of causation still remains largely unanswered.

Climate "scientists" seem far too eager to claim virtually any event as "evidence" of their unproven conjecture regarding anthropegenically induced climate change.

A number of reasonable challenges (founded in well established science) have been presented within this thread and remain unadressed by anything more than repeated assurances of the "infallibility" of the "elite" 97%.

Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)

 

[noco]

OK noco, shouldn't bother but will walk you through it.

You stated that 31,478 scientists think the opposite to the other 97%. On that summation there must be 3 million who support the findings that co2 global warming is a problem.

And on Ph.d's, only Ph'ds held in the fields of climate science should be part of the equation. Others are only opinions with no more value at the end of the day than yours or mine.

Now then Professor explod, you are trying to tell me that if 31,478 = 3% of skeptic scientist out of 100% of all scientists in the USA then there are 97% who are Alarmists which according to my calculations = 3,147,800 but Luutzu say there are only 341,900 scientist in the USA.

So are you right or is Luutzu right?

I think you are like the constipated professor who had to worked it out with a pencil.

 

[noco]

Since you like headcounts so much. Check this out.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/

1999 figures, I guess they don't train too many scientists there anymore... but let's assume figure remain the same.

So...

Around 2.2M Scientists working in Science/Engineering roles.

Say only the 341, 900 in the Life and Related Sciences know anything about CC.

Assumes the 34K of "scientists" from that site are among these scientists... That's only 10% noco.

If Scientists are defined as all those with Science degree... there's some 10M of them in the US...

Do the maths. 34,000 / 10, 000, 000 = ???%


I personally take the "opinions" of the 97% specialists over the 34 thousand "scientist".


View attachment 66573

View attachment 66574

Thanks Luutzu for all that information but you still have not satisfied me as to the number that 97% represents.....So if you if don't have that answer, please say so....Never mind about trying to skirt around it.....I need the truth.

explod tried to baffle me with science but he has got himself in such a muddle trying to do it....He was probably hoping I would fall for his "MUMBO JUMBO".

 

[explod]

Now then Professor explod, you are trying to tell me that if 31,478 = 3% of skeptic scientist out of 100% of all scientists in the USA then there are 97% who are Alarmists which according to my calculations = 3,147,800 but Luutzu say there are only 341,900 scientist in the USA.

So are you right or is Luutzu right?

I think you are like the constipated professor who had to worked it out with a pencil.

Not at all. Was just pointing out the anomoly of your first statement.

Just calm yourself a bit and re-read it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)

Sure, but we have to know your qualifications for evaluating specific evidence relating to climate.

 

[cynic]

Sure, but we have to know your qualifications for evaluating specific evidence relating to climate.

No you don't have to do that at all!

All you need to do is check to see if what I am saying is supported by established science!

Just because someone has higher qualifications doesn't automatically render their assertions correct!

 

[basilio]

Back in the real world this is what is happening.

My family fell victim to a warming world. Now we need to build for this new reality
Louisiana’s sinking Isle de Jean Charles shows the urgent need for radical measures to combat climate change
Hurricane Katrina debris

Vicki Arroyo

Sunday 8 May 2016 14.00 AEST


As seas rise, as floods and droughts become more extreme, as crops fail and as storms intensify, the world will increasingly face a new challenge – climate refugees.

In the US, witness the recent plan by the federal government to resettle a Native American tribe before their Isle de Jean Charles home in Louisiana vanishes underwater – an example that hits close to home. I have deep family roots in south Louisiana: my mother, sister and brother-in-law, aunt and uncle were refugees from a weather disaster exacerbated by climate change, losing their homes in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. A year before, a heart condition killed my father in the aftermath of a stressful evacuation from Hurricane Ivan.

http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo

 

[cynic]

Back in the real world this is what is happening.



http://www.theguardian.com/global/c...e-refugees-louisiana-rising-seas-vicki-arroyo

Errm , isn't this just another example of the climate brigade eagerly declaring any event as automatically and wholly attributable to climate change?

How about we try some critical thinking before assuming causation?

 

[luutzu]

Yes I am for real!

For one thing it appears that the seasons are shifting forward in our calendar year. Hence the seasons are starting and ending later than they once were. So a temperature that is considered a record for a particular month in our year, might actually be quite normal for the actual season to which it truly belongs!

Even if these "purported" extremes can be proven to be seasonal records, the question of causation still remains largely unanswered.

Climate "scientists" seem far too eager to claim virtually any event as "evidence" of their unproven conjecture regarding anthropegenically induced climate change.

A number of reasonable challenges (founded in well established science) have been presented within this thread and remain unadressed by anything more than repeated assurances of the "infallibility" of the "elite" 97%.

Some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and like to apply critical thinking before accepting unproven ideologies as scientifically established facts! (This is something that the climate cardinals appear to be unwilling or unable to do.)

I've heard of climate shifting South at something like 8 miles per day in the Northern Hemisphere but season shifting... just past couple years or past 20 years where SirR read it's been the hottest on record?

Anyway, when's the last time 97% of any group agree on anything?

 

[basilio]

And on a more immediate threat the wildfires in Alberta have exploded and do not look like stopping any time soon. It looks like it will be jumping into the neighbouring state.

Canada wildfire 'out of control', doubled in size, officials say

A ferocious wildfire wreaking havoc in Canada has doubled in size and officials have warned the situation in the parched Alberta oil sands region was "unpredictable and dangerous".
Key points:

"This remains a big, out of control, dangerous fire," Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said of the raging inferno, that is now bigger than London.

Winds were pushing the flames east of the epicentre around the city late on Saturday local time as nearly all 25,000 people who were still trapped to the north finally left town either via airlift or convoys on the roads.

The blaze has forced the evacuation of the city of Fort McMurray.

Emergency workers in Alberta are joining a grassroots effort to rescue pets trapped in homes after the massive wildfire forced their owners to leave without them.

The wildfire doubled in size in one day, and covered more than 200,000 hectares by midnight and continued to grow, the Alberta Emergency Management Agency said in an update.

"Fire conditions remain extreme," it said.

The Government crisis agency cautioned that fire conditions remained extreme in the province due to low humidity, high temperatures and gusty winds.

Some 1,570 square kilometres have been devastated since the blaze began almost a week ago, Mr Goodale said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-08/canada-wildfire-out-of-control-doubles-in-size/7393958

 

[luutzu]

Thanks Luutzu for all that information but you still have not satisfied me as to the number that 97% represents.....So if you if don't have that answer, please say so....Never mind about trying to skirt around it.....I need the truth.

explod tried to baffle me with science but he has got himself in such a muddle trying to do it....He was probably hoping I would fall for his "MUMBO JUMBO".

I thought Explod answered you pretty well.

 

[basilio]

Errm , isn't this just another example of the climate brigade eagerly declaring any event as automatically and wholly attributable to climate change?

How about we try some critical thinking before assuming causation?

Nuh. I referenced an earlier post which detailed an analysis on the rapidly changing climatic conditions in Canada. Basically much hotter, much earlier, less snow melt. These have all contributed to creating a far more dangerous forest fire situation.

The argument is not about climate change "causing" this fire. It's about how the rapidly warming ecosystems of the area are creating far more favourable conditions for a fire to become uncontrollable.

Artist also posted a reference which detailed how this increase in fire risk is happening throughout the world as temperatures rise.

 

[basilio]

There could be other effects of the fires in the Alberta tar sands.

BP declares force majeure, warns on oil deliveries as Canadian wildfire burns on

Date
May 7, 2016


Oil up as fire curbs Canada output

Oil prices surge after raging wildfire hit Canada's oil sands region, cutting as much as one-third of the country's daily crude capacity.

Three major oil firms have warned they will not be able to deliver on some contracts for Canadian crude, a further sign that output cuts due to wildfires are curbing supplies from the Alberta oil sands region.

British oil firm BP said it had alerted customers to a "force majeure event" at one of its suppliers, which means several grades of Canadian crude oil will not be as readily available to its customers through the rest of May.

Suncor Energy, Canada's largest oil producer, said it had issued various force majeure notifications to customers, service providers and other third party contractors that will be affected by reduced operations in the region.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/e...nadian-wildfire-burns-on-20160506-goopdo.html