• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,900
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]


This post was ignored upon your request.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

KLATTU said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

This has been blatantly obvious by the posters in these various threads.
 
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'
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Manc Skipper said:
Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.
Click to expand...

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

AliHajiSheik said:
I remember when science was about testing hypotheses and then either proving or disproving them. When did it become a poll?
Click to expand...


It does so when the politicians need it to be
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

AliHajiSheik said:
I remember when science was about testing hypotheses and then either proving or disproving them. When did it become a poll?
Click to expand...

When it became a political tool.
 
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.
 
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.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, but just ask any disciple of AGW. Six degrees of separation means everyone agrees with AGW warming.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Manc Skipper said:
Scientist or not, when he's right he's right. He's correct.
Click to expand...



He failed to present any proof.

Would you care to do so?
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...
May I suggest that you meant to write 'decline' instead of "refuse?"
 
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.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

fiki196 said:
I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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


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.
Click to expand...

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


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

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

Moot said:
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
Click to expand...

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

fiki196 said:
I just don't get what's so bad about getting off of oil,fossil fuels and others.
Click to expand...
It would be fantastic to do so. However, at what cost?


fiki196 said:
Whether there was climate change or not it should be our long term goal anyway,since they cause pollution in either case.
Click to expand...
We have come up with technology that is so close to zero emission of pollution, that is a moot point.


fiki196 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:


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


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



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

Threegoofs said:
Odd. I think three other studies have shown the same thing.
.
Click to expand...

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

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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…