Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[luutzu]

I didn't write that "paper" - Cook et al. did!

So why are you trying to hold myself and Ann accountable for Cook et al.'s logically bereft mistakes?

You interpret their finding to show that those whose papers hold no position as holding a no position. That's misleading.

I mean, they exclude papers whose aim was not about the causes of climate change. They only include papers specifically aimed at attributing causes... count and do a percentage.

Yet somehow the papers that were excluded as being irrelevant now get counted as holding a No Position.

That's like... I don' t know... asking a group of strangers what their opinions are of Cynic or Ann. They all said, don't know them so no opinion. So... you hate Cynic and Ann?


And no, I have read the paper before. We've discussed it to death cynic.

 

[cynic]

You interpret their finding to show that those whose papers hold no position as holding a no position. ...

I haven't misled anyone!

I have merely quoted a few key items of content, found within Cook's "paper".

Have you noticed that you are now in effect decrying the content of that "paper" and therefore, the authors (Cook et al.)?

In effect you have now accused Cook himself of being misleading!
Was that your intent? Or did you do so unwittingly?

 

[luutzu]

I haven't misled anyone!

I have merely quoted a few key items of content, found within Cook's "paper".

Have you noticed that you are now in effect decrying the content of that "paper" and therefore, the authors (Cook et al.)?

In effect you have now accused Cook himself of being misleading!
Was that your intent? Or did you do so unwittingly?

So me find Cook's paper's to be valid is now me saying it's misleading?

You're familiar with the structure and methods of scientific research papers right?

There's the aim, methods, results and Conclusion. Then you write the Abstract.

Just because the Abstract mention "climate change" does not then follow that the aim of the paper was to find what factors contributes to or causes climate change. They could very well mention CC as a btw, an implication... or because the fake news, all commercial for-profit corporations hates business and established monopolies so paid the scientists to take no side on CC.

The last few times Big Business got together mislead the public (and gov't?), smoking was cool and have no ill health side effects; driving without seat belts was safe; lead-infused paint or gasoline was not a biggie; asbestos was also not an issue to your health...

I guess profit-seeking monopolies have learnt that the public doesn't like that so they're now going out of their ways to pay these climate alarmists to fake and fudge scientific studies so that we could all not choke to death; watch our houses, roads and bridges get washed or burnt away.

And they say Capitalism doesn't have a heart.

 

[cynic]

So me find Cook's paper's to be valid is now me saying it's misleading?
....

Metaphorically speaking, our last few posts have been akin to one person blaming the other, for the stench from Cook's flatulence, whilst simultaneously insisting that Cook's farts never stink!!

 

[luutzu]

Metaphorically speaking, our last few posts have been akin to one person blaming the other, for the stench from Cook's flatulence, whilst simultaneously insisting that Cook's farts never stink!!

Well, you've used less syllables so I can understand you a bit better. Though that's not saying much.

 

[basilio]

Having said that, please be aware that the image in your post might be subject to a couple of potentially valid criticisms. My recollection of the 66ish% "no position" was that it included abstracts where no statement of a position could be explicitly or implicitly identified in the abstract. Some (although not terribly many) authors responding to the invited self assessment indicating a position. Please also note that there exist important distinctions between phrases such as "Took no position" and "no stated position" and "no position stated".

Another criticism is that the bar graph simply shows "66.4% NO", immediately followed by "32.6% YES" etc. A casual observer, neglecting to read the fine print, would very likely misunderstand this to mean that 66.4% stated a negative position on AGW.

I believe Cynic summarised the situation re the Consensus report quite well when he pointed out one couldn't dump all the "No stated position" abstracts into a NO column.

 

[luutzu]

I believe Cynic summarised the situation re the Consensus report quite well when he pointed out one couldn't dump all the "No stated position" abstracts into a NO column.

Sorry Cynic, didn't read that post of yours.

 

[Struzball]

Whether or not there is a consensus really has no bearing on the climate.
All there needs to be is a scientific paper with some sort of scientific support of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, backed up by data.

At the moment it is nothing more than a hypothesis..
"If carbon dioxide is the key driver of global temperatures, then an anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide will result in higher global temperatures than there would be without anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions"

The issue comes when trying to test this hypotheis (a hypothesis must be testable).
How would be the best way to go about this? Have another planet earth one with humans and one without?

Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.

If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.

Whether or not 60% or 30% or 99.999% agree is completely irrelevant.

 

[Ann]

If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.

Whether or not 60% or 30% or 99.999% agree is completely irrelevant.

It is very relevant Struzball, if the political body running this said to the governments worldwide there was a 32.6% consensus the rising temperature (0.74 degrees C over 100 years) could be caused by humans. I think most governments in their right mind would suggest better to wait and see. However if the big political body screams there is nearly 100% consensus, my god lets scramble and put a massive Air Tax onto the general public. They even tricked poor Obama into calling out how all the scientists agreed. Sorry, BS!

 

[Struzball]

However if the big political body screams there is nearly 100% consensus, my god lets scramble and put a massive Air Tax onto the general public.

Like I said, it's irrelevant... even if 100% agree.
Facts are all that matter, and governments should only be making decisions on facts.
At the moment there are no facts to support taxing air.

 

[Smurf1976]

Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.

If the rate is constant (it is constant), then humans have minimal effect.

As a theory sure, it seems very reasonable.

But what if the rate is not constant?

It’s not constant in reality so that’s the factual scenario to look at.

 

[SirRumpole]

How would be the best way to go about this? Have another planet earth one with humans and one without?

Venus perhaps ?

 

[basilio]

Or perhaps look at the rate of warming before and after humans started to emit carbon dioxide.

Quite right Struzball. In fact that is pretty well what climate scientsist have been doing for the past 40 years.

There are many factors that impact on the earths climate. Long term changes in planetary orbits, intense volcanic activity, variations in sun intensity are some of the natural factors.

However since the Industrial Revolution and particularly the last 50 years the exponitial increase in human produced greenhouse gases has overtaken all these factors in impacting on our climate. Hence current and continuing global warming.
Check out the following website for the explanation.


Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1


Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.


The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.


Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Ann]

....and now for a little light relief. Lots of bad language warning.

 

[Ann]

Nothing like a nice remote place such as Hawaii to spend your time inside an active volcano measuring worldwide CO2 levels. Keeling used to measure his levels in two places in the world, the South Pole and Hawaii. Funding cuts in the mid 1960s stopped measurements in the South Pole. Not surprising, I would rather go to Hawaii than the South Pole. I bet there wasn't a lot of CO2 around the glaciers to measure anyway they would be holding on to CO2 for dear life! I have been to this volcano, it is like a gigantic saucer of not much of anything. Maybe more like a soup bowl. Pretty darn boring I have to say. Mind you that was before it effused...that's the word..effused magma for a couple of months in 1984, I was there in 1980. Anyway a little pic to try and explain this problem we are having with CO2.

,

 

[Smurf1976]

Nothing like a nice remote place such as Hawaii to spend your time inside an active volcano measuring worldwide CO2 levels.

Thankfully it's also measured at Cape Grim (Tasmania) which is considerably more convenient from an Australian perspective and somewhat cooler than a volcano too.

 

[sptrawler]

I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.

We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.

Who knows if rising sea levels, or inability to feed everyone will be the problem, at the moment technology can start to combat emissions.

So the biggest problem is getting everyone on board, which seems to have happened quite successfully, then if the electricity system goes pear shaped the public has taken ownership of the problem anyway.

They will just have to pay for sorting it, after all they wanted it, actually isn't a bad way of addressing the issue.

 

[Pixelperfect]

I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.

We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.

Who knows if rising sea levels, or inability to feed everyone will be the problem, at the moment technology can start to combat emissions.

So the biggest problem is getting everyone on board, which seems to have happened quite successfully, then if the electricity system goes pear shaped the public has taken ownership of the problem anyway.

They will just have to pay for sorting it, after all they wanted it, actually isn't a bad way of addressing the issue.

Why not make it free, and see how many get on board, but no one would do that anymore. Somehow the environmentalist, want to put a price on carbon so they can profit from it, and the oil rich bums don't want to let go of their prehistoric stuff. The way things are going, it's not going to fix any problem. We are all screwed because you have both left and right fighting for something that should be free, but everyone wants to put a price on everything so both left and right are fighting for their spot. Interesting species the human race. Can't seem to let go of that greed.

 

[Junior]

I guess whether global warming is happening, and if is caused by humans, is probably irrelevant.

We are on a planet with limited everything, and we are overpopulating it, at an ever increasing rate, so we are definitely going to run out of something.

Who knows if rising sea levels, or inability to feed everyone will be the problem, at the moment technology can start to combat emissions.

So the biggest problem is getting everyone on board, which seems to have happened quite successfully, then if the electricity system goes pear shaped the public has taken ownership of the problem anyway.

They will just have to pay for sorting it, after all they wanted it, actually isn't a bad way of addressing the issue.

This.

If the cause were re-branded to a Fight Against Pollution rather than Global Warming, perhaps we would see more action and co-operation.

If we drastically reduce emissions globally. Move, over time, to 100% Renewable energy sources, and completely phase out internal combustion engines and move to EVs......what are the risks in doing so? Cost? Well renewables already stack up favourably against fossil fuel electricity generation in terms of cost, as do EVs vs. petrol driven vehicles. All that needs to happen now is further acceleration of the move, and for Governments to get out of the way.

The benefits are massive, and the risks are limited, in my view.

 

[sptrawler]

This.

If the cause were re-branded to a Fight Against Pollution rather than Global Warming, perhaps we would see more action and co-operation.

If we drastically reduce emissions globally. Move, over time, to 100% Renewable energy sources, and completely phase out internal combustion engines and move to EVs......what are the risks in doing so? Cost? Well renewables already stack up favourably against fossil fuel electricity generation in terms of cost, as do EVs vs. petrol driven vehicles. All that needs to happen now is further acceleration of the move, and for Governments to get out of the way.

The benefits are massive, and the risks are limited, in my view.

I said a year or two ago, if we are going to go renewables, we need to go all in.
Even then it will take 30-50 years IMO, so the agenda needs to change from it can be done overnight, to what is the most logical way to transition in an orderly manner.
At the moment, it is all posturing, emotional ranting and political point scoring. It is about time everyone took a step back and let a group of technical experts, work out the options available.
It is a huge undertaking and it won't be helped by political interference and vote catching.
If it isn't done in a technically sound manner, a point will be reached where the system could collapse, if that happens it will cost a lot more than money.