I'll give you a tip from your friendly well-known denier: Stay away from a debate about Cook's trash propaganda paper.
If any of your American buddies actually know what they're talking about, you're going to get your ass handed to you.
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
If any of your American buddies actually know what they're talking about, you're going to get your ass handed to you.
Coming from a fool who linked to two papers whose authors stated their results supported the consensus claim while he tried to claim otherwise, you should now be an expert on having your ass handed to you. You provided two sources who flat out denied your claims and refused to supply a third one when asked. Your ass was most definitely handed back to you.I'll give you a tip from your friendly well-known denier: Stay away from a debate about Cook's trash propaganda paper.
If any of your American buddies actually know what they're talking about, you're going to get your ass handed to you.
I don't give a damn about the political spin used by others -- I focused on the facts. If you were to ever try actually reading those papers, you would discover the results were exactly as I reported them.Coming from a fool who linked to two papers whose authors stated their results supported the consensus claim while he tried to claim otherwise, you should now be an expert on having your ass handed to you. You provided two sources who flat out denied your claims and refused to supply a third one when asked. Your ass was most definitely handed back to you.
Indeed, you said I was "lying" when I said that the 66% of respondents in the Netherlands study said greenhouse gases were responsible for more than half of the warming that occurred since 1950.
Here are the results (Page 8: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf)
More than 100% - 17.1%
76 to 100% - 32.2%
51 to 75% - 16.6%
Since you claim I was "lying" when I said those results add up to 66% (actually, 65.9%), tell us what you think 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to.
Like I said, the fact is that the authors of that report stated this as their result:I don't give a damn about the political spin used by others -- I focused on the facts.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warmingThe results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
Are you calling the authors liars and then quoting their report?
Talk about dishonest.
Like I said, your ass was handed to you.
It's not an excellent website. It's propaganda. And full of holes.Excellent website. Thanks.
It links to the paper and data behind every single claim.It's not an excellent website. It's propaganda. And full of holes.
That's the opposite of propaganda, its a fully documented site.
Are you serious? You have to go to secondary sources to try to determine what 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to?Like I said, the fact is that the authors of that report stated this as their result:
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming
Are you calling the authors liars and then quoting their report?
Talk about dishonest.
Like I said, your ass was handed to you.
You can't do the math for yourself?
Are you even old enough to be on this website?
Let's try again. You said I was "lying" when I said that 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to 66 (rounded off).
If that's "lying," tell us what you think those numbers add up to.
Secondary sources?Are you serious? You have to rely on secondary sources to try to determine what 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to?
You can't do the math for yourself?
That's the folks who wrote the survey.
And it looks like they think you are the one lying about the results, you are trying to conflate a question about the ratio of warming due to human influences with a result about the ratio who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
That's deceitful.
The people who wrote the survey got this result out of the survey.
They handed you your ass.The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is that man-made emissions have been the "dominant" cause of warming since 1950, and the IPCC and its supporters have been very clear that "dominant" means the emissions are responsible for more than 50% of the warming.And it looks like they think you are the one lying about the results, you are trying to conflate a question about the ratio of warming due to human influences with a result about the ratio who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Here are the results from the Netherlands survey for respondents who said that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for more than 50% of the warming since 1950:
More than 100% - 17.1%
76 to 100% - 32.2%
51 to 75% - 16.6%
You said I was "lying" when I said that adds up to 66%.
So, I repeat my question: What do you think 17.1 plus 32.2 plus 16.6 adds up to?
Surely, you can add those numbers up for yourself.
No, I said you are lying when you claim this study disputes the consensus view and that you are conflating a question about the survey takers knowledge of the ratio of human influence on post 1950 climate change with a referendum on the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.You said I was "lying" when I said that adds up to 66%.
That is what I call dishonest.
The frigging people who wrote the survey said it supports the consensus claim yet you think they are lying and claim the opposite.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warmingThe results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
That should be the final word, the findings of the authors of the paper, not your dishonest claim.
Your ass has been handed to you.
What? Now, Groggy, I think you're just throwing around a bunch of words you don't even understand (based on your past history, I suspect you have no idea what "conflating" means).No, I said you are lying when you claim this study disputes the consensus view and that you are conflating a question about the survey takers knowledge of the ratio of human influence on post 1950 climate change with a referendum on the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
That is what I call dishonest.
So now you're saying that "anthropogenic" has nothing to do with human beings? I don't think you know what you're saying.
Yes or no: Do you accept that only 66 per cent of respondents supported the idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for more than 50 per cent of the warming since 1950?
You're the one who accused me of "lying." You owe us a direct answer to this question.
I'll answer your question only after you answer my question from above:You owe us a direct answer to this question.
I asked first.
Are you calling the authors of the report liars for their finding?
Answer that question and I'll answer yours.The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
I'm saying they have made a statement is not supported by the evidence and what they are saying is wrong. Sixty-six per cent support is not a "97% consensus."I'll answer your question only after you answer my question from above:
I asked first.
Are you calling the authors of the report liars for their finding?
Now, it's your turn.
Yes or no: Do you accept that only 66 per cent of respondents supported the idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for more than 50 per cent of the warming since 1950?
Then you are calling the authors of that study liars while still trying to site their work.I'm saying they have made a statement is not supported by the evidence and what they are saying is wrong. Sixty-six per cent support is not a "97% consensus."
Very lame.
No, you are full of shit.Now, it's your turn.
Yes or no: Do you accept that only 66 per cent of respondents supported the idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for more than 50 per cent of the warming since 1950?
First, one has to ask how you came up with a result different from those who wrote paper, who said on pg 16:
To do that you need to look at the questions and the answers.our results are in good agreement with those from
comparable studies
The question:
What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
First, this is a question that doesn't have a set answer yet. The IPCC doesn't give ratios attributed to human involvement and there are no set studies that give us a fixed number, they do say that:
And say their finding is that this is 'very likely'.Greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html
So there is no one study or report that gives us a single fixed number as an answer.
Now for the answers.
What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
More the 100% 17.1%
76-199% 32.2%
51-75% 16.6%
26-50% 5.2%
0-25% 6.5%
Less then 0% 0.2%
No warming 0.4%
Unknown 9.9%
I don’t know 8.8%
Other 3.1%
Problems with your numbers:
1) You claim that anyone who thinks its less then 50% doesn't support the consensus view, but that's wrong, there are a range of possible answers within those who support the consensus view.
2) You claim that those who report they don't know the answer don't believe the consensus, but that isn't right either. The IPCC doesn't give us numbers and we don't exact numbers so its quite likely that those who stated both 'unknown' and 'I don't know' are supporting the view of the IPCC, that we don't know the exact number. Claiming they don't support the consensus is false, most likely they are supporting the answers of the IPCC, which doesn't give us exact numbers.
3) This question is about the ratio of effect of GHG gases on climate change, not whether or not they believe in anthropogenic climate change, as you claim. You are flat out wrong with that claim.
4) The only groups that you can argue definitely support your claim are those who stated 'less then zero' and 'no warming', all others say are saying there is anthropogenic climate change.
Only 0.6% clearly support your claim.
If I add all those who said the number wasn't known or there was more then 25% then that gives us 89.8%, if we add those who say there was 0-25% from anthropogenic climate change (clearly they believe there is anthropogenic climate change effecting the climate) that takes us up to 96.3% which gives us a number very similar to Cook's.
That is the answer that I take from this paper, which coincides with the findings of the authors who stated:
In short, you are full of shit and have had your ass handed to you by the authors of this study.The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
Your numbers are dishonest.
My claim?The only groups that you can argue definitely support your claim are those who stated 'less then zero' and 'no warming', all others say are saying there is anthropogenic climate change.
I have been quite clear that the Earth's temperature has increased since 1850. However, I have said there is no evidence that man-made emissions are responsible for that warming.
My "claim" is that we don't know enough about the climate to know what effect, if any, man-made emissions are having on the climate. Furthermore, I have said there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of man-made global warming -- the hypothesis that says that man-made emissions have been the primary driver of warming since 1950.
At no point have I said that we can conclude that emissions have absolutely no impact on the climate.
However, I am fascinated by your assertion that anyone who thinks humans affect the climate, even if they believe the effect is miniscule, are part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."
Let's consider Prof. Judith Curry, a professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 2013, Prof. Curry wrote an article for the National Post that had the headline, "Kill the IPCC":
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ipcc-climate-global-warming
Prof. Curry is regularly criticized by Michael Mann and other "Nobel laureates" for being a "denier." Indeed, in the National Post article, she says the IPCC's predictions have been completely wrong and that the IPCC is driven by an activist agenda rather than a scientific one. As you can see from the headline, she says the IPCC should be scrapped.
She is hardly a supporter of the IPCC or its spectacularly wrong predictions.
And yet, Prof. Curry is one of those people commonly known as a "lukewarmer." She certainly believes human emissions have some impact on the Earth's temperature, although she isn't necessarily convinced there is evidence that it is significant enough to justify government action.
According to you, she is part of the "consensus" on man-made global warming.
According to you, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton, and countless others that are regularly branded as "deniers" are also part of the "consensus."
Indeed, if I were a climate researcher, you would be including me as part of the "consensus." You are already counting many scientists who hold the same views as me as being part of the "consensus."
In fact, according to you, someone who believes that natural causes are responsible for 99% of the warming would still qualify as being part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."
That's absurd. The "consensus" is a fairy tale for a whole variety of reasons, including the fact that the definition of what is being agreed to is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
http://business.financialpost.com/f...sts-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported
http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/
One fact is absolutely clear. It is a blatant falsehood to claim that there is a "97% consensus" on the IPCC's position that human emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. Even you have conceded that claims of a "97% consensus" on this point are false.
Last edited:
Don't try to change the subject, your ass just got handed to you and you need to admit it.My claim?
The study you claimed disputed the consensus claim did nothing of the sort, in fact its findings were the total opposite of what you claimed.
That's twice now, twice you've provided studies whose findings were the direct opposite of what you claimed.
And now you're running away.
The only fact that is clear is that you are wrong.
Twice.
I'll certainly admit that somebody got his ass handed to him. :biggrin1:Don't try to change the subject, your ass just got handed to you and you need to admit it.
The study you claimed disputed the consensus claim did nothing of the sort, in fact its findings were the total opposite of what you claimed.
That's twice now, twice you've provided studies whose findings were the direct opposite of what you claimed.
And now you're running away.
The only fact that is clear is that you are wrong.
Twice.
Consider a climate researcher who holds the following views:
- There is nothing unprecedented in any of the warming that has occurred since 1850.
- There is no evidence to support the IPCC's claims that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950.
- The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
- Man-made greenhouse gases have probably contributed to less than 2 per cent of the warming that has occurred since 1950.
- There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
According to Frankfooter, a climate scientist who holds those opinions would be part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."
What a farce.
Come to think of it, I never did get a specific answer to my question.The study you claimed disputed the consensus claim did nothing of the sort, in fact its findings were the total opposite of what you claimed.
That's twice now, twice you've provided studies whose findings were the direct opposite of what you claimed.
Yes or no: Do you accept that only 66 per cent of respondents supported the idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for more than 50 per cent of the warming since 1950?
Ok, somebody, your ass has been handed to you.I'll certainly admit that somebody got his ass handed to him. :biggrin1:
You out and out lied about the results of two studies, you claimed they disproved the consensus view when both surveys authors stated the findings supported the consensus view.
Now you're just back to ranting.
The evidence you provided found:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.
and
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warmingThe results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
You lied about both of those studies.
So you're standing by your assertion that a climate researcher whose views are the exact same as mine is part of the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change."Ok, somebody, your ass has been handed to you.
You out and out lied about the results of two studies, you claimed they disproved the consensus view when both surveys authors stated the findings supported the consensus view.
Now you're just back to ranting.
The evidence you provided found:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/
and
http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming
You lied about both of those studies.
Indeed, a climate researcher who rejects everything the IPCC has ever said can still be part of the "consensus."
I'll say it again -- what a farce.
(I'm not even bothering anymore with your claims that I'm "lying." Based on your posting history, there is good reason to suspect you don't know what the word "lying" even means.)
