25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

Previous Thread Next Thread
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
Its not really surprising that a survey of TV weathermen (and women) has different views then those of scientists trained in climatology.
Click to expand...
Of course, one of the key differences between you and me is that I actually looked at the results. The results clearly showed that only a little more than half of the members (who are experts in atmospheric science) surveyed believed that man-made emissions are the primary cause of warming.

It is true that many of the non-believers were scientists who had published in other areas, including scientists who specialize in climatology who had published in other areas (although it also found significant numbers of scientists who had published in climatology who either believed the causes are natural, a mix, or unknown). Regardless, the results confirm there is no consensus.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

The results also confirmed that researchers who get paid by government to support the storyline of man-made global warming say they're most likely to believe in it. That's a big surprise. :) And even when you try to separate the responses to focus on the results you prefer, you still only get 78 per cent supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ec/02/meteorologists-global-warming-consensus). That's not a consensus.

Finally, you may want do a little more background on this matter before you start insulting people's credentials.

The propaganda papers that you linked to on the NASA page that falsely claim to have found a consensus are based on results that captured a wide range of people, including meteorologists (eg., Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).

The key points are this:

- It is reasonable to extrapolate that thousands of scientists with expertise in atmospheric science don't believe humans are the primary cause of warming.

- There has never been a survey that found a consensus on the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary cause of warming.

- Even if there were a consensus, it wouldn't change the fact that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

(As an aside, I'm going to have a lot of fun with this if Franky keeps going on about the "TV weatherman".)
 
Last edited:
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,261
7,914
113
Room 112
KBear said:
NASA - Images of Change

http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux#Columbia_Glacier_930x312.jpg

In the previous picture they mention that they have to keep moving the parking lot used by tourists there to see the shrinking glacier.

Something is going on. Would think that cutting down the trees to make way for cities and agriculture would also make some difference in the climate.
Click to expand...
That something is called climate change and it exists, but it's not driven by man made carbon. At the same time there are glaciers in the southern hemisphere that have grown for example the Perito Moreno off the coast of Argentina.
Overall glacial retreat has been happening since 1850, long before co2 had any significance. And it will continue to retreat until the next Ice Age.
It should be noted that expansion of glaciers holds far more detrimental effects for Earth's environment than does retreat.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
Moviefan-2 said:
It is true that many of the non-believers were scientists who had published in other areas

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Click to expand...
You didn't read the paper you are citing, did you?
Did you only read the Heartland faked emails?

The AMS is a broad group, comprised of some who have studied the climate and TV weathermen.
Only the untrained, mostly TV weathermen group were found to not support the idea of climate change.

TV weathermen.
Not, 'scientists in other fields', TV personalities. The ones not smart enough to become anchormen.
I can't believe you're using that study, all it does is show the difference between an organization that requires legit credentials and peer assessment and an organization based off of TV personalities.

If you're going to use that study, at least stick to calling it what it is. Try this for a claim you can really back up:
Most TV weathermen don't support the claim of climate change, showing that it doesn't take brains to point a stick at a screen and read the weather, while most of the AMS members who do have scientific training support accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

First, there's an notice from the author of the paper that says that Heartland misrepresented the findings of the study and tried to fraudulently pass off those findings.
http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/

Second, here is the very first paragraph from the study that you cited:
93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...nd_institute_sowing_global_warming_doubt.html

Finally, you may want do a little more background on this matter before you start insulting people's credentials.

The propaganda papers that you linked to on the NASA page that falsely claim to have found a consensus are based on results that captured a wide range of people, including meteorologists (eg., Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).
Click to expand...
Wait, first you claim that meteorologists are very serious folk with your AMS poll, now you claim that they aren't because a couple were included in the NASA cited poll?
Which is it?


- It is reasonable to extrapolate that thousands of scientists with expertise in atmospheric science don't believe humans are the primary cause of warming.
Click to expand...
You're bullshitting.
'extrapolate' means that you don't really have the numbers and you're guessing.

- There has never been a survey that found a consensus on the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are the primary cause of warming.
Click to expand...
And is there a survey on the consensus for the theory of gravity?
Do you refuse to stop floating 1 foot in the air until a survey confirms it?

- Even if there were a consensus, it wouldn't change the fact that the computer model predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you back to citing the faulty paper from your shoddy mathematician again?
Do you have any legit sources for this claim?
Or only your shoddy mathematician?
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
Wait, first you claim that meteorologists are very serious folk with your AMS poll, now you claim that they aren't because a couple were included in the NASA cited poll?
Which is it?
Click to expand...
Now, you've gone back to being dishonest.

