We have been lied to about Global Warming, but WHY?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
AgeOfKnowledge:::


Thank you for the post enlightening me about the conservative general population's views, however I have a few things I'd like to question.

You say
Now, to be honest, scientists do not presently have a final consensus on whether or not global warming is occurring.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement.

There are various debates ongoing to do with climate change, but if you look at contemporary research papers, the debates cover things like how model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.


No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.


Specifically, the consensus about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

  • the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
  • the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
  • the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
  • if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
  • a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either, or flat, or that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun.


This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academié des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.


In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:




You say
ice and sediment cores show that over the past four million years, the global climate has oscillated many times. The changes are caused by variations in Earth’s orbit. Each cycle lasts about 100,000 years with an ice age typically taking up 90,000 of those years, and a global warming effect, the other 10,000 years. Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth’s biomass. Etc...
Click to expand...

While it's true there are natural cycles in Earth's climate, a driver or mechanism for the climate's change must be established, for without one forcing climate changes there would be no change in Earth's energy balance. However, the total energy balance IS changing. Given your assertion that it's all natural, then you would need to explain how a 35% increase in CO2 won't or doesn't cause a warming of the Earth outside natural variation.

The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Do the climate change deniers have a model or scientific theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?
volstok.gif

Take this graph. Might it explain the warming from a climate change denier's viewpoint of warming being natural? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now — and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.


Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today’s changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.
So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing.


In short: No.

As for
What the scientific evidence does show is that human activity is not the primary driver.
Click to expand...

Globally, livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of human caused greenhouse gas production. Rearing livestock is in and of itself a human activity, but taking all the livestock in the world, they only account for 14.5 percent of human caused greenhouse gas production. The other 85.5% is from other sources, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.
 
Indeed. Conservatives and conservative leaning Independents are about 3/4 FOR developing and implementing inexpensive, clean, renewable energy with 7 out of 10 stating they do NOT want to defer it. That's what Yale's study clearly shows.

But, as I stated, the reasons for this have little to do with the politics surrounding "global warming." They just want inexpensive, clean, renewable energy for all the other very desirable reasons some of which were listed.

The energy companies and their shareholders may not like it but people like it. They recognize the immense value both to the national interest and long-term security of their nations as well as the individual, societal, economic (cheap clean energy is a major boon for business startups), and nature-based benefits inexpensive, clean, renewable energy would bring.

It's not fair for the left to portray conservatives in the light they do with respect to this issue when the scholarly studies clearly show the left is wrong in doing so.

And, as you say, the research and implementation of alternative energy must be carefully accomplished lest we replace one problem with a completely different problem that's just as bad. I agree with your point wholeheartedly.


PennEd said:
I don't think any rational person is against research into alternative fuels. The problem is ALL sources of energy, renewable or not, have their downside.

Bio- fuel means burning our food and is incredibly ineffecient.

Wind destroys scenery, wildlife, usable acreage and depends on the wind blowing.

Solar uses vast amounts of water to keep the panels clean, otherwise their effeiciency goes way down.

Aside from perhaps nuclear, which the left hates, fossil fuels give by far and away the greatest BTU for the buck.

Think of how this fuel has lifted untold millions out of poverty, rampant cold, blistering heat, not to mention making the ability to travel accessable to the masses. THAT is why the left hates fossil fuels so much. They hate a prosperous people that doesn't depend on them and the government.
Click to expand...
 
I don't mind you disagreeing with me on this issue Human. I suppose it's best to be safe than sorry as the saying goes. But while "better safe than sorry" might "save the day," it doesn't necessarily result in the best outcome.

As I stated, most scientists addressing "global warming" are asserting that it is occurring... that the earth is in a warming cycle and that human activity plays an important role, though not necessarily the only or primary one.

But the topic has become so politicized, that misinformation and false characterizations now propagates in even the best institutions. The scientific opposition, for example, is not "very small." It's material and the criticisms mounted are both important and scientific.

And the IPCC's work, including the report you cited, have been the subject of scholarly criticism around the world from both government policymakers and scientists. Here's a few (of many) examples from the UK:

House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Second Report
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

Etc...

Scientists in China, India, Russia, Western nations, etc... are producing studies and reports that conflict with IPCC assertions and criticizing the methodologies in their reports. And while some critics are, in fact, associated with the oil industry; most of them are not.

I'm not attempting to prove the IPCC findings are in error or that global warming is not occurring. Not at all. In fact, I already stated that I believe global warming is occurring. But that doesn't translate to the left's platform that it's all evil right-wingers who are responsible for it LOL.

Rather nature is the primary driver for global warming with human activity exacerbating it.

What I'm doing is pointing out that the topic has become so politicized that the IPCC and every other organization involved has become biased to a fault and their publications clearly reveal this when the aggregate of data and information is considered and until that ends; our nation's governments will never be able to draw a right picture and respond properly in context with the needs of our societies. It's just the same old radical swing one way (draconian Orwellian leftism) or the other (complete denial) and that never produces the best results.
 
First it was an ice age was coming, then it was global warming, now it's climate change. Next it will be global staying the saming and they'll convince all the sheeple that it's bad staying the same and that we need to do something about it....most likely by taking away your money.
 
AgeofKnowledge said:
I don't mind you disagreeing with me on this issue Human. I suppose it's best to be safe than sorry as the saying goes. But while "better safe than sorry" might "save the day," it doesn't necessarily result in the best outcome.

As I stated, most scientists addressing "global warming" are asserting that it is occurring... that the earth is in a warming cycle and that human activity plays an important role, though not necessarily the only or primary one.

But the topic has become so politicized, that misinformation and false characterizations now propagates in even the best institutions. The scientific opposition, for example, is not "very small." It's material and the criticisms mounted are both important and scientific.

And the IPCC's work, including the report you cited, have been the subject of scholarly criticism around the world from both government policymakers and scientists. Here's a few (of many) examples from the UK:

House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Second Report
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

Etc...

Scientists in China, India, Russia, Western nations, etc... are producing studies and reports that conflict with IPCC assertions and criticizing the methodologies in their reports. And while some critics are, in fact, associated with the oil industry; most of them are not.

I'm not attempting to prove the IPCC findings are in error or that global warming is not occurring. Not at all. In fact, I already stated that I believe global warming is occurring. But that doesn't translate to the left's platform that it's all evil right-wingers who are responsible for it LOL.

Rather nature is the primary driver for global warming with human activity exacerbating it.

What I'm doing is pointing out that the topic has become so politicized that the IPCC and every other organization involved has become biased to a fault and their publications clearly reveal this when the aggregate of data and information is considered and until that ends; our nation's governments will never be able to draw a right picture and respond properly in context with the needs of our societies. It's just the same old radical swing one way (draconian Orwellian leftism) or the other (complete denial) and that never produces the best results.
Click to expand...

The opposition really is quite small. Even in the House of Lords, climate change deniers sort of get laughed at. I read the first report you gave there. It was talking about the economic predctions in regards to climate change and how, in some of the IPCC work (which by the way isn't just the work of scientists but politicians too) politicizing about economics and what climate policy should be favoured while regarding economy more important than planetary health sometimes comes before relaying the evidence and creating economic policies based on global imperative in regard to climate predictions.

The third article is a Q & A, one person asking questions about climate change and the other answering them.

Within the scientific community, again, climate change deniers are a very small minority. And as per above in my last post, human activity is the biggest contributor to unnatural CO2 emissions and human activity the biggest contributor to warming outside natural variability.

Yes, the topic has become politicized because to a certain degree it needs to be, but the climate science itself -- separate from the political ramblings -- is within the scientific community considered as consensus; human caused climate change outside natural variation is definitely happening. A 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human industry MUST cause warming -- that is one of the functions of CO2, to trap heat.
 
No it's not "really... quite small." Scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, etc... exist questioning the consensus. In fact, a study published in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers themselves and this is especially true with respect to global warming.

We can go back and forth all day citing studies and I'll be happy to show you that most of the key studies from the key organizations, including the U.N., asserting scientists are almost wholly advocating human activity as the primary driver for "global warming" were refuted by other studies that qualified them. This includes the false 97% assertion. Not even close.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (see Environmental Science & Policy) found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models.

In fact, 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.

In fact, 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."

It's NOT "really... quite small" even though you mistakenly believe that it is.


Human said:
The opposition really is quite small. Even in the House of Lords, climate change deniers sort of get laughed at. I read the first report you gave there. It was talking about the economic predctions in regards to climate change and how, in some of the IPCC work (which by the way isn't just the work of scientists but politicians too) politicizing about economics and what climate policy should be favoured while regarding economy more important than planetary health sometimes comes before relaying the evidence and creating economic policies based on global imperative in regard to climate predictions.

The third article is a Q & A, one person asking questions about climate change and the other answering them.

Within the scientific community, again, climate change deniers are a very small minority. And as per above in my last post, human activity is the biggest contributor to unnatural CO2 emissions and human activity the biggest contributor to warming outside natural variability.

Yes, the topic has become politicized because to a certain degree it needs to be, but the climate science itself -- separate from the political ramblings -- is within the scientific community considered as consensus; human caused climate change outside natural variation is definitely happening. A 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by human industry MUST cause warming -- that is one of the functions of CO2, to trap heat.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AgeofKnowledge said:
No it's not "really... quite small." Scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, etc... exist questioning the consensus. In fact, a study published in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers themselves and this is especially true with respect to global warming.

We can go back and forth all day citing studies and I'll be happy to show you that most of the key studies from the key organizations, including the U.N., asserting scientists are almost wholly advocating human activity as the primary driver for "global warming" were refuted by other studies that qualified them. This includes the false 97% assertion. Not even close.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (see Environmental Science & Policy) found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models.

In fact, 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.

In fact, 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."

It's NOT "really... quite small" even though you mistakenly believe that it is.
Click to expand...

I copied an pasted some of your text and found it came from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Here are more reliable sources:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

As for the 2012 study you cited, (which ONLY takes into account the AMS, a tiny fraction of ALL SCIENTISTS) it notes:

A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they “don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

AS you can see from the article I cited:

A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
 
I know. And, the content was valid. But your source is lifted from perhaps the most biased pro-global warming website in existence. So, I have a problem with it on that basis alone. If I create a website dedicated to disproving global warming and then conduct an internal survey of peer-reviewed research papers per a methodology that I devise to lend legitimacy to my position then...

But the 97% figure is false all by itself and the article I copied and pasted from did falsify that assertion and those "studies" so you should read that WSJ article in its entirety.

And since your resorting to a completely biased source, permit me to do the same. Friends of Science took the time to kindly debunk the 97% false assertion in a report: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

But let's look at another source, "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims...

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus."

We can swim in this ocean forever and it's not going to change anything. Everything I had to say before we began arguing about sources just like everyone else does regarding this "highly politicized" topic covered it.

This is just the never ending source/assertion game played round the world by those for and those against in the global warming debate but because you're "religiously" adamant in parroting a false assertion that 97% of the world's scientists are strict proponents for human activity foisting global warming on the world; I, who actually believe global warming occurs cyclically and human activity plays a role, is now forced into a position of being your unwilling opponent. You're parroting a false assertion based on spurious information from a completely biased source.



Human said:
I copied an pasted some of your text and found it came from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Here are more reliable sources:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

As for the 2012 study you cited, (which ONLY takes into account the AMS, a tiny fraction of ALL SCIENTISTS) it notes:

A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they “don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

AS you can see from the article I cited:

A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.
Click to expand...
 
AgeofKnowledge said:
I know. And, the content was valid. But your source is lifted from perhaps the most biased pro-global warming website in existence. So, I have a problem with it on that basis alone. If I create a website dedicated to disproving global warming and then conduct an internal survey of peer-reviewed research papers per a methodology that I devise to lend legitimacy to my position then...

But the 97% figure is false all by itself and the article I copied and pasted from did falsify that assertion and those "studies" so you should read that WSJ article in its entirety.

And since your resorting to a completely biased source, permit me to do the same. Friends of Science took the time to kindly debunk the 97% false assertion in a report: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

But let's look at another source, "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims...

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus."

We can swim in this ocean forever and it's not going to change anything. Everything I had to say before we began arguing about sources just like everyone else does regarding this "highly politicized" topic covered it.

This is just the never ending source/assertion game played round the world by those for and those against in the global warming debate but because you're "religiously" adamant in parroting a false assertion that 97% of the world's scientists are strict proponents for human activity foisting global warming on the world; I, who actually believe global warming occurs cyclically and human activity plays a role, is now forced into a position of being your unwilling opponent. You're parroting a false assertion based on spurious information from a completely biased source.
Click to expand...

our survey is based on responses from less than 1100 scientists, then it expands the answers to claim to paint a picture of all scientists. Th e article I gave your reviewed EVERY SINGLE PEER REVIEWED CLIME SCIENCE PAPER SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES and found 97% of them assert humans as the cause of global warming. The study within that article was itself peer reviewed.

I'll simply say, it's happening. I know enough about climate, I've read enough scientific papers, I've studied enough about weather, the cycle of precipitation, seen enough satellite images of the icecaps year on year and understand the concepts of climate balance sufficiently to conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that human industrial and agricultural activities are the main cause of the warming of the planet outside natural variance.

I'ts your prerogative to disagree. Let's hope you're right or something changes, for your sake and your children's sakes.
 
Last edited:
"Our?" Are you one of the "citizen scientists" at skepticalscience? If so, could you tell them to fix the broken photo links on their 'Team' page?

The problems associated with your ‘carte blanche’ survey are clear. Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired) rejected Cook’s (Cook owns skepticalscience) result and classification suggesting the Cook survey may have been reverse engineered to arrive at the 97% consensus result.

Dr. Carlin said, “The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations ....”

This is a powerful statement that shows one example of how badly Cook et al (2013) did the classifications. Dr. Carlin says the IPCC is wrong by a factor of 100, but Cook wrongly claims Alan Carlin endorses the IPCC. It is hard to be more wrong than 100 times wrong.

Dr. Carlin is not the only high profile scientist rejecting the Cook et al study for wrongly categorizing work as supporting AGW when it does not.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta rejected Cook’s work: “My paper says that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

Cook et al (2013) did a follow-up contact with a number of members of the survey to confirm their position on AGW, but as noted by Klein (1991) in the “Humiliation Dynamic,” in light of the polarized debate on climate change and intense public hazing of those who challenge or dissent with the alleged consensus view (which has resulted in ‘climate rebels’ losing of funding and employment) it is not clear whether those who told Cook et al that they agreed they support AGW did so freely.

Etc... etc... etc...

Like I said, it's an erroneous fabrication. 97% of the world's scientists do not believe human activity is the primary driver in global warming (or cooling). So why keep repeating the false assertion?





Human said:
our survey is based on responses from less than 1100 scientists, then it expands the answers to claim to paint a picture of all scientists. Th e article I gave your reviewed EVERY SINGLE PEER REVIEWED CLIME SCIENCE PAPER SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES and found 97% of them assert humans as the cause of global warming. The study within that article was itself peer reviewed.

I'll simply say, it's happening. I know enough about climate, I've read enough scientific papers, I've studied enough about weather, the cycle of precipitation, seen enough satellite images of the icecaps year on year and understand the concepts of climate balance sufficiently to conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that human industrial and agricultural activities are the main cause of the warming of the planet outside natural variance.

I'ts your prerogative to disagree. Let's hope you're right or something changes, for your sake and your children's sakes.
Click to expand...
 
Well I don't know if global warming is true or not, but here in Missouri when I was growing up we would go mid-December to mid-February with weeks on end with negative to in the teens temperatures. We would have easily 4 to 8 inches of snow storms at least 6 to 8 times a year, and we would easily get an ice storm in February almost every to every other year. It would take at least a week or two to even get snow off the streets.

Now days for at least the past 5 years we have seen here hardly any days below 15 degrees, and only get a dusting of snow here or there. We had good snows of more than 5 inches only four times in the past few years, and this year where I live we have not even received 2 inches total in snow yet. We have only seen dusting's so far, and we are already almost mid-February.

This and I also wanted to add that our worst snows use to be in February, and by mid-February all snow and ice would be over. Now we see what little snow we get all the way into March, as if the seasons have fallen a month later now. I had to wait tell the end of March last year to plant the garden, because even though we are not getting extremely low temperatures like we use to; 40's to low 50's is still to cold to plant......
 
AgeofKnowledge said:
"Our?" Are you one of the "citizen scientists" at skepticalscience? If so, could you tell them to fix the broken photo links on their 'Team' page?

The problems associated with your ‘carte blanche’ survey are clear. Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired) rejected Cook’s (Cook owns skepticalscience) result and classification suggesting the Cook survey may have been reverse engineered to arrive at the 97% consensus result.

Dr. Carlin said, “The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations ....”

This is a powerful statement that shows one example of how badly Cook et al (2013) did the classifications. Dr. Carlin says the IPCC is wrong by a factor of 100, but Cook wrongly claims Alan Carlin endorses the IPCC. It is hard to be more wrong than 100 times wrong.

Dr. Carlin is not the only high profile scientist rejecting the Cook et al study for wrongly categorizing work as supporting AGW when it does not.

Dr. Nicola Scafetta rejected Cook’s work: “My paper says that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

Cook et al (2013) did a follow-up contact with a number of members of the survey to confirm their position on AGW, but as noted by Klein (1991) in the “Humiliation Dynamic,” in light of the polarized debate on climate change and intense public hazing of those who challenge or dissent with the alleged consensus view (which has resulted in ‘climate rebels’ losing of funding and employment) it is not clear whether those who told Cook et al that they agreed they support AGW did so freely.

Etc... etc... etc...

Like I said, it's an erroneous fabrication. 97% of the world's scientists do not believe human activity is the primary driver in global warming (or cooling). So why keep repeating the false assertion?
Click to expand...

It isn't just Cooke's suvery. Orkes, Doran, Anderegg, the Vision Prize. These societies:



13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academie des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."​
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

  • African Academy of Sciences
  • Cameroon Academy of Sciences
  • Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • Kenya National Academy of Sciences
  • Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
  • Nigerian Academy of Sciences
  • l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
  • Uganda National Academy of Sciences
  • Academy of Science of South Africa
  • Tanzania Academy of Sciences
  • Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
  • Zambia Academy of Sciences
  • Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:




Again, the IPCC studies are the most peer reviewed set of documents ever, and these institutions accept their findings ...


  • Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
  • Royal Society of Canada
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Academié des Sciences (France)
  • Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  • Indian National Science Academy
  • Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  • Science Council of Japan
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  • National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  • Australian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  • Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  • Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  • Royal Irish Academy
  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  • Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  • Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.


In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:


The main points that most would agree on as “the consensus” are:

  1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years [ch 2]
  2. People are causing this [ch 12]
  3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
  4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

If you want to see the IPCCs own summary, it’s here.


That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it and in consequence few people rebut skepticism of it (though the IPCC mention it). That the recent increase in temperature is unprecedented in the last 1000 years is one (but by no means the only) line of evidence indicating that recent change is likely to be unnatural.


The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with “there is no consensus”. That’s wrong, and they usually retreat from it to “but consensus science is meaningless”, and/or “consensus has nothing to do with science”. The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn’t do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn’t prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media.


The existence of the consensus shouldn’t be used to hide the fact that there are areas of doubt. Climate models clearly aren’t perfect. There are questions about the differences between surface and tropospheric temperature trends. Conversely the existence of some areas of doubt shouldn’t be used to try to hide the many areas of understanding and agreement.
 
I know and they don't support your assertion. None of them claim 97% of the world's scientists assert global warming is occurring and occurring primarily because of human activity. Most of them align with the position that global warming is occurring partly because of human activity. And, as stated, there are a material number of scientists and organizations that take a contrary view. I have lots of lists, lots of studies, lots of reports, lots of polls, etc... but it's getting late so, I'm off. Chow.
 
I was not a big fan of Global Warming till I went to Glacier National Park last summer. Of 150 glaciers in 1910, only 50 remain. Those are receding fast, and it is predicted they will be completely gone within 15 years if the current climate warming trend continues.

It was very stark seeing all the pictures, then seeing it in person. It was real evidence of global warming. I have also seen receding glaciers in Canada.

Glacier National Park is on of the most beautiful areas I have ever seen. It is a tragedy this paplace is going to be ruined by global warming.

Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) | science for a changing world
 
Look...the bible teaches that the seasons will continue unto the end of the age....global warming will come for sure when God burns the planet with his fiery indignation at the end of the age....!
 
"“If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” - Ruth Graham

dcontroversal said:
Look...the bible teaches that the seasons will continue unto the end of the age....global warming will come for sure when God burns the planet with his fiery indignation at the end of the age....!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back