about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

[KLATTU]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Reader James on a deceptive meme that’s repeated by warmists with little seeming interest in the truth:

He tweeted that after the publication of this paper: Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scienti?c literature.’ Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.

However this appears to have been totally refuted with the following peer-reviewed paper by reputable people published in a reputable peer reviewed journal:




The 97.1 % consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 % but 0.3 %. Their claim of 97.1 % consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation that has been circulated on either side of the climate debate.



Here is an abbreviated version of the press release summarising the above paper.



The truth about the “97 per cent” claimed by Cook:




Any time you here someone babble on about “97 per cent of climate scientists” you should conclude the speaker has no idea what they are talking about.

 

[ttwtt78640]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Reader James on a deceptive meme that’s repeated by warmists with little seeming interest in the truth:

He tweeted that after the publication of this paper: Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scienti?c literature.’ Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.

However this appears to have been totally refuted with the following peer-reviewed paper by reputable people published in a reputable peer reviewed journal:




The 97.1 % consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 % but 0.3 %. Their claim of 97.1 % consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation that has been circulated on either side of the climate debate.



Here is an abbreviated version of the press release summarising the above paper.



The truth about the “97 per cent” claimed by Cook:




Any time you here someone babble on about “97 per cent of climate scientists” you should conclude the speaker has no idea what they are talking about.

This post was ignored upon your request.

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Any time you here someone babble on about “97 per cent of climate scientists” you should conclude the speaker has no idea what they are talking about.

Absolutely.

This has been blatantly obvious by the posters in these various threads.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Well, you folks can ignore the overwhelming consensus at your peril.

We now have a pronouncement from George Clooney, noted scientist, well, he played a guy who knew a scientist once, who affirms that the climate change crisis is the fault of the activities of man.

Case closed.

Movie stars: Is there anything they don't know?

George Clooney: Arguments Against Global Warming Are 'Stupid'

 

[Manc Skipper]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.

Or when he says what you want to hear you mean . When actual climate scientist challenge the dogma just ignore them like the plague and smear them as oil company shills .:roll:

 

[AliHajiSheik]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I remember when science was about testing hypotheses and then either proving or disproving them. When did it become a poll?

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I remember when science was about testing hypotheses and then either proving or disproving them. When did it become a poll?

It does so when the politicians need it to be

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I remember when science was about testing hypotheses and then either proving or disproving them. When did it become a poll?

When it became a political tool.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Odd. I think three other studies have shown the same thing.

I can't recall any studies that show there is not a consensus, and as I've said many times before, even a cursory glance at the scientific literature shows an overwhelming consensus.

But haters gonna hate. And obfuscators are gonna obfuscate. And the gullible will believe them.

 

[OscarB63]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Odd. I think three other studies have shown the same thing.

I can't recall any studies that show there is not a consensus, and as I've said many times before, even a cursory glance at the scientific literature shows an overwhelming consensus.

But haters gonna hate. And obfuscators are gonna obfuscate. And the gullible will believe them.

when the vast majority of scientists you ask refuse to state an opinion, it is an outright lie to claim that 97% agree with you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

when the vast majority of scientists you ask refuse to state an opinion, it is an outright lie to claim that 97% agree with you.

True, but just ask any disciple of AGW. Six degrees of separation means everyone agrees with AGW warming.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

when the vast majority of scientists you ask refuse to state an opinion, it is an outright lie to claim that 97% agree with you.

(Citation needed)

And don't use Cook et al either. The articles didn't 'refuse to state an opinion' anymore than a physicist 'refuses to state an opinion' when writing a paper if he doesn't mention gravity.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.

He failed to present any proof.

Would you care to do so?

 

[Earthling]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

when the vast majority of scientists you ask refuse to state an opinion, it is an outright lie to claim that 97% agree with you.

May I suggest that you meant to write 'decline' instead of "refuse?"

 

[Moot]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I wouldn't believe a word that came from the Competitive Enterprise Institute....


Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead" - FactCheck.org

 

[fiki196]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others. Whether there was climate change or not it should be our long term goal anyway,since they cause pollution in either case. Man made or not global warming is real, and if it gets too hot bad things will happen for us as a species, so we will have to do something about it,made by us or not. Also do you believe that most of Europe,China etc. would invest so much money and manpower in building renewables if ti were true that man made global warming was all a hoax.
There are 3 scenarios here:
1. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet doesn't get warmer or just stops at a point and gradually temperatures start going down afterwards
2. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet does get warmer in which case we would need to figure out some geo-engineering
2. Man made global warming is real and it gets much more difficult to solve it if we start too late

Now if you ask me 3 is a big risk to take considering that even if the odds were completely even like 1 i 3 chance, you still have a pretty good chance that things will turn out nasty. Sustainability is the answer for the future, and there is technology available in which if we invest enough money could give us cheap and clean energy, but a lot of research is needed first, which will have to be financed by governments mostly. Because no corporation really cares for the environment if they can get away with it.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others.

Whats bad about it is that economically affordable alternatives to it have yet to emerge and the impacts of artificially and unecessarily increased energy costs using renewables will far outweigh any potential unquantifiable environmental ones

Whether there was climate change or not it should be our long term goal anyway,since they cause pollution in either case.

Yes but that pollution can be greatly reduced compared to earlier decades with cheap technologies like gas fracking coming on line which could potentially provide cheap power for decades

Man made or not global warming is real, and if it gets too hot bad things will happen for us as a species

That seems unlikely given the warming has stopped for some time now

so we will have to do something about it,made by us or not

What proof exists we can do anything about it ?

Also do you believe that most of Europe,China etc. would invest so much money and manpower in building renewables if ti were true that man made global warming was all a hoax.

If I traded you my UK bills for those you are currently paying stateside I think your enthusiasm would be curbed for that

1. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet doesn't get warmer or just stops at a point and gradually temperatures start going down afterwards
2. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet does get warmer in which case we would need to figure out some geo-engineering
2. Man made global warming is real and it gets much more difficult to solve it if we start too late

You are presuming we can somehow turn the planetary temperature up and down at will

Now if you ask me 3 is a big risk to take considering that even if the odds were completely even like 1 i 3 chance, you still have a pretty good chance that things will turn out nasty.

Why is longer growing seasons and larger crop yields from a greening planet going to be nasty ?

Sustainability is the answer for the future, and there is technology available in which if we invest enough money could give us cheap and clean energy, but a lot of research is needed first, which will have to be financed by governments mostly. Because no corporation really cares for the environment if they can get away with it

If the technologies were remotely viable those big evil corporations would already be doing so. The government subsidies for these technologies in Europe run to hundreds of billions per annum and are still nowhere near economic viability

 

[longview]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others. Whether there was climate change or not it should be our long term goal anyway,since they cause pollution in either case. Man made or not global warming is real, and if it gets too hot bad things will happen for us as a species, so we will have to do something about it,made by us or not. Also do you believe that most of Europe,China etc. would invest so much money and manpower in building renewables if ti were true that man made global warming was all a hoax.
There are 3 scenarios here:
1. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet doesn't get warmer or just stops at a point and gradually temperatures start going down afterwards
2. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet does get warmer in which case we would need to figure out some geo-engineering
2. Man made global warming is real and it gets much more difficult to solve it if we start too late

Now if you ask me 3 is a big risk to take considering that even if the odds were completely even like 1 i 3 chance, you still have a pretty good chance that things will turn out nasty. Sustainability is the answer for the future, and there is technology available in which if we invest enough money could give us cheap and clean energy, but a lot of research is needed first, which will have to be financed by governments mostly. Because no corporation really cares for the environment if they can get away with it.

Your scenarios are too simple.
Of course we should be researching renewable energy, the real limits are storage, currently.
The problem has nothing to do with corporations and how they feel about the environment.
The problem is that 4 out of 5 people alive today, are alive because we have figured out a way
to use the energy stored in fossil fuels.
Without the portable high density fuels made from oil, 80% of our population would starve in 6 months.
Are global temperatures increasing?
Sure, they have been increasing for several thousand years.
Are the temperatures increasing faster than normal in the last century?
Maybe, but without normal defined, it is difficult to quantify abnormal.
Is man's extra Co2 adding to the natural warming?
Likely, but confined within the known quantum response of Co2.
(about .6 °C over the last 133 years, The total increase since 1880 is .8 °C)
Humans have adapted to much worse changes,
I can envision my own scenario where all of this is not important.

Through new technology, we can create hydrocarbon fuels from air and water
at about a 60% efficiency.
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
We use our existing fossil fuel distribution system, to distribute the man made fuels.
We work out a credit system, where anyone who creates electricity, gets an
energy credit for the amount they create. The credit can be used to fuel their car
or sold if not needed.
As the system becomes more effective, the need for organic oil for farm and transport will
diminish, so that we can reserve our organic oil for things we cannot create yet.

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I wouldn't believe a word that came from the Competitive Enterprise Institute....


Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead" - FactCheck.org

I use other people's work to discredit show different results from time to time. I simple show a different way the data can be interpreted. The fact check conclusion doesn't matter here. Opinions vary, and the author of a paper isn't always correct. In fact, later down the road, most papers are shown to have errors.

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others.

It would be fantastic to do so. However, at what cost?

Whether there was climate change or not it should be our long term goal anyway,since they cause pollution in either case.

We have come up with technology that is so close to zero emission of pollution, that is a moot point.

Man made or not global warming is real, and if it gets too hot bad things will happen for us as a species, so we will have to do something about it,made by us or not.

I am not convinced it will get hotter for a while now. After looking at various papers and data for more than a decade now, I am solidly convinced that CO2 has little or no effect. The effect may even be a cooling effect. I am convinced that soot on snow, ice, and in the air, are the only anthropogenic cause of warming we should be concerned about. We should manage the lands better, but I see that as larger than CO2, but less than soot. As for the primary cause of global warming, I blame the suns. One of my posts from a different thread:

I wonder if anyone comprehends my points.

I took that second graph you responded to, and cut out an approximate 1937 to 1977 "pause."

The changed graph fits nicely with an approximate 10 to 20 year lag for the solar to ocean heat coupling.

Year after year, when ever I speak of the "rise since the 70's" the warmers cry of, I remind them we started cleaning the air of industrial pollution in the 70's. Starting about 1900, for about 50 years, the sun's output power increased by a notable amount. However, we started to heavily industrialize without concern of air quality in the 40's. I have always maintained the the warming we see since the 70's is the solar warming we didn't see before, because it was mitigated by pollution... Till we removed the pollution!

Also do you believe that most of Europe,China etc. would invest so much money and manpower in building renewables if ti were true that man made global warming was all a hoax.
There are 3 scenarios here:
1. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet doesn't get warmer or just stops at a point and gradually temperatures start going down afterwards
2. Man made global warming is a hoax and the planet does get warmer in which case we would need to figure out some geo-engineering
2. Man made global warming is real and it gets much more difficult to solve it if we start too late

4) Global warming is real, natural, and cyclical.

Now if you ask me 3 is a big risk to take considering that even if the odds were completely even like 1 i 3 chance, you still have a pretty good chance that things will turn out nasty. Sustainability is the answer for the future, and there is technology available in which if we invest enough money could give us cheap and clean energy, but a lot of research is needed first, which will have to be financed by governments mostly. Because no corporation really cares for the environment if they can get away with it.

Considering we have had a long pause of no warming above error margins for more than a decade now, I would suggest it is farther evidence that AGW is close to non-existent. Even if we are the cause of so much warming, we have a hundred years at least still to master the sciences to combat it.

I have no worries except for the government ruining our economy in fear.

 

[Fenton]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Odd. I think three other studies have shown the same thing.

I can't recall any studies that show there is not a consensus, and as I've said many times before, even a cursory glance at the scientific literature shows an overwhelming consensus.

But haters gonna hate. And obfuscators are gonna obfuscate. And the gullible will believe them.

LOL !!!

How "Scientific". You know, to include conventional ghetto idoms into a debate concerning the legitimacy of Global Warming.

Honestly, when the left wing lunatics promised they could " save the world " just as long as we ponied up more tax's for carbon-dioxide, I pretty much knew it was a scam. Something tells me you're the gullible one.

 

[KLATTU]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Odd. I think three other studies have shown the same thing.
.

Is the Doran Zimmerman study oen of them? YOu know the one where they polled 79 people?
Where they asked 2 question.
1)When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2)Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures

Laughable.

 

[fiki196]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Everybody assumes I am talking about wind farms when I say sustainable energy, what I would really like to see if fusion energy getting developed, it's the most future proof and almost limitless source of energy science knows of,but has yet to tap into it yet. And the reasons corporations are not doing it is simple: too big of an investment, with too much uncertainty, and too long term for any company. No company in the world would be willing to invest in something that would give them a return after more than 30 years. And for the note I don't live in the US,so I know what the bills are for renewable energy, in face I live in a country that has the most renewable energy in Europe and no nuclear whatsoever. While today's nuclear plants are a terrible idea, considering that an accident could destroy a giant area, fusion plants have many of the problems solved because they work in a different way: close to 0 nuclear waste, no need for exotic fuels, high energy production efficiency. The problem however as far as evidence shows is that it's not a proportional investment, for instance if you build a plant with 15 billion dollars it would give you a negative return of say 50%, while 30 billion might give you 300% return, that's because the bigger the reactor the more efficient it get exponentially almost. The trouble today is that nobody has invested into it enough money to build a reactor that would have net positive returns, though Europe is trying something with ITER as is the US with a couple of experimental facilities.

 

[longview]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Everybody assumes I am talking about wind farms when I say sustainable energy, what I would really like to see if fusion energy getting developed, it's the most future proof and almost limitless source of energy science knows of,but has yet to tap into it yet. And the reasons corporations are not doing it is simple: too big of an investment, with too much uncertainty, and too long term for any company. No company in the world would be willing to invest in something that would give them a return after more than 30 years. And for the note I don't live in the US,so I know what the bills are for renewable energy, in face I live in a country that has the most renewable energy in Europe and no nuclear whatsoever. While today's nuclear plants are a terrible idea, considering that an accident could destroy a giant area, fusion plants have many of the problems solved because they work in a different way: close to 0 nuclear waste, no need for exotic fuels, high energy production efficiency. The problem however as far as evidence shows is that it's not a proportional investment, for instance if you build a plant with 15 billion dollars it would give you a negative return of say 50%, while 30 billion might give you 300% return, that's because the bigger the reactor the more efficient it get exponentially almost. The trouble today is that nobody has invested into it enough money to build a reactor that would have net positive returns, though Europe is trying something with ITER as is the US with a couple of experimental facilities.

They have been doing fusion research at the National labs since 1972, over 40 years.
Today's fission power is a lot cleaner than coal, and produces less radioactive waste.
(coal fly ash concentrates the radiation in coal.)