Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he refuses to debate dissenters on climate change

[longview]

Your link is a joke. Who are you trying to fool? You are trying WAAAY too hard. The only question is: why?

"One of our favorite rituals this time of year is to marvel at the collection of papers Kenneth Richard posts on NoTricksZone, claiming they represent a mortal blow to the consensus that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. This year, it’s “over 400” studies that supposedly “support a skeptical position on climate alarm,” and like every year, that’s a stretch, and even if it weren’t, it’d still be insufficient to call the basics into question.

By Climate Denier Roundup

But if you’re unfamiliar with NoTricksZone, and are wondering if perhaps this list of studies is being published by a scientific organization as some sort of literature review, here’s a quick refresher. Past posts from the blog include scobby-doo-esque anti-renewable and alien planet conspiracy theories. It’s the sort of place where losing a bet about warming only increases your conviction. It’s the sort of place that claims the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown didn’t reduce pollution levels in Europe based on a map of pollution levels… in 2015. It’s also the sort of place where, if you’re Dr. Willie Soon, you can accuse scientists talking about 2014 being the hottest year (at the time) of “prostituting science.” Ironic, because just two months later the New York Times reported Soon took a million dollars from the fossil fuel industry in exchange for his talents.

This is just the latest in a series of annual posts collecting supposed consensus-killers. For example, 2016’s list (published in early 2017) was a more robust 500 papers long, and even then was clearly using the same classic tactics of prior years: misrepresenting findings, overplaying potential conclusions, focusing on minutiae and cherry-picking quotes. All the usual cheap tricks. Even if they were all accurate though, as we pointed out then, the 500 papers carefully curated over the course of the year are just a drop in the bucket of the full body of science – just two days into 2017, there were already 3,550 “climate change” studies."

War on Science: Climate denier "NoTricksZone" is actually all tricks (and bad faith distortions) | Red, Green, and Blue

One of our favorite rituals this time of year is to marvel at the collection of papers Kenneth Richard posts on NoTricksZone, claiming they represent a mortal blow to the consensus that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. This year, it’s “over 400” studies that supposedly “support a...

redgreenandblue.org

_________________________________
The only question is: WHY are you doing this? WHY do you propogate misinformation, ignore so many legitimate sources, and glom on to these cheap, questionable sites to just support a foregone conclusion never really based on facts? What you hate your grandkids or something and want them to have a miserable life?

The fallacy in your comments is that you think the debate is about IF burning fossil fuels causes climate change or not!

claiming they represent a mortal blow to the consensus that burning fossil fuels causes climate change.

The actual debate is about how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
Of course we could question WHY you want to misconstrue the argument?
There is little question that increasing the CO2 level will cause some warming, The question is how much warming, and would it be enough to be of concern?
The models, simulations of how people think the climate will respond to the forcing warming perturbations, claim enough positive feedback,
to allow 2XCO2 forcing warming of 1.1C to become 3C of fully equalized warming.
The problem with this prediction of a 2.72 feedback factor, is that such a high feedback factor, cannot be observed within the observed temperature records.

 

[ataraxia]

• For your reading pleasure and informational purposes.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

From your link:

"What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use."

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

Yeah OK. Agreed. What's your next argument?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

From your link:

"What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use."

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

www.forbes.com

Yeah OK. Agreed. What's your next argument?

Keep reading.


"Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming"

 

[Lord of Planar]

A serious statement... I don't think it's true.
Maybe you wanted to say 97% of climate scientists in the US are from the Democratic Party?

The 97% is a factual number, the pundits just lie about what it means. It effectively means 97% of the scientists agree we have an efffect on the climate. The lie comes in when it is twisted to "most" the climate changes.

 

[ataraxia]

Keep reading.


"Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming"

2013? Science moves fast. You gotta keep up with the journals!

As of 2016, it's 100% of the papers.

"Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ataraxia]

The 97% is a factual number, the pundits just lie about what it means. It effectively means 97% of the scientists agree we have an efffect on the climate. The lie comes in when it is twisted to "most" the climate changes.

It's not 97%. It's 100%. And they are all saying that humans are THE cause of climate change.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. As of 2019 it's 100%.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

Yep.

The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.​

100% of the papers that scientists write regarding antropogenic climate change. This would include scientists that think we only have a 5% effect.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yep.

The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019.​

100% of the papers that scientists write regarding antropogenic climate change. This would include scientists that think we only have a 5% effect.

Is 5% more than zero?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

2013? Science moves fast. You gotta keep up with the journals!

As of 2016, it's 100% of the papers.

"Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wiki lol

 

[Mr Person]

He's trying to build a link between not wanting waste one's time on ignorant denier crap and untrustworthiness of the actual science?

Idiotic and dishonest in the extreme. Like trying to suggest the world is flat because some astronomer won't debate a flat earther.

 

[jonny5]

Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he refuses to debate dissenters on climate change

Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he won't debate scientists who disagree with him on the science of climate change.

www.foxnews.com

I dont listen to Rogan, but this article brings up a very good point: there are indeed a lot of scientists who disagree with the current climate alarmist narrative, and these same alarmists refuse to debate them.

Why? It's clear they want to shut down contrarian viewpoints, while insisting the science is "settled."

Well there's only one problem: science is never "settled." Science relies on new studies and findings. It's clear the alarmists are deliberately censoring those who disagree with them, even though there's plenty of studies that contradict that climate change is man-made.

I dont really see a problem with his stance, in that hes saying: "The temperature is warming, humans have caused it." and thats what he knows.

The real problem isnt so much debating but whether he has closed his mind to any research, evidence, theories that counter what he thinks. There is no need to debate that the earth is flat, this is science. However, a scientist should be willing to review others knowledge from similar experts to constantly determine if their knowledge is correct. Thats not debate, thats just testing.

He does not need to debate if the earth is warming or not, if he sees no contradictory information. However, it would be a problem if he ignored additional information that might contradict this.

 

[Manc Skipper]

He's trying to build a link between not wanting waste one's time on ignorant denier crap and untrustworthiness of the actual science?

Idiotic and dishonest in the extreme. Like trying to suggest the world is flat because some astronomer won't debate a flat earther.

That's the size of it. Scientists stooping to "debate" him gives Rogan undue crediblity.

 

[longview]

Is 5% more than zero?

Yes, but if only 5% of the 1.07C warming since the pre 1900 average is caused from Human activity, then
there is no reason to believe Human activity will cause any climate problems, and because Human emitted CO2 is a subset of Human activity,
there is even less reason to be in a hurry to regulate CO2 emissions.

 

[Deuce]

Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he refuses to debate dissenters on climate change

Climate scientist tells Joe Rogan he won't debate scientists who disagree with him on the science of climate change.

www.foxnews.com

I dont listen to Rogan, but this article brings up a very good point: there are indeed a lot of scientists who disagree with the current climate alarmist narrative, and these same alarmists refuse to debate them.

Why? It's clear they want to shut down contrarian viewpoints, while insisting the science is "settled."

Well there's only one problem: science is never "settled." Science relies on new studies and findings. It's clear the alarmists are deliberately censoring those who disagree with them, even though there's plenty of studies that contradict that climate change is man-made.

LOL "I wont go on a dumb show with a dumb host" is censorship now. These people whine about literally everything.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's not 97%. It's 100%. And they are all saying that humans are THE cause of climate change.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Have you read and understood the paper? Apparently not. Look at this little snippet from it:





For the consensus that is reported by pundits, that the scientists claim we cause most of the warming, I will contend only category 1 of table 2 applies. Table 3 shows the numbers. The consensus that we cause “most” the warming is only 190/3000, or only 0.63%.

Now if you wish to include category 2, then we have 14.4%. Include category 3 and we have 29.7%

You cannot exclude the papers that didn’t take a position. With the way anyone who disagrees with the agenda is treated, I will suggest that this group most likely has many who disagree.

But lets remove them from the equation. The first group which should be the benchmark is 21.2%. Include the second group, it increases to 48.2%. Include the third group, which only agrees we cause some warming, and we are now up to that 99.6%.

These numbers cited my the media and pundits are a hoax.

 

[ataraxia]

The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming"

The problem to me seems to me that you are ignoring every single scientific organization on the entire planet and glomming on to something some economist said. Why? Seems very odd.

 

[ataraxia]

Have you read and understood the paper? Apparently not. Look at this little snippet from it:

View attachment 67375996

View attachment 67376000



You cannot exclude the papers that didn’t take a position. With the way anyone who disagrees with the agenda is treated, I will suggest that this group most likely has many who disagree.

You would be wrong. Scientists love contrary data. It suggests there is still more to learn. They thrive on that stuff.

Include the second group, it increases to 48.2%. Include the third group, which only agrees we cause some warming, and we are now up to that 99.6%.

That's not what the third group says.

And why not include the ones that actually disagree? Is that because the number is too low for you?

 

[longview]

The problem to me seems to me that you are ignoring every single scientific organization on the entire planet and glomming on to something some economist said. Why? Seems very odd.

Scientific organizations do not publish peer reviewed scientific papers, scientist do, the Cook Study was about peer reviewed publications,
so even he did not count the opinions of scientific organizations, so why would you?

 

[ataraxia]

You cannot exclude the papers that didn’t take a position. With the way anyone who disagrees with the agenda is treated, I will suggest that this group most likely has many who disagree.

Based on what? Your gut feeling?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

The problem to me seems to me that you are ignoring every single scientific organization on the entire planet and glomming on to something some economist said. Why? Seems very odd.

IPPC is complete horse shit. It's politics not science.

 

[ataraxia]

Keep reading.


"Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming"

There are SO MANY papers looking at this consensus, and they are all showing the same thing. If this is indeed some grand conspiracy by 99% of the entire scientific community on the planet, this has got to be the biggest scientific conspiracy in history ever. This would be bigger than even Trump's stolen election and Obama's secret birth certificate.

1. Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

[longview]

Based on what? Your gut feeling?

Cook's paper clearly stated that he excluded papers that did not express a position.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So his 97% was only among the group expressing a position!

 

[longview]

There are SO MANY papers looking at this consensus, and they are all showing the same thing. If this is indeed some grand conspiracy by 99% of the entire scientific community on the planet, this has got to be the biggest scientific conspiracy in history ever. This would be bigger than even Trump's stolen election and Obama's secret birth certificate.

1. Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

What is it do you think is represented by the consensus?

 

[jaypatriot]

A serious statement... I don't think it's true.
Maybe you wanted to say 97% of climate scientists in the US are from the Democratic Party?

Or maybe 97 percent of climate scientists depend on grants from the Democratic Party in order to survive if they have no other job?

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Yeah. As of 2019 it's 100%.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

but that's the right wing "science" just claim something is a myth or fake or bias, copy some garbage link, and think that's is "science"

LOL It's just real shitty trolling