I didn't question the credentials of the AMS's membership. You did. And who says it was only "a couple"?

I've got a fuller response that is going to be very entertaining, but I'll leave it for this evening. I want to get out and enjoy the day.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
Moviefan-2 said:
Now, you've gone back to being dishonest.

I didn't question the credentials of the AMS's membership. You did. And who says it was only "a couple"?
Click to expand...
Sure you did.

Moviefan-2 said:
The propaganda papers that you linked to on the NASA page that falsely claim to have found a consensus are based on results that captured a wide range of people, including meteorologists (eg., Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).
Click to expand...
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
Sure you did.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't.

You really are illiterate. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your position.

Here's the full quote:

Moviefan-2 said:
Finally, you may want do a little more background on this matter before you start insulting people's credentials.

The propaganda papers that you linked to on the NASA page that falsely claim to have found a consensus are based on results that captured a wide range of people, including meteorologists (eg., Doran and Zimmerman, 2009).
Click to expand...
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
Moviefan-2 said:
No, I didn't.

You really are illiterate. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your position.

Here's the full quote:
Click to expand...
My position is clear.
I respect the opinions of trained and accredited scientists whose work has been assessed and confirmed by peer assessment.
That includes meteorologists and climatologists.
Just not TV weathermen.

By the way, here's a statement by the author of your study on James Taylor of Heartland's take on the AMS study.
James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...nd_institute_sowing_global_warming_doubt.html

Are you still standing by the Heartland misrepresentation of this study?
 
K

KBear

Supporting Member
Aug 17, 2001
4,169
1
38
west end
www.gtagirls.com
K Douglas said:
That something is called climate change and it exists, but it's not driven by man made carbon. At the same time there are glaciers in the southern hemisphere that have grown for example the Perito Moreno off the coast of Argentina.
Overall glacial retreat has been happening since 1850, long before co2 had any significance. And it will continue to retreat until the next Ice Age.
It should be noted that expansion of glaciers holds far more detrimental effects for Earth's environment than does retreat.
Click to expand...
In the NASA slide text they say some glaciers are expanding, but the vast majority are retreating and the bulk of the retreat has been in recent decades.

I don’t know what the truth is on climate change, but it makes some sense that changing the earth’s landscape and pumping pollution into the atmosphere could make some difference.

Is a scam that governments use climate change as an excuse to jack up taxes.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Moviefan-2 said:
Here are some of the things that don't count as evidence:

-- Propaganda claims about a mythical "consensus."....
Click to expand...
Frankfooter said:
Its on the NASA site and its reputable.
In fact, I would challenge you to find one reputable scientific organization that disagrees.
Click to expand...
Frankfooter said:
Also false applies to your AMS survey and the representation of its findings.

Its not really surprising that a survey of TV weathermen (and women) has different views then those of scientists trained in climatology.
TV weatherfolk are not generally looked upon as beacons of intelligence, after all...

...So far your evidence has been a very shoddy mathematician and a misrepresented survey of TV weatherpeople.
You really can't tell a legit source from total bullshit, can you?
Click to expand...
This is going to be fun.

When I pointed out that the "97% consensus" is just propaganda and total B.S., Franky directed me to the NASA web page on the matter and the expert sources on that page. He even went so far as to challenge me to find a reputable organization that doesn't support the hypothesis.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a survey of climate researchers that has found a consensus on the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

But what's really funny was that when I cited some stats from the American Meteorological Society that helped confirm there is no consensus, Franky dismissed the AMS as "TV weatherpeople." Nothing like the expert sources on the NASA page, apparently.

Let's probe this a bit.

I already mentioned that the people surveyed in the Doran and Zimmerman study cited on the NASA page included meteorologists. But it gets much better than that.

One of the sources on the NASA "consensus" page is a paper by environmental radical Naomi Oreskes, called Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. When you read the paper, you discover one of the expert sources that Oreskes uses to confirm her claims of a "consensus" is ... the American Meteorological Society: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

It gets better.

On the NASA page on the bogus "consensus," it cites leading organizations that support the cause. You guessed it -- one of the organizations of "climate scientists" quoted on the page is the American Meteorological Society:

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

So, the AMS was reportedly a "scientific association" (NASA's words) whose expert opinion on global warming is valued by NASA and is a primary source behind the claims of a "consensus."

That was until the results of an actual survey of AMS members were released. Once it was discovered that little more than half of the AMS membership actually supports the hypothesis, the AMS suddenly becomes nothing more than a bunch of "TV weatherpeople."

