• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The paradox of the climate change consensus

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dr, Judith Curry points out an interesting essay about consensus on climate change.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/17/the-paradox-of-the-climate-change-consensus/#more-21437
From Dr. Curry's reflections,
There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:

global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation

For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:

whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being

Leveraged by the consensus on the three points above that are not disputed, the climate ‘consensus’ is being sold as applying to all of the above, even the issues for which there remains considerable debate.
 

brothern

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,916
Reaction score
2,764
Location
Chicago, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is EXACTLY what I've been telling everyone!

The skewed scientific ‘consensus’ that the moon is NOT made of cheese does indeed act to reinforce itself, through a range of professional incentives: ease of publishing results, particularly in high impact journals; success in funding; recognition from peers in terms of awards, promotions, etc.; media attention and publicity for research; appeal of the simplistic narrative that climate science can ‘save the world’; and a seat at the big policy tables.

In my view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the moon not being made of cheese is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for a rocky moon.
 

brothern

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,916
Reaction score
2,764
Location
Chicago, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A substantial majority of the individuals responding to the ‘expert’ surveys have not contributed to the primary literature on detection and attribution and have not conducted an independent assessment of this issue. Instead they have arrived at their conclusion based on the second-order evidence that a ‘consensus’ exists.

Ergo, moon cheese.

Prove me wrong liberuls!
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent


Cook and Lewandowsky Tell the Truth

Posted on 15 Apr 16 by Geoff Chambers32 Comments
There’s a new paper out by John Cook and fifteen co-authors – (a “metastudy of metastudies” according to co-author Naomi Oreskes) by “an all-star lineup of climate consensus experts” according to Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian who is himself part of all-star lineup. It’s been been severely mauled

"I wrote a reply to the Bristol University article, saying, among other things:

“Professor Lewandowsky and his Doctorate Student John Cook are serial liars, beginning in 2012 when they falsely claimed that the respondents for Lewandowsky’s first opinion survey on climate change were obtained from Cook’s website Skeptical Science, and they haven’t stopped lying since, notably in a defamatory paper which was retracted, then reissued in a slightly revised form last year. Four of the co-authors of this paper are associated with Skeptical Science, which, despite its name, is devoted to attacking those of us who are sceptical of some of the claims of the climate science “consensus.” The authors of this paper are waging a political campaign, using junk statistics, to denigrate those who apply the true principles of scientific scepticism.”
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,801
Reaction score
19,709
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A substantial majority of the individuals responding to the ‘expert’ surveys have not contributed to the primary literature on detection and attribution and have not conducted an independent assessment of this issue. Instead they have arrived at their conclusion based on the second-order evidence that a ‘consensus’ exists.

Ergo, moon cheese.

Prove me wrong liberuls!

Well, the surveys that specifically examine the people who are actively publishing primary literature consistently show an overwhelming consensus on the issue- approaching 100%.

As I've said before, even a cursory glance at climate literature will reveal that the reality and seriousness of the issue are taken for granted among an educated audience.

In fact, your post can be shown to be laughably wrong by multiple published articles, most notably :

PNAS | Mobile
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dr, Judith Curry points out an interesting essay about consensus on climate change.
There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:

global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation

For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:

whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being

Leveraged by the consensus on the three points above that are not disputed, the climate ‘consensus’ is being sold as applying to all of the above, even the issues for which there remains considerable debate.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/17/the-paradox-of-the-climate-change-consensus/#more-21437
From Dr. Curry's reflections,

There is NO debate about whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes. There is not merely consensus on this issue in the literature, there is virtual unanimity.

There is NO debate about whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being. It clearly will not. Reducing emissions to zero won't make the climate get better. It will only stop it from getting worse.

The fact that Dr. Curry fails to understand these points makes her incompetent to discuss them at an expert level.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is EXACTLY what I've been telling everyone!

The skewed scientific ‘consensus’ that the moon is NOT made of cheese does indeed act to reinforce itself, through a range of professional incentives: ease of publishing results, particularly in high impact journals; success in funding; recognition from peers in terms of awards, promotions, etc.; media attention and publicity for research; appeal of the simplistic narrative that climate science can ‘save the world’; and a seat at the big policy tables.

In my view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the moon not being made of cheese is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for a rocky moon.

Thanks for a great argument against
* a rocky moon
* a spherical earth
* heliocentricity
* the germ theory of disease
* Conservation of Energy
* evolution
* and many, many others!

It's so nice to know that the denizens of Denierstan deny just about everything. Including reality.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is NO debate about whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes. There is not merely consensus on this issue in the literature, there is virtual unanimity.

There is NO debate about whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being. It clearly will not. Reducing emissions to zero won't make the climate get better. It will only stop it from getting worse.

The fact that Dr. Curry fails to understand these points makes her incompetent to discuss them at an expert level.
Just because you disagree with a Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech,
does not make you right and her wrong!
I guess she just does not speak to your faith!
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just because you disagree with a Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech,
does not make you right and her wrong!
I guess she just does not speak to your faith!

If you think she's right, it would be absurdly easy to prove. Just cite three peer-reviewed papers on each side of the issue, which would indicate the presence of a scientific debate.

Go ahead, big boy. Show us your evidence.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you think she's right, it would be absurdly easy to prove. Just cite three peer-reviewed papers on each side of the issue, which would indicate the presence of a scientific debate.

Go ahead, big boy. Show us your evidence.
There are quite a few, But I will list a few finding lower CO2 sensitivity.
I will leave it to you to find your own papers supporting higher sensitivities,
they are there as well, demonstrating the presence of some level of Scientific debate.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates - Springer
Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century
It is not like the Scientific community is in lockstep with the IPCC as you imply,
That the IPCC defined an enormous range for CO2 sensitivity speaks to their own level of uncertainty.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are quite a few, But I will list a few finding lower CO2 sensitivity.

So you are completely unable to defend the statements that Curry actually made, preferring instead to change the subject? Fine with me. I guess we both agree then that her statements are wrong and indefensible.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So you are completely unable to defend the statements that Curry actually made, preferring instead to change the subject? Fine with me. I guess we both agree then that her statements are wrong and indefensible.

he posted the links so why did you ignore them?
I suggest if you are actually going to ask for evidence and someone
provides it that you not ignore it.

of course that is if you are actually interested in honest discussion but we know that global zealots are not interested
in anything of the sort.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
he posted the links so why did you ignore them?

Because they were not pertinent to the question I asked. He was just trying to change the subject.

I suggest if you are actually going to ask for evidence and someone
provides it that you not ignore it.

And I suggest that you learn how to read. I asked for evidence of X, and he provided evidence for Q.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So you are completely unable to defend the statements that Curry actually made, preferring instead to change the subject? Fine with me. I guess we both agree then that her statements are wrong and indefensible.
If you would actually like to discuss Dr. Curry's comments we can.
Here they are for review.
There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:

global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation

For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:

whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
On the first point of contention,
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes.
If the CO2 sensitivity is lower than the IPCC thinks it is then the observed
warming may not be dominated by human causes.

On the second point,
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
Again this relates directly back to CO2 sensitivity, If it is lower the prediction will be lower.

The third point,
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
Here there is real cause for debate,
The majority of the observed warming (65 -75%) has been in nighttime lows,
while this is not without consequence, the period over which the change will occur
could be well below the duty cycle that would cause crop harm.

On point 4,
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
We need to move off of Fossil fuels regardless, and this will happen with or without any
government involvement. CO2 being as issue or not is actually irrelevant!
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you would actually like to discuss Dr. Curry's comments we can.
I have been discussing them, and you have been avoiding them. I charged that two specific statements by her were patently untrue, and challenged you to provide evidence for them -- evidence that it would be trivially easy to produce, had those statements actually been true. You have declined to provide such evidence, in two opportunities. This is a tacit admission that those statements are indeed false. Denier FAIL.

On the first point of contention,
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes.
If the CO2 sensitivity is lower than the IPCC thinks it is then the observed
warming may not be dominated by human causes.

A complete non sequitur. Sensitivity tells us how much warming to expect from a given amount of forcing, regardless of the cause of the forcing. Attribution tells us whether the forcing is anthropogenic or not. This is Climate Science 101, and you have just failed. Denier FAIL.

On the second point,
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
Again this relates directly back to CO2 sensitivity, If it is lower the prediction will be lower.
Curry's next points are not in dispute and I have not disputed them. Next time, read for content.

On point 4,
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
We need to move off of Fossil fuels regardless, and this will happen with or without any
government involvement. CO2 being as issue or not is actually irrelevant!

Once again you decline to defend Curry's statement, once again you change the subject, and once again I take this as a tacit admission that her statement is indefensible. Denier FAIL.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have been discussing them, and you have been avoiding them. I charged that two specific statements by her were patently untrue, and challenged you to provide evidence for them -- evidence that it would be trivially easy to produce, had those statements actually been true. You have declined to provide such evidence, in two opportunities. This is a tacit admission that those statements are indeed false. Denier FAIL.



A complete non sequitur. Sensitivity tells us how much warming to expect from a given amount of forcing, regardless of the cause of the forcing. Attribution tells us whether the forcing is anthropogenic or not. This is Climate Science 101, and you have just failed. Denier FAIL.


Curry's next points are not in dispute and I have not disputed them. Next time, read for content.



Once again you decline to defend Curry's statement, once again you change the subject, and once again I take this as a tacit admission that her statement is indefensible. Denier FAIL.
See now wasn't that easy!
If you do not disagree with Dr. Curry on,
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
then CO2 is nothing to worry about, no crises demanding haste!
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because they were not pertinent to the question I asked. He was just trying to change the subject.
Worst dodge in the world. they were relevant. you asked for evidence he provided in typical fashion you ignored it.


And I suggest that you learn how to read. I asked for evidence of X, and he provided evidence for Q.

no he didn't. He provided support for the question asked. that supports what the other person said.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
See now wasn't that easy!
If you do not disagree with Dr. Curry on,
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
then CO2 is nothing to worry about, no crises demanding haste!

We don't know if you will have an auto accident this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy auto insurance.
We don't know if a tornado will hit your house this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy homeowner's insurance.
We don't know what the crime rate will be this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the police force.
We don't know if any houses will catch fire this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the fire department.

We do know, however, that "longview logic" is frickin' insane.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,949
Reaction score
13,434
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We don't know if you will have an auto accident this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy auto insurance.
We don't know if a tornado will hit your house this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy homeowner's insurance.
We don't know what the crime rate will be this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the police force.
We don't know if any houses will catch fire this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the fire department.

We do know, however, that "longview logic" is frickin' insane.

Using your logic, a person should go to the best hospital, and have every expensive examination there is to make sure they are OK.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Worst dodge in the world. they were relevant. you asked for evidence he provided in typical fashion you ignored it.

He made a specific statement, and I asked for specific evidence in support of that specific statement. He failed to provide the evidence to support his statement. Denier FAIL.

no he didn't. He provided support for the question asked. that supports what the other person said.

Totally false, and again indicates that you have not read the thread. Curry originally said that there was "considerable" scientific debate about:
"whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes"

I responded by saying
There is NO debate about whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes. There is not merely consensus on this issue in the literature, there is virtual unanimity.
and
If you think she's right, it would be absurdly easy to prove. Just cite three peer-reviewed papers on each side of the issue, which would indicate the presence of a scientific debate.

He responded by providing citations about a completely different issue, that of sensitivity.

If you don't know the difference between sensitivity and attribution, ludin, then you fail Climate Science 101.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Using your logic, a person should go to the best hospital, and have every expensive examination there is to make sure they are OK.

They certainly should, if there is evidence of disease.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
10,228
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We don't know if you will have an auto accident this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy auto insurance.
We don't know if a tornado will hit your house this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy homeowner's insurance.
We don't know what the crime rate will be this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the police force.
We don't know if any houses will catch fire this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the fire department.

We do know, however, that "longview logic" is frickin' insane.
As with all of life's choices, we make risk based decisions,
how much risk is there, and how much will it cost to mitigate said risk.
Some of us do this on an unconscious level, other look at the data and decide.
With AGW, the risks factors come from several variables,

How fast will CO2 levels rise?
What is the ECS sensitivity of CO2?
When will viable alternatives be available?

The rate of the CO2 rise so far has been between 2 and 3 ppm per year,
All but the most zealous, think RCP 8.5 is very unlikely, so RCP 2.6, 4.5, and 6.0,
place the CO2 level in 2040, between 450 and 475 ppm, the same 2 and 3 ppm per year.
If we do a limit of the expected ECS between 1.8 C and 3 C, the boundaries
for possible warming for that period are between .305C and .74C.
The .74 C in the next 2.4 decades sounds unlikely as that rate would exceed the per decade rate
seen in any of the instrument record, for 2 consecutive decades.
Of that warming, more than 60% will be in nighttime lows not going as low during the winter cycle,
(cooler periods).
It looks like man made hydrocarbon fuels, could be brought online quite quickly,
as soon as the feedstock price makes it viable, this will be about $90 a barrel oil.
Adding a fuel carbon tax, will not change what the refineries pay for their feedstock,
and so is both irrelevant and bad for the poor.

The question becomes, when will oil cross the $90 a barrel boundary, because
CO2 emission will slow down quickly at that point.
From a business standpoint, once refineries get a taste of stable feedstock supply and price,
they will not want to go back to the very risky business oil extraction.
At the end of the day, profits rule, when they can make more profits making their
own feedstock, they will do so. That the man made fuels can be made carbon neutral,
is just a nice extra.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,949
Reaction score
13,434
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They certainly should, if there is evidence of disease.
Well, there are hundreds of symptoms that are meaningless.

Just like you want to break this nation financially with AGW mitigation, being proactive with doctor visits will do that to people.

They symptoms of warming have no definitive cause. We only have one earth, but millions of people have been examined for correlating cause from symptoms, and it's still often a crap shoot.
 
Top Bottom