ozopenletter.com

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

This site was born on 31 March 2011.  Reactivated on 23 September 2015 Hit Counter reset to 0  ~~With your help it will grow into something worthwhile.~~

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Global warming in a nutshell?  (Read 8730 times)

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2016, 05:38:15 PM »

Surveys show that a mere 95-97% of scientists who have published peer reviewed papers on Climate change believe it is, indeed, occurring and is due to human activity. You don't really think this handful of ill-informed professionals know more than Poddy, do you?

Lax you are focusing on the mythical 95-97% which is a reoccurring figure that keep popping up. Have you ever researched just where that figure came from?
Everyone puts so much faith in "peer review" the operative word in that little chestnut is the word "peer"
Peer meaning equal.

By that standard if a group of people believed that the moon was made of green cheese and they wrote a 'Paper' on it and had it reviewed by their peers, you know the ones that also believed that the moon was a cheesy delectable. Would that alter the composition of the moon? all the moonies  may even have 100% consensus of peer reviewed papers yet the moon would defy their papers and remain the composition that it has always been

Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

chickaboom

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
  • Troll Hunter
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2016, 05:57:39 PM »

Everyone thought the moon was flat.
Now that it has been proven beyond a doubt
No one could possibly believe it's flat
Only when the catastrophic effects of man's
Wholesale destruction can be seen and experienced
By all will it be proven to be true.
Then it will be too late to do anything about it.
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2016, 06:25:00 PM »

There is no denying that the event of man has had an impact on the environment, so did the dinosaurs. The environment is in a constant state of flux and it would be very audacious of man to believe that he could destroy the earth. The earth is not a product of man but rather the reverse man is a product of the earth and as a product, man does not own the earth. In all imaginable circumstanced the earth will endure in one form or another.

Man has altered HIS environment to suit man. If that altered environment can no longer sustain man in the numbers and manner that man would like then either the manner or the numbers will be modified and an equilibrium will be reached, not by man but by the environment.
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #108 on: January 10, 2016, 06:27:40 PM »

Just ask the dinosaurs  ;D
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #109 on: January 10, 2016, 06:29:04 PM »

''Everyone puts so much faith in "peer review" the operative word in that little chestnut is the word "peer"
Peer meaning equal.''

 In this instance (as in all scientific fields) the peers are fellow climate scientists .
papers written on the topic (summaries of the data) have a peer agreement of 97% ..
 this means of every 100 qualified people in the field 97 agree. the 3 % that differ are the cranks and those PAID to digress at the request of big energy/oil producers looking to protect the profits of these polluting industries regardless of facts or empirical evidence . These people are obviously without ethics or alternatively completely bonkers. In any case they are the stragglers, .. the industry prostitutes.
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #110 on: January 10, 2016, 06:37:27 PM »

Frownie I really would like to see where you plucked the 97% from. But I wont hold my breath while you do that I have asked many believers in the mythical 97% and none has been able to the source of the mythical figure.
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Laxadanto

  • Very Active
  • ****
  • Posts: 493
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #111 on: January 10, 2016, 06:49:11 PM »

Oops. Seems I was wrong - it's more like 99%

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong

Bear in mind though, he did only review more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.
I'm sure Poddy's research has been much more thorough.

Logged

lightningdance

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 3479
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2016, 08:03:38 AM »

97% is rubbish most of them were rent seekers and other bods who have no credentials.

It's funny how the old lied just keep surfacing.

I don't have a problem if there is "Global Warming" I'm just sick of the politics and the criminal fringe dwellers crying out for first world money when they have done nothing to clean up their own mess.
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2016, 12:00:51 PM »

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
Joseph Bast And
Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2016, 12:15:13 PM »

 roy spencer ?    ;D  ''siggie reported by realists'' loved him . MM made short work of him and her   however . all the idiot siggie could write was ''giggle''  i suggest you go that route  :)
Logged

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2016, 12:16:18 PM »

And a bit more "Light reading" on the oft quoted mythical 97% consensus.  Enjoy

Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
Anthony Watts / September 3, 2013
UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.   
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”
Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”
Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.
“It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
###
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

Poddy

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 4704
  • *Admin, Mod, Member
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2016, 12:19:10 PM »

Frownie you might like to actually open your mind and do some reading and so that you can draw your own conclusions
Logged
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

chickaboom

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
  • Troll Hunter
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2016, 12:41:37 PM »

IMO the results that scientists bring to the table
Is determined by where the funds are coming from
For example.re smoking
If the cigarette companies are paying scientists
To research effect, their effort would be to disprove
Harmful effects of smoking.
If the government was funding then the opposite
Would apply.
If Japanes govt.were funding the effects of whaling
On the environment, there would be a very different
Outcome by scientists employed by Greenpeace.
If the cause of pollution from vehicles were funded by
Car manufacturers, or oil companies, this too
Would be guaranteed to have a different outcome
If funded by environmentalists.
As the biggest percentage of scientists would be
Funded by governments, I'm guessing, the biggest percentage
Of consensus qould be in favour of a government agenda.
If you could figure out over all what that agenda is
There you would have the answer to the Topic
Logged

Frownland

  • Sage
  • ******
  • Posts: 2575
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2016, 12:47:35 PM »

''IMO the results that scientists bring to the table
Is determined by where the funds are coming from
For example.re smoking
If the cigarette companies are paying scientists
To research effect, their effort would be to disprove
Harmful effects of smoking.''

The same people who fund the tripe poddy peddles also fund tobacco's fight against measures like plain packaging .  these two toxic legal industries employ the same media arm. :)
Logged

chickaboom

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
  • Troll Hunter
Re: Global warming in a nutshell?
« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2016, 12:47:56 PM »

Unless of course you have a scientist who isnt
Funded by anyone  and just wants to get to truth.

As oposed to a scientist who isn't funded by anyone
And wants his name in the history books.

The former would be the 1% out of character and
With a different outcome but is most likely to be
More accurate.

I hope that makes sense to someone .
In conclusion, you cant really believe what scientists
Are telling you about the environment.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 22 queries.