LMFAO. :biggrin1:

--

As for the challenge of finding a reputable organization that disagrees that there is a consensus, let's go with the Geological Society of Australia:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3051
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
Moviefan-2 said:
This is going to be fun.
....

So, the AMS was reportedly a "scientific association" (NASA's words) whose expert opinion on global warming is valued by NASA and is a primary source behind the claims of a "consensus."

That was until the results of an actual survey of AMS members were released. Once it was discovered that little more than half of the AMS membership actually supports the hypothesis, the AMS suddenly becomes nothing more than a bunch of "TV weatherpeople."

LMFAO. :biggrin1:

--
\
Click to expand...

You've been reading only the Heartland propaganda on the AMS poll, not the poll and not the findings of the author.
Heartland falsified emails to make them look as though they were from the AMS, probably fooled you, and tried to fully misrepresent the findings of the study.

As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
Click to expand...
Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.

In fact, here is the first paragraph of the AMS paper, which I'm sure you've never read.
93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
Click to expand...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...nd_institute_sowing_global_warming_doubt.html
Again, the only members of the AMS who didn't support the IPCC reports were TV weathermen (and women).
Is this still your point?


You really need to stop posting total bullshit and trying to pass it off as legit.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
In fact, here is the first paragraph of the AMS paper, which I'm sure you've never read.
Click to expand...
I read it.

And how did they get the number closer to the consensus they wanted? By including deniers!

Sorry, but the Michael Mann/IPCC crowd has always insisted that anyone who doesn't think man-made CO2 emissions are the primary driver of warming is a "denier." Suddenly, the deniers get embraced as supporters of "significant" change.

LOL.

Even when they narrowed it down to respondents who are actively publishing on climate change, they only got 73 per cent support for the hypothesis -- nowhere near a consensus.

There is no consensus. The AMS survey is one of the surveys that confirms it.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
Again, the only members of the AMS who didn't support the IPCC reports were TV weathermen (and women).
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Now we know who hasn't actually read the results.

You need to stop getting your information from the propaganda sites.

They've lied to you before. They'll do it again. It's what they do.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
Moviefan-2 said:
There is no consensus. The AMS survey is one of the surveys that confirms it.
Click to expand...
You are full of shit.
This is the AMS survey.

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.
Click to expand...
Your claim is pure bullshit, its directly denied by the author of the study.
The only ones backing your claim are from Heartland, a denier propaganda organization, who fraudulently tried to pass off an email as if it came from AMS.

The findings of the study are clear.
The experts realize climate change is a reality and the TV weatherfolk don't.


The one thing that is very clear from this study is that you absolutely cannot judge bullshit from serious work.
You back the work of a shoddy mathematician, because there's no real studies with the findings you want.
For you to back this misrepresentation, even in the face of a clearly fraudulent email by your sources, really just shows you either don't care if your sources are legit or aren't smart enough to be able to tell.

I'm starting to think you're just not smart enough.

Here's the faked email from Heartland that you are quoting.
 
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,261
7,914
113
Room 112
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,523
22,161
113
K Douglas said:
If you could impeach a POTUS for incompetency, Obama would have been gone years ago.

What I'm waiting for someone to blame the rise of ISIS due to global warming/climate change. I'm sure there's some liberal fucktards out there that believes it.
Click to expand...
With ISIS?
No, that's totally the Bush's mess.
The neo-con's brought us ISIS by taking out Saddam without being able to keep Iraq stable or to employ his army.
ISIS is run largely by ex-Saddam generals.

But Syria, lots of folk point to the drought in Syria that hastened the political turmoil there.
Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War
Human-induced drying in many societies can push tensions over a threshold that provokes violent conflict
Click to expand...
From the 'liberal fucktards' at Scientific America.
Enjoy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-hastened-the-syrian-war/
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Frankfooter said:
The experts realize climate change is a reality and the TV weatherfolk don't.
Click to expand...
It has already been pointed out to you that it wasn't just "TV weatherpeople" who didn't support the hypothesis. Since you have been made aware of the falsity of the statement and continue to repeat it, we can safely accuse you of posting another blatant falsehood.

Here's the reality.

The AMS surveyed its members to determine their views on man-made global warming. Fifty-two per cent of respondents supported the hypothesis that warming is primarily caused by humans. That's not a consensus.

When you break the results down to only look at respondents who actively publish on climate change, the result is 73 per cent support. That's also not a consensus.

Like so many of the things that get said to promote man-made global warming, the "97% consensus" claim is a fairy tale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom