Are you PRO SNOW? (yes this is about climate change)

[klar]

A quick summary of the Holoscene. "Nothing in this description of climate history is disputed by any scientist or climatologist."
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/happy-holocene

Is the Earth warmer than it was during the most recent ice age? Absolutely. And logically it should be, after all we're coming out of an "ice age". Is the Earth currently warmer than the long-term average? Not at all, Earth is still unquestionably cooler than the long-term historical average. Earth has to warm up a fair amount before we reach "average".

Yes, the earth has been much warmer in the past and the planet experiences periodic cold and warm phases. The causes of these are fairly well understood. There is no debate about this in the scientific community and the often cited 97% of scientists from that other paper are not disputing it.

The graph in your picture looks like it is based on data from a study about greenland ice cores (Alley 2000) that has been used in arguments such as you are presenting before. The original Alley paper makes an unrelated point and simply discusses the ice core records.

Anyway, there are several issues with why it is not appropriate to use data from one location (greenland), that also end in 1855, i.e. before modern climate change, (blue line in your picture) to show something about global climate in the future. Here is a fairly exhaustive explanation of these technical issues: https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm This is the abstract to the original Alley paper with a link to the full version: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/

Another and perhaps more relevant point has been made by Alley himself, in response to the argument you are making (from the skepitical science link above). Note the last sentence:

"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred."

[pureantigravity]

Wrong forum jong.
Take this Climate Change Natzi Hunt Shit to PolyAss.
Or to Snow Conditions and Weather.

[creaky fossil]

Btw, the consensus is how science works.

Kuhn vs Popper, though. And to what end?

[charles martel]

Wrong forum jong.
Take this Climate Change Natzi Hunt Shit to PolyAss.
Or to Snow Conditions and Weather.

It's of general interest.
Plus, free speech and all that. That is what lets you call us erroneous but nasty names.

Kuhn vs Popper, though. And to what end?

The exchanges in the science community cover method, data, interpretation, more data, re-interpretation, refutation and new hypotheses. Science is a lot rougher room than here or what passes for rebuttal on PolyAss.

[creaky fossil]

The exchanges in the science community cover method, data, interpretation, more data, re-interpretation, refutation and new hypotheses. Science is a lot rougher room than here or what passes for rebuttal on PolyAss.

Really?

[bushman]

OP, did we ever get a TR on your Parisian adventures? Did you see Algore?

[FatChance]

It is hard to predict things, especially the future.

[stevesmith7]

"Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]"

Great quote. Let's do a little verbal science on this.

So first we start with the universe of people who have written papers on the subject. Now during the time at question this was a fairly new topic of discussion so there was little reason for anyone to be publishing papers refuting the claim. So now we've done our first level sort for people who agree.

Second, only 33% expressed any view.

Third, look at the question. "Are humans contributing?". Not is warming primarily caused by humans or any other such wording. Hell, I'd say yes to that. Every bite of cheeseburger I turn into 98.6 helps warm the planet.

So starting with scientists who published anything on GW, 33% with the opinion that humans have some contribution, an voila!

97% of all scientists agree man is causing global warming.

[itsnowjoke]

Climate change is a new religion. Get people all fired up and scared so they will willingly hand their money over. We should always strive to be better stewards of the planet. But last I checked, the glacier melted out of Lake Michigan long before human involvement. CNN keeps screaming that if we don't do something, island nations will be underwater. Sorry, but they were underwater before, and will be again. It's the ultimate in narcissism for one to think they will have a significant impact on the future of the climate. But hey, recycle and combine trips in your car.

[1000-oaks]

"Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]"

Ah yes, the "97.2% of scientists" line politicians love to throw around constantly.

So of the 11,944 abstracts examined regarding "global warming", only 33.6% of the papers were of the opinion that "humans are contributing to global warming" (66.4% expressed no position). So we're down to 33.6% of papers regarding a subject that would probably not even be discussed unless the author already had a keen interest or partial belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Scientists who don't believe in global warming would be unlikely to write papers on the subject, just as authors who aren't religious would be unlikely to write about the teachings of Buddha or Jesus.

Thus the Cook et al. data actually states this: 66.4% of published works regarding climate change do NOT suggest that "humans are contributing to global warming." The facts are almost completely opposite what disingenuous politicians suggest when saying "97.2% of scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is real."

Perfect example of surveying the segment that already agrees with your position, and tailoring the question to get the exact answer desired.

[WMD]

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.

They are all wrong, of course, according to you guys.


Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems 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 basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

[LightRanger]

Then there's noted (former) skeptic Robert Muller's study and NYT op-Ed...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...e-skeptic.html

[k2skier112]

Climate change is a new religion. Get people all fired up and scared so they will willingly hand their money over. We should always strive to be better stewards of the planet. But last I checked, the glacier melted out of Lake Michigan long before human involvement. CNN keeps screaming that if we don't do something, island nations will be underwater. Sorry, but they were underwater before, and will be again. It's the ultimate in narcissism for one to think they will have a significant impact on the future of the climate. But hey, recycle and combine trips in your car.

another republicunt deflection...making it political...turn off fox news...

[itsnowjoke]

Republican deflection? That's pretty damn funny. But see? This is like religion. I questioned your "faith" with specific examples, your response was to blather, unable to address any of my points specifically. Which actually is quite the deflection!

[Bobcat Sig]

Nice to know a simple discussion of this shit show basically degenerates into a pissing match and anyone questioning climate change is automatically a denier.

This should be another winner of a thread for Poly Ass.

[WTF is dat]

The number of people in this thread who fail to understand the reality of anthropogenic global warming is baffling.

[2FUNKY]

[charles martel]

The number of people in this thread who fail to understand the reality of anthropogenic global warming is baffling.

Indeed it is.

[1000-oaks]

That penguin Time cover is a Photoshop job (it's an actual cover, but the real headline is about global warming), but here are some actual 1970's articles about the "imminent global cooling crisis". http://www.populartechnology.net/201...rmism.html?m=1

Of course, just because the climatologists were wrong in the 1970's doesn't necessary mean they're wrong now, or that they've got it right this time. Every situation needs to be evaluated objectively and independently.

[capulin overdrive]

Supposedly the sun is going to cool down for awhile in 2030, so maybe there will be a mini ice age then?

[Buster Highmen]

Republican deflection? That's pretty damn funny. But see? This is like religion. I questioned your "faith" with specific examples, your response was to blather, unable to address any of my points specifically. Which actually is quite the deflection!

This is root of the problem.

Independent of which "side" one takes on the topic, most people can't distinguish between science and religion.

[roadgap]

This is root of the problem.

Independent of which "side" one takes on the topic, most people can't distinguish between science and religion.

That's why a consensus of scientists is so powerful and meaningful. Scientists, especially when it comes to their specific field of study, aren't part of this "most people" you refer to.

To be a layperson disputing a consensus, especially one as strong as the one we're talking about here, basically means you're throwing your lot in with the most kooky of conspiracy theories.

And really as has been said, even oil companies accept the consensus.

[WMD]

"Ten of the world’s big oil companies, mainly from Europe, jointly acknowledged on Friday that their industry must help address global climate change and said that they agreed with the United Nations’ goals of limiting global warming."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/17....html?referer=

[2FUNKY]

1k oaks, yer no fun.

[Buster Highmen]

That's why a consensus of scientists is so powerful and meaningful. Scientists, especially when it comes to their specific field of study, aren't part of this "most people" you refer to.

Really? How insightful.

To be a layperson disputing a consensus, especially one as strong as the one we're talking about here, basically means you're throwing your lot in with the most kooky of conspiracy theories.

And really as has been said, even oil companies accept the consensus.

Moreover most people can't hear the whooshing sound.