On 1/11/2018 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>> Hank Readon <
han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>
178.63.61.175:
>>
>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>
>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>
> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree
YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive.
Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days
later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of
the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of
the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant
questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An
overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that
warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is
anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to
take action? In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi
Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published
by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either
explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several
written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus.
Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic
papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And
Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to
anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in
public policy. RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging
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. Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Surely
the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by
Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change
Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science
(subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an
analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers
taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed
literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a
position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook
examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at
all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change,
he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a
University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s
Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that
“only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of
the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what
Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s
initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.
“Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate
remain,” Legates concluded. RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know
What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’ 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.
Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
> that the
> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
BULLSHIT LIE!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
>>
>> Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed
>> ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change
>
> **485 junk science papers are just that: Junk science. Were any
> peer-reviewed? Did Breitbart make this shit up (like all the other shit
> they publish)?
>
> Have you bothered to read the premier science written about AGW? Or do
> you just read Breitbart headlines?
>
> Try this and get back to us:
>
>
www.ipcc.ch
>
>
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4fca08e34c7c
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the
asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may
indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning
global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers
believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a
survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast,
a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the
primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming
will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists)
and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys
of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism
of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers,
merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The
scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change
is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are
the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming
majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is
skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the
“Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they
believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the
Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any
significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists,
comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as
both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to
be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They
are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC
modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take
action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of
respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists
“diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any
other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is
unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the
‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change
poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal
life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is
settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic
framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation
will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents,
fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate
change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate
public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover,
“They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being
settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36
percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a
serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist
bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to
describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming
crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against
climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate
projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the
survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate
denial machine.’
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the
beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often
publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We
now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that
they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the
bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and
suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite
of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming
alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such
alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to
hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not
only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but
these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.