The myth of global warming

Tools    





Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
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%



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/peterfe.../#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.



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...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/file...nses_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...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 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)





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:



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:

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:



So depending on

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



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



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 survey
At 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 consensus
This 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. It got repeated here, distorted even further. As intended by DW.

Which took the form of:

  1. 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.
  2. Daily Wire: Liberals lie! They say 97% but maybe it's 70% or less, maybe 43%!
  3. 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.



Man, I love the stuff you guys use sometimes. That article is written by Peter Ferrara, a 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?



Man, I love the stuff you guys use sometimes. That article is written by Peter Ferrara, a 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?



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?
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.



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.



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
I found my post-o-da-year frontrunner.

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



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

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



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?



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.



Not everything: he's right that the 97% of scientists thing isn't true. .

C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site and its info is fake? Its 97%. I'm surprised you're still quibbling about the number to be honest.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



C'mon man... I believe your article is fake. Do you believe this site 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.



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).



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.



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...



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Going to be the coldest weekend in over 30 years I've just been told.