Page 50 of 146 FirstFirst ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... LastLast
Results 1,226 to 1,250 of 3644
  1. #1226
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    base of the Bush
    Posts
    14,875
    www.apriliaforum.com

    "If the road You followed brought you to this,of what use was the road"?

    "I have no idea what I am talking about but would be happy to share my biased opinions as fact on the matter. "
    Ottime

  2. #1227
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    "Do scientists agree on climate change?
    "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

    READ MORE

    Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming​
    “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
    “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).
    ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

    "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1–7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).

    "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22–23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).

    "Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).

    "Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029–1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).

    "Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963–8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).

    "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).

  3. #1228
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    "No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts"

    The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

    Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

    It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.

    The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localisation is markedly different from the trend since the late 20th century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this summer’s European heatwave.

    Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions. This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third.

    The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions.

    “There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.

    Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past.

    “This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.

    Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – car exhausts, factory chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of global warming.

    A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Last week, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics, according to the authors.

    The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy.

    But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to John Cook, the lead author of the original consensus paper and a follow-up study on the “consensus about consensus” that looked at a range of similar estimates by other academics.

    He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    “As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ming-passes-99

  4. #1229
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    35,363
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident

  5. #1230
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$

  6. #1231
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Yeah in one way or another money is the motivator here. Probably not direct payment, more likely a business interest of some sort.

  7. #1232
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The charts show the same. If you look at item "g" on the charts showing the warming trend and the warming rate for the 2009 decade anyone, well almost anyone, can clearly see warming is affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    Can you even read a chart?
    So in other words, A "warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time?"


    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Um, your own charts, from your own paper clearly show the warming the trend.

    Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the evolution of the warming trend:
    You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover nearly the entire planet.
    That chart averages the warming based on latitude, but if we look at the earth graphic we can see that nearly all latitudes have areas of no warming or cooling.

  8. #1233
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    Or just went down the rabbit hole and is unwilling to update his prior beliefs.

  9. #1234
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    So in other words, A "warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time?"

    That chart averages the warming based on latitude, but if we look at the earth graphic we can see that nearly all latitudes have areas of no warming or cooling.
    Your analysis, once again, misses the mark. Through 2009 there were regions with less significant warming compared with other regions but unlike in the past any cooling is extremely limited. This is a direct quote from the paper:

    The warming and cooling rates are shown in Fig. 2. Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming.

    The spatial structure of the warming rate in later decades resembles that obtained from straight line fitting over the whole temporal domain (Fig. 2h). However, the later warming is much stronger than that determined by the method of straight line fitting.

    Are we supposed to accept your (faulty) analysis or the paper's authors?

  10. #1235
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    OREYGUN!
    Posts
    14,565
    #Kony2012

  11. #1236
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    "Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed"

    It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

    But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

    Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

    Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

    “Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

    One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.


    Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

    And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

    Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.

    The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.

    In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”

    The Galileo example is also instructive, Nuccitelli points out. The “father of observational science,” championed the astronomical model that the earth and other planets in our solar system revolve around the sun—a view that was eventually accepted almost universally as the truth. “If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors,” he writes. “Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form.”
    https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scie...re-all-flawed/

  12. #1237
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your analysis, once again, misses the mark. Through 2009 there were regions with less significant warming compared with other regions but unlike in the past any cooling is extremely limited. This is a direct quote from the paper:
    The warming and cooling rates are shown in Fig. 2. Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming.

    The spatial structure of the warming rate in later decades resembles that obtained from straight line fitting over the whole temporal domain (Fig. 2h). However, the later warming is much stronger than that determined by the method of straight line fitting.

    Are we supposed to accept your (faulty) analysis or the paper's authors?
    No, it doesn't miss the mark. I don't see the relevance of the sentence you bolded. Have I been denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades?

    Look at Fig. 2e,f,g. Those years have the most warming, and you can see areas of cooling or no warming for nearly all latitudes. Thus, "a warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

  13. #1238
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    7,368
    Every time rj open his pie hole the bigger hole he digs. Doubling down on stoopid

  14. #1239
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Every time rj open his pie hole the bigger hole he digs. Doubling down on stoopid
    No kidding. RJ can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. RJ did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" this time around even though he reached the opposite conclusion about the paper on the previous page.

    Unfortunately, RJ completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:

    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."




    RJ losing an argument with himself from one page to the next:

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement is not a conclusion from the paper. They are relying on the IPCC for that statement.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I don't see the relevance of the sentence you bolded. Have I been denying that recent warming is stronger than previous decades?

  15. #1240
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    14,003
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    No kidding. RJ can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. RJ did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" this time around even though he reached the opposite conclusion about the paper on the previous page.

    Unfortunately, RJ completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:

    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."




