President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Frankfooter]

I don't give a shit if you believe me or not,...you calling ANYBODY a liar is hilarious.

The data is from graphs produced on the NOAA site, with the exact captions I posted.

Once again,...if you need my help navigating the NOAA site,... you continually quote,...but as usual,...know nothing about,...

All you have to do is ask,...

FAST

Here is the chart of surface temp anomaly from NASA.

NOAA's chart is available here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Now show me where they said:

NOAA claims that the global land and ocean temperature anomalies,...their words,...from 2000 thru 2015 was +0.12C/decade.

NOAA claims that the global land and ocean temperature anomalies,...their words,...from 1930 thru 1945 was +0.29C/decade.

I fully expect that you are trying to cherry pick dates, but as noted before, only a total fool looks at the NASA chart above and tries to claim there is no warming.

 

[PornAddict]

Nonsense.
We went through these claims with moviefan, who was found to be lying about the studies he quoted.

If you want confirmation on the consensus look here:
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...8Y2IAg&usg=AFQjCNGsYOLDk8JZ26E6ZBdGY_86ItLdtw
The AAAS represents the vast majority of legit scientists in North America.

Or look here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Those are the legit sources, not some blog post without links to the studies or data.

HA HA ... THE BLOG LINK TO A PEER REVIEW PAPER LOOK AT THIS LINK TO A PEER REVIEW PAPER -------->http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e <-----THIS IS A LEGIT SOURCES NOT SOME BLOG WITHOUT ANY LINK TO A PEER REVIEW STUDIES AND IT LINK TO THE ACTUAL PEER REVIEW STUDIES

The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf <----GO TO PAGE 9 AND LOOK AT THE FIGURE Figure 1b Responses to Question 1b. The figure on the left refers to respondents having answered to Question 1a that the GHG-contribution to the warming since mid-20th century is more than 50%, and the figure on the right refers to those having responded that this is less than 50%. IT IS LESS THEN 50% CONSENSUS



In March – April 2012 the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, with several other scientists, conducted a survey of approximately 6,550 scientists studying climate change. It was published as “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” by Bart Verheggen et al in the 19 Aug 2014 issue of Environmental Science and Technology (peer-reviewed) . In April 2015 they published a more detailed report
(Look at in this LINK--> http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf .

This survey covered many of the frontiers of climate science. This post examines one the questions about the keynote statement of the IPCC’s most recent work — Assessment Report 5 (AR5)…

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

— From the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.
The PBL survey is the first I’ve seen to test agreement with both facets of that statement. First, how much of the global surface warming is caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of greenhouse gases? (Note AR5 referred to all factors; see “Details” below). Only 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. If we exclude the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, 72% agree with the IPCC. So far, so good.

 

[PornAddict]

In the Spring of 2012, PBL, in collaboration with other researchers from the Netherlands and
Australia, conducted a detailed survey about climate science. More than 1800 international
scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including e.g. climate physics, climate
impacts and mitigation, responded to the questionnaire. Certain results were selected from
this survey, namely those pertaining to the causes of recent global warming (attribution),
and have since been published in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T)1


A COMPLETED DETAILED REPORT THAT IS PUBLISHED WITH SURVEY AND QUESTIONS YOU CAN EVEN READ IT
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
.
This document presents the responses to each survey question, both as an absolute number
of responses and as a fraction of the total. In some cases, the responses were also divided
into seven groups of respondents: co-authors of the Working Group I report of IPCC AR4
(‘AR4 authors’); signatories of public declarations critical of mainstream climate science as
embodied by IPCC (‘unconvinced’); and four subgroups divided by their self-declared number
of climate-related articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (0–3; 4–10; 11–30;
more than 30). The four subgroups constitute similar numbers of respondents.

 

[PornAddict]

Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming

Bart Verheggen *†‡, Bart Strengers †, John Cook §∥, Rob van Dorland ⊥, Kees Vringer †, Jeroen Peters †, Hans Visser †, and Leo Meyer †
† PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PO Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands
‡ Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands ECN, PO Box 1, 1755 ZG Petten, The Netherlands
§ University of Queensland, 4072 Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia
∥ University of Western Australia, Crawley Washington 6009, Australia
⊥ Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), PO Box 201, 3730 AE De Bilt, The Netherlands
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (16), pp 8963–8971
DOI: 10.1021/es501998e
Publication Date (Web): July 22, 2014
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society
*Phone: +31 20 525 8271; e-mail: Verheggen.Bart@gmail.com.
ACS AuthorChoice - Terms of Use
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgment or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols. The phrasing of the IPCC attribution statement in its fourth assessment report (AR4)—providing a lower limit for the isolated GHG contribution—may have led to an underestimation of the GHG influence on recent warming. The phrasing was improved in AR5. We also report on the respondents’ views on other factors contributing to global warming; of these Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) was considered the most important. Respondents who characterized human influence on climate as insignificant, reported having had the most frequent media coverage regarding their views on climate change.

