BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

When I found out how blatant the lie was about the claimed scientific consensus, I started digging deeper. I am not a 'denier' I am interested in empirical evidence and facts. I see no reason for alarm, C02 is not the demon it has been made out to be, in my opinion, it's beneficial.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It gets at the core of the issue though. There is a fair amount of data that shows the climate is changing, however how much humans contribute to it and how much we can do to stop it simply isn't known yet. Since we don't know that for sure, there's no rationale behind making drastic destructive changes to our infrastructure and economies to try to fix it.

Well, all it does is disrupt a narrative re a vast consensus, which is important in the sense of how that narrative is used in the debate.

I've seen credible data that having measured historic trends in climate/temperature change, and even solar cycles, there is a portion of the data that is not able to be attributed to natural variables.

Even if that was true, however, which many scientists and data folk do assert, a next question is what reasonable actions would change/moderate/limit that going forward.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is a more thorough critique of the Cook paper and is spot on.

First a little bit about John Cook, he has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and is involved with the IPCC.
His paper has been quoted by Obama and the President of the Sierra Club. I don't think either of them two had read the paper past it's headline. Anyways here's the critique of the paper, and it is accurate.


The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.

This is an excellent synopsis. Unfortunately, I fear it is too complex for some of the AGW worshipers to understand. They will learn nothing from it, or just deny any of those numbers are real. They are the real science deniers.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is a more thorough critique of the Cook paper and is spot on.

First a little bit about John Cook, he has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and is involved with the IPCC.
His paper has been quoted by Obama and the President of the Sierra Club. I don't think either of them two had read the paper past it's headline. Anyways here's the critique of the paper, and it is accurate.


The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.

A great response. Thanks.

You think like I do regarding breaking down arguments and trying to be accurate in statements according to data, facts, and logic.

This is pretty eye opening for me. Like you I want the truth.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Just because something doesn't fit past trends doesn't mean something else must have influenced it. Especially when you take into account the margins of error in the methods they use to look at past conditions before there were records and the timescales they have to look at. They don't have year-by-year numbers going back thousands/millions of years.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

When I found out how blatant the lie was about the claimed scientific consensus, I started digging deeper. I am not a 'denier' I am interested in empirical evidence and facts. I see no reason for alarm, C02 is not the demon it has been made out to be, in my opinion, it's beneficial.

It's like that link points out, things in nature are beneficial in balance and measure. Water can be poisonous to the human body imbibed in great excess, just to make a simple comparison.

Even though C02 is necessary for plants, that doesn't mean an excess of it in combination with other greenhouse gases can't have negative consequences.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Just because something doesn't fit past trends doesn't mean something else must have influenced it. Especially when you take into account the margins of error in the methods they use to look at past conditions before there were records and the timescales they have to look at. They don't have year-by-year numbers going back thousands/millions of years.

Of course, but in data you strive to account for various lurking and confounding variables, covariates, etc, then see what the trends are. This is imperfect in large scale models.

Many scientists are asserting that they have done so, and they have isolated change that is not accounted for by natural variables.

However, the problem is, at some point unless we run the data ourselves and have all of the expertise in this field, with the man hours and resources to do the work, it's hard to peer review them.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thats why you could pick one point out of the list and we could discuss it.
The C02 fertilization effect is downplayed.
You will see studies now that under identical growing conditions, increased C02 results in protein in the crops.
Well now, since I have a farming background, i can tell you that if you increase one factor you will want to compensate in another. Try the same experiements with increased fertilizer as well. It's as if these studies are designed to discredit any benefits that C02 may be giving us.
If you want scary, you have to read the 1974 report from the CIA on what happens if our climate cools a couple degrees.
And you know what? It's just regional, but Canada was 2.0 degrees below norm for the month of April...
Cia report

It's a little hard to read since it's a scanned photocopy, but it is very revealing.

a reply to: face23785

Most all of the graphs that we see in the mainstream media neglect to show us the error bars, with a couple standard deviations put in they are a much different looking graph.

Seriously, I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but i think that Global warming is one of the largest psychological operations every played out on the population, the stakes are high, they played for keeps.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

My point though is that we look at a 50 or 100 year span of temperature records and look at a trend in them, and have no idea if that's ever happened before because they can't isolate a 50 or 100 year gap in the geological record. They simply don't have the means to get that kind of resolution in the geological historical data.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

Most all of the graphs that we see in the mainstream media neglect to show us the error bars, with a couple standard deviations put in they are a much different looking graph.

Seriously, I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but i think that Global warming is one of the largest psychological operations every played out on the population, the stakes are high, they played for keeps.

I would tend to agree with you, although I'm not sure the media is necessarily in on it. I think a lot of them just lack the will or the critical thinking skills to scrutinize what they're being told to report.

a reply to: face23785

That is a very good point that is seldom brought up. The ice core records themselves that we derive our C02 content from don't have the resolution needed to show any short term fluctuations in C02. When I see studies that use proxy data to discredit a global medieval warming period and they only rely upon a dozen proxy data points to model the global temperature 1300 years ago, I question what the agenda was.

I lifted screenshots of Michael Mann etal's paper. If you examine it, there is warming near the proxy data site, and then cool areas, thousands of miles from any proxy data sites. What they effectively did is killed the idea of a global medieval warm period and turned it into regional climate anomalies, cuz you know, if we had a global warm period in the future it discredits the whole C02 is the primary driver of our last warming period.

a reply to: face23785

Ever heard of project mockinbird? I don't think it went away, it just grew bigger and more secret. The Guardian runs a Global Warming story almost every day. I can't even enjoy National Geographic Nature specials anymore because five minutes in they start harping on climate change. But you are likely right, they just run whatever they are told to run and give it little thought.

a reply to: D8Tee

It really is like a religion to them. They just believe it. Questioning it isn't allowed.

a reply to: face23785

a reply to: yuppa

Thank you!

Using information from that link, I was able to find the IEEE Spectrum writeup. I'll see if I can find his actual papers when I get on a machine that has my subscription info. I need to look more into the mathematics behind his dielectric design.

So far this sounds pretty impressive, especially if sodium works like he expects. It's so much cheaper and more plentiful than lithium.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Appreciate it if you could maybe make a thread after you've looked over the info?

The Paris Climate Accord is not about CO2 or global warming.

John Kerry claims CO2 causes Asthma.
There is absolutely no research that shows CO2 causes Asthma.

researchers have for what causes asthma is the "hygiene hypothesis." They believe that our Western lifestyle—with its emphasis on hygiene and sanitation—has resulted in changes in our living conditions and an overall decline in infections in early childhood.

Many young children no longer have the same types of environmental exposures and infections as children did in the past. This affects the way that young children's immune systems develop during very early childhood, and it may increase their risk for atopy and asthma. This is especially true for children who have close family members with one or both of these conditions.

In other words over protecting you children is one of the leading causes of asthma.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Then we agree that social costs are only relevant where social damage exceeds a minimal impact. Good.

Now, can you tell me what kind of non- minimal social impact is created by 400 ppmv carbon dioxide as opposed to 300 ppmv?

I am a former science teacher, and now a research/data scientist

Good. Then I will assume you are familiar with quantum bond energies and excitation states, and their effect on absorption spectra. I will also assume you are familiar with the effect spectral absorption has relative to blackbody radiation on radiative forcing.

Also, the non-linear response of total radiative forcing versus concentration.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ANNED

Yeah Kerry embarrassed himself. All of these fools have been embarrassing themselves all over tv. This crap doesn't play well with the average voter. Surrounded in their echo chambers in DC, NYC, etc they think their alarmism is widely accepted but it's not. They learned nothing from November. All the better for me.