The myth of global warming

[Payday12]

A few thing you should know about the hoax called global warming.

Scientists were caught cooking the books to obtain results that served their narrative.

Even NASA manipulated data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change.

There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years.

Liberals and Democrats likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate. The real number is about 43%.

Liberal organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Saying misinformation is being polite. They outright lie

[Iroquois]

Source?

[ashdoc]

The politically correct people are making fools of us to divert attention from the threat from radical jehadi activities !!

[cat_sidhe]

:facepalm:

[ash_is_the_gal]

alright, where's the laugh react option

[Yam12]

http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hysterical-laughing-gif-3.gif

[TheUsualSuspect]

http://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

[Dani8]

I think you've magically convinced me. All a bunch of lies and tin foil hats

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/galapagos-climate-change-impacts-iconic-creatures/?sf85423109=1

[matt72582]

For 99% of the earth's history, there was no industry, so this is very, very radical.... But at what cost should be the question. Poverty is bad enough, so if there was a way to have a better standard of living (since deregulation supposedly helps everything), then if the Earth blows up in 500 years, so be it....

[Chypmunk]

Disappointed!
I expected a picture of a beautiful woman wearing a sash when I read Myth Global Warming in the title :(

[Powdered Water]

At least one person should point out that everything the op said was completely false by the way. There's tons of data out there. So the op (if he ever comes back) will not be able to provide you a source Iro.

[Citizen Rules]

Disappointed!
I expected a picture of a beautiful woman wearing a sash when I read Myth Global Warming in the title :(

Hey it's Marilyn Monroe (I think?) and she's hotter than ever! Because of.........Global Warming. But yet, she never breaks a sweat.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-M5YA22640AU/UnkB_bBzERI/AAAAAAAAAWE/xCXNk5vQgno/s1600/Miss+Global+Warming_Askew_Trudy_Mediumweb.jpg
Oh is she walking on lava, that's smokin'

[Yoda]

Not everything: he's right that the 97% of scientists thing isn't true (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle). More elaboration on why here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#2a7e7df0d08e).

Some others may be right or wrong depending on what he means (like "cooking the books").

Either way, claims like this certainly ought to be sourced.

[jal90]

Making a thread to confront scientific evidence while citing zero sources. Excellent. Nice blog, by the way.

Also what's this thing about people mistaking Movieforums for the new /pol/. Is this a trend or something?

[Yoda]

I kinda like the idea of derisively calling posts or threads a "blog" when they just make a bunch of assertions and don't read like an invitation to discussion at all.

[Chypmunk]

I kinda like the idea of derisively calling posts or threads a "blog" when they just make a bunch of assertions and don't read like an invitation to discussion at all.
I kinda prefer the idea of not having to in the first place tbh :)

[ashdoc]

Let the 'peaceful' future rulers of the world Handle the consequences of global warming , plastic pollution etc .Why should we bother? We are going to be annihilated anyway
:D:D:D:D:D:D

[DK Han]

I never understood why some go to such great lengths to disprove global warming when it is very much real. You don't have to be a lefty or righty to believe cold hard facts. Whatever your reasoning for promoting ignorance of it is rest assured what is happening won't reach its peak in your lifetime but it is certainly a real thing.

[Wplains]

Let the 'peaceful' future rulers of the world Handle the consequences of global warming , plastic pollution etc .Why should we bother? We are going to be annihilated anyway
:D:D:D:D:D:D

Yes eventually, lol.

Global warming is probably true because climates are not and have never been static, they fluctuate all the time. What I'm not convinced of by any means is that it's due to human intervention. That's what scientists are not agreed on - there are many who say yes while just as many say no (according to the climatologist in my family). It is though, a wonderful excuse to tax people. 42% of my electricity bill are tariffs and taxes to fund "green" energy. So far, all I think they are doing is funding people who get a lot of money for nothing. Our electricity company is still making gazillions in profit while we pay through the nose for energy that is a lot cheaper in the rest of Europe.

[Yoda]

There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years.
it is very much real ... it is certainly a real thing.
Respectfully, what's the point of this kind of response? A flat contradiction isn't any better than a flat assertion.

[Thursday Next]

Liberals and Democrats likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate. The real number is about 43%.

75% of statistics are made-up on the spot.

Although some scientists claim the exact figure may be more like approximately 73.5%

[Wplains]

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#528f9dc73de0


Here's a skeptic of what causes global warming, I think we can safely say there as just as many voices on one side as on the other. I think myself that much worse than global warming is the out-of-control population explosion which no wants to talk about because it's happening in developing countries. I think that's a hell of a lot more important (and threatening to the environment) than global warming.

The numbers are stagering:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

I think that is the real threat to the environment.

[Slappydavis]

The reason he didn't provide sources is that his list is directly taking from a daily wire article and I guess OP didn't want it to seem like he was just regurgitating something he read. But he was.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler#

The daily wire is run by Ben Shapiro, and I really try not to slip into attacks like this, but he is consistently one of the most dishonest people on the internet that also has a large following (I guess less than Milo or Alex Jones though?). To be honest, it feels like I've been fighting his shadow for YEARS because he's really popular among college conservatives (at least around here). More sustainable to debate his shadow than conspiracy theorists though (props to Yoda).

Before this turns into a blog (I like that idea btw) I want to quickly (heh) talk about the 43% number. I want to say it's almost impressive how it was designed to be deceptive, but even the doctoring was kinda basic.

Here is where the figure "originates": http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Let's take a look at the point from the Daily Wire article:

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus. Now, to dissect it:

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent.Here, we have some interesting weasel words. OP notably changed their carefully chosen words from "likely closer to 43" to "about 43" which is a huge difference. Closer to 43 than 97 would 69 or below. They also leave in "likely" because they aren't even willing to commit to 69 or below (OP didn't mind this point, as the DW intended, DW carefully word these because they want plausible deniability when its actually looked into, knowing full well that their supporters will run with the numbers and make posts exactly like this one).

Normally, I wouldn't really care about the inclusion of "likely" in conjunction with an already fuzzy number, DW does that all the time, but it's especially funny/hypocritical in context (more on that in a sec).

Also interesting, where is the justification? 43% isn't anywhere in this report? Where did that number come from? DW didn't post a source for the number, they were just hoping you'd see the number, see a link with an in depth study, and figure it was true. But again, 43%, not anywhere in the report.

Where it DID come from another piece that made its rounds on the conservative blogs:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/

The part we are concerned with is here:
Those 797 respondents are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). The PBL survey finds that only a minority (a large minority) of climate scientists agree with the AR4 keynote statement {and the similar finding in AR5’s chapter 10} at the 95% level typically required for science and public policy Here's what the author is arguing:

A) The IPCC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) went too far in saying the words "extremely likely" which he claims should be used to describe a 95% confidence rating. Which as a specific point is kinda wishy-washy (The IPCC never said 95% as far as I can tell), but honestlythe general point that the IPCC overstepped is well taken, it's both a misstep and unnecessary. The amount of consensus is actually quite high without trying to strive for near unanimity, which only invites conspiracy.

B) If you look at this study, and if we apply a 95% confidence rating (which, again is kind of a number we pulled out of nowhere), we'd get 47% (43 if you include IDKs) that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic.

Let's look at the numbers (I put them in excel in the second picture because the report is annoyingly vague with the exact numbers, which I use to calculate percentages)

https://image.ibb.co/jzMqNk/GHGa.png (https://imgbb.com/)

https://image.ibb.co/dpCVNk/GHG1.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Now before you don your master internet genius cap and notice that there's a "More than 100%" category which MUST either mean scientists are idiots who can't understand something can't be more than 100% responsible or that they are liars, in this survey it means:

https://image.ibb.co/nq6Da5/GHG100.png (https://imgbb.com/)

Can't tell you how many times I had to read snarky comments from people that don't read the study.

You may have noticed three sets of percentages, T1, T2, and T3, they are:
https://image.ibb.co/bRsVNk/GHG2.png (https://imgbb.com/)
The first is a straight total, which I don't think is actually wise to use. the second subtracts "Other" responses as you basically have to because we actually have no idea what was put in those responses, they had to write it in themselves and it wasn't tabulated as far as I can tell. I basically believe it to be misleading to include these in the total, but just so that there's total clarity I had the pure total.

The third subtracts "Unknown" and other, unknown being the person believed they lacked the relevant knowledge, while I don't know meant unsure. I wish the study had used an opt not to reply due to lack of knowledge to make it more clear to those reading it, but they didn't.

I won't subtract the I don't knows because those actually kinda are relevant. Those are ones with knowledge that won't quite commit, which there a number of scientists that do this.

Here are the brackets:

https://image.ibb.co/eP7x2k/GHG3.png (https://imgbb.com/)

So depending on

Here are the confidence intervals for those that said 50% or more was caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions:

https://preview.ibb.co/nkh88Q/GHG4.png (https://ibb.co/k4Pc2k)

Here are the confidence intervals for those that said less than 50%

https://preview.ibb.co/gA7i8Q/GHG5.png (https://ibb.co/kH1X2k)

Take from the numbers what you will. This is one study so I wouldn't base an entire worldview on it, but I think the claims are certainly distorted at the very least.

Next piece of the DW quote:

The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies... On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a surveyAt the risk of belaboring (who? me?) this pretty much already perfect quote, this type of cherry picking approach to studies is 1) way too prevalent and 2) why we have meta analyses.

that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensusThis is probably the part that made me want to write about all this the most. Because trading "43% of respondents in one survey that was designed to reach out to skeptics as well as non-skeptics said they were 95% sure that more than 51% of global warming to anthropogenic GHG emissions" for "only 43% of scientists believe in man-made climate change" is pretty damn cynical.

Which brings me to a big point:

Why do I care so much?

Honestly, it's not a bad question.

If you couldn't tell, I don't think this study is a standout study regardless. I don't think it's more useful than any other study, and I don't think even the people that created the study consider it above other similar studies on scientific consensus. But, conservative outlets gave the study their backing without reading it, and I love fighting them on their chosen turf.

I let a lot go (here and elsewhere) that I start to respond to and I give up. But I knew I had seen that 43% before. As I looked into it I saw the DW article. Then I remembered it's source. And something I've had this tremendous personal problem with started to rear its head. This is a really good microcosm.

This is what happened.


Blogger posted an article that (mostly) has a specific bone to pick with a particular finding. Somewhat misleading, but within the normal wheelhouse of rhetoric.
DW picked up on a single figure and distorted it with no explanation; because they knew it'd be used that way and get repeated with even LESS context and explanation.
It got repeated here, distorted even further. As intended by DW.


Which took the form of:



Blog: 43% of scientists surveyed in this one study were 95% sure or more that >51% of global warming is due to anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Daily Wire: Liberals lie! They say 97% but maybe it's 70% or less, maybe 43%!
OP: Liberals lie! They say 97% it is actually 43% of believe in man-made global warming!


There's just something that deeply bothers me at how this is exactly what DW wanted. To stir readers without informing them. So I had to post something.


TL: DR No. No Tldr. Read it or don't. Tldr is the problem.

[Slappydavis]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#528f9dc73de0


Man, I love the stuff you guys use sometimes. That article is written by Peter Ferrara, a Heartland Institute (ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute) analyst. Heartland used to work on (maybe still does?) trying to muddle the connection between smoking and lung cancer. And wow, smoking denialism seems like a great analogy for climate change denialism when I think about it.

I need to sit on this one for a bit, but that really seems perfect.

Quote from the article:
global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.How's that working out so far?

[Wplains]

Man, I love the stuff you guys use sometimes. That article is written by Peter Ferrara, a Heartland Institute (ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute) analyst. Heartland used to work on (maybe still does?) trying to muddle the connection between smoking and lung cancer. And wow, smoking denialism seems like a great analogy for climate change denialism when I think about it.

I need to sit on this one for a bit, but that really seems perfect.

Quote from the article:
How's that working out so far?

Oh wow I'm so glad you know all these people by heart. I have no idea who this guy is, I used the article as an example of those who don't believe in GW - as I said, I am sure there are just as many who espouse the exact opposite viewpoint. Me, I'll continue to believe in my family member who is actually a climatologist and Uni Professor and who tells me the number of "experts" who believe and don't believe HW is man made is split right down the middle. Since she is the only bona fide "expert" I know personally, you'll forgive me if I continue to take her word for it instead of yours, hmm? :D

[Slappydavis]

Since she is the only bona fide "expert" I know personally, you'll forgive me if I continue to take her word for it instead of yours, hmm? :D
I don't believe I made any claim that rested on my word vs anyone else's? That's why one sources things.

Not upset with you for linking that dude though, legitimately turned a lightbulb on for a possible analogy, that's all.

[Wplains]

I don't believe I made any claim that rested on my word vs anyone else's? That's why one sources things.

Not upset with you for linking that dude though, legitimately turned a lightbulb on for a possible analogy, that's all.

So glad you're not upset - that would be a real problem, haha. As someone else said here once, it's impossible to know who the gazillion people whom you find on the net are. The article just happened to be the first that came up when I googled the subject. You can find a million for one opinion and a million for another and then read between the lines.

[doubledenim]

I found my post-o-da-year frontrunner.

All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear.

[Wplains]

I found my post-o-da-year frontrunner.

All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear.

Lol!

[Guaporense]

More interesting than talking about GW is to explain why some people deny it exists? I mean, its pretty obvious that there is massive and overwhelming evidence for its existence so why people deny it? The lobby from coal and oil is that strong?

[cat_sidhe]

More interesting than talking about GW is to explain why some people deny it exists? I mean, its pretty obvious that there is massive and overwhelming evidence for its existence so why people deny it? The lobby from coal and oil is that strong?

Too much effort. People will deny just about anything to be able to continue as is.

[Powdered Water]

Not everything: he's right that the 97% of scientists thing isn't true (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle). .


C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) and its info is fake? Its 97%. I'm surprised you're still quibbling about the number to be honest.

[cat_sidhe]

Since when have 97% of any group of people been able to agree on anything, let alone scientists? :lol:

[Yoda]

C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) and its info is fake? Its 97%.
Neither is "fake." It's never that simple, as slappy went to great lengths to demonstrate. But, in a nutshell: yes, the 97% number is misleading at best and probably shouldn't be cited without many caveats. EDIT: worth noting, for example, that the site you just linked to at least includes the caveat "climate-publishing scientists." I can find you dozens of examples of media reports, politicians, and activists leaving that out.

I'm surprised you're still quibbling about the number to be honest.
I don't know why it's "still." I replied once.

Anyway, I don't think this is quibbling. I realize that, when someone comes in with such a glib series of assertions, the temptation is to counterbalance that by saying "everything that guy says is a total lie." But it isn't. Not everything he said is totally false. Some of it is true, and some of it is sort of true, and I don't think we should be more or less willing to say those things based on which side someone is on.

The goal is to speak the truth, not just to speak more truth than the other guy.

[Guaporense]

Wikipedia has this figure:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

[Slappydavis]

All this climate change fooey is why I run my home on nuclear.

Real talk, support for nuclear power (and a warmer attitude than many toward fracking) gets me in trouble with my liberal friends. I think the dangers of nuclear are vastly overstated compared to the danger of coal (which we are okay with apparently).

[Yoda]

Real talk, support for nuclear power (and a warmer attitude than many toward fracking) gets me in trouble with my liberal friends. I think the dangers of nuclear are vastly overstated compared to the danger of coal (which we are okay with apparently).
Biiiiiig co-sign here. To me, where someone to the left (and the right, though to a lesser extent) comes down on nuclear power tells me an awful lot about them.

It actually reminds me of your comment the other day about hunting helping to preserve wildlife. The through line of both is whether or not someone is primarily concerned with meaningful improvement, or virtue signaling. To me, productive discussion is possible the moment people agree to be open to what works, contra what they think that solution will say about them or which tribe it will ostensibly align them with, and not a moment before.

Climate change as an issue (which, it must be noted, encompasses a lot more than "is the Earth getting warmer?") is so ridiculously intractable that you'd think people serious about it would jump all over such a promising compromise.

[Slappydavis]

Re: 97% figure

Relying on any single study seems like a mistake in a subject area as heated (;)😲;)) as climate change.

Saying that the scientific consensus is 97% feels odd, because it's citing only a few studies while other studies are lower Saying the scientific consensus is very high or even in the 90's while citing studies such as the ones that have 97% seems better.

That said, also saying that the 97% isn't true feels odd too. It's not that it's not true, but that it's misleading or omitting context.

Also, funnily enough that national review article ends in:

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.

Hey! I've heard of that study before! Maybe there's something odd about those numbers...

[Dani8]

Going to be the coldest weekend in over 30 years I've just been told.

[Payday12]

At least one person should point out that everything the op said was completely false by the way. There's tons of data out there. So the op (if he ever comes back) will not be able to provide you a source Iro.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/former-noaa-scientist-colleagues-manipulated-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/

http://www.theblaze.com/video/fast-facts-doc-thompson-busts-liberals-favorite-climate-change-myths/

[Slappydavis]

Hey, @Payday12 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=97301)

Straight up, just tell me if your only contribution to this topic (that you started) is going to only be dumping from other sources or if you're ever going to cobble together an independent idea?

I won't be mad if it's yes, just want to set my expectations.

[Payday12]

Hey, @Payday12 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=97301)

Straight up, just tell me if your only contribution to this topic (that you started) is going to only be dumping from other sources or if you're ever going to cobble together an independent idea?

I won't be mad if it's yes, just want to set my expectations.

OK here is my independent idea. Global Warming is a hoax. It is all about money and power. Democrats and liberals are so naive they bought into global warming hook, line and sinker.

[Slappydavis]

OK here is my independent idea. Global Warming is a hoax. It is all about money and power. Democrats and liberals are so naive they bought into global warming hook, line and sinker.
I think I should have been more specific. I can tell you believe that, I mean *why*.

Right now, it seems like you believe it because you read it on the websites you linked and from the Daily Wire article that formed the totality of your opening post.

So from my perspective, all I have to go on as to *why* you don't believe in global warming is because you read it on these sites (hence, it doesn't seem that it's independent). But let's say I don't find these sites compelling sources, for reasons I laid out in my (probably too long) earlier post.

What's an argument you could provide to compel me to change my mind?

I should say, it's not necessary that you hold only independent ideas (I don't hold only independent ideas, I've certainly read something, bought it at face value and moved on, though I try to check them if they are "core" ideas), I'm just wondering why I should read what you have to say instead of doing a google search for climate change skeptics if you're just going to repeat what they pass around, verbatim?

[Payday12]

Right now, it seems like you believe it because you read it on the websites

Let me turn the tables on you. Tell me why you believe in man made global warming other than Democrats and the liberal media telling you what to think about it.

[Slappydavis]

Right now, it seems like you believe it because you read it on the websites

Let me turn the tables on you. Tell me why you believe in man made global warming other than Democrats and the liberal media telling you what to think about it.


Before I do that:

1) would you do the same in return, and

2) what wouldn't count as either Democrats or liberal media? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those are preeeeetty broad concepts in your mind.

But here, maybe I already have something you think isn't liberal media, since I actually already did part of the legwork on that, so let's consider this:



You took the 43% figure from the Daily Wire (http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler#)article, yes?
That 43% figure originates from this blog (https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/), yes? (Or, actually even if the Daily Wire wasn't your source, the 43% figure comes from this, right?)
That blog uses this survey (http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf), yes?
So, since you used that figure, which derives from that survey, that means the survey is fair game (i.e. it's not among what counts as Liberal Propaganda), yes?


So, is it safe for me to respond on the basis of that survey? Because you yourself endorsed a figure from it?

I just want to check before I respond.

[Payday12]

Not just that survey and the Daily Wire.

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

[Slappydavis]

Not just that survey and the Daily Wire.

https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

Think you might have misunderstood me. I'm asking if you would consider the survey that is the source of your figure as a potential source for me to use?

Essentially, I suspect that if I used other studies on global warming, you'd dismiss some if not all of them as propaganda of some sort or another. You understand that I don't really want to go through a bunch of trouble just to have it rejected on that basis, right?

So, I thought since you used the 43% figure (which it seems like you acknowledge derives from the DW, which derives from the blog, which derives from the survey) you must be cool with that survey as a source, right?

Not to divert from the question above, but just in case I'm mistaken, this is the part of that link you want me to find convincing, right?

S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

Which became the headline:

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming

You can admit that's kinda shady, right?

(Also, I'm noticing I'm using "right?" at the end of sentences a lot. I do that when I'm talking too, particularly when I'm trying to execute a train of logic. Each time I use it, I'm considering the preceding portions as clauses of an argument, so that I can see where along my line of thinking we disagree, if we do disagree)

[ynwtf]

Slappydavis
Whether I agree with you or not, I like the way you think and how you translate your thoughts to text. I'm not reading a post so much as I'm hearing a voice. That's neat. Ha. Sorry for the awkward complement, just some things jump out at me and I have to respond. Carry on.

Carry on.

[Powdered Water]

Neither is "fake." It's never that simple, as slappy went to great lengths to demonstrate. But, in a nutshell: yes, the 97% number is misleading at best and probably shouldn't be cited without many caveats. EDIT: worth noting, for example, that the site you just linked to at least includes the caveat "climate-publishing scientists." I can find you dozens of examples of media reports, politicians, and activists leaving that out.

I guess we'll have to disagree. You say there's a caveat? What are you searching for when you try to find numbers on climate change? I prefer to get behind things there's actually numbers for. And actual cited sources .And there's numbers for this, like it or not. I mean, someone actually did a study about all the studies! If you have an issue with the findings you can debate it with the scientist himself through the peer reviewed process that makes up scientific literature. Is it just the number that galls you? Would you be satisfied with "most scientists" agree on climate change? I doubt you'd go for something as nebulous as that, right?

It's interesting. You mention the media and politicians and activists and all that. Those people aren't scientists. Its not a Scientists fault or Science's fault that assh*oles who wanna manipulate people take their data and sell news stories with it. Its our responsibility to figure that out, apparently. Hence the huge divide I reckon.



I don't know why it's "still." I replied once.

Oh, I apologize. I thought we'd gone round on this before in another thread. I unintentionally took a little shot at ya.


Anyway, I don't think this is quibbling. I realize that, when someone comes in with such a glib series of assertions, the temptation is to counterbalance that by saying "everything that guy says is a total lie." But it isn't. Not everything he said is totally false. Some of it is true, and some of it is sort of true, and I don't think we should be more or less willing to say those things based on which side someone is on.

The goal is to speak the truth, not just to speak more truth than the other guy.

I still disagree with this. What did he say that was true? I saw you mentioned something about cooking the books? Can you source that for me? Let's get to the bottom of this.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/07/former-noaa-scientist-colleagues-manipulated-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/

http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/

http://www.theblaze.com/video/fast-facts-doc-thompson-busts-liberals-favorite-climate-change-myths/

Sigh... do you have any actual data? I guess you get kudos for coming back, but now I sorta wish you hadn't. Because now I sorta think you're just being paid to do this. This sort of stuff is all over the web these days. If not and you really believe this stuff? Wow. Do you even know what science is?

[The Rodent]

This thread...
http://i.imgur.com/42VJZLb.png

[Dani8]

Eek. Not sure what's scarier - that or this

https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19553872_10155234985155552_2659255075831536910_n.jpg?oh=836caea8f3954c96758feb748ba59d70&oe=59C7D7BE

What's the trick to defrosting windscreens, northies? Warm or cold water?

[Yoda]

I guess we'll have to disagree. You say there's a caveat? What are you searching for when you try to find numbers on climate change? I prefer to get behind things there's actually numbers for. And actual cited sources .And there's numbers for this, like it or not. I mean, someone actually did a study about all the studies!
The whole point of citing sources is to allow people to see what the sources actually say. And in this case, the source doesn't really say "97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change."

If you have an issue with the findings you can debate it with the scientist himself through the peer reviewed process that makes up scientific literature.
I don't think I'd have to, because I'm not disputing those findings; I'm pointing out what they actually are. And while I hate to guess as to his reaction, if I had to I'd say he probably doesn't love the way his work is being stripped of methodology and nuance to make for splashier headlines.

Is it just the number that galls you? Would you be satisfied with "most scientists" agree on climate change? I doubt you'd go for something as nebulous as that, right?
It's the belief that this can be reduced to any number that galls me. The paper we're talking about doesn't even try to do that: it breaks things down according to percentages and probabilities and levels of confidence, so it's pretty antithetical to all that research to reduce it to a sound bite.

It's interesting. You mention the media and politicians and activists and all that. Those people aren't scientists. Its not a Scientists fault or Science's fault that assh*oles who wanna manipulate people take their data and sell news stories with it. Its our responsibility to figure that out, apparently. Hence the huge divide I reckon.
Totally agree: it's our responsibility to figure that out. But discussions like this are one of the ways we do it! And since so few people are willing to seek out contradictions to their beliefs, unfortunately, these sorts of rhetorical hand grenades are often the only way they'll get any push back.

Oh, I apologize. I thought we'd gone round on this before in another thread. I unintentionally took a little shot at ya.
No worries; we've discussed climate change before, but only in really broad strokes. I don't think this particular claim came up.

I still disagree with this. What did he say that was true?
That the claim that 97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change is either false, or highly misleading. Slappy kinda went into detail on this already, albeit mostly in the service of debunking the alternative number he threw out (which I also don't think is right, by the way).

I saw you mentioned something about cooking the books? Can you source that for me? Let's get to the bottom of this.
Well, I can't source an interpretation of what he said. If he meant "cook the books" in the sense of "deliberately use fake data to trick people," then I'd say that's false. If he meant it int he sense of "historical climate data is not a straight temperature reading, but routinely normalized and adjusted based on our best guess as to local conditions at the time," then it's true. It's not even under dispute, you can see the NOAA talking about it openly (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/climate-normals/1981-2010-normals-data).

I'd link you to critiques of this process, but frankly, they'd be from sites generally skeptical of anthropogenic climate warming and I suspect we'd be back to the "that's fake"/"mine aren't fake" rabbit hole.

[Powdered Water]

That the claim that 97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change is either false, or highly misleading. Slappy kinda went into detail on this already, albeit mostly in the service of debunking the alternative number he threw out (which I also don't think is right, by the way).


It just isn't misleading and frankly, I think you're doing a disservice to science if you keep saying that. I'm pretty sure the main reason behind 'putting a number' to it is because of the over flow of ignorance and the sea of misinformation. I can't speak for all scientists but I can be pretty sure they're not interested in what the number actually is. And the majority of them aren't wasting time talking about the supposed realities of man made climate change. It's us and only us that is continuing to waste time talking about percentages and this and that.

Man, I've been thinking about this all weekend. The media and people behind the media have brought us here. Are we ever gonna be able to watch news again and just watch it and trust it?

[Yoda]

It just isn't misleading and frankly, I think you're doing a disservice to science if you keep saying that.
Well...why? Did you look at either of the links I posted to this effect? If so, which parts of their dissection of the number did you find unpersuasive?

I'm pretty sure the main reason behind 'putting a number' to it is because of the over flow of ignorance and the sea of misinformation.
And how's that been goin'? Because it seems to me that statistical and rhetorical overreach is exactly what enables the "sea of misinformation" in the first place. In a perfect world, a skeptical person would see an exaggerated or misrepresented claim, correct it, and then address the appropriately nuanced version. In reality, they use exaggerations and misrepresentations to dismiss the entire idea.

I think you fight ignorance by being transparent and rigorous, not by getting sucked into the same spin cycle as the people you're trying to debunk (or even, goodness, persuade).

Man, I've been thinking about this all weekend. The media and people behind the media have brought us here. Are we ever gonna be able to watch news again and just watch it and trust it?
No: but should we ever do that? As you said (quite wisely), it's up to us to sort this stuff out. The fact that we want to just watch people and trust them is precisely why we can't. We will never be able to safely outsource our skepticism to others.

[Powdered Water]

Well...why? Did you look at either of the links I posted to this effect? If so, which parts of their dissection of the number did you find unpersuasive?

Well, yeah I did. Actual quote, second paragraph. "The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive."

This is that same manipulative journalism that has got us here. I mean, he quotes stuff from 2004 and the meteorological society which isn't even in the climate science field and I doubt very much that a single member of AMS has ever published a single paper about climate change, but yeah. I can see why you'd want to use that as a basis for an argument I guess. It gets me reading and wasting more time I suppose. I can't access the Forbes one and frankly, I don't want to. I think its pretty clear who's behind the money at that magazine. But I I can't stop you from using it.

EDIT: I was wrong. The AMS does have a pretty extensive climate science paper publishing group now. I'm finding some pretty good stuff about it too. This is also from 2012, but I don't see anything about a consensus, so where did that National Review article get it from? (https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/)


And how's that been goin'? Because it seems to me that statistical and rhetorical overreach is exactly what enables the "sea of misinformation" in the first place.Right, but that's not because of science. That's the media again. I was just doing some reading about the temperature thing. Its also a peer reviewed process and pretty straightforward. Does this have any bearing on this discussion? (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/background.html) It's pretty new though, but I haven't read it all yet.

In a perfect world, a skeptical person would see an exaggerated or misrepresented claim, correct it, and then address the appropriately nuanced version. In reality, they use exaggerations and misrepresentations to dismiss the entire idea.Who is they? Now I think we're getting to the crux of it. If you think there's a bunch of scientists out there putting all this together then HA! I think you're getting close to seeing just how deeply we've been lied to. Keep digging buddy. I'll say it again. This isn't the scientists making exaggerations and misrepresentations to dismiss the idea it's corporations.

[Powdered Water]

Funny we're talking about the media. I think this piece illustrates what we as regular people are up against when it comes to getting out from under the media.

Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

[Dani8]

Damn - geoblocked. I love John Oliver.

Saw this yesterday. Interesting read

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-all-time-monthly-high-21507?utm_content=buffer69d75&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Dani8]

And here's the other side

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/06/15/dr-tim-ball-crushes-climate-change-the-biggest-deception-in-history/

so I have no idea other than China now is absolutely filthy with air pollution and was nowhere near as bad when I was there in 1991, so I;m all for cleaning up the crap that comes out of industry chimneys.

[Dani8]

Oh. I had no idea

http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1479/subtropical-ridge-leaves-us-high-and-dry-this-june/?cid=003fb46

[Yoda]

Sorry for the delay, unusually busy week:

Well, yeah I did. Actual quote, second paragraph. "The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive."

This is that same manipulative journalism that has got us here. I mean, he quotes stuff from 2004 and the meteorological society which isn't even in the climate science field and I doubt very much that a single member of AMS has ever published a single paper about climate change, but yeah ...

EDIT: I was wrong. The AMS does have a pretty extensive climate science paper publishing group now. I'm finding some pretty good stuff about it too. This is also from 2012, but I don't see anything about a consensus, so where did that National Review article get it from? (https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/)
It says right near the beginning, immediately after the part you quoted:

"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.'
That's really misleading, and the article immediately goes on to explain why:

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.”
The next paragraph goes on with more of the same. But in a nutshell, he's saying that the claims above aren't accurate because:
10
It's not "scientists," it's self-reported climate scientists who have published a majority of their work on the subject.
It's not "we're responsible," it's "we're a significant contributing factor."
It's not that the temperature is rising dangerously fast, it's "temperatures have generally risen."
It's not published papers, it's published papers that take a position at all, excluding those that don't. Even though scientists refusing to take a position seems highly relevant to any argument about how certain scientists are about a thing.
10
I don't think anyone who hears "97% of scientists" could glean any of this, let alone the fact that the claim apparently refers to a grand total of 77 people.

I'm really not sure what's supposed to be "manipulative" about any of this, either. To the contrary, the article seems downright responsible: it goes on to say "Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.)" So they're not using these claims as a straw man, but specifically distinguishing between what the papers do say, and the exaggerations and misrepresentations they're responding to. That's exactly the right way to address rhetorical overreach.

I can see why you'd want to use that as a basis for an argument I guess. It gets me reading and wasting more time I suppose.
I think regarding these arguments as a waste of your time, from the very beginning, is self-fulfilling. If you think everyone at all skeptical of this stuff is either a dupe (me, apparently) or a shill (everything I cite, apparently), I'm not sure what there is to discuss.

I can't access the Forbes one and frankly, I don't want to. I think its pretty clear who's behind the money at that magazine. But I I can't stop you from using it.
I have to object to this on almost every dimension, from factual to philosophical.

Factually, I find the idea that anything from Forbes on this issue can be disregarded to be totally without merit. For one, this is Forbes.com, not Forbes: they're different. I know because I've actually written for Forbes.com a bit (about education), and the idea that anyone who writes for it is subject to some kind of ideological screening simply isn't true.

Second, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the ominous reference to who's "behind the money" is not based on anything specific, right? Just the general idea that Forbes = money = corporations = the fossil fuel industry = bribes, I guess? Because that's quite a charge, and it's not one consistent with what they actually publish: if you poke around the site a bit, you'll see lots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2017/05/22/a-momentous-month-for-tackling-climate-change/#268927683dfa) of (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/06/08/the-u-s-must-not-abdicate-leadership-on-climate-change/#65f936e210d9) articles (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/02/theres-no-science-behind-denying-climate-change/#6cfa628c4ff7) arguing the other side of the issue (that last one, for those who aren't going to click, is called "There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change").

Philosophically, I object to the idea that some casual reference to funding can be used to dismiss any given claim. We pay lawyers to argue for us, but nobody responds to an argument in court by saying "of course he's defending his client! He's paid to!" We don't say that because the arguments he makes can be evaluated independent of his motives. The only reason to care so much about funding is if you think the facts of the matter are inherently unknowable and you're just trying to decide which person to put your trust in. But since you said earlier that we have to sort this out for ourselves (which I agree with!), that can't be it.

Suspected bias is a fine reason to view something with a skeptical eye, but it is not a reason to dismiss it in and of itself. And if it was, it'd rule out both sides, because there are incentives for championing climate change, too. Plenty of money to be made in renewable energy, after all, and politicians who warn about climate change almost invariably couple their warning with a solution that, surprise surprise, involves the further consolidation of political or economic power. So why not cut through that thicket of tangled incentives by focusing on merit rather than motive?

I was just doing some reading about the temperature thing. Its also a peer reviewed process and pretty straightforward. Does this have any bearing on this discussion? (http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/background.html) It's pretty new though, but I haven't read it all yet.
Yes! That's exactly the kind of thing we should be talking about. The link you've provided is saying pretty much exactly what I just did, though (emphasis added):

Measuring global temperatures in the U.S. no easy task. While we have mostly volunteer-run weather station data from across the country going back to the late 1800s, these weather stations were never set up to consistently monitor long-term changes to the climate. Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located.

All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record. To detect and deal with these issues, NOAA uses a process called homogenization which compares each station to its neighbors, flags stations that show localized changes in longer-term temperatures not found in nearby stations, and removes these local breakpoints. While the impact of these adjustments on temperature records is relatively small globally, in the U.S. it has a much larger effect due to the frequent changes that have occurred at our volunteer-run historical climatological network. Fixes to inconsistencies in temperature data have effectively doubled the rate of U.S. warming over the past century compared to the raw temperature records.
So now we're really getting down to it: warming trends are not based on raw data. They are not based on a straight temperature comparison. This is obvious, when you think about it: it's kinda hard to measure temperatures over the entire world (or even country) even today, nevermind the 1800s, or earlier. So the historical data requires a lot of "homogenization." We can get into more into what this entails, but it can get pretty elaborate. Like, analyzing the thickness and density of tree rings to determine temperature elaborate.

Now, I don't have any reason to believe the NOAA is faking anything or being actively dishonest. But they are adjusting lots of historical temperature data. I believe they're generally doing it to the best of their ability. I believe they are generally making good faith efforts to try to correct for changing circumstances and conditions. But those decisions are not always empirical or inevitable: they involve assumptions. I'm sure all of these assumptions are at least moderately reasonable, but the more assumptions you introduce, the less precise your output will be.

We face this issue at my work all the time; we do a lot of statistical analysis. There is never a "true" way to sift through the information, or some perfect way to adjust it. There are always tradeoffs and judgment calls, and the less precise the data is, or the more you have of it, the more judgment has to go into how it's interpreted. And that's fine! Sometimes, that's all we have. But it just isn't accurate to think of data normalization as a hard science.

Who is they? Now I think we're getting to the crux of it. If you think there's a bunch of scientists out there putting all this together then HA!
I'm very disheartened by how often these arguments get kneecapped with vague references to shady people funding things, or what "science" or "scientists" say, or how something is "fake." At what point do we just talk frankly about facts and data, as opposed to spending a lot of time trying to paint various people or organizations as either dishonest, or trustworthy? It seems like the whole discussion is about trying to either discredit someone, or else establish them as an authority, at which point we can stop digging, stop looking at methodology, and no longer have to bother with refuting or defending things. But that's exactly how the extreme climate skeptics think! "Oh, so-and-so used a bogus number. Now I can ignore everything they say about the climate." It's not any better coming from the other direction.

I think you're getting close to seeing just how deeply we've been lied to. Keep digging buddy. I'll say it again. This isn't the scientists making exaggerations and misrepresentations to dismiss the idea it's corporations.
Dude, that's my point. :laugh: Yes, it generally isn't the scientists exaggerating or misrepresenting things. They say much more nuanced, probablistic things. Which is why it's a problem when the White House say something so misleading and simplistic about it, because that nonsense gets retweeted and internalized. A lot of people believe that stuff. A lot of people repeat that stuff. It's clearly worth scrutinizing and (if necessary) refuting.

[Slappydavis]

Re: Forbes

Forbes is a reputable site. The interests of the site definitely lean toward a business lens, but that's less about POV bias and more attention bias.

And because there's a host of contributors, you're not going to be able to cleanly say any content on the site is "good" or "bad" or "biased" without reading it and considering the individual author's POV.

The Forbes article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#4e4338aad08e) linked is pretty fair. Beyond thinking it fair, I'd go as far to endorse this particular section:

Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”

Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry.I think focusing on one number in a discussion as large as climate change (where there are literally thousands of "numbers" to choose from) is a mistake via these types of discussions. Though I understand when politicians use figures like this they either 1) don't appreciate the details or 2) let their gamesmanship get the better of them. And I actually can't really blame them the way I don't really blame someone for writing a flashy yet misleading title to try to get people to read the article. The problem is when people just read the title or just quote the statistic.

I'm probably wading into a much more generalized debate with this, but I also do believe that a sizeable portion of the arguments against specific numbers and specific claims of overwhelming consensus are motivated less by truth seeking and more about delay tactics.

I'm always glad to see skepticism get popular, but it's pretty frustrating to see skepticism used as a cloak for willfully creating ignorance (dare I say it's politically correct?) rather than an honest commitment to verification. I say that less for those here and more for certain political skeptics. See: Agnotology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology).

I think I agree with you more than I don't agree with you PW. But I think we disagree on strategy. I believe that GW being driven by human activity is extremely compelling (requiring widespread conspiracy to make me doubt the level of consensus). 97% is an easy way to hook someone into a belief perhaps, but we can admit the specific number has faults (like most numbers) while retaining that consensus is very high. Specific numbers will not get a debate like this anywhere (or most debates), it's too complicated.

And more importantly, pinning hopes to specific numbers invites the other side to figure out problems with that one number. I'd rather skeptics/deniers have to debate the general idea of "consensus" than 97%. It's easy to nitpick 97%. It requires a broad argument to dispute consensus.

Or better yet, get down to the actual question. Is the level of scientific consensus robust enough, and the possible negative consequences serious enough, to compel widespread public action?

Honestly, for me, it's an easy yes.

True story, I got lazy and instead of going back to the first page to find the link to the forbes article, I googled "Forbes 97 climate change" and I found this article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5e0672c23f9f) and I started to get upset because that article crosses over from misleading to dishonest.

I got partway through a condemnation for me to realize I had to be missing something as it was starting to seem really out of character, and indeed, I found the wrong one.

[Powdered Water]

You're right Slappy, I wish I was a better writer. I'm incredibly emotional about all this and I don't 'let it out' very well most days. I have no real strategy. I went to I'm right dot com and found a really good study and ran with it. If the power stays on for the next decade or two I will endeavour to get better at making a case.

I apologize Chris, I had my adblocker on, I got on and am reading a bunch of good stuff by that same author right now, thanks for the links. I too don't care about "the number"... I guess if its 80% or 85% or whatever... I feel it really doesn't matter anymore. Anyway, more later, thanks you two, I really love reading your posts.

[Powdered Water]

I've read his article twice now. I mean, its good, but its also just one man's opinion. If I put a PhD next to my name would my word be more or less reputable? So, you've proven to me that there isn't as high of a consensus. It really doesn't change anything however. Perhaps it will allow the op a few more years of blissful ignorance about the realities of climate change. But the way this thing is going it will be 99.9% before long and we can hem and haw about that last little .1 percent I guess. I thought this was good. (https://uhenergy.wordpress.com/category/earl-j-ritchie/) I like articles where people are talking about what's going on right now. I think you can tell that even in the short time from last year to this year he's been doing a lot of reading about climate change. He's talking up a lot of things that there's good data for. And he even admits that he's still "somewhat skeptical of the degree of human contribution to climate change" Not for much longer I reckon.

[Powdered Water]

I'm very disheartened by how often these arguments get kneecapped with vague references to shady people funding things, or what "science" or "scientists" say, or how something is "fake." At what point do we just talk frankly about facts and data, as opposed to spending a lot of time trying to paint various people or organizations as either dishonest, or trustworthy? It seems like the whole discussion is about trying to either discredit someone, or else establish them as an authority, at which point we can stop digging, stop looking at methodology, and no longer have to bother with refuting or defending things. But that's exactly how the extreme climate skeptics think! "Oh, so-and-so used a bogus number. Now I can ignore everything they say about the climate." It's not any better coming from the other direction.


Great quote. I highlighted the part I'd like to actually get to. I realize now that I entered this thread all wrong. The OP started a fraudulent thread to begin with and I was pretty pissed when I first came in here, I admit. I also suck at arguing, ask Omni... Anyway, my main problem here from the start is the claim that global warming is a myth. The op even states flat out: There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years.

So, I'd like it very much if we could agree on something. Isn't global warming real? I can provide TONS of data that shows the planet is warming. Can you provide evidence that it isn't happening? I'm not singling you out Chris, I just wanted to use your quote because you're right, we need to start talking about way more important stuff than whether or not global warming is actually happening.

[Yoda]

Great quote. I highlighted the part I'd like to actually get to. I realize now that I entered this thread all wrong. The OP started a fraudulent thread to begin with and I was pretty pissed when I first came in here, I admit.
Yeah, I can tell this is a very important subject to you. You talk about it differently than most other things; there's a clear emotional aspect. Which I don't mean as a criticism, by the way, just a neutral observation.

I also suck at arguing, ask Omni
:laugh:

So, I'd like it very much if we could agree on something. Isn't global warming real? I can provide TONS of data that shows the planet is warming. Can you provide evidence that it isn't happening? I'm not singling you out Chris, I just wanted to use your quote because you're right, we need to start talking about way more important stuff than whether or not global warming is actually happening.
I don't feel singled out, and don't mind you singling me out, anyway.

I think the earth is generally getting warmer, yes.

[Slappydavis]

I realize now that I entered this thread all wrong. The OP started a fraudulent thread to begin with and I was pretty pissed when I first came in here, I admit.

I missed this somehow, but I want to say I have a ton of respect for this. Because 1) I don't think it's unreasonable to be emotional about political topics, there's a lot that I disagree with on various sites including MoFo, but I typically don't respond unless it made me emotional. That includes this thread, I read the opening post, and got very emotional. In fact, you can usually tell when I've edited myself for emotional content, in my long post earlier there's literally a sentence that starts and just ends out of nowhere, no punctuation, no anything, just stops:

So depending on I got emotional enough that I actually forgot both where I was going and to even go back and fix it at the time. And now I don't want to fix it, it's an honest point that I had more to say than I could even write down.

2) I don't think emotions are bad at ALL in arguments. It's just that they're not "good" either. You basically kind of have to ignore them in the context of most arguments (unless the arguments are related to the emotions, which they certainly can be). I have this very general grievance with internet arguments that some people seem to think they automatically win an argument if they get the other side to admit emotional, or some people think they win an argument because they feel emotionally about it. I don't think they're unimportant by any stretch (to my life, my inner world matters just about as much as the sensory world I interact with) but part of what makes them emotions is that they are somewhat subjective to the person, and that makes them not very useful for arguments about large public issues. But again, they also don't make you "wrong" (unless it totally clouds your ability to make the actual argument, but again that responsibility rests with the argument and not the emotional state).

3) I also don't think your posts relied too much on emotion, so I'm also impressed that you said something because it wasn't like you made a personal attack and really needed to apologize. Respect.


we need to start talking about way more important stuff than whether or not global warming is actually happening. I tend to like to model things because it's just how I was taught, so I think this is sort of how I think of it (super duper simplification, don't treat this as actually trying to reduce this to "math"):

[Proper Strength of Response to Global Warming]= R = How much effort, money, time, brainpower, etc. we should commit toward action.
[Magnitude of Negative Consequences]= N = How bad would are the possible consequences of inaction toward GW.
[Probability of said Negative Consequences]= P = How likely are those negative consequences?

So: R = N x P

I don't think I'm breaking any ground here (I'm stealing the very most basic expected benefit calculation) and I think everyone likely has something very similar to this in their intuitive understanding of the issue already, but the reason I like to point it out is that it personally helps me categorize things related to discussions like this.

For example you have the really quick observations like there will be those that argue N is really not a big problem (they might even argue that N is actually a "good" thing, like those that argue opening up trade routes formerly blocked by ice is a greater benefit than the costs) and that it's being exaggerated by groups like the IPCC. But they may believe that yeah, global warming is happening, it's just not that bad.

Or some might argue that P is actually the issue, where sure, if global warming existed we'd expect huge negative consequences, but the probability isn't compelling enough (at least not yet). Even if the consequences of global warming are tremendous, if someone believes there's only a 1% chance of those types of consequences, they'll (properly) conclude they'd only spend 1% of those costs to try to avert it. So lets say if the costs of GW "could" be 10 trillion dollars (but a 1% chance) and the lost benefits of *not* using fossil fuel "are" 1 trillion dollars, they will (properly) conclude we should keep using fossil fuels.

Still guessing this is kinda "duh". But what isn't "duh" to me (and maybe I'm just dense) is when you get into what are the sub-functions of each portion of the argument.

For example if you drill down into each piece of that simple function:

On R: You probably aren't going to get someone to commit to a pure number on N, they'll probably give you a range. Same thing with P. So naturally, R will be proportionally "grey" to how wide those ranges are. And then we get into really interesting arguments, like how risk averse should a society be?

On N: You'll start to get into some of the direct controversy that we see around GW. Because N also includes parallel benefits (basically externalities) like the benefits of "less pollution". This is a HUGE driver in the debate, and personally really interesting to me because many people see what we would have to do to curb climate change and they will often align very well with environmentally conscious agenda so they add those benefits in to N because we wouldn't only get the benefits of avoiding GW, but also we'd ostensibly get the benefits of less pollutants. But obviously that also drives suspicion that environmentalists may exaggerate the possible consequences because it'd give additional incentive to solve some of their grievances.

Additionally, what I like about thinking about this piece separately is the ways in which it betrays the larger function, as even if P is low, the positive parallel benefits of less pollution will likely have a much higher percent chance of positive benefits. So the function at the top would more appropriately look more like R=NxP+(externalities), and then you should acknowledge that the externalities have their own benefit functions, and those have their ow.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

On P: We get into ideas on how one faithfully communicates probabilities. People are hopeless optimists sometimes (including myself). Example, if I'm playing Civ4 and I see my % chance of winning at an engagement at 70%, I will be unreasonably upset if I lose, even though I should lose 30% of the time, which is a lot still! I will make the tactical error where I will see two 70% chances and rely on both going my way when it's actually slightly more likely they won't go my way (51% chance I'll lose one) and I'll be in a huge bind because of it.

So let's say we could even confirm N's value to be 10 Trillion and P's value to be 70%. R's value would be 7 trillion. But in that scenario, it's completely possible that people at large would think, 30% chance it doesn't happen? My gut says that's a lot, I won't spend more than 1 trillion, even though that's an improper response. This has lead some public figures to really try to bolster a number that hits people in their gut (like 97% or 43%) rather than make an argument about costs because people are making gut decisions rather than cost decisions.

So really, what should public figures try to do? People seem to want to react with their gut to problems where it'd take a lot of effort to fix/prevent. If public figures try to use numbers that may be a bit softer than they seem to try to convince people's intuitions, in some ways those public figures believe they "know better" (which people hate). But! If the public figures try to have a conversation with the public that they really ought not to think with their intuitions on this, and here is all the info, they still think they "know better"!

I think what I'm trying to say is this. I think public figures need to be more honest, but that the public also needs to be more receptive to being wrong some of the time. On some level, we are trusting someone that knows better. On some level we are reacting with our intuitions.

I kinda let this one get away from me, but I think I'll stop with this: If the planet isn't warming due to human contributions, if we keep missing benchmarks for slowing CO2 and nothing actually happens and it turns out that it was exaggerated; I'll fully admit I was a fool, I was tricked, I was naive, I drank the kool-aid, etc.

^All this is also why I try to limit emotion and subjective thought sometimes. Because sticking to a specific argument keeps me to a structure, otherwise this mess is the result.

Also, I really think the way in which the public reacts to GW is fascinating, and that I hope someday we get to talk about the reaction to it in an academic way. The breadth of argument and interests at stake is unlike anything I've experienced, and the only comparison points that come to mind are 1) Nuclear Proliferation and 2) When to go to war.

[Sir Toose]

Science is testable and repeatable. There's no room for opinion. The whole idea of "97 out of 100 scientists agree..." is ludicrous. If there is discussion/consternation then it's theory and not proof.

There is evidence of man made global warming.

Evidence <> Proof

Therefore, there is no proof of man made global warming (only evidence for it).

All of that aside, there is also evidence that litigation surrounding 'global warming' (the institution thereof) is a money grab. Especially since litigation affects about 4% of the global population (ie the US economy/taxpayers).

That point also aside, we should be smart enough to know that we shouldn't sh*t where we eat.

[Dani8]

Wow. I cant even fathom what a trillion tonnes is

https://www.wunderground.com/news/larsen-c-iceberg-breaks-off?__prclt=tQh41f6L

[honeykid]

I have no real interest in having the debate, however, I thought this article was interesting.



America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’

Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate.

That's the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.

The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.

This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.

It's a cooling period often referred to in the history books as the "Little Ice Age" - a time when winters in Europe would see the Thames in London regularly freeze over.

"The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO₂ and global surface air temperatures," Alexander Koch and colleagues write in their paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews.


What does the study show?

The team reviewed all the population data it could find on how many people were living in the Americas prior to first contact with Europeans in 1492.

It then assessed how the numbers changed in following decades as the continents were ravaged by introduced disease (smallpox, measles, etc), warfare, slavery and societal collapse.

It's the UCL group's estimate that 60 million people were living across the Americas at the end of the 15th Century (about 10% of the world's total population), and that this was reduced to just five or six million within a hundred years.

The scientists calculated how much land previously cultivated by indigenous civilisations would have fallen into disuse, and what the impact would be if this ground was then repossessed by forest and savannah.

The area is in the order of 56 million hectares, close in size to a modern country like France.
This scale of regrowth is figured to have drawn down sufficient CO₂ that the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere eventually fell by 7-10ppm (that is 7-10 molecules of CO₂ in every one million molecules in the air).

"To put that in the modern context - we basically burn (fossil fuels) and produce about 3ppm per year. So, we're talking a large amount of carbon that's being sucked out of the atmosphere," explained co-author Prof Mark Maslin.

"There is a marked cooling around that time (1500s/1600s) which is called the Little Ice Age, and what's interesting is that we can see natural processes giving a little bit of cooling, but actually to get the full cooling - double the natural processes - you have to have this genocide-generated drop in CO₂."


Where's the support for the connection?

The drop in CO₂ at the time of the Great Dying is evident in the ice core records from Antarctica.

Air bubbles trapped in these frozen samples show a fall in their concentration of carbon dioxide.

The atomic composition of the gas also suggests strongly that the decline is being driven by land processes somewhere on Earth.

In addition, the UCL team says the story fits with the records of charcoal and pollen deposits in the Americas.

These show the sort of perturbation expected from a decline in the use of fire to manage land, and a big grow-back of natural vegetation.

Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, was not involved in the study. He commented: "Scientists understand that the so-called Little Ice Age was caused by several factors - a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, a series of large volcanic eruptions, changes in land use and a temporary decline in solar activity.

"This new study demonstrates that the drop in CO₂ is itself partly due the settlement of the Americas and resulting collapse of the indigenous population, allowing regrowth of natural vegetation. It demonstrates that human activities affected the climate well before the industrial revolution began."

Are there lessons for modern climate policy?

Co-author Dr Chris Brierley believes there is. He said the fall-out from the terrible population crash and re-wilding of the Americas illustrated the challenge faced by some global warming solutions.

"There is a lot of talk around 'negative emissions' approaches and using tree-planting to take CO₂ out of the atmosphere to mitigate climate change," he told BBC News.

"And what we see from this study is the scale of what's required, because the Great Dying resulted in an area the size of France being reforested and that gave us only a few ppm. This is useful; it shows us what reforestation can do. But at the same, that kind of reduction is worth perhaps just two years of fossil fuel emissions at the present rate."

The study also has a bearing on discussions about the creation of a new label to describe humanity's time - and impacts - on Earth.

This epoch would be called the Anthropocene, and there is currently a lively debate over how it should be recognised in the geological record.

Some researchers say it would be most obvious in deposits that record the great acceleration in industrial activity from the 1950s onwards.

But the UCL team argues that the Great Dying in the Americas shows there are significant human interactions that left a deep and indelible mark on the planet long before the mid-20th Century.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973

[Powdered Water]

Science is testable and repeatable. There's no room for opinion. The whole idea of "97 out of 100 scientists agree..." is ludicrous. If there is discussion/consternation then it's theory and not proof.



Therefore, there is no proof of man made global warming (only evidence for it).




Funny you should dig this thread up HK. I was thinking about what Toose said awhile back and was sort of curious if he really believes this still. It's really not "97 out of a 100 scientists agree about global warming or man made climate change or whatever you want to call it. I know Toose isn't around much these days but I always meant to come back in here and ask him what his idea of a "consensus' is. And just what he meant by this paragraph. It sort of felt to me like you think there's still a lot of wiggle room or something. I don't know...

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks HK for posting that, it was a very interesting and sobering read. I had heard that the pre-western culture in south and central America was much vaster than archeologist had once thought with huge amount of land under cultivation.

[Sir Toose]

Funny you should dig this thread up HK. I was thinking about what Toose said awhile back and was sort of curious if he really believes this still. It's really not "97 out of a 100 scientists agree about global warming or man made climate change or whatever you want to call it. I know Toose isn't around much these days but I always meant to come back in here and ask him what his idea of a "consensus' is. And just what he meant by this paragraph. It sort of felt to me like you think there's still a lot of wiggle room or something. I don't know...

Hi. I would probably back off a bit on my standard of proof from a few years ago. I used to be much more certain that there was black and white truth in the world - not so much anymore. What I meant to say is that, in science, a consensus shouldn’t be relevant. An experiment works or it doesn’t work regardless of one’s belief in wheter or not it should. I still believe that, I just think that a lot fewer things are able to be proven than I did before. Today I would say that global warming appears to be happening but the record of evidence doesn’t go back far enough in time to calculate global warming’s effects on weather etc as those would have to based, in part, on observation. Anyway, I think a move away from fossil fuels is inevitably in the cards. It’s untenable as populations grow across the world.

[Powdered Water]

Hmm, well I'm not so sure you need to back off your standard of proof. Especially on this topic. Part of the reason why the number of scientists who agree on this man made climate change stuff is in large part because of that black and white truth that's slowly (ever so slowly) being revealed. If you look in to some of this stuff you can see patterns emerge pretty quickly. The science and all the studies about this stuff are pretty easy to read. The Media and politicians and just plain old average Joes however seem to really struggle with the concept that man, in fact can and is having a significant impact on this planet. We may even be killing ourselves off if you believe some of these guys. I can tell you one thing that is a fact for sure. Right now, Antarctica is melting 6 TIMES faster than it ever has in human history. Maybe that doesn't mean much to this planet in the grand scheme of things but it sure as hell does for us. Maybe Waterworld wasn't such a bad flick after all, eh?

[hell_storm2004]

The OP just made the post and ran away! Anyways all i can say is, it is real.

[ashdoc]

Right now a cold wave is going on actually . Global warming is just invention of the PC brigade .

[Iroquois]

It's as if the reason it's now referred to as climate change instead of global warming is to counter people who pull this kind of "how can it be global warming if it's cold" nonsense.

[Yoda]

Yeah, the existence of cold weather in short or moderate bursts doesn't really relate to whether climate change is real, and if so, to what extent.

[hell_storm2004]

Right now a cold wave is going on actually . Global warming is just invention of the PC brigade .


Dont confuse weather with climate.

[Sedai]

There has clearly been a change/increase in many of the factors that combine to create inclement/extreme weather. Hypothetically, let's say that 30 years ago there were 10 total possible factors (just throwing a number out for this example) that helped create crazy weather when several of them occurred simultaneously. Back then, let's posit that on average, 3 of these factors appeared together once a month somewhere in the world. Now, maybe 4 of these appear together twice a month, creating more intense situations more often, creating more potential for natural disasters etc.

This is kind of a sophomoric and simple example, but it gets the idea across.

Here, let's all go hang out in Hawaii while we think about it. It looks pretty nice over there right now:

https://scontent.fbed1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52286641_2116222408457755_1591149632136675328_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent.fbed1-2.fna&oh=cd939d3124878980ec894c72ab7f9a69&oe=5CDEC3E6

[mark f]

Volcanoes

[chawhee]

Australia has seen 5 of of its 10 hottest days ever this past summer....roads melting, animals dying of heat exhaustion....previously unseen at this level

[hell_storm2004]

Will the people saying "fishy" about climate change, slowly turn into the flat earthers group?

[Powdered Water]

Will the people saying "fishy" about climate change, slowly turn into the flat earthers group?


They already are.

[-KhaN-]

I'm about to ask something, and by no means am I well educated in this topic (that's why I'm asking I guess) and this seems like an appropriate thread to ask this question in. Isn't an ozone layer just a bunch of gas around Earth? How can there be a hole in the gas?

And I guess this is a part of global warming topic as well.

[chawhee]

That question would take an answer too long to be suitable for a message board, though its a good conversation to have.

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

Yes, the ozone is a bunch of gas around Earth, but thanks to a particular category of chemicals that have been released on the ground, the atmosphere and ozone above aren't exactly homogeneous with respect to every location around the planet. The hole is most prevalent over Antarctica.

[WrinkledMind]

We have been so bad on the planet that the scientists are debating whether to create a new climate epoch as a result of our activities.

That climate change is real should be beyond debate. There are real effects that are being observed everywhere. Thanks to hell_storm2004 for stating that there is a difference between weather and climate, even though that should not be needed in a sensible world.

To the people mocking or not understanding about the relation of global warming and extreme cold temperatures, go read about pressure areas and atmosphere and how warming has massive effects on wind, tides, etc, causing extreme cooling.

We are headed towards some massive problems and it's no longer about preventing them but minimising their hazardous impact on us. That we, or rather our children, are going to suffer is inevitable.

However, the only interesting bit is to see how we or the plants and the animals, who will be strong enough to survive this, adapt to those changes. But the fact that this planet is going to get more hostile (that means experiencing substantially cooler weather in some parts through the result of 'global warming') is a certainty.

[Yoda]

Re: weather and climate. Blame everyone for that failure to distinguish. SNL literally made a joke this past week about how the fact that the President could speak outdoors in February was apparently evidence of climate change, and a lot of people over the last few years have glibly suggested that hurricanes were worse or more frequent because of it, always in an attempt to turn whatever was happening in the news into a pivot onto climate change.

In other words, it's just people who don't like nuance, wherever they come down on the overall question.

[Sir Toose]

I was just thinking about these climate discussions as I'm currently baking in Texas.

A few years ago I remember several spates of unusually cold weather and people mocked climate change as the reason.

Then there was a memefest about climate vs weather and how a short period of cold weather doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

Now it's unusually hot and these same people who said you shouldn't mistake weather for climate are the ones who are claiming the current hot weather is due to climate change.

Confusing.

[chawhee]

Hottest month ever for the planet in July, right?

[hell_storm2004]

Even last year in Dallas was boiling. You only have to look at Europe and see how it's changing. It's going through some severe heat waves for the past three years. But to notice there real difference you might have to visit some of the small islands on the Pacific. They get hit the hardest.