20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
You keep using the word “noticeably.”

Do you mean “measurably”?
No, I meant NOTICABLY!!!

If earth temperatures have increased (on record) by 1 or 2 degrees, I have yet to notice it right here on the ground (Toronto), and so have other people I talked to in other parts of the world (Panama City; Tocumen).

Also, I have friends I went to Bishops University (Quebec) with, and they've said their winters have actually gotten COLDER!!! So how do you figure all that then???

Managee?????????? At what point do you start using COMMON SENSE????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
The Earth's temperature has increased by about 1 C over the past 135 years. I don't think that would be "noticeable" to most people, even if they had been around for most of those 135 years
Exactly!!

I think its actually less than 1C over the last 135 years. Its probably around 0.05 Celsius per century.
Which means we have another 500 years to go before shit hits the fan.

LOL :encouragement:
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
So let me get this straight:

Earth has been pumping I dont know how many gigatons of CO2's into the atmosphere for the last 100 years now, correct (at least since 1900)??

Am I correct or am I wrong????
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
And Toronto winters have barely warmed up at all.

Am I also correct???
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
No, I meant NOTICABLY!!!

If earth temperatures have increased (on record) by 1 or 2 degrees, I have yet to notice it right here on the ground (Toronto), and so have other people I talked to in other parts of the world (Panama City; Tocumen).

Also, I have friends I went to Bishops University (Quebec) with, and they've said their winters have actually gotten COLDER!!! So how do you figure all that then???

Managee?????????? At what point do you start using COMMON SENSE????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ohhh you sweet summer child.

I just need to get this straight.

Global climate change has been proven a myth, because you don’t notice a year to year temperature change, some people you met in Panama said they haven’t noticed a change and your friends in Sherbrooke have told you it’s gotten colder there? What was their dataset based on? Licking their finger, sticking it in the air and trying really hard to remember what Frost Week 2016 felt like?

At our latitude, change has been fractions of a degree each year, and only visible within the data as studied over a number of years. But even at our latitude, ecologically fragile bio systems, in-particular glaciers, have been receding at an alarming rate - rates never seen by human eyes.

And who cares about what’s happening in Toronto or Quebec... if our icecaps are melting, which all credible scientific data seems to indicate that they are, that’s going to be a problem. Phil’s opinion on the weather only matters to Phil.

But you’re right Phil. As a result of the famous “What Phil Thinks About Weather” study, climate change has been successfully debunked. I’m sure the oceans will stop rising now.

You seem awesome at common-sense.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
And who cares about what’s happening in Toronto or Quebec... if our icecaps are melting, which all credible scientific data seems to indicate that they are, that’s going to be a problem. Phil’s opinion on the weather only matters to Phil
Oh noes Managee.........all the icecaps are melting!!!!!!!!!

Now what do we do??!!!
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
Ohhh you sweet summer child.

I just need to get this straight.

Global climate change has been proven a myth, because you don’t notice a year to year temperature change, some people you met in Panama said they haven’t noticed a change and your friends in Sherbrooke have told you it’s gotten colder there? What was their dataset based on? Licking their finger, sticking it in the air and trying really hard to remember what Frost Week 2016 felt like?

At our latitude, change has been fractions of a degree each year, and only visible within the data as studied over a number of years. But even at our latitude, ecologically fragile bio systems, in-particular glaciers, have been receding at an alarming rate - rates never seen by human eyes.

And who cares about what’s happening in Toronto or Quebec... if our icecaps are melting, which all credible scientific data seems to indicate that they are, that’s going to be a problem. Phil’s opinion on the weather only matters to Phil.

But you’re right Phil. As a result of the famous “What Phil Thinks About Weather” study, climate change has been successfully debunked. I’m sure the oceans will stop rising now.

You seem awesome at common-sense
Thank you Managee, I appreciate the compliment :encouragement:
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
Ohhh you sweet summer child.

I just need to get this straight.

Global climate change has been proven a myth, because you don’t notice a year to year temperature change, some people you met in Panama said they haven’t noticed a change and your friends in Sherbrooke have told you it’s gotten colder there? What was their dataset based on? Licking their finger, sticking it in the air and trying really hard to remember what Frost Week 2016 felt like?
Yeah, it actually was.......LOL

At our latitude, change has been fractions of a degree each year, and only visible within the data as studied over a number of years. But even at our latitude, ecologically fragile bio systems, in-particular glaciers, have been receding at an alarming rate - rates never seen by human eyes
Okay thats a fair assessment, but how do you know those temperature degree variations arent part of a natural fluctuation(s), and/or part of the CO2 ingredients??!!
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
Oh noes Managee.........all the icecaps are melting!!!!!!!!!

Now what do we do??!!!
There are only 2. And yes. They appear to be shrinking at a rate that is cause for alarm, according to 97% of the world’s scientific community, including the near-consenus of credible climatologists.

Thank you Managee, I appreciate the compliment :encouragement:
You are absolutely welcome.

Yeah, it actually was.......LOL


Okay thats a fair assessment, but how do you know those temperature degree variations arent part of a natural fluctuation(s), and/or part of the CO2 ingredients??!!
Science.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
There are only 2. And yes. They appear to be shrinking at a rate that is cause for alarm, according to 97% of the world’s scientific community, including the near-consenus of credible climatologists.

You are absolutely welcome.

Science.



The 97 Percent Solution
By IAN TUTTLE
October 8, 2015 8:00 AM

(Richard Nelson/Dreamstime)
Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):


https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.


The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Examining the scientific consensus on climate change:
http://www.webcitation.org/65ry87IoX



A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

#share#Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.


Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

#related#A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”


COMMENTS
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
 

managee

Banned
Jun 19, 2013
1,731
4
0
The 97 Percent Solution
By IAN TUTTLE
October 8, 2015 8:00 AM

(Richard Nelson/Dreamstime)
Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at Tuesday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times.

The relevant exchange begins at 1:39 (though the whole segment is worth watching):


https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.

There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action?

In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.


The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

#share#Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’

Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

#related#A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”


COMMENTS
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.

I’m absolutely sure that a large proportion of this ‘vigorous, vocal minority” also insists that the science is far from settled on evolution.


Meet the 97 Percent Climate Truthers

How Ted Cruz and other Republicans are even denying the scientific consensus

By Rebecca Leber

October 22, 2015

Two years ago, a group of international researchers led by University of Queensland's John Cook surveyed 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate change since the 1990s. Out of the 4,000 papers that took a position one way or another on the causes of global warming, 97 percent of them were in agreement: Humans are the primary cause. By putting a number on the scientific consensus, the study provided everyone from President Barack Obama to comedian John Oliver with a tidy talking point.


That talking point put climate deniers in a bind. They have successfully delayed political action for years by making it seem like there's still a scientific debate over anthropogenic warming. But when confronted with a statistic like this one, they have been forced to take a different tack: dispute the statistic itself.

They're the 97 percent truthers, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz is leading the recent charge. At a hearing in early October, the GOP presidential candidate peppered Sierra Club President Aaron Mair with questions for ten minutes about the so-called 18-year pause in global warming—a point that's been thoroughly debunked. Mair replied to Cruz’s repeated demands to retract his testimony on climate change by citing the 97 percent consensus, which Cruz brushed off by saying the “problem with that statistic that gets cited a lot is it’s based on one bogus study.” Cruz added that the point was irrelevant to the debate. “Your answer was, pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers that the satellites show and instead listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science,” he said.


Conservative sites celebrated Cruz's questioning. National Review ran two stories, one claiming “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists’ say no such thing” and another that “the 97 percent stat is pure public relations b.s.” The attempts to discredit Cook's study are as old as the study itself. Rick Santorum, another Republican presidential candidate, contested the 97 percent consensus in late August. "That number was pulled out of thin air,” he told Bill Maher. The Wall Street Journal took issue with it last year, arguing that these peer-reviewed studies never said manmade climate change was “dangerous.”

The main criticism of Cook's study is that it omits the vast number of papers that take no position on global warming's causes. That's true: Cook’s study of the 12,000 abstracts found that 66 percent of them took no position, so he excluded them in calculating the percentage. As Cook explained in an online video, he omitted these papers because abstracts are short summaries that "don’t waste time stating something they assume their readers will already know"; just as most "astronomy papers don’t think it necessary to explain that the Earth revolves around the sun," he said, "nowadays most climatology papers don’t see the need to reaffirm the consensus position.”

The deniers' criticism hardly discredits his study. After all, roughly 4,000 of those abstracts did take a position, and 97 percent of them endorsed anthropogenic warming. And it's hardly the first study of its kind.

Cook's finding is backed by a field of literature. A paper in the journal Science published a decade earlier by Naomi Oreskes found 75 percent of peer-review literature from 1993 to 2003 agreed on man’s role in global warming. That percentage has only risen as the scientific study on climate has progressed. In June, a longtime researcher of the subject, National Physical Sciences Consortium director James Powell, found that 97 percent might be too low. His paper, which has not yet been published, found 99.9 percent of the field agreed in 24,000 peer-reviewed papers published in 2013 and 2014.

“The fact that each of these studies have used completely different methods to arrive at the same result demonstrates just how robust the overwhelming consensus on climate change is,” Cook said, pointing out that these studies have relied on techniques like directly surveying climate scientists, analyzing public statements, and examining peer-reviewed papers. All these approaches confirm the same point on the vast agreement.

Even if you want to ignore the consensus literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which includes the most robust panel of respected climate scientists in the world—said in its most recent and fifth assessment that it has 95 percent confidence that humans are driving warming (equivalent to the scientific certainty that cigarettes cause health problems).

That's not the only case deniers make against the 97 percent figure. They argue that if you include non-experts (academics in fields unrelated to climate change) or only look at the studies that say global warming dangerous, you'd get a much lower number. There are some obvious problems with these arguments: Shouldn't expertise in a field matter? And how to define "dangerous" warming was outside the scope of Cook's study. After all, the whole point of the study was to answer a simple question that cuts through the rhetoric of climate politics.

All this debate over one statistic might seem silly, but it's important that Americans understand there is overwhelming agreement about human-caused global warming. Deniers have managed to undermine how the public views climate science, which in turn makes voters less likely to support climate action. According Gallup polling, only 60 percent of Americans think that most scientists believe climate change is occurring.

Yet another study shows how that number could rise. A PLOS One paper from Princeton, Yale, and George Mason University researchers took a step back to consider whether the 97 percent argument is effective at changing public opinion. Researchers gave 1,000 subjects various messages in pie charts or statements, all of which emphasized the 97 percent consensus. Respondents who received this message were more likely to accept climate change, and were also more likely to think of it as a problem. “Repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a strategy likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public,” the authors wrote.

The researchers called 97 percent a “gateway belief” that could even convince Republicans that climate change is a problem. It's only a matter of time before Cruz publicly questions that study's findings, too.
https://newrepublic.com/article/123135/meet-97-percent-climate-truthers
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
I’m absolutely sure that a large proportion of this ‘vigorous, vocal minority” also insists that the science is far from settled on evolution.




https://newrepublic.com/article/123135/meet-97-percent-climate-truthers
Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the hockey stick..? Because they wanted to believe it.”


DR ROY SPENCER, PHD Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and US Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Recipient (with John Christy) of the Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award from NASA and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his work in satellite-based temperature monitoring. Formerly Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. So, if “we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got”, how did the IPCC know it’s hotter than it’s been for a thousand years?

On January 27th 2005 Dr Spencer wrote 126 : As you might imagine, it’s a little difficult to construct a temperature history for a period of record that, for the most part, had no reliable thermometer measurements. Since good thermometer measurements extend back to only around the mid-1800s, “proxy” measurements, primarily tree ring data, have been used to extend the temperature record back additional centuries… The claim of unprecedented warmth and the hockey stick shape appear to hinge on the treatment of one species of tree, the bristlecone pine, from North America in the 1400s. Further statistical tests showed that this critical signal in the early 15th century lacked statistical significance. This suggests that the results of Mann et al were simply which greatly exaggerated a characteristic of the bristlecone pines, which may or may not be related to global temperatures.

The original Mann et al article has had huge repercussions. The hockey stick, along with the “warmest in 1,000 years” argument, has become a central theme of debates over the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, in governments around the world. The question begging to be answered is: Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the Mann et al hockey stick analysis when it first appeared? I cannot help but conclude that it’s because they wanted to believe it.

Dr Spencer pointed out what should have been obvious that the hockey stick had never been subjected to one of the most basic tests of science: Unusual claims in science should be met with unusual skepticism, and this did not happen with the Mann et al study.
An increasing number of researchers have anecdotal evidence that the science tabloids, Nature and Science , select reviewers of some manuscripts based upon whether they want those papers to be accepted or rejected. In other words, it seems like the conclusions of a paper are sometimes more important that the scientific basis for those conclusions. Since those periodicals have profit and popularity motives that normal scientific journals do not, maybe the time has come to downgrade the scientific weight of publications in those journals, at least for some purposes… It will be interesting to see if the IPCC, and its member countries, continue to rally around the hockey stick, or discard it.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, P Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.

On February 25th 2009, Professor Happer testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee : The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.

I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.

There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts…

The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel 1984 : “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” In 2011, Will Happer expanded his thoughts on “controlling the past” : This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.

The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Maybe not. But the hockey stick certainly took “facts and evidence” on a wild ride. In order to control the future, the IPCC had to take control of the past and Mann’s graph was their way to do that.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
I’m absolutely sure that a large proportion of this ‘vigorous, vocal minority” also insists that the science is far from settled on evolution.




https://newrepublic.com/article/123135/meet-97-percent-climate-truthers

Warmers hide behind a consensus of scientists myth. Consensus does not prove anything (even when it exists). After 50 years of promoting a low fat (high carb diet), the govt now says that cholesterol has no impact on heart disease. A low fat diet has actually helped cause an explosion of obesity, diabetes and other diseases.So much for consensus. Big Pharma has been one to exploit this by selling trillions in medications, many of which were never needed.

The Diet-Heart Myth: Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Are Not the Enemy
To read more about heart disease and cholesterol, check out the special report page. It’s hard to overstate the impact that cardiovascular disease (CVD) has…
CHRISKRESSER.COM|BY CHRIS KRESSER
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
2
36
60
Pat&Stu took this graph from Obama's Science Adviser, Dr. Holdren, and completely blew it to pieces!






Clmate warming chart torn apart..lol..



Climate warming chart absoutely torn apart.. This video show how they trick & lied & misled you . You can see what they did to the global warming chart!!
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
Guess what, honeybun, Meteorology is science as well, and they still can't predict the weather accurately 15 days in advance, so how the hell can they predict climate 50 YEARS from now???!!!

And dont give me this weather =/= climate bullshit, you've had 100 years to study climate and temperatures, and earth hasnt heated up NEARLY as much as you fucking homo's have made it out to be.

For real!!
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the hockey stick..? Because they wanted to believe it.”
Indeed. The historical record -- and some current research -- clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period was global in nature. That means there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the small amount of warming that has occurred in recent times.

Man-made greenhouse gases were not a factor during the Medieval Warm Period.

Even worse, when the tree ring data were clearly wrong -- showing dropping temperatures in the period after 1961 during years when it was clear that the temperature increased -- they decided to "hide the decline" and remove that part of the data from their graphs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Ultimately, they spliced together two completely unrelated data sets -- tree ring data and temperature readings -- to create the false illusion of unprecedented warming. That's not real science.

By the way, the IPCC dropped all references to Mann and his hockey stick by the time of its next report in 2007 -- yet stuck with the conclusion that current warming is unprecedented, even though they knew Mann's research had been discredited.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,838
4,947
113
Oh wait, whats this??!!! Don't tell me there's money to be made in this whole scam.......LOL :biggrin1:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/european-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam-1.853443

European fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scam

Officials at Europol, the body in charge of co-ordinating police forces inside the European Union, say fraudulent activity on the EU's Emission Trading System was first suspected in late 2008 when police noticed the volume of trades in certain countries would mysteriously spike.

"It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90 per cent of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities," Europol said.

Since late 2008, the total value of fraudulent activity is believed to be in excess of five billion euros ($7.7 billion Cdn) from bogus trades in European unit allowances, or EUAs, the credits that companies in some countries buy to offset their greenhouse gas output.

In the EU and other jurisdictions, caps are put on the total amount of carbon dioxide that is allowed to be emitted. Companies that pollute more than their fair share must then buy carbon credits from companies that don't pollute, to keep the total output below the prescribed cap.

Market volume on the EU's carbon trading system peaked in May 2009, with several hundred million EUAs traded in France and Denmark alone, Europol said.

Market worth $140 billion annually


At the time, one EUA was worth about 12.5 euros, or about $19.30.

In the scam, criminals set up a carbon trading account on a recognized European market. They would then buy credits tax-free on exchanges in countries outside Europe. Those credits are then transferred into the European account, and the fraudsters collect tax on that transaction, but the monies are never paid to any European tax agencies.

The bogus trading account is then shut down before tax authorities can collect.

To prevent further losses, governments in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and most recently Spain have all changed their taxation rules on the transactions. Trading activity from the aforementioned countries has declined by as much as 90 per cent as a result, Europol said.

Police agencies throughout Europe are currently collaborating to uncover specific fraudulent trades, and there are reasons to believe that fraudsters might soon migrate toward the gas and electricity branches of the energy sector, Europol said.

The EU carbon trading market is estimated to be worth nearly $140 billion a year, and 12,000 emitters have purchased more than two billion EUAs thus far. The Emission Trading System is one of six recognized European carbon trading markets
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,708
22,202
113
Guess what, honeybun, Meteorology is science as well, and they still can't predict the weather accurately 15 days in advance, so how the hell can they predict climate 50 YEARS from now???!!!
IPCC predictions have been spot on.


Phil and Moviefan, not at all.
For instance, Moviefan made a bet about a single year's temperature which he lost.
He claims to know better then thousands of scientists but couldn't even win a bet on one years global temp.
So sad.

Lets just say that someone who's not aware enough to note an almost 2ºC rise in Toronto's average temperature isn't aware enough to understand climate change.

 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,599
10,045
113
Toronto
Warmer near the lake??!! The complete opposite is true. Its always colder near the lake.
Read: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/n...e-lake-the-science-behind-a-lake-breeze/66310
Phil, even your own article unequivocally states that your claim of "always colder by the lake" is not at all true, and I quote: with hearing the following forecast in springtime and early summer: "Temperatures will be quite mild across the region, though much cooler toward the lake." Springtime and early summer is not always.

Here is what happens. The lake has a moderating effect, i.e. if there is an extreme in the air temperature the lake somewhat minimizes that effect. This is because the water is denser than the air, so it takes longer to heat up and cool down. So in early summer, even if it is 30 degrees, the water has not heated up that much and keeps the air nearer to it cooler. Conversely, when air temperatures are cold in November and December, the lake has not cooled down as much and therefore areas near the lake will be slightly warmer than areas farther away. The water in summer will be cold when you swim and a that same water will take longer to freeze than the water in a very small pond or even a bucket.

Here is an "always", that I told my kids when they were young, "Assume I am always right." Even though I know it is not really the case, my use of "always" here is still more accurate than your use of "always" above. Accuracy has a kind of moderating effect.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts