Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[Moviefan-2]

So your analysis of Powell research/article/graph is solely your own. That explains a lot, little more than a guess...

"Little more than a guess"? You know not of what you speak.

You guys can't have it both ways. When I point out that I can speak with authority about Powell's propaganda, basketcase says I'm being arrogant. He even committed the unpardonable sin of comparing me with Lovehobby.

Meanwhile, you make baseless statements that I'm just guessing.

At no point was I guessing. And neither one of you has been able to challenge a single point in my critique.

On the scientific consensus:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

Well done, sir. Well done.

You wanted proof that NASA's climate program was politicized beyond acceptable limits under Hansen -- and then you provide the evidence yourself.

Take a look at the footnotes for the "consensus" claim. All of those sources have been discredited. To select one, the Doran study was proven to be utter crap in the analysis I provided earlier in this thread.

Let's review it again.

Here is the actual report: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

We'll begin with the statistics. The survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. Yet, as is made clear in the third column of the first page, only about 3,100 people responded and the results were broken down further so that the so-called 97% "consensus" number comes from an analysis of just 77 responses. Just 77 from a starting point of more than 10,000!

Even worse, look at the questions that were asked (also on the third column of the first page). Quoted directly:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The second question is the one that is so damning. It only asks about "human activity." Humans are engaged in all kinds of activities -- ie, cutting down large forests, building huge cities, etc. -- that go far beyond the release of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Pretty much everyone -- including me -- believes that man's existence on the planet affects the climate (although not necessarily in alarming ways). Whether you believe man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate in any significant way is a completely different question.

The survey never asked the scientists about anything related to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and the results were reduced to such a tiny level that they became statistically insignificant.

The survey is political propaganda and total rubbish.

---

As for everyone in the scientific community standing behind the political activism of former GISS head James Hansen and his buddy Gavin Schmidt, that's certainly not the case. It wasn't even true for all of the scientists who had worked at NASA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Here's an interesting quote from the letter:

We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.

Indeed.

How could anyone disagree with their recommendation that climate researchers should start looking at the empirical evidence?

 

[blackrock13]

"Little more than a guess"? You know not of what you speak.

You guys can't have it both ways. When I point out that I can speak with authority about Powell's propaganda, basketcase says I'm being arrogant. He even committed the unpardonable sin of comparing me with Lovehobby.

Meanwhile, you make baseless statements that I'm just guessing.

At no point was I guessing. And neither one of you has been able to challenge a single point in my critique.



Well done, sir. Well done.

You wanted proof that NASA's climate program was politicized beyond acceptable limits under Hansen -- and then you provide the evidence yourself.

Take a look at the footnotes for the "consensus" claim. All of those sources have been discredited. To select one, the Doran study was proven to be utter crap in the analysis I provided earlier in this thread.

Let's review it again.

Here is the actual report: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Let's begin with the statistics. The survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. Yet, as is made clear in the third column of the first page, only about 3,100 people responded and the results were broken down further so that the so-called "consensus" numbers come from an analysis of just 77 responses. Seventy-seven from a starting point of more than 10,000!

Even worse, look at the questions that were asked (also on the third column of the first page). Quoted directly:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The second question is the one that is so damning. It only asks about "human activity." Humans are engaged in all kinds of activities -- ie, cutting down large forests, building huge cities, etc. -- that go far beyond the release of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Pretty much everyone -- including me -- believes that man's existence on the planet affects the climate (although not necessarily in alarming ways). Whether you believe man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate in any significant way is a completely different question.

The survey never asked the scientists about anything related to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and the results were reduced to such a tiny level that they became statistically insignificant.

The survey is political propaganda and total rubbish.

---

As for everyone in the scientific community standing behind the political activism of former GISS head James Hansen and his buddy Gavin Schmidt, that's certainly not the case. It wasn't even true for all of the scientists who had worked at NASA.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Here's an interesting quote from the letter:

Indeed.

You've shown not legitimate reason to accept that you speak with authority, you just say such and such is propaganda, and show only porous examples from 'Andrew' on a blog calledPopular Tech.org of why you say so.

Then we have this group, who know a lot more about the scientific method and climatology than pretty much anyone on this BB.

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• Geological Society of London
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 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:

• Australian Academy of Science
• Royal Society of New Zealand
• Polish Academy of Sciences

Last updated on 16 May 2013 by dana1981. View Archive

As far as the 49 NASA employees,although this was handled in an earlier thread, one can look at it this way, as posed by Rob Honeycott, and consider it's weighted value.

How many retired NASA scientists are there?


NASA currently has 18,000 employees. They've been operating since 1958, so that's 55 years. Best I can gather there are something upward of 10,000 people who've retired from NASA over the years.


So, this is coming from 0.2% of the retired scientists from NASA.


You'd think if this was important (or merely even correct) they'd be able to muster larger numbers that that.

Many of their seven questions have been easily dealt with before.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You shown not legitimate reason to accept that you speak with authority.

I provided a full critique -- one that you haven't been able to challenge. Indeed, given the trash propaganda in question, I gave it more attention than it deserved.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position.

Interesting. Here's the quote I like:

Average global temperatures increased by 0.74ºC between 1906-2005 and a further increase of 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC in the next 20 years is expected.

http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf

Assuming they were reading their model projections correctly, it looks like the IPCC went with the top end of the range when it made its predictions in 2007.

Another bet that Groggy is very likely going to lose.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Many of their seven questions have been easily dealt with before.

You evaded the most important one: That the climate researchers should start looking at the empirical evidence.

I think they're absolutely right.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Last updated on 16 May 2013 by dana1981. View Archive

Now, you're citing political propagandists Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook?

Oy vey.

 

[basketcase]

that is not a good reason since the problem posed is climate change....I suppose back then you would have been crying about not being able hunt for polar bears year round.

I chose to be flippant instead of rehashing 32 pages of arguments.

 

[basketcase]

"Little more than a guess"? You know not of what you speak.
...

Yep, you are smarter than all the scientists in the world. I guess that's why pretty much every major scientific body agrees with you. Oh wait, they don't.

 

[nottyboi]

I chose to be flippant instead of rehashing 32 pages of arguments.

Even the Scientific American webpage admits they don't know exactly why. So if such a dramatic change in climate can occur with no significant exploitation of hydrocarbons and no explanation I don't see how people can be so certain as to the causes and impacts now. How do we even know it will be bad for sure? Maybe warmer is better.

 

[basketcase]

I'll actually post the methodology you complain about.

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al.,2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydro-geology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

So lets review your attempt to spin.

Of 3146 people in the general field, 82% support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. That sounds like a pretty good consensus right there.

Further, of the respondents 77 who primarily work in the field of climate change, 97% support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.


Gee, when looking at the actual details, it looks like you are the one trying to propagandize and lie about what's been published.

 

[basketcase]

Even the Scientific American webpage admits they don't know exactly why. So if such a dramatic change in climate can occur with no significant exploitation of hydrocarbons and no explanation I don't see how people can be so certain as to the causes and impacts now. How do we even know it will be bad for sure? Maybe warmer is better.

At the rate of climate change over the past century, the fear is that the environment will be unable to adapt fast enough to support our 7 billion people.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So lets review your attempt to spin.

Of 3146 people in the general field, 82% support the idea of anthropogenic climate change. That sounds like a pretty good consensus right there.

Further, of the respondents 77 who primarily work in the field of climate change, 97% support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.


Gee, when looking at the actual details, it looks like you are the one trying to propagandize and lie about what's been published.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

It's funny that you got your nose out of joint when I said you don't know how to analyze this stuff. As much as it seems to upset you, my comment was entirely fair.

Allow me to explain.

You provided quite a few details about the breakdown of responses, but you forgot to include the question. Here it is:

"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

The question was about "human activity," not anthropogenic global warming. Human activity involves all kinds of things -- cutting down large forests, building huge cities, etc. -- that go well beyond man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

As I said previously, most researchers would agree with the premise that "human activity" affects the climate. I would agree with that, even though you keep calling me a "denier" (whether the affect is significant enough to be a concern is another matter).

Doran's survey never asked about anthropogenic global warming and the premise that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of increases in the Earth's temperature.

The claim that the results show a "consensus" view when it comes to AGW is blatant propaganda, and nothing more.

Unlike your comments about me, however, I won't accuse you of lying. I genuinely don't believe you are lying. But I do believe you don't know how to interpret this kind of information.

If that sounds arrogant, that's unfortunate. But your interpretation was completely wrong, so it certainly does appear to be an evidence-based conclusion.

---

I'll repeat what I said yesterday. If you really prefer polls over empirical evidence and want to conduct a survey, this is the type of question that should be asked:

Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause for recently recorded increases in the Earth's temperature?

-- Yes.
-- No.
-- Don't know.

Based on what I have seen (including Cook's numbers), I suspect most respondents would say "don't know." But the only way to find out, if this is truly what you want to know, is to ask the question.

If you want an honest collection of answers, you have to ask an honest question.

I still prefer empirical evidence and scientific research over opinion surveys, but I guess that puts me in the minority around here. At least we know that Einstein agreed with me.

 

[aussie9]

Whoever poops the most wins...and then that species loses.

 

[basketcase]

Wrong. Completely wrong.
...

Funny. All I did was quote directly from the link you gave. It really seems you've gone all fuji on us and are arguing against yourself.

Besides that you are completely full of shit.

1) You say there is no consensus and the 97% is wrong and give us the link to prove it. Turns out that it is pretty specific as to how that number was arrived at and even if you don't like the 97% because it only includes experts in the field, the general responses from related fields still show a pretty strong consensus.

2) You then change your mind and accept that study ...


3) ...but say

The question was about "human activity," not anthropogenic global warming.

Well looking for a definition,

an·thro·po·gen·ic
ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
adjective

1. (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anthropogenic

4) So we are left with your claims that there is no consensus but the consensus says we have "human activity" causing global warming, not that it is anthropogenic global warming. Yep, that makes sense. :frusty:


5) Of course you keep claiming that you rely on science but never spend a moment actually discussing the science. I gave you a just released study by NASA but you ignored it saying it was propaganda. You were given the opinions of most of the world's major scientific bodies but chose to ignore that too.


But just to let you demonstrate your scientific brilliance, why don't you go on and describe the impact of all the other effects humans are having and why they are more significant than greenhouse gasses. Are there studies that directly link deforestation or urbanization to increasing temperatures that aren't based on the associated increase in CO2? What SCIENCE do you have to back your viewpoint?

I will give you credit though for learning from our mayor. Just keep repeating your slogans and ignore reality.

 

[blackrock13]

Interesting. Here's the quote I like:



http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf

Assuming they were reading their model projections correctly, it looks like the IPCC went with the top end of the range when it made its predictions in 2007.

Another bet that Groggy is very likely going to lose.

Average global temperatures increased by 0.74ºC between 1906-2005 and a further increase of 0.2ºC to 0.4ºC in the next 20 years is expected.

So in other words in the next 20 years, the temperature will climb ~50% of what it has in the 100 years, that's noteworthy don't you think? If all things remain the same, it should almost double in half the time, if not sooner.

 

[blackrock13]

Even the Scientific American webpage admits they don't know exactly why. So if such a dramatic change in climate can occur with no significant exploitation of hydrocarbons and no explanation I don't see how people can be so certain as to the causes and impacts now. How do we even know it will be bad for sure? Maybe warmer is better.

Could you provide the link for this? There isn't 'no explanation', just not complete, a big difference. Warmer will definitely not be better for humans for reasons already discussed. Try and stay up with the group.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So we are left with your claims that there is no consensus but the consensus says we have "human activity" causing global warming, not that it is anthropogenic global warming.

You continue to display your ignorance on this matter.

To begin with, if there were only 79 researchers who were qualified to respond, what was the point of sending out the survey to more than 10,000 scientists?

The decision to self-select a small pool that gave them the "consensus" they wanted proves nothing other than a 97% response among the 77 respondents who answered the second question. It can't be extrapolated to speak for climate researchers in general, because the actual results show the number was closer to 80%.

Second, a question about "human activity" is not a question about anthropogenic global warming.

Your reply is sophistry of the worst kind. No one would dispute that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are a result of human activity. But they would dispute that all human activity leads to CO2 emissions.

As for your not understanding how cutting down forests and building large cities might affect climate, look it up. In fact, Blackrock posted a rather lengthy explanation somewhere in this thread on the part about forests. There is also plenty of research that shows that cities are much warmer than rural areas because concrete and asphalt absorb heat.

If you want to know what the climate researchers believe about AGW, you have to ask the question.

Furthermore, such polling -- if you really insist on choosing poll results over empirical evidence -- has to be done by an unbiased researcher, not militant activists like John Cook.

Your "consensus" numbers are a crock. The fact that the phony "consensus" claim is cited on NASA's website (I'm guessing you still haven't looked up anything about Hansen) is a disgrace.

And the empirical evidence is still what it is. As your own Yale studied confirmed, we don't know what impact -- if any -- COs emissions have on climate. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong. And it will likely take a long time before we are able to determine whether there is any merit to the premise.

 

[basketcase]

.....

Second, a question about "human activity" is not a question about anthropogenic global warming.
...

What the hell are you talking about? Sophistry of the worst kind is you trying to pretend that anthropogenic doesn't mean "due to human activity."

No one would dispute that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are a result of human activity. But they would dispute that all human activity leads to CO2 emissions.

(Beyond the fact that merely breathing creates CO2) you aren't even arguing anything here. Is this an attempt to pretend you haven't had your arguments utterly destroyed?

Your "consensus" numbers are a crock. The fact that the phony "consensus" claim is cited on NASA's website (I'm guessing you still haven't looked up anything about Hansen) is a disgrace.

As you show, out of those actually studying climate change, 97% agree that human activity is behind it. Out of those in related fields, 82% agree.


And just for fun:


an·thro·po·gen·ic
adjective \-pə-ˈje-nik\
Definition of ANTHROPOGENIC
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature <anthropogenic pollutants>
— an·thro·po·gen·ic·al·ly adverb
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic


anthropogenic
anthropogenic
[an-thruh-puh-jen-ik]
adjective
caused or produced by humans: anthropogenic air pollution.

World English Dictionary
anthropogenic (ˌænθrəpəʊˈdʒɛnɪk)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic

—adj
1. relating to anthropogenesis
2. created by people or caused by human activity: anthropogenic pollution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropogenic

an·thro·po·gen·ic (ăn′thrə-pə-jĕn′ĭk)
adj.
1. Of or relating to anthropogenesis.
2. Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.
an′thro·po·gen′i·cal·ly adv.
anthropogenic (ˌænθrəpəʊˈdʒɛnɪk)
adj
1. (Anthropology & Ethnology) relating to anthropogenesis
2. (Environmental Science) created by people or caused by human activity: anthropogenic pollution.
an•thro•po•gen•ic (ˌæn θrə pəˈdʒɛn ɪk)

adj.
caused or produced by humans.
[1885–90]
an`thro•po•gen′i•cal•ly, adv.
anthropogenic (ăn′thrə-pə-jĕn′ĭk)
Caused or influenced by humans. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is that portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced directly by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, rather than by such processes as respiration and decay.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropogenic

anthropogenic
an¦thropo|gen¦ic
Pronunciation: /ˌanθrəpəˈdʒɛnɪk
adjective

(Chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anthropogenic


anthropogenic
[an′t̸hrə pō′ jen′ik]
adjective

The definition of anthropogenic is something that is made by humans.

An example of something that could be considered anthropogenic are excessive greenhouse gasses.


anthropogenic definition by Webster's New World

adjective

of anthropogenesis
caused by man, as air pollution


anthropogenic definition by American Heritage Dictionary
adjective

Of or relating to anthropogenesis.
Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.


anthropogenic - Science Definition

Caused or influenced by humans. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is that portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is produced directly by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, rather than by such processes as respiration and decay.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/anthropogenic

 

[basketcase]

And still you haven't actually presented a shred of scientific evidence.

 

[blackrock13]

The nickname flounder comes to mind when I read the latest MF2 posts.