    RJ losing an argument with himself from one page to the next:


    He's living proof that contradicts evolution, at least on a personal intellectual level. Only God can change him or his view of what are and aren't facts..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #1241
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    No kidding. He can't read a chart and he can't read a paragraph. He did get that, "recent warming is stronger than previous decades" but completely failed to analyze yet another key takeaway from his own source. Maybe if I shorten the source material and then bold another section:
    "Before 1950, there were both moderate warming and weak cooling regions. The cooling regions shrank and most of them turned into warming regions with an accelerated pace of warming over the next three decades. By 1980, except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land had been warming."

    RJ can't even analyze what he wrote from one page to the next:

    Apparently you can't read a chart, because none of the charts support your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time."

    The quotation you bolded does not support your statement that "a warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time." Almost all =/ the whole planet.

    You used "the global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement to say that my analysis of that paper was wrong. I was using that paper as evidence that their were areas of cooling throughout the past century.

    Again, where have I denied that recent warming is stronger than previous decades? My quote about the IPCC and that statement has no relevance.

  17. #1242
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    He's living proof that contradicts evolution, at least on a personal intellectual level. Only God can change him or his view of what are and aren't facts..
    I'm trying to give RJ the benefit of the doubt. In fairness to him, and everyone else, these discussions can get pretty far into the weeds.

    The problem is he keeps cherry-picking what he considers facts, probably because on the surface they appear to support his position, while ignoring the truth.

    The paper he and I are currently discussing goes into detail about how the statistical emperical straight line fitting in figure 1 (the item he's focusing on) doesn't match how the actual trend has evolved figure 2 & 3 (the items he should be focusing on).

    Figure 2 part "g" clearly shows, for example, that except for the weak cooling in the northern tip of Greenland and in the vicinity of the Andes, almost all the global land is warming. Yet somehow he seems to think 98% of the planet, per the original claim, is not enough.

    And Figure 3 clearly shows the evolution of the warming trend.


    I don't think he's being dishonest, he's just seeing what he wants to see. On the other hand, it's easy to see how a dishonest actor might post figure 1 and ignore the rest even though the paper is saying the exact opposite.

  18. #1243
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Ron's gettin' a bit frantic. A change of heart is in the offing. So Ron, what planet do your kids plan on inhabiting? If it's this one, you might want to start thinking harder.

  19. #1244
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    If you guys are successful it might cause me to rethink my personal ban on talking about politics and (disputed) science on the internet, which is in place because no matter how hard you try nobody ever changes their mind. The ban has been quite relaxing, so I'm not sure who i'm rooting for here.

  20. #1245
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    WMD, the 97% consensus is made up, and already been discussed in the thread.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
    "Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3bfa119b485d
    "The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#2d8a131e205a
    "My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%."



    The section you bolded in your last post:
    "He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    Shows what a biased hack Cook is since there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.

  21. #1246
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.

    nelsonlaugh

    "are" btw

  22. #1247
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    I don't have a motive. I got interested in it because I saw a skeptic argument which made a lot more sense than I was expecting. Since then I started following the debate closely and came to the conclusion that the skeptic side deserves more merit than it receives. After following along for a couple years, it became alarming to me how much blatant lying and propaganda gets pushed from the alarmist side. This has probably pushed me further to the skeptic side because I have a hard time believing anything they say at this point.

    I guess you could say I have a financial interest in this because I'd rather not see the economy collapse, which is a near certainty if any of the 2020 dems get elected and implement their plans. Just a few days ago Warren tweeted "On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere." This would be total insanity and guarantee an immediate recession.

  23. #1248
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    On Vacation for the Duration
    Posts
    14,373
    A troll alias who joined and only posts in this thread. Interesting. Is it real or is it Memorex?
    A few people feel the rain. Most people just get wet.

  24. #1249
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I don't have a motive. I got interested in it because I saw a skeptic argument which made a lot more sense than I was expecting. Since then I started following the debate closely and came to the conclusion that the skeptic side deserves more merit than it receives. After following along for a couple years, it became alarming to me how much blatant lying and propaganda gets pushed from the alarmist side. This has probably pushed me further to the skeptic side because I have a hard time believing anything they say at this point.

    I guess you could say I have a financial interest in this because I'd rather not see the economy collapse, which is a near certainty if any of the 2020 dems get elected and implement their plans. Just a few days ago Warren tweeted "On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere." This would be total insanity and guarantee an immediate recession.
    Look man, you have reservations about politics, don't transfer them to science. Just because people you don't like believe this shit doesn't make it false.

    As a lifelong democrat I share some of your concerns but not your doubts about the science. Compartmentalize. Figure out what goes with what. Science is not political, it speaks for itself, and you are misunderstanding it.

  25. #1250
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    WMD, the 97% consensus is made up, and already been discussed in the thread.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
    "Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#3bfa119b485d
    "The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed."

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#2d8a131e205a
    "My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%."



    The section you bolded in your last post:
    "He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    Shows what a biased hack Cook is since there is no increasing heatwaves and extreme weather.
    Oh yes, I trust known Heartland Institute climate denier James Taylor over NASA any day. He's not even a scientist. You win.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •