Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?

out of the 66 percent sure.

But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

fried brocoli has the right figures. Yale is being played,or they are just going along with it due to being left.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

It appears that Yale actually took a look at his report though. That link is from Yale. Read the page...it's study/project at yale university.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
You are using statistical fallacies....and you arent going to win this one.

Here is a little more that solidfies the 97% claim:
skepticalscience.com...

Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.  Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects.  After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades.  For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climateresearch.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?

out of the 66 percent sure.

But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

fried brocoli has the right figures. Yale is being played,or they are just going along with it due to being left.

Here's one from Texas A&M. Which is not considered a left leaning college.

www.met.tamu.edu...

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?

out of the 66 percent sure.

But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

fried brocoli has the right figures. Yale is being played,or they are just going along with it due to being left.

Here's one from Texas A&M. Which is not considered a left leaning college.

www.met.tamu.edu...

This has nothing to do with the 97% figure.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?

out of the 66 percent sure.

But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

fried brocoli has the right figures. Yale is being played,or they are just going along with it due to being left.

Here's one from Texas A&M. Which is not considered a left leaning college.

www.met.tamu.edu...

This has nothing to do with the 97% figure.

-FBB

It goes to show, though, that most universities support the consensus. I find it hard to believe that somehow, someone has "played" all of the colleges and universities in the world in some sort of hoax/scam. LOL

Here's another statement supporting, this time from Cornell University, I also just found one (a joint letter from a dozen Canadian Universities and one from CAL.

www.geo.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
You are using statistical fallacies....and you arent going to win this one.

Here is a little more that solidfies the 97% claim:
skepticalscience.com...

Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.  Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects.  After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades.  For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climateresearch.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

Bro . . . .

The study you linked to shows quite clearly how the 97% figure was reached.

A large portion of researchers refused to comment.

(.97)(.645) =/= .97 that is simple math and your statistical extrapolation of 97% of respondents was made on 14% of the researchers who got back. I read the paper and the others and they are full of stuff like this.

Using 97% and implying that it was ALL climate research is complete BS. The fact that you tried to argue based off of the psychologist's research and are now extending back to other papers (which I am confidant you have not even reviewed) to support your (mis)interpretation is indicative that you are more politically involved than scientifically.

It is a simple exercise and I am confident you can find those papers, but objectively understanding the results in relation to the proclamations you make from them . . . well I have very little hope for you on that front.

-FBB

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?

out of the 66 percent sure.

But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

fried brocoli has the right figures. Yale is being played,or they are just going along with it due to being left.

Here's one from Texas A&M. Which is not considered a left leaning college.

www.met.tamu.edu...

This has nothing to do with the 97% figure.

-FBB

It goes to show, though, that most universities support the consensus. I find it hard to believe that somehow, someone has "played" all of the colleges and universities in the world in some sort of hoax/scam. LOL

Here's another statement supporting, this time from Cornell University, I also just found one (a joint letter from a dozen Canadian Universities and one from CAL.

www.geo.cornell.edu...

You are missing the point completely aren't you?

The study was held up as the standard to polarize (or galvanize if you will) the public opinion. You and others used it to establish the 97% figure. Yet clearly that number is not exactly what it is presented to be.

Also believing the greenhouse gas emissions will follow the AGW model does not mean you support anything James Hansen says, or even that you think the timeline laid out is accurate enough to make policy.

It is the same BS political BS I have been calling out on the people who supposedly "know science" that can't even separate their politics from how simple math and statistics work.

-FBB

//edit
FYI this started when I linked to a study which is challenging the 'consensus' model of Antarctic melt and came from a NASA researcher.

Factions within the climate science research body explicitly asked that the study not be published.

If you want actual truth, then you don't go around shouting 97%!!!!! DO NOT PUBLISH YOUR PAPERS!

That is the attitude I see on this board and the public dialogue. No one is allowed to challenge either of the 2 dogmas.
//edit

Here's what you're saying to me if you're "arguing against" man made Global warming: Note that I don't mind someone who has a differing opinion than I.

-I'm like okay, what's going on. Neil Tyson Degrass, Bill Nye...telling me that man made global warming is real. You say...they're lying and they aren't climate scientists.

-I'm like okay, What's really going on...I'll head over to NASA. They tell me man made global warming is real and have a list of 200 scientific organizations that support it. You say, NASA and those 200 sceintific organizations are lying to you.

-I'm like okay, what's really, really going on...how about I go to actual universities that study this stuff and produce the scientiests of tomorrow....Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Texas A&M, Stanford to name a few...You tell me they're lying as well.

I-'m like okay what about the UN commission on Climate. You tell me they're the biggest liars of all.

So now I'm like, okay of NASA and all the scientific organizations and associations of the world, all the Universities in the world, the UN, all the pro science blogs and websites, all the science promoters and hosts of popular science shows and all the scientists that I can think of by name or place that they work and teach at....They're all lying to me????? Every scientific place that I can google and find? Every single one of them?

But somehow you on this thread know the truth. You can see my confusion and why I'm reluctant to believe you, yes?

Where should i get my information from? You tell me to study the charts and reports for myself, but I can show you reports and charts promoting man made global warming that seem to be scientifically accurate. At some point, I need some scientific authority to rely on. Just as I don't really understand Einstien's theory of relativity or the complete theory of evolution or gravity or quantum physics or how radiation is measured or how to make nuclear power or how to program in C++ or how to fix a Lamborghini or make a motorcycle etc or open heart surgery or Neurosurgery.

originally posted by: amazing
Here's what you're saying to me if you're denying man made Global warming:

I'm like okay, what's going on. Neil Tyson Degrass, Bill Nye...telling me that man made global warming is real. You say...they're lying and they aren't climate scientists.
I'm like okay, What's really going on...I'll head over to NASA. They tell me man made global warming is real and have a list of 200 scientific organizations that support it. You say, NASA and those 200 sceintific organizations are lying to you.
I'm like okay, what's really, really going on...how about I go to actual universities that study this stuff and produce the scientiests of tomorrow....Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Texas A&M, Stanford to name a few...You tell me they're lying as well.
I'm like okay what about the UN commission on Climate. You tell me they're the biggest liars of all.

So now I'm like, okay of NASA and all the scientific organizations and associations of the world, all the Universities in the world, the UN, all the pro science blogs and websites, all the science promoters and hosts of popular science shows and all the scientists that I can think of by name or place that they work and teach at....They're all lying to me????? Every scientific place that I can google and find? Every single one of them?

But somehow you on this thread know the truth. You can see my confusion and why I'm reluctant to believe you, yes?

Your first sentence . . . . This is exactly what I am talking about.

Here's what you're saying to me if you're denying man made Global warming:

You are so propagandised that you can not even comprehend someone challenging an aspect of the climate change narrative.

I am saying that your responses are not those of someone who thinks critically, or even read the statements.

I am saying that there are in fact legitimate challenges to the consensus model and that the 97% figure that is thrown around is disingenuous.

That doesn't mean I am a holocaust denier . . . err climate change denier.

It only means that you are a denier of non-dualism. Your world is a dichotomy of truther vs denier.

I am done with you clowns.

-FBB

PS.
This is the same crap that always starts with you fanatics. Like phage demanding I answer random questions that have nothing to do with the topic, or Jrod linking to psychologists and repeating the "you don't talk science" mantra, or Kali with their James Hansen apologizing.

It always turns to calling me a denier.

So, you can ride your crazy train of fanaticism all the way for all I care.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing
Here's what you're saying to me if you're denying man made Global warming:

I'm like okay, what's going on. Neil Tyson Degrass, Bill Nye...telling me that man made global warming is real. You say...they're lying and they aren't climate scientists.
I'm like okay, What's really going on...I'll head over to NASA. They tell me man made global warming is real and have a list of 200 scientific organizations that support it. You say, NASA and those 200 sceintific organizations are lying to you.
I'm like okay, what's really, really going on...how about I go to actual universities that study this stuff and produce the scientiests of tomorrow....Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Texas A&M, Stanford to name a few...You tell me they're lying as well.
I'm like okay what about the UN commission on Climate. You tell me they're the biggest liars of all.

So now I'm like, okay of NASA and all the scientific organizations and associations of the world, all the Universities in the world, the UN, all the pro science blogs and websites, all the science promoters and hosts of popular science shows and all the scientists that I can think of by name or place that they work and teach at....They're all lying to me????? Every scientific place that I can google and find? Every single one of them?

But somehow you on this thread know the truth. You can see my confusion and why I'm reluctant to believe you, yes?

Your first sentence . . . . This is exactly what I am talking about.

Here's what you're saying to me if you're denying man made Global warming:

You are so propagandised that you can not even comprehend someone challenging an aspect of the climate change narrative.

I am saying that your responses are not those of someone who thinks critically, or even read the statements.

I am saying that there are in fact legitimate challenges to the consensus model and that the 97% figure that is thrown around is disingenuous.

That doesn't mean I am a holocaust denier . . . err climate change denier.

It only means that you are a denier of non-dualism. Your world is a dichotomy of truther vs denier.

I am done with you clowns.

-FBB

Ha. Thanks for the "Intelligent" response. Even after I showed you my line of reasoning and why I actually disagree with you. Not blind faith or fanaticism, but actual logical steps to reaching and searching for the truth. You'r over all rant here seems to be against my use of the word "denying" so perhaps I change it to "arguing against". (I did) ~puts away clown nose and red wig. didn't think anyone was noticing that.

a reply to: amazing

You argue based on appeals to authority.

Twice that authority has been a psychologist. Then you moved on to anecdotal accounts of universities which openly support the "consensus" model in the most vague terms of releasing c02 heats the atmosphere.

99.9% of science would agree that releasing c02 has will trap more heat.

The fact is that the outcomes and time lines are not solidly agreed upon and yet the activists throw fear porn around and fanatical truthers begin prophesying the apocalypse.

I am sick of the fanatic clowns using "science" as further justification for their political bickering.

But you can carry on with it and act like it is okay, just don't expect not to get called out on it.

-FBB

a reply to: amazing

Amazing

I have noticed that yourself, Kali74 and Krazyshot never ever respond when I post links of peer review studies that DO NOT support man made climate change.

For example - for you - I took the time to post the study that the temperature data set was just adjusted in June to make global temperatures warmer. Not a single data point was adjusted downward.

You had nothing to say.

I posted a valid peer reviewed study for Kali74 to prove that the Medieval Warming Period was not a regional event as it affected the Pacific and Antartic Ocean. This is rather an important point. the Medieval Warming Period had higher temperatures then we have today and was a golden era for mankind. It points to the current global temperature being just an artifact of the earth's natural variability.

Kali74 had nothing to say.

Its a very interesting phenomena, this refusal to discuss science that does not support global warmiing.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

You argue based on appeals to authority.

Twice that authority has been a psychologist. Then you moved on to anecdotal accounts of universities which openly support the "consensus" model in the most vague terms of releasing c02 heats the atmosphere.

99.9% of science would agree that releasing c02 has will trap more heat.

The fact is that the outcomes and time lines are not solidly agreed upon and yet the activists throw fear porn around and fanatical truthers begin prophesying the apocalypse.

I am sick of the fanatic clowns using "science" as further justification for their political bickering.

But you can carry on with it and act like it is okay, just don't expect not to get called out on it.

-FBB

The question becomes: Don't I need an authority or expert on this issue? Shouldn't I be able to lean on Bill and Neil( are aren't really psychologists but science evangelists) Everyone piled on the praise until they started talking about climate change. And what about NASA? and those 200 other organizations? What about all the universities and their science departments? How is listening to scientists wrong?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Hey how about you keep my name out of this conversation? I'm not even participating in this thread (except for one post which wasn't directed to you anyways). That's the second time I've been named dropped in this thread while I wasn't participating. Apparently I have some fans.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

You argue based on appeals to authority.

Twice that authority has been a psychologist. Then you moved on to anecdotal accounts of universities which openly support the "consensus" model in the most vague terms of releasing c02 heats the atmosphere.

99.9% of science would agree that releasing c02 has will trap more heat.

The fact is that the outcomes and time lines are not solidly agreed upon and yet the activists throw fear porn around and fanatical truthers begin prophesying the apocalypse.

I am sick of the fanatic clowns using "science" as further justification for their political bickering.

But you can carry on with it and act like it is okay, just don't expect not to get called out on it.

-FBB

The question becomes: Don't I need an authority or expert on this issue? Shouldn't I be able to lean on Bill and Neil( are aren't really psychologists but science evangelists) Everyone piled on the praise until they started talking about climate change. And what about NASA? and those 200 other organizations? What about all the universities and their science departments? How is listening to scientists wrong?

Do as thou wilt.

Do as thou wilt Amazing.

-FBB

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: amazing

Amazing

I have noticed that yourself, Kali74 and Krazyshot never ever respond when I post links of peer review studies that DO NOT support man made climate change.

For example - for you - I took the time to post the study that the temperature data set was just adjusted in June to make global temperatures warmer. Not a single data point was adjusted downward.

You had nothing to say.

I posted a valid peer reviewed study for Kali74 to prove that the Medieval Warming Period was not a regional event as it affected the Pacific and Antartic Ocean. This is rather an important point. the Medieval Warming Period had higher temperatures then we have today and was a golden era for mankind. It points to the current global temperature being just an artifact of the earth's natural variability.

Kali74 had nothing to say.

Its a very interesting phenomena, this refusal to discuss science that does not support global warmiing.

Tired of Control Freaks

I appologize then for not responding directly. That study you posted led me to google the hottest years on record and I came up with 10 since 1980. I think I posted that on one of these threads. Including in those links where that 2015 was the hottest year on record and 2014 was the second hottest year on record. Sorry I'm not a scientist, nor do I have any scientific background, but It appears that those climate/temperature data that I found render your study obsolete. That's probably the wrong word and not trying to downplay that study but didn't I just find that temperatures are getting warmer?

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
a reply to: amazing

You argue based on appeals to authority.

Twice that authority has been a psychologist. Then you moved on to anecdotal accounts of universities which openly support the "consensus" model in the most vague terms of releasing c02 heats the atmosphere.

99.9% of science would agree that releasing c02 has will trap more heat.

The fact is that the outcomes and time lines are not solidly agreed upon and yet the activists throw fear porn around and fanatical truthers begin prophesying the apocalypse.

I am sick of the fanatic clowns using "science" as further justification for their political bickering.

But you can carry on with it and act like it is okay, just don't expect not to get called out on it.

-FBB

The question becomes: Don't I need an authority or expert on this issue? Shouldn't I be able to lean on Bill and Neil( are aren't really psychologists but science evangelists) Everyone piled on the praise until they started talking about climate change. And what about NASA? and those 200 other organizations? What about all the universities and their science departments? How is listening to scientists wrong?

Do as thou wilt.

Do as thou wilt Amazing.

-FBB

Well why don't you tell me where I should look? or who I should listen to? I mean when researching string theory and stuff I listen to Stephen Hawking. He simplifies it in a way that I can understand and I believe him to be an expert. That's the best way I can relate this. If you and I were having a discussion on string theory, and I couldn't come up with a decent response, I would look to an expert to help me understand it. AS I should, right? Same thing with Climate Change.

If you told me Stephen Hawking was a clown and none of his STring Theory calculations stood up and you showed me a graph and some charts and a couple of reports proving it to me, I might not fully understand and I would ask you who I should ask or read if I couldn't trust Hawking.

That's what I'm asking you to do here. If you think I'm an idiot, most people listen to media and never read anything on Climate change. That's left and right wing. And Climate Change debate is divided equally down party lines. I'm one of the few that will read and google things on here. I thought I was doing good today, looking up what some of the major universities in the US and north America had to say about Climate change.

a reply to: amazing

That is for you to decide.

I am just more annoyed that climate change has become the Holy of Holies for a certain political group and questioning any aspect is tantamount to ex-communication or PR-execution.

I agree to the vast majority of the goals of the political argument in favour of climate change action, but certain aspects I see as purely political and not motivated by anything remotely approaching science. Then comes the blatant propaganda stats and hit pieces and people just eat it up without even realizing how much BS is in them.

-FBB

a reply to: amazing

Of course temperatures are getting warmer. As I tried to explain to you earlier and proved to you with the study - anytime the theory of man made global warming is at risk - they adjust the data set. The data you looked at to find the hottest years had already been adjusted upward.

You seem to have entirely missed the point though. Man's signature isn't in the temperature. It is in the rate at which the temperature changes. We are at the point where the rate of the temperature change is dropping fast. We have seen no significant change in 20 years. NOAA calculates the rate of change based on 30 year average. No significant change in 20 years means the rate is dropping and man's signature is lost and all this warming is just part of the earth's natural variability.

Then, by golly - they adjust their data set and find more warming.

If this isn't evidence of hoaxing, then I don't know what is!

Tired of Control Freaks