Slashdot Mirror
Consensus On Consensus: Climate Experts Agree On Human-Caused Global Warming (theguardian.com)
mspohr quotes a report from The Guardian written by Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com: There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies -- including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, [Dana Nuccitelli] and six of her colleagues -- have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it's somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
The problems don't start till 2100, and I'll be dead by then. Global warming is future people's problem, NOT mine!
This should be fun.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
That fixes it.
That site is known to be a bit of an extreme one. Not the greatest source ever (but neither would I necessarily qoute WattsUpWithThat as a neutral source.) Fair is fair.
100% of cartographers used to believe that the Earth was flat. Consensus does not equal fact. Science is not determined by how popular an idea is. It is determined by hypothesis, experimentation and repeatable results. I understand the hypothesis in this case. What is not clear is what experimentation was done to prove the hypothesis and whether said results were repeatable.
Whether climate change is caused by mankind remains a theory at best.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
A more accurate statement: 1. Over 90% of scientists think the Earth is more likely to be warming up than cooling down. Even skeptics usually agree with this. 2. Most of these scientists said humans had some sort of impact on the climate, but exactly how much was under debate. In fact, the consensus view at present is that the impact of CO2 is overestimated. Sources: IPCC using too many weasel words https://www.google.com/url?sa=... https://www.google.com/url?sa=... Sorry for the messy links.
"...the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014..."
That study was, at least in part, bogus. Several scientists listed as affirming human-caused global warming came out and said that their research was misrepresented by this study, and that they did not agree with the findings.
Don't take that as me denying it. Take it as me saying that the truth does not require you to lie on its behalf.
they are selling this hard. I mean when Einstein's theory of relativity was in question, did they take a survey and consider the matter settled? I mean that took nearly 40 years to have experimental proof, and they want to put it to bed now?
More and more they are conducting themselves like used car salesmen, and instead of devising better experiments like Einstein did, seem to just want to browbeat detractors into submission.
The earth is actually at the center of the universe.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Nobody's denying anything. Climate change was happening before humans even existed. So how do we know that this one has anything to do with us? Its not like anyone can prove it.
Carbon caps are shit. 1% increases in efficiency here and there are shit.
This leaves a few options:
1. A tech breakthrough in energy production.
2. Massive decrease in energy consumption, meaning a loss of lifestyle for a couple billion people.
3. A stopgap until item 1 happens. This means nukes.
Why is it we are not afraid to dump tons of radioactive elements into the air from coal plants (dilute yes), not to mention the ash and slag? We are not afraid to blow mountains to bits to do this: http://explore.org/photos/6235..., but we are afraid to set aside areas for relatively safe plants and storage? WTF is wrong with us as a species where we will keep giving money to barbaric warlords for fossil fuels, but not invest in better sources? Who is responsible for the drumbeat of fear that prevents makes this our current reality?
Silence is a state of mime.
The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.
This should cause scientists to pause and ask why the observations don't support the hypothesis. If the models are right, the Earth should be a lot warmer than it currently is. Instead of trying to understand what's going on in the climate system, scientists have doubled down on the dire predictions. Scientists like Kevin Trenberth, a lead author on two IPCC reports and among NCAR's top brass, have been quick to blame many extreme weather events on climate, which contributes to people conflating weather and climate, not to mention it's not really supported by the science. Instead of trying to understand the climate system better, they've basically said, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! That's not science anymore. It's obsession, perhaps motivated by the realities of politics and funding.
Also, the consensus can be artificially manufactured. If you hold a skeptical view, no matter how well your opinion is supported by observations, it's certainly much harder to get jobs, funding, and publications. Basically, if you want a career in climatology, you pretty much have to believe global warming, even when the evidence isn't nearly that conclusive.
Trolls like those who point out that supporting science with anti-science isn't a good idea? Trolls that point out specific problems with this study? Trolls that point out that other scientists say that their work was misrepresented in this study?
Reasonable people can call a bullshit study that supports their viewpoint bullshit. Science isn't about winning the popularity contest, after all. If you're a scientist and you support X, and some yahoo comes out with a shit study like this one that also supports X, you'd be wise to call that study out for the crap that it is.
Irrational people jump on anything that supports their existing beliefs and preconceptions, regardless of its veracity. You are one of those irrational people.
I'm not a denier nor a supporter, but this is bullshit. How about we have a good solid review of the facts and not a consensus of like-minded people. I personally believe that humans have an impact, but the percentage may be low based on previous figures that i have seen. Regardless, let me see some real data backed up by real science instead of this sensationalist bullshit.
And most flat earthers can't provide evidence of same, which is why their narrative is based around conspiracy theory. Like anti-vaxxers, and climate denialists.
Now that all that money has been paid and a decision has been made we can now cut almost all funding of it. Since we have a firm decision the federal government should stop spending any more funds on this topic.
The meta-study is crap, plain and simple. It doesn't prove a damn thing. Whoever modded this down should be ashamed of themselves and shouldn't be allowed to moderate again.
Science doesn't operate on consensus. Science operates on the scientific method, hypotheses, theories, and laws. We don't advance science by taking votes on which hypothesis or theory is correct. We determine this by conducting experiments, which test hypotheses and theories. The observations can support or refute a theory or hypothesis.
It's not a motherfucking popularity contest. It's about whether observations support or refute the hypothesis.
Meta-studies are useless. They contribute nothing of value. If you want to make the case that humans are causing global warming, show how the data supports the hypothesis. That's it.
And by the way, it's often hard to get a job, get funded, or get published in any field when you hold an alternative view to something that most of the field believes strongly. That's not limited to climate science, it's just the way science is. If you want a successful career, you almost have to support the prevailing view in those fields. But it absolutely will bias the statistics in meta-studies like this. Whether they're right or wrong, climatologists who are skeptical of global warming have an inherent disadvantage in their field. That is why science should never be reduced to a popularity contest.
I'll say it again; meta-studies are fucking useless. Stick to hypotheses, theories, and observations. Those are the only things that make a damn bit of difference.
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
> that should settle this question once and for all
Yeah, right.
How many billions have been pledged with nothing to show for it? Someone's getting right off this. If you're not a part of the solution, there's a lot of money to be made prolonging the problem.
Every Intelligent person knows that it is a redistribution plot. Yet many are ashamed to voice that in order not to be accused conspiracy theorists.
Every thinking person knows that humanity MIGHT be contributing to the climate change. We might.
However, the smartest scientists who are voicing Climate warming are also disgusted with the politicians attempts to monetize it.
Exactly. And don't call current temperatures "normal" and every deviation "abnormal".
What kind of faux scientists admit that the historic range is far broader but then insist that the way it is now is "correct" and any further climatic shifts (which will happen one way or another) are "bad".
What nonsense.
Well, I looked at the horizon. And then I held up something straight to compare it to (the handle of my hockey stick). Looks flat to me. Check mate!
Have gnu, will travel.
flat earthers have shot a lasers over a dry lake bed in the mojave and numerous other experiments.
anti-vaxxers have pumped mice full of vaccines to prove the mice had neurological damage.
however, climate denialists are not the ones trying to prove anything. the burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim.
But the experts agreed, which means it is true. Go back to your hole, troll!
Deny? Bring it on, I say! I'm guessing Russia and Canada and Greenland may feel differently as vast tracts of land become arable, productive, and pleasantly warm. Looking forward to it.
Though it is still condemned by a certain segment of the population: The theory of relativity is defended with religious-like zeal, such that no college faculty tenure, Ph.D degree, or Nobel Prize is ever awarded to anyone who dares criticize the theory, as the example of denying a Nobel Prize to the most accomplished physicist of the 20th century, Robert Dicke, illustrates. Another critic of the theory was Louis Essen [1908-1997], the man credited with determining the speed of light. He wrote many fiery papers against it such as Relativity and Time Signals[4] and Relativity - Joke or Swindle?[5]. Perhaps the most famous website opposing relativity is this one, with its Counterexamples to Relativity page. The cornerstone item in that page involves the experimental measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury that show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error. - http://www.conservapedia.com/T...
It's fun to watch the deniers heads assplode with each new piece of evidence confirming climate change.
Their mental gymnastics to avoid cognitive dissonance are amusing and get more convoluted with each passing day.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Effectively 100% of scientists in the field publishing papers in peer reviewed journals which all agree on the consensus is not a "popularity contest". It is sound science. If there was a genuine question as to whether anthropogenic climate change was real, there would be at least a handful of papers published by real scientists with expertise in the field indicating so. Please cite one of these papers.
Irrational people jump on anything that supports their existing beliefs and preconceptions, regardless of its veracity. You are one of those irrational people.
No, you are one of those irrational people who will find any reason to ignore the science on this one issue. Belief that there is a vast conspiracy that every single scientist with a passing interest in climatology is so willing to destroy their careers by falsifying data to perpetuate a ruse shows a complete misunderstanding of how science works on par with creationists and antivaxers.
Better title for the article would have been: Another Panel of Authoritative Experts declares ...
Bow down and recant heathens.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications.
however, climate denialists are not the ones trying to prove anything. the burden of proof lies on the ones making the claim.
That's right.
(A) Climate Denalists claim there's a problem with the science, it's up to them to prove that claim, the burden of proof, as you rightly point out, belongs to them.
(B) Climate denialists claim that mitigating our CO2 output will lead to the end of civilisation, it's up to them to prove that claim.
Lets get on with it. Everyone kills themselves except for me and 30,000 of the most genetically fit women. It will totally work. Problem solved.
So who now is in denial?
How much the planet will heat up and what level is even harmful, instead of helpful, is very much up for debate.
Since the next ice age is an inevitability, it's a race to see how much we as a people can prosper and prepare before we are all encased in a thousand years of winter - which is in the end vastly more a danger than even the most extreme warming forecasts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just like Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". The matter is settled. Everyone agrees. If you don't, you are a terrorist.
Well, there will be no assploding then, since the study is a meta study of existing papers -- It's similar to selection bias, and provides no new evidence whatsoever.
Your mental gymnastics to consider your self a rational being while calling others "denier" for having healthy skepticism is amusing.
Why is it every few days we get yet another article claiming scientists believe in climate change?
Who the FUCK cares who believes it or not?
If there is an earthquake, we don't have a debate about it and press releases sharing our findings, we just act on it.
If climate change is real, then fucking act on it, enough with the goddamn grandstanding.
Consensus and groupthink are everything in science, you politically incorrect clod! No tenure for you, and we certainly won't publish you in any journals since you contradict the consensus, which is always correct.
Capitalism is a redistribution plot...by design.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
Imagine "science" without the possibility of consensus:
"Hey, that whole gravity thing could be bogus! I know other researchers have verified it thousands of times, but maybe they're wrong. Let's just do some calibration tests every day in the lab to be sure stuff doesn't randomly start floating UP instead of falling down. After all, we can't accept consensus!"
"Well, I was going to do a chemistry experiment today, but I don't really believe that whole atomic theory of matter. I mean, there's 'consensus' on the idea that molecules are made up of atoms, and a substance has consistent properties based on that. But maybe water isn't really made up of H2O. Maybe if I zap it with electricity, it will turn out that it's actually made of microscopic gnomes! The gnomes could be magically giving the illusion of molecular structure. Before I start my chem experiments, I need to be sure my hypothetical gnomes aren't going to ruin the properties of my solvent. So let's test for gnomes every day!"
Obviously these are ridiculous examples. But actual science in practice requires that we accept a bunch of "givens" to actually make progress. Those are generally derived through scientific consensus. Yes, sometimes even those fundamental assumptions are shown to be wrong, at which point we have a "paradigm shift" (in Thomas Kuhn's terms) or modify the "hard core of our research program" (in Imre Lakatos's terms).
But "normal science" simply couldn't operate without foundational assumptions. Acting like there's no role for consensus in science is just ridiculous.
Now -- I understand that there may be greater range for doubt in the scientific community about how climate change works exactly than, say, for the basic idea of gravity or that water molecules are H2O. That's reflected in TFA -- the numbers vary from 90% to 99% consensus... I assume for gravity and water the numbers would be more like 99.999%.
There's still room for people to try to question the foundational assumptions within normal science. But TFA notes that for most scientists, they consider questioning the assumption itself to be less worthy of attention than refining the models within the paradigm. That's how science works... in reality. The bizarre pseudo-Popperian nonsense that sometimes gets spouted around here that "every scientific fact is always up for falsification!" simply isn't true.
If your lab equipment seemed to indicate that your water was made of tiny gnomes, the vast majority of scientists would probably assume there was something wrong with the equipment -- or that someone was playing a prank. And that would be a heck of a lot more likely than that they had just falsified the atomic theory of matter by discovering tiny magical gnomes that produced the illusion of molecular structure. Realizing this is part of being a scientist, and that involves accepting current consensus about foundational concepts.
Yep, when you can't prove it, you just have to take a vote.
They limited it experts that agree with it and if they did not agree they were not considered "experts" so were not included in the study.
The problem for me is that a lot of articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies to get people to believe climate change. So much of climate change looks like a power grab by Democrats to give to failed "green" energy to funnel the money back to the democrat party.
Does the horizon really look flat to anyone? Show of hands, please.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emission of pollutants that "endanger public health and welfare.""
I'd say the drought in California, the increased wildfires in Texas and say....Florida being underwater pretty squarely fall in its wheelhouse.
SCOTUS agrees
The Clean Air Act has been modified many times under it's proscribed authority as new pollutants are discovered and/or become a serious threat.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I think the AC was complaining, like so many other ACs here, that there are problems with the study (specific methodological problems, and fundamental philosophical problems [the importance of consensus to the veracity of AGW] ) that make it questionable.
That is, the AC is saying that you can and should criticize this study for being poor science, particularly if you hold the consensus position, as using bad science to support good science isn't rational. (From the third sentence in the AC's second paragraph.)
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
So, the AC is saying that the study is poor and should be criticized and that even if the study was properly done that it should have no influence on your beliefs about AGW.
As to the AC's beliefs about AGW, I can't find anything specific that would let me say if the AC supports it or is against it. That may have been you stretching things a bit.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Merely that their researches came to the same conclusion. Like all of us scientists need to eat and feed their family, and like all of us they are prone to peer pressure. That is to say they are all highly corruptible Things get very interesting when you see how research is funded.
For all the harping of the issue, lets pretend for a min that 100% of everyone agrees, AGW is real and it is a problem.
Now what?
What I do NOT see is anyone putting fourth solutions that will prevent it from becoming a massive problem over time.
I see numbers that are "safe" from 300 up to 450 PPM CO2, but the problem is, even the White House Council on this says that to keep CO2 at 450 PPM that every nation must cut at least 60% CO2 and every industrial nation must cut by at least 80% by 2050.
The US put out over 5 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2015. So by 2050, with a larger population, we have to somehow cut that to 1 billion metric tons or less.
And so does EVERY OTHER NATION on Earth...
That doesn't strike me as very likely to happen.
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
---
https://www.climatecommunicati...
Page 4...
In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions
would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas
emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050.
I thought what we were supposed to examine were facts and measurements taken from the real world. Not tabulate opinions and then run some R regression analysis on the survey result to pop out a percentage number...
I hope I'm not alone in clearly recalling *many* contraindications to the idea that the opinion of the masses is never exactly wrong...
Those proofs will come right after the climate change evangelists prove that warming is caused by man.
OK. So we have everyone convinced, because Fred and Barney suspected it, and then they saw that Betty and Wilma were thinking about it, and that convinced Barney conclusively. Fred still wasn't sure, but then he too saw Betty and Wilma. Then when Betty and Wilma saw that Fred and Barney were convinced, then they were convinced too. And it can be about flies on the moon. Just this past week I learned that a wide ranging study about saturated fats (corn oil vs fat from food), was debunked ....after 50 years of every doctor in the land telling you that "oh of course the vegetable oil is better", that, nope, the study 50 years ago didn't turn out the way one scientist wanted, and so wasn't published, and after 50 years a "second look" gives knowledge that, no, vegetable oil might cause more deaths. Back on topic. Lake Agassiz was a large lake in North America (170,000 sq mi). It was a remnant of the Ice Age. It drained out at different periods, one of the last big times the ice melted and it drained out, was wriitten about in the Bible "The Flood" (c) 6200 B.C. You can yelp "The Bible?" and ok the geologists and archaeologists agree. The thing is: when all this ice melted, there was not 1 internal combustion engine, the human population of the planet was in the tens to hundreds of thousands (that's it). No jet engines. Melted anyway. Now I will agree that the climate is changing. I will agree about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I will agree about removing that CO2 because we put it there. But where I live, there are mountains and glaciers, and people take pictures of the melting glaciers, and my argument is: "so you didn't take pictures of the glacier in 1660 or 1420 or 620, but that doesn't mean that the glaciers weren't melting and shrinking back then too." My main point is that there is nothing ... no smoking gun... no direct evidence that links A to B. Its speculation, its not science. Its bullshit. There is no physical, measurable theory that predicts things accurately. At one time they thought "methane dispensers" A.K.A. cows, were to blame. And now they want to make policy based on their guess. And that's shit.
Every single story here on Slashdot's is override with denial it's bullshit. For a bunch of seemingly intelligent people, I just don't get it. I attempt to look at things objectively. I've got 25 years of experience in physics and engineering. I even understand that academia has its flaws and that on an individual basis it's easy to get away with fudging things in a paper or two. This article is about once again going over the fact that there's a huuuuge, overwhelming scientific consensus supporting AGW, and everyone here thinks that they somehow are smarter than the global community of climate scientists. Get the fuck over yourselves
You're ignorant of the science used demonstrate climate change, yet you are certain that it is wrong. Well, I for one am convinced.
With carefully redefined terms, it is possible to make any statement truthful. For example, if we denounce any "skeptic" as not an expert (and worse), the above-quoted statement automatically truthful.
And if the denounced non-scientists insist on voicing their ridiculous opposition, we prosecute them as racketeers. Surely, such felons can not be considered "experts", can they be?
Problem solved — 100% unanimity achieved...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seriously, how can I trust this one paper?
Maybe someone should do a paper statