Gulf Stream

[homersapien 11,428]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course, you could listen outside of your echo chamber. Here are just a few with different takes on the subject:

John Clauser, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize

William Happer, Professor Emeritus at Princeton, Davis-Germer Prize, Pioneer in field of optically polarized atoms and hyperpolarized gases

Ivar Giaver, PhD Physicist, Nobel Prize, Oliver E. Buckley Prize

Dyson Freeman, Physicist and Mathematician, Templeton Prize, Enrico Fermi Award, Matteucci Medal

Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor of Meterology, MIT, Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, AMS Charney Award

Steven Koonin, PhD Theoretical Physics, 

Judith Curry, PhD, Geophysical Sciences, Former Professor Emeritus and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech

Of course there are many more. Start there. They sound really dumb. 🙄

And where, pray tell, did you get that list of contrarians?

How about citing the actually numbers of (research) papers on the subject that each has published?

All it proves is there are grifters in any profession.  (Which is ironically, one of the deniers old standbys.  Fortunately that happens only with a relatively small number of people. I doesn't - cannot apply - to the vast majority of scientists that are actually in the field.)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

An undercover sting by Greenpeace has revealed that two prominent climate sceptics were available for hire by the hour to write reports casting doubt on the dangers posed by global warming.

Posing as consultants to fossil fuel companies, Greenpeace approached professors at leading US universities to commission reports touting the benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels and the benefits of coal. The views of both academics are well outside mainstream climate science.

The findings point to how paid-for information challenging the consensus on climate science could be placed into the public domain without the ultimate source of funding being revealed.

They come as government ministers meet in Paris this week to try to reach an agreement to fight climate change, and one month after it emerged that ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy were under investigation in the state of New York over claims of misleading the public and investors about climate change.

Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

Happer is one of the most prominent climate sceptics in the US and on Tuesday was called to testify at a congressional hearing into climate “dogma” convened by Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate and chair of the Senate science committee. He is also chairman of the George Marshal Institute in the US and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK.

Reacting to the sting at the UN climate talks in Paris, US secretary of state John Kerry was dismissive of the impact of such paid-for work. “One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97% of the scientists on the planet,” he said.

The proposed report for the fake consultant was intended to highlight the negative aspects of the climate agreement being negotiated in Paris, he was told in the email approach. The physicist was receptive to the commission, and asked to donate his fee to the CO2 Coalition, a group founded this year to “shift the debate from the unjustified criticism of CO2 and fossil fuels”.

“My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate change cult,” he wrote in an email. He did not respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.

The campaign group assumed another false identity, posing as an Indonesian energy consultancy, to approach Frank Clemente, a retired sociologist formerly at Pennsylvania State University, to commission a report countering damaging studies on Indonesian coal deaths and promoting the benefits of coal, according to the email exchanges.

In both cases, the professors discussed ways to obscure the funding for the reports, at the request of the fake companies. In Happer’s case, the CO2 Coalition which was to receive the fee suggested he reach out to a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust, in response to a request from the fake Greenpeace entity to keep the source of funds secret. Not disclosing funding in this way is not unlawful under US law.

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. “Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review,” he said. “I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

Greenpeace said its investigation demonstrated how, unbeknownst to the public, the fossil fuel industry could inject paid-for views about climate change into the international debate, confusing the public and blocking prospects for strong action to avoid dangerous warming.

“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”

Such practices are receiving greater scrutiny in academic circles after it emerged that Dr Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who rejects mainstream climate science, was financed almost entirely by fossil fuel companies and lobby groups and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The Smithsonian launched an investigation.

In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.

Clemente, who was approached by the sham Indonesian firm to produce a report countering findings linking coal to high rates of premature death, said such a project fell within his skill set. He estimated a fee of about $15,000 for an eight-to-10-page paper, according to email correspondence released by Greenpeace. The professor said he charged $6,000 for writing newspaper opinion pieces.

He said there was no problem quoting him as professor emeritus at Penn State, or obscuring the funding for the research. “There is no requirement to declare source funding in the US. My research and writing has been supported by government agencies, trade associations, the university and private companies and all has been published under the rubric of me as an independent scholar – which I am.”

Clemente told the Guardian that he acted as a consultant to “many industries that improve the human quality of life”.

He added: “I fully stand behind every single statement I made in my emails. I am very proud of my research and believe that clean coal technologies are the pathway to reliable and affordable electricity, reduction of global energy poverty and a cleaner environment.”

“I write is an independent scholar and University is not responsible for any of my work. This is called academic freedom in the United States,” he said.

Greenpeace said it had approached a total of seven prominent figures in the US and UK climate denial movement. The other five declined, either citing time pressures and area of expertise, or just did not respond.

Greenpeace argues its investigation offered a rare glimpse into the practice of clandestine industry funding of reports casting doubts about the threat of climate change. The campaign group argues that obscuring funding in this way dupes the public into thinking the reports are produced by the scholars independently with no financial interests at stake.

Happer, who served as an energy adviser for former president George HW Bush, has long argued that rising carbon emissions are a net benefit for humanity.

He returned to the point in his email exchanges with the fake entity, saying: “The Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world.”

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University and author of Merchants of Doubt, a book about the climate denial movement, said Happer had been deploying the same arguments that CO2 is good for agriculture for about 20 years – even though such claims have, she said, been thoroughly debunked. “He has been recycling refuted arguments for quite some time now,” she said.

“Happer sits in the profile of people we wrote about in Merchants of Doubt,” she said. “I’ve always argued that for this group of people, cold war physicists, it’s not about money, it’s ideologically driven.”

Meanwhile, Peabody Energy regularly cites Clemente’s research to make its case that expanding coal use to developing countries would help eliminate global poverty. That argument runs counter to the thinking of financial institutions such as the World Bank which has rejected the notion of coal as a poverty cure.

Happer noted he had also donated an $8,000 fee from Peabody for testimony in a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide to the CO2 Coalition.

Happer did not dispute the veracity of the emails, but refused to address questions.

 

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

“Fake expert” and spreader of “misinformation” according to skeptical science. Not to say you are doing a bad job Johnny.

Think we should all be good stewards of what God gave us but not buying in to total destruction of the species by man. 
 

 

You think ignoring the science of AGW is good "stewardship" Salty?

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

33 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

MO Al gore and the extreme denialists need to just shut up and let those with an ounce of common sense figure out an achievable, not completely screw the country up plan of action. 

This is what needs to happen.  How to do it is the question.  The subject is so political that no one is being listened to in a serious way.

[homersapien 11,428]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL at referencing 2 government funded agencies. Methane is considered "more powerful" than CO2 on a per molecule basis....

Here is the real reason methane is being demonized along with CO2. 

 

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

I know about the permafrost. Since neither you, nor any of your references have proven the amount of direct warming by the trace gas, pray tell exactly what will the concentration of methane atmosphere be after the release? It will still be a trace gas, and have an insignificant effect.

I wasn't trying to prove any quantitative forecast regarding sequestered methane. In fact, I haven't personally seen one.

Leftfield brought up one feedback mechanism (water vapor) in a qualitative sense, and I brought up another (in a qualitative sense) which has yet to occur.

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So you think the scientific consensus on the subject is part of the hoax, right?

C'mon Johnny.  Why don't you answer?

You act like one of those clueless MAGAs being interviewed by Jordan Klepper at the Trump rallies, that gradually start to realize how crazy they sound.

 

 

[homersapien 11,428]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Now that’s a valid point. No, challenging things and not just going along is extremely “American”.  And over reacting is extremely 2024 American.  But at some damn point people and gov needs to sit down on this issue and come up with a balanced, imperfect answer that po’s both sides but at least does… something. Nobody’s doing end of times over having to use catalytic converters today. IMO Al gore and the extreme denialists need to just shut up and let those with an ounce of common sense figure out an achievable, not completely screw the country up plan of action. 

Well, it would be a valid point if the premise - opposition is being stifled - were true.  It's not.   (Well, no more than the flat earther's are being "stifled". 

 

[johnnyAU 3,643]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

C'mon Johnny.  Why don't you answer?

You act like one of those clueless MAGAs being interviewed by Jordan Klepper at the Trump rallies, that gradually start to realize how crazy they sound.

 

 

I've already answered. There is no legitimate scientific consensus on AGW or that we are in any sort of "climate crisis". 

There is only consensus on whether or not humans have any affect on the climate. And on the latter I agree. We certainly have provided urban heat islands, deforested too much of the land, and certainly have not been as friendly to the environment or humanity as we should have. However, we have made significant technological strides on many fronts.  We are safer from the environment and the climate than we have ever been. We'll continue to thrive as long as we don't do things as monumentally ignorant as continue to spray metallic aerosols in an attempt to reflect sunlight, shut down large farms to push lab grown meat and bugs, and prevent the use of affordable, reliable and available energy sources under the guise that it will have any significant impact on the climate.

[homersapien 11,428]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

You failed to answer the question. What will the ensuing atmospheric concentration of methane be after said release? How much higher will temperatures be due to this trace gas? The statements you quoted above are typical for cult followers to take as fact. "If", "could", etc...

Quantify the effect. "Millions of cubic meters" is a useless metric when compared to the size of the atmosphere. You might as well provide its weight. It matters as little. 

 

I wasn't addressing it quantitatively (obviously).  Leftfield brought up one feedback mechanism - water vapor - and I brought up another - sequestered methane.  Also in a qualitative sense.

Personally, I have no idea what quantitative effect it will have - when it ultimately happens - which is exactly what makes it scary to me.

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I've already answered. There is no legitimate scientific consensus on AGW or that we are in any sort of "climate crisis". 

There is only consensus on whether or not humans have any affect on the climate. And on the latter I agree. We certainly have provided urban heat islands, deforested too much of the land, and certainly have not been as friendly to the environment or humanity as we should have. However, we have made significant technological strides on many fronts.  We are safer from the environment and the climate than we have ever been. We'll continue to thrive as long as we don't do things as monumentally ignorant as continue to spray metallic aerosols in an attempt to reflect sunlight, shut down large farms to push lab grown meat and bugs, and prevent the use of affordable, reliable and available energy sources under the guise that it will have any significant impact on the climate.

I want you to admit that for you to be correct, it necessarily means that most - by far - of all scientists in the field and related fields are participating in a conspiracy.

Now, how does one measure this consensus you might ask.  Here's an explanation from one study exploring the question:

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

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

James Powell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8362-6863 jpowell@usc.eduView all authors and affiliations

Volume 37, Issue 4

https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619886266

 

• • Abstract
  • References
  • Biographies
  • Supplementary Material
• Get access
• • Cite article
  • Share options
  • Information, rights and permissions
  • Metrics and citations

Abstract

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.

 

Other articles/research papers supporting the assertion of "consensus":

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/938/global-warming-consensus/

 

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109519/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20190522-SD006.pdf

 

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109519/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20190522-SD007.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256538724_Quantifying_the_Consensus_on_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_in_the_Scientific_Literature

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models/

 

https://lens.monash.edu/@science/2021/10/21/1383952/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-gets-even-stronger

 

Again, I could go on, but what's the point?  You clearly are close-minded and conspiratorial on the subject.  You're a real throwback.  I have experienced such determined delusion on this subject in 30 years.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is what needs to happen.  How to do it is the question.  The subject is so political that no one is being listened to in a serious way.

Somehow we’ve allowed extremes to take the stage.  Alarmists and denialists, not solvers I blame trump and Bernie (sorry Homer and Texas) for a lot of this culture. Today, I have no idea how the divorce rate isn’t 100% since we now seem to believe compromise is for hopeless pansies. Good luck doing relationships or democracies like that. Imo again, something is happening to the climate - glaciers are retreating not by the millennium but by the year. However, to your point if China, India ect don’t get on board - we’ll just pointlessly whack our economy while strengthen theirs Plus if we lower the carbon footprint 20% but the world population grows 30%….  There’s a lot a variables to the word problem. It’s a historical bitch. But better to a least do something less than perfect - and actually do it - than activists environmentalist screaming we all need to ride bikes immediately, cause eye rolls - and do nothing at all   

[homersapien 11,428]

30 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I've already answered. There is no legitimate scientific consensus on AGW or that we are in any sort of "climate crisis". 

There is only consensus on whether or not humans have any affect on the climate. And on the latter I agree. We certainly have provided urban heat islands, deforested too much of the land, and certainly have not been as friendly to the environment or humanity as we should have. However, we have made significant technological strides on many fronts.  We are safer from the environment and the climate than we have ever been. We'll continue to thrive as long as we don't do things as monumentally ignorant as continue to spray metallic aerosols in an attempt to reflect sunlight, shut down large farms to push lab grown meat and bugs, and prevent the use of affordable, reliable and available energy sources under the guise that it will have any significant impact on the climate.

What's to prevent us from trying anything if virtually every scientist in the field is participating willingly to foist the "hoax" of AGW?

What authority can promote or prevent counterproductive or harmful "solutions" if there is no valid science to support them?  Donald Trump?

This is what you believe. You've said so.

Damn man.  Even scientifically ignorant people understand the importance of science. You don't.  You live in a fantasy world.

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Somehow we’ve allowed extremes to take the stage.  Alarmists and denialists, not solvers I blame trump and Bernie (sorry Homer and Texas) for a lot of this culture. Today, I have no idea how the divorce rate isn’t 100% since we now seem to believe compromise is for hopeless pansies. Good luck doing relationships or democracies like that. Imo again, something is happening to the climate - glaciers are retreating not by the millennium but by the year. However, to your point if China, India ect don’t get on board - we’ll just pointlessly whack our economy while strengthen theirs Plus if we lower the carbon footprint 20% but the world population grows 30%….  There’s a lot a variables to the word problem. It’s a historical bitch. But better to a least do something less than perfect - and actually do it - than activists environmentalist screaming we all need to ride bikes immediately, cause eye rolls https://lens.monash.edu/@science/2021/10/21/1383952/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-gets-even-stronger- and do nothing at all   

Now natl1, don't go all Manichean on me. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,428]

12 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Somehow we’ve allowed extremes to take the stage.  Alarmists and denialists, not solvers I blame trump and Bernie (sorry Homer and Texas) for a lot of this culture. Today, I have no idea how the divorce rate isn’t 100% since we now seem to believe compromise is for hopeless pansies. Good luck doing relationships or democracies like that. Imo again, something is happening to the climate - glaciers are retreating not by the millennium but by the year. However, to your point if China, India ect don’t get on board - we’ll just pointlessly whack our economy while strengthen theirs Plus if we lower the carbon footprint 20% but the world population grows 30%….  There’s a lot a variables to the word problem. It’s a historical bitch. But better to a least do something less than perfect - and actually do it - than activists environmentalist screaming we all need to ride bikes immediately, cause eye rolls - and do nothing at all   

Well, much of the science - not to mention current weather patterns -  tells us we aren't doing enough as a species to address the problem.

Maybe it's time for more "alarmists" to make themselves apparent?

[homersapien 11,428]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I want you to admit that for you to be correct, it necessarily means that most - by far - of all scientists in the field and related fields are participating in a conspiracy.

Now, how does one measure this consensus you might ask.  Here's an explanation from one study exploring the question:

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

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

James Powell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8362-6863 jpowell@usc.eduView all authors and affiliations

Volume 37, Issue 4

https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619886266

 

• • Abstract
  • References
  • Biographies
  • Supplementary Material
• Get access
• • Cite article
  • Share options
  • Information, rights and permissions
  • Metrics and citations

Abstract

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.

 

Other articles/research papers supporting the assertion of "consensus":

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/938/global-warming-consensus/

 

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109519/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20190522-SD006.pdf

 

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109519/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20190522-SD007.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256538724_Quantifying_the_Consensus_on_Anthropogenic_Global_Warming_in_the_Scientific_Literature

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models/

 

https://lens.monash.edu/@science/2021/10/21/1383952/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-gets-even-stronger

 

Again, I could go on, but what's the point?  You clearly are close-minded and conspiratorial on the subject.  You're a real throwback.  I have experienced such determined delusion on this subject in 30 years.

Sorry Johnny, but a simple "thumbs down" don't cut it.

Explain how the "scientific consensus" premise is wrong. 

Show some evidence that supports your position.

 

[johnnyAU 3,643]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What's to prevent us from trying anything if virtually ever scientists in the field is participating willingly to foist the "hoax" of AGW?

What authority can promote or prevent counterproductive or harmful "solutions" if there is no valid science to support them?  Donald Trump?

This is what you believe.

Damn man.  Even scientifically ignorant people understand the importance of science. You don't.  You live in a fantasy world.

If anyone here is any more ideologically blind than you, I've not seen nor met them. The "studies" you have placed here are absolute garbage and they have been from the beginning from Cook and Orestes. The first was a paper by Oreskes claiming 75% of 1,000 or so papers she had reviewed agreed with the "consensus" favored by the IPCC. Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed the paper and found that only 45% endorsed the "consensus". 

Then along came Cook who published his "97% consensus" BS. They "reviewed" 11,944 papers related to climate change. Their finding was "97.1% endorses the scientific consensus on climate change." In reality, 7,930 of those papers took no stance on the subject at all. Upon further review, it was found that Cook and his assistants marked only 64 papers of the 11,944 they had said they read as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man made. 

11,944 abstracts "reviewed"

7,930 gave no opinion

3,896 agree man causes "some" warming

64 agree man causes "most" of the warming

41 stated man caused "most" warming since 1950

0 were marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe

So, around 33% agreed man causes "some" warming. Big deal, so do I. The disagreement is on how much and how severe. Less than 1% agree that man has caused "most" of the warming and nobody agreed we were in a "climate crisis". 

But, since that big ole "97%" number spouted off by Gore and later Obama resonated so much with apparently brain-dead sheep like you, well, they'll keep funding more of this garbage propaganda...because it apparently works. 

[auburnatl1 5,010]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, much of the science - not to mention current weather patterns -  tells us we aren't doing enough as a species to address the problem.

Maybe it's time for more "alarmists" to make themselves apparent?

Perfection is the enemy of…

[homersapien 11,428]

On 3/20/2024 at 3:04 PM, johnnyAU said:

If anyone here is any more ideologically blind than you, I've not seen nor met them. The "studies" you have placed here are absolute garbage and they have been from the beginning from Cook and Orestes. The first was a paper by Oreskes claiming 75% of 1,000 or so papers she had reviewed agreed with the "consensus" favored by the IPCC. Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed the paper and found that only 45% endorsed the "consensus". 

Then along came Cook who published his "97% consensus" BS. They "reviewed" 11,944 papers related to climate change. Their finding was "97.1% endorses the scientific consensus on climate change." In reality, 7,930 of those papers took no stance on the subject at all. Upon further review, it was found that Cook and his assistants marked only 64 papers of the 11,944 they had said they read as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man made. 

11,944 abstracts "reviewed"

7,930 gave no opinion

3,896 agree man causes "some" warming

64 agree man causes "most" of the warming

41 stated man caused "most" warming since 1950

0 were marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe

So, around 33% agreed man causes "some" warming. Big deal, so do I. The disagreement is on how much and how severe. Less than 1% agree that man has caused "most" of the warming and nobody agreed we were in a "climate crisis". 

But, since that big ole "97%" number spouted off by Gore and later Obama resonated so much with apparently brain-dead sheep like you, well, they'll keep funding more of this garbage propaganda...because it apparently works. 

So you claim one of the studies was flawed at the margins.  Perhaps so, especially if you cherry pick that particular study based on denier critiques. But does that study prove that a majority of scientists don't accept AGW as real. Of course not.   And does it really matter if the number is 97% or slightly less?

Can you cite even one study that actually refutes the fact a large majority of scientists in the field agree AGW is real?  Just one?  No, because it doesn't exist. 

Scientific "consensus" on the issue has been established, period.

And are you seriously suggesting that anyone who suggests AGW is real - including the majority of scientists in the field - is "ideologically blind"?? 

Does that really sound rational to you?  It sounds crazy to me.

 

Finally, how do you explain this:

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

The 28 June letter was signed by leaders of the following organizations:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Public Health Association
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
• American Society of Naturalists
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
• Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
• Botanical Society of America
• Consortium for Ocean Leadership
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Entomological Society of America
• Geological Society of America
• National Association of Marine Laboratories
• Natural Science Collections Alliance
• Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society for Mathematical Biology
• Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
• Society of Nematologists
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

https://www.esa.org/blog/2016/06/28/31-scientific-societies-letter-on-global-climate-change/

And that was in 2016.  The evidence has only increased since.

 

 

Edited March 22 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

List of statements by major scientific organizations about climate change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_by_major_scientific_organizations_about_climate_change

[homersapien 11,428]

Is Cornell University part of the hoax?

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

October 19, 2021

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

“It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.

“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”

In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only found four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.

Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.

If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

 

[homersapien 11,428]

28 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Perfection is the enemy of…

I thought we were talking about compromise.

I suggest that - thanks to human nature - we have already been living in a compromised state, which has been going on for decades. 

So the question becomes, what's a more reasonable compromise that still addresses the problem. That sorta depends on the magnitude of the problem as well as the urgency of taking meaningful action.

That is what will ultimate determine strategy, not any arbitrary judgement of  who is "radical" and who isn't.

[homersapien 11,428]

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

We know full well that we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. Without experienced people using their expertise to perform many vital tasks – and without new people constantly entering such occupations – society would quickly disintegrate.

The same is true of climate change: we defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Indeed, public perception of the scientific consensus with regard to global warming has been found to be an important gateway into other enlightened climate-related attitudes - including policy support. 

Let's take a look at summaries of the key studies, featured in the graphic above, into the degree of consensus. These have been based on analyses of large samples of peer-reviewed climate science literature or surveys of climate and Earth scientists. These studies are available online through e.g. Google Scholar. That slightly different methodologies reached very similar conclusions is a strong indicator that those conclusions are robust.

Oreskes 2004

In this pioneering paper, a survey was conducted into all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change', published between 1993 and 2003. The work showed that not a single paper, out of the 928 examined, rejected the consensus position that global warming is man-made. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way.

Doran & Zimmerman 2009

A survey of 3,146 Earth scientists asked the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what was most interesting was the type of response compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of actively-publishing climatologists responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Anderegg et al. 2010

This study of 1,372 climate science researchers found that (i) 97–98% of the researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) as outlined by the IPCC and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. 

Cook et al. 2013

A Skeptical Science-based analysis of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming', published between 1991 and 2011, found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Verheggen et al. 2014

Results were presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was at the time unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, it was 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 judgement or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols.

Stenhouse et al. 2014

In a survey of all 1,854 American Meteorological Society members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise, and perceived organisational conflict.

Carlton et al 2015

Commenting that the extent to which non-climate scientists are skeptical of climate science had not so far been studied via direct survey, the authors did just that. They undertook a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) stated that mean temperatures have risen. Of the subset that agreed temperatures had risen, the following question was then asked of them: "do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The affirmative response to that query was 96.66%.

Cook et al. 2016

In 2015, authors of the above studies joined forces to co-author a paper, “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”. Two key conclusions from the paper are as follows:

(i) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, somewhere between 90% and 100% of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. (ii) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Lynas et al. 2021

In this paper, from a dataset of 88,125 climate-related peer-reviewed papers published since 2012, these authors examined a randomly-selected subset of 3000 such publications. They also used a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical papers in the whole dataset. Twenty-eight sceptical papers were identified within the original dataset using that approach, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. It was concluded that the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, expressed as a proportion of the total publications, exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Myers et al. 2021

This study revisited the 2009 consensus among geoscientists, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among them. The authors sent 10,929 invitations to participate in the survey, receiving 2,780 responses. In addition, the number of scientific publications by these self-identified experts in the field of climate change research was quantified and compared to their survey response on questions about climate change. Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that agreement on anthropogenic global warming was high at 91% to 100% and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists agreed that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Among the subset with the highest level of expertise, these being independently-confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer-reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019, there was 100% agreement.

Public Polls and Consensus

Opinion polls are not absolute in the same way as uncontestable scientific evidence but they nevertheless usefully indicate in which way public thinking is heading. So let's look at a couple taken 13 years apart. A 15-nation World Public Opinion Poll in 2009 PDF), with 13,518 respondents, asked, among other questions, “Is it your impression that among scientists, most think the problem is urgent and enough is known to take action?” Out of all responses, just 51% agreed with that. Worse, in six countries only a minority agreed: United States (38%), Russia (23%), Indonesia (33%), Japan (43%), India (48%), and Mexico (48%). Conversely, the two highest “agree” scores were among Vietnamese (69%) and Bangladeshis (70%) - perhaps unsurprisingly.

The two other options people had to choose from were that “views are pretty evenly divided” (24% of total respondents), or “most think the problem is not urgent, and not enough is known to take action“ (15%). American and Japanese respondents scored most highly on “views are pretty evenly divided” (43 and 44% respectively).

How such a pervasive misperception arose, regarding the expert consensus on climate change, is no accident. Regular readers of this website's resources will know that instead, it was another product of deliberate misinformation campaigning by individuals and organizations in the United States and other nations around the world. These are people who campaign against action to reduce carbon emissions because it suits their paymasters if we continue to burn as much as possible. 

Step forward to 2022 and the situation has perhaps improved, but there's still some way to go. A recent poll, Public Perceptions on Climate change (PDF), was conducted by the Policy Institute, based at King's College London, UK. It quizzed samples of just over 2,000 people from each of six countries (UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Italy and Germany). The survey asked the question: “To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening?” The following averages were returned: the UK sample thought 65%, the average of the whole survey was 68% and the highest was Ireland at 71%. Clearly, although public perception of expert consensus is growing, there's still plenty of room for strategies to communicate the reality and to shield people from the constant drip-feed of misinformation.

Expert and Public Consensus

Finally, let's consider the differences between expert and public consensus. Expert consensus is reached among those who have studied complex problems and know how to collect and work with data, to identify what constitutes evidence and evaluate it. This is demanding work requiring specific skill-sets and areas of expertise, preparation for which requires years of study and training. 

Public consensus, in contrast, tends to occur only when something is blindingly obvious. For example, a serial misinformer would struggle if they tried running a campaign denying the existence of owls. Everyone already knows that of course there are owls. There is public consensus because we see and hear owls, for real or on the TV or radio. But complex issues are more prone to the antics of misinformers. We saw examples of misinformation during the COVID pandemic, in some cases with lethal outcomes when misinformed people failed to take the risks seriously. There's a strong parallel with climate change: it is imperative we accept the expert consensus and not kick the can down the road until the realisation it is real becomes universal – but utterly inescapable.

---

 

[SaltyTiger 7,853]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You think ignoring the science of AGW is good "stewardship" Salty?

Did not realize you had to accept AGW as the gospel to be a good steward. Doubt that you live any differently than I do. 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

So, you think the scientific consensus is a direct product of the conspiracy, which includes "baseless claims, conjectures, faulty computer simulations" ?

I don't believe I said that.  Conspiracy and hoax are strong words. It's more like you get what you pay for.  If you want to be a climate scientist and have your work be funded, you are aware of what your research needs to show.  The topic is beyond boring.  You can't be convinced, and neither can I.  However, there is some mutual overlap.  I'd like to see the demand for oil reduced, not because of global warming, but because OPEC is not our friend.

I just don't see any serious thought behind the solutions proposed by the left.  How do you move away from fossil fuels intelligently without hamstringing your own economy?  Nuclear is the only solution we have now.  Instead we are cutting nuclear and coal and making ourselves more dependent on natural gas every day.  That's great as long as there is no disruption in supply and the price is low. Neither can be guaranteed long term.  There's no cost/benefit analysis or risk analysis, or overall plan.   Meanwhile China builds a new coal plant every week. 

Edited March 20 by Cardin Drake

[johnnyAU 3,643]

Over-posting garbage is rhetoric of cultists. Spouting the same unscientific gibberish over and over isn't proof of anything, even if your belief in it is paramount. 

There isn't and never has been "consensus" on the magnitude of human influence on climate change because it is an unquantifiable measure. You have no legitimate science that backs up any direct correlation between emissions and climatic change. The mere existence of any attempt of trying to claim it without such proof is absolutely an indication of their own personal ignorance of the matter. 

To have any opinion, even though vetted through Nobel Prize winning scientists who happen to be leaders in the field of radiative physics, that is contrary to the overarching narrative brands you as a "denier" shows you exactly the mentality you are dealing with. Blind in scientific ignorance and ideology.  Homer regurgitates but doesn't understand an iota of what he absorbs. It is the level of willing submission that we are faced with these days. Political science over real, quantifiable science...by any means necessary.