GO SEE MY POST #622 The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%

I LIKE THIS PIE CHART THAT POSTED http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
SINCE YOU LIKE PEER REVIEW PAPER GO TO PAGE 9 AND LOOK AT THE FIGURE Figure 1b Responses to Question 1b. http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/file...nses_01731.pdf

 

[Moviefan-2]

You admit yourself that you think the experts are lying.

No, I never made any kind of blanket statement about "the experts" or "the scientific community."

I said the NOAA has been cooking the books. I also said that "experts" on both sides of the issue say there are problems with the NOAA's conclusions.

The list of supportive scientists raising concerns about the conclusions includes Dr. Peter Stott of the Met Office, Piers Forster, a professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds and one of the scientists involved in the section on the 'hiatus" in the last IPCC report, and Dr. Ed Hawkins, a principal research fellow at Reading University:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/

And let's not forget what others who are more skeptical have said about the conclusions:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...cord-high-temps-for-may-2015-what-a-surprise/

The NOAA and NASA inflated results are outliers. Most of the data from throughout the world (including the Japan Meteorological Agency results that were cited by basketcase) show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century. I accept that evidence.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nonsense.
We went through these claims with moviefan, who was found to be lying about the studies he quoted.

As I and others have pointed out before, you have some serious mental health challenges.

My so-called "lie" -- the claim that I said my views were supported by the environmental zealots who tried to spin the results a certain way -- is a complete fairy tale. I never made any such claim.

What I said was the surveys' actual results confirmed my argument that there is no consensus. That remains irrefutably true.

---

PornAddict:

If you want to have some fun, ask Frankfooter the following question.

Does the "consensus" on "anthropogenic climate change":

1) Only include scientists who believe that man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

Or

2) Include scientists who believe that natural factors have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950?

I can guarantee you that Frankfooter will avoid answering the question.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, I never made any kind of blanket statement about "the experts" or "the scientific community."

I said the NOAA has been cooking the books. I also said that "experts" on both sides of the issue say there are problems with the NOAA's conclusions.

The list of supportive scientists raising concerns about the conclusions includes Dr. Peter Stott of the Met Office, Piers Forster, a professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds and one of the scientists involved in the section on the 'hiatus" in the last IPCC report, and Dr. Ed Hawkins, a principal research fellow at Reading University:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/

And let's not forget what others who are more skeptical have said about the conclusions:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

The NOAA and NASA inflated results are outliers. Most of the data from throughout the world (including from your source) show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century. I accept that evidence.

Do you read the articles or do you just copy and paste from denier, lobbyist sites?
Neither of the first two articles accuse or present evidence that the NOAA 'cooked the books'.

The only thing they debate at all was whether there was a 'pause' in the warming or not, with all confirming there never was any 'pause' in climate change and if anything there was an increase in ocean temps vs surface temp during the denier cherry picked dates from the last super el nino year to the coolest year in the last decade or two.

As for Judith Curry:
“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

And:

Curry was a member of the partially-Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Project temperature reanalysis project headed by former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, which reanalyzed existing weather station data and found yes, global warming was real. The project FAQ[2] (and a draft paper, which lists Curry among the authors[3]) reported there was no evidence to indicate the rate of global warming had changed in the last decade.

But despite Curry's having agreed (as evinced by her coauthorship) with this conclusion, London Daily Mail contrarian (and oft-misrepresenting[4], [5], [6]) journalist David Rose portrayed a vigorously-disagreeing Curry saying, "This is 'hide the decline' stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline."[24].

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Clients_not_disclosed


Which is also a reminder about the Berkely Earth Project, its a Koch bros funded denier program that still found that climate change is occurring.

 

[Frankfooter]

As I and others have pointed out before, you have some serious mental health challenges.

My so-called "lie" -- the claim that I said my views were supported by the environmental zealots who tried to spin the results a certain way -- is a complete fairy tale. I never made any such claim.

What I said was the surveys' actual results confirmed my argument that there is no consensus. That remains irrefutably true.
.

By 'actual' you mean the one you read of some denier blog and not the one the authors of the studies came up with.
They both found the studies support the consensus claim.

You lied about that.

 

[basketcase]

No, I never made any kind of blanket statement about "the experts" or "the scientific community."

I said the NOAA has been cooking the books.....

Are you saying that the NOAA aren't experts? Your justifications get more and more desperate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you saying that the NOAA aren't experts? Your justifications get more and more desperate.

So, according to you, anyone who challenges Dr. Willie Soon's findings is challenging "the scientific community."

Got it.

 

[FAST]

The truth hurts,...

Here is the chart of surface temp anomaly from NASA.

NOAA's chart is available here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Now show me where they said:


I fully expect that you are trying to cherry pick dates, but as noted before, only a total fool looks at the NASA chart above and tries to claim there is no warming.

frank,...you off your meds,...AGAIN,...

Just were in my post that you replied to, did I mention NASA,...were in my post did I indicate that there was no warming,...

To help you out,...again,...NOAA graphs produced the results,... that from 2000 thru 2015, was +0.12C/decade,. ..from 1930 thru 1945, was +0.29C/decade,...actually does mean that there was warming,...that little "+" thingy,...means,...I don't know how to put this for someone of your intellect,...but lets try,...more, increase, and the the opposite of less or decrease,...

I may have to withdraw my offer to help you with your UNEMPLOYABLES site,...you don't know how to fricken read graphs,...and on your own bull shit site no less.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

By 'actual' you mean the one you read of some denier blog and not the one the authors of the studies came up with.
They both found the studies support the consensus claim.

You lied about that.

How pathetic. Trying to defend your lies with more lies.

I never said anything about the environmental zealots' spin.

I said the results of their surveys confirm there is no consensus. That is irrefutable.

By the way, my prediction that you will evade the question about what the "consensus" of scientists actually believes is so far proving correct.

 

[FAST]

Are you saying that the NOAA aren't experts? Your justifications get more and more desperate.

NOAA aren't experts?,...experts at what,...is really the question,...isn't it.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

Neither of the first two articles accuse or present evidence that the NOAA 'cooked the books'.

Nice try. I said experts on both sides have questioned the approach that the NOAA used and have questioned the NOAA's conclusions.

My links confirm that what I said is a proven fact. Scientists representing the Met Office, the University of East Anglia and the IPCC are among those challenging the NOAA's conclusions.

...with all confirming there never was any 'pause' in climate change...

What??

Let's look at a few quotes.

- Piers Forster, professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds and one of the scientists involved in the section on the 'hiatus" in the last IPCC report:

"This study has not magicked the hiatus away or somehow corrected the IPCC…I strongly dispute that the IPCC report got it wrong on the hiatus."

- Tim Osborn, professor of climate science at the University of East Anglia:

"There are other datasets that still support a slowdown over some recent period of time, and there are intriguing geographical patterns such as cooling in large parts of the Pacific Ocean that were used to support explanations for the warming slowdown."

- Gerald Meehl, a climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, told Mashable in an email that while he finds the new study laudable for improving temperature measurements, there are flaws in how the researchers interpreted the data. For example, Meehl says there is still a lower warming trend from 1998 to 2012 compared to the previous base period of 1950 to 1999, “… Thus there is still a hiatus defined in that way.”

 

[Frankfooter]

I said the results of their surveys confirm there is no consensus. That is irrefutable.

Sigh, still lying your face off.

The studies you quoted as 'evidence' found:

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

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.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

You lied about both of those studies.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try. I said experts on both sides have questioned the approach that the NOAA used and have questioned the NOAA's conclusions.

My links confirm that what I said is a proven fact. Scientists representing the Met Office, the University of East Anglia and the IPCC are among those challenging the NOAA's conclusions.

False, you lied about the two articles posted, neither said anything about NOAA 'cooking the books'.
You lied.

 

[Moviefan-2]

False, you lied about the two articles posted, neither said anything about NOAA 'cooking the books'.
You lied.

The links confirm that I told the truth.

In the case of the AGW supporters, I said the supporters -- along with skeptics -- questioned the approach used by the NOAA and they challenged the NOAA's conclusions.

The links confirm that what I said is a statement of fact.

I don't dispute that I have certainly said the NOAA cooked the books and there are experts who agree with me. But I never said the AGW supporters made that claim.

 

[Frankfooter]

The links confirm that I told the truth.

No.
You said:

I said the results of their surveys confirm there is no consensus. That is irrefutable.

This is what the authors of those reports said.

We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...rts-poll-of-meteorologists-on-climate-change/

and

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.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

You lied about both of those studies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sigh, still lying your face off.

The studies you quoted as 'evidence' 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.

The same lies told over and over.

I said the results confirm there is no consensus.

One study found only 52% support for anthropogenic climate change. The other one found 66% support.

Neither 52% nor 66% represents a consensus.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't dispute that I have certainly said the NOAA cooked the books and there are experts who agree with me. But I never said the AGW supporters made that claim.

So now you are claiming that this charge that NOAA 'cooked the books' comes only from you and that you have no real evidence to back it up?
How long before you are back to saying that it was all just a 'metaphor'?

Why don't you just admit that this claim of 'cooking the books' is entirely your own opinion, and as such isn't worth debating here.