Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[dorsetknob]

Soon to be Banned because of Global Warming

 

[SK-1]

Soon to be Banned because of Global Warming

I just drove through Kentucky. I could smell the bourbon.

 

[magibeg]

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4f6f6g/science_ama_series_we_just_published_a_study/

Can ask the authors of one of the 97% studies about climate change or how they got their numbers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's John Cook, again; Pew Research is a far better source.

 

[magibeg]

It's John Cook, again; Pew Research is a far better source.

Are you implying he has a flawed methodology? Any particular arguments with how that study was done? What about the other authors, are they bad too? Why is a meta-analysis research paper less reliable than pew research?

Are you referring to this paper by Pew Research? http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12 Global Warming Release.pdf

 

[dorsetknob]

We thank you for watching our sponsors advertisements and now return you to the TAG TEAM Climate FREESTYLE Kick the Shit out of each other Contest

ROUND ? who gives a .......................k

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are you implying he has a flawed methodology? Any particular arguments with how that study was done? What about the other authors, are they bad too? Why is a meta-analysis research paper less reliable than pew research?

Look back a few pages at the extended debate with @lilhasselhoffer.

Are you referring to this paper by Pew Research? http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12 Global Warming Release.pdf

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

Pew asked the scientists what they believed rather than assuming using database searches. As you can see in the table, a strong majority agree (88-90%) but that's pretty far from Cook et. al. 97% that gets regurgitated over and over and over. That said, Pew did all scientists across a broad range of topics; narrowing it down to just Earth scientists, it moves up to 93%.


That said, I really don't care what the numbers say--I just hate Cook being cited repeatedly when his work is a shoddy source from someone that has a strong opinion on the subject. It gets way more attention than it deserves. How often do you hear of Pew's numbers except from me? 'Nuff said.

I wish someone would interview the minority for an extended explanation as to why they disagree.

 

[magibeg]

Look back a few pages at the extended debate with @lilhasselhoffer.


http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

Pew asked the scientists what they believed rather than assuming using database searches. As you can see in the table, a strong majority agree (88-90%) but that's pretty far from Cook et. al. 97% that gets regurgitated over and over and over.


That said, I really don't care what the numbers say--I just hate Cook being cited repeatedly when his work is a shoddy source from someone that has a strong opinion on the subject. It gets way more attention than it deserves. How often do you hear of Pew's numbers except from me? 'Nuff said.

Before I get started I want to point out a couple things:

1. You clearly didn't read the study
2. The pew research study doesn't research the same thing as the study I posted
3. The Cook study you just referenced is not the same study as the one you think you're talking about

I'm afraid we might already be off to a hopeless start as before a discussion can begin we're already off topic.

So let's start over shall we?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

First I recommend you actually read the study which was only published on April 13th because if you plan to debate or argue a topic you should consider learning what you're actually arguing against. As it stands right now you have no idea what you're talking about based on your above statements.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1. I read enough to see it's pretty much the same damn thing (2013) updated for 2016.
2. I know that; I'd argue what Cook has done, did, and will do, is frivolous.
3. See #1.

I've said my peace on this subject. Cook is not worth my time.

Edit: I've read more of it and now I want to punch Cook in the gut. See #2.

 

[magibeg]

1. I read enough to see it's pretty much the same damn thing updated for 2016 (this is the third or fourth time he's done it).
2. I know that; I'd argue what Cook has done, did, and will do, is frivolous.
3. See #1.

I've said my peace on this subject. Cook is not worth my time.

John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13,Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15

It is a shame you simply discard all these scientists and this study simply because you dislike 1 person. Interesting that you take a survey of opinions over a meta-analysis of studies as well.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Note how of all of the studies in Cook's 2016 article, Cook's 2013 represents the upper extreme (as in the very top).

I don't have a problem with the articles cited on their own (except Cook's). I have a problem with Cook's 2013 meta-analysis and this new meta-analysis which includes--and emphasizes--the old. Without Cook, would this meta-analysis even exist? I suspect not. I believe you overstate the importance of the other people listed.

We knew, going back to 1991 that most (~66%) scientists believed the global average temperature was rising and every time asked since, it ticked up little by little to ~90% in 2015. If you want the opinion of the scientists, that's it.

Neither of the Cook papers have any reason to exist. In fact, I'd argue Cook's papers have a lot to do with why the US public is 50/50 on "climate change." The fact it is so heavily cited puts emphasis on frivolous numbers and not on function. It pretty much killed discussion of the latter because it's a huge bulls-eye for politicization.

 

[SK-1]

Are you implying he has a flawed methodology?

There is no consensus approaching 97 percent.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.



Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The wording of the question dramatically changes the response. The "less than half" qualifier is likely why that particular survey only got 30% in favor. When they ask broadly about anthropomorphic warming, you'll see the 90%+ agreement but still less than 97% unless you're only looking at published papers.


Again, more broadly, it doesn't matter. Just from the carbon-13 levels in the atmosphere, we know our burning of fossil fuels is changing the composition of the atmosphere.

 

[SK-1]

http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’sAn Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

 

[qubit]

http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’sAn Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

Whatever the truth on global warming, I seem to remember that Inconvenient Truth was debunked as scare tactics with little evidence to back it up.

I couldn't agree more that it's the science that should talk and only the science. However, there's too much corruption from vested interests, money and politics/power grabs for me to trust either side since this isn't science, but bullshit being spread in the name of science, with the truth all mixed up in it in one dirty shit pie.

The climate hustle website is currently down, btw.

 

[EarthDog]

It's just you. http://www.climatehustle.com is up.

http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

Good now if it was down.

 

[dorsetknob]

Keep saying "Its Not Global warming" Earth as a Planet is very slowly cooling and will do untill the sun goes to its red giant phase of its life

WHAT WE ARE/MAY BE EXPERIENCING IS CLIMATE CHANGE

 

[SK-1]

Well shit! A greener planet...Now we're all doomed.
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

 

[qubit]

Keep saying "Its Not Global warming" Earth as a Planet is very slowly cooling and will do untill the sun goes to its red giant phase of its life

WHAT WE ARE/MAY BE EXPERIENCING IS CLIMATE CHANGE

Yes indeed, the climate has always changed throughout the ages, so I'm not surprised that it's changing now.

 

[SK-1]

Yes indeed, the climate has always changed throughout the ages, so I'm not surprised that it's changing now.

The "Sky is falling"crew is desperately trying to make that a bad word. Their movement has bastardized the word Climate Change to be synonymous man-made global warming. Too bad for them. Transparent, straw-man arguments eventually get exposed.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Its the sun man

NOT

The son of man.

 

[vega22]

it's so funny people still even debate this.

we normally have 20% melt during the summers on the poles. 2015 we had over 50% melt.

north pole was 12c higher this winter than average and most of greenlands glaciers are expected to go this summer.

nobody can argue against the world is warming, average for the northern hemisphere is up 2c since the figures shown at the environmental summit in paris last year. which for those paying attention was what they said could be the low side of what will happen by 2100. already happened in under a year. at this rate will smash the 6c rise they said was the high end prediction for 2100 before 2050.

it aint the sun causing it, the solar effect on earth has been measured and has been declining since the 70s. yet the earth still gets warmer.

never, ever, ever in the known history of this planet has the co2 ever gotten over 400 part per mil. we have now smashed that record and it keeps on climbing. but it aint people having an effect on the climate, honest...

 

[qubit]

The "Sky is falling"crew is desperately trying to make that a bad word. Their movement has bastardized the word Climate Change to be synonymous man-made global warming. Too bad for them. Transparent, straw-man arguments eventually get exposed.

Yeah, incredibly they do. Just witness the various scandals getting exposed in the UK where I live. Unfortunately, there are probably many more that never go uncovered.

Its the sun man

NOT

The son of man.

Nah, it's gawd wot did it.

 

[SK-1]

never, ever, ever in the known history of this planet has the co2 ever gotten over 400 part per mil. we have now smashed that record and it keeps on climbing. but it aint people having an effect on the climate, honest...

But that's just it... You say "never, ever,ever in the known history"...that my friend is up for debate!
The unknown history of our planet outweighs the known history by a HUGE margin. There is no arguing, that in a Geological sense, Man has been here a literal BLINK of an eye. 100 years of industrialization vs what?...Billions of years of planet existence at a minimum. Our scientist try to peer back into time using a variety of tools...some are semi accurate while some suck Spider Monkeyballs. The ice core Co2 readings for instance. We now know, UV light that happens penetrates the ice, can screw up the algae co2 analysis big time. Why didn't these brilliant people consider this years ago? The answer to my rhetorical question lol...FUNDING!!

 

[vega22]

only in the minds of the weak and the halls of corruption is it up for debate. in the real world we can see what is happening without the need for big business and corporations telling us "the truth".

do you really think oj couldn't get his hands in those gloves so no way he could of killed his wife?

have you spent much time on the poles?

spent a lot of time watching glaciers?

i haven't either but i hold the words of those who do in much higher regard than any lab jockey from bumsville university who was paid to write a paper "disproving" anything.

the big point you really seem top have missed. if people are the cause or not, matters not. not 1 fucking bit. it is happening and if we do nothing to stop it we are about to lose 60% of all our major cities all over the world. the major ports which every person in the modern world relies on for import/exports are about to be gone.

i cant wait, my house is going to become beach front property and the value will skyrocket. but not everyone is in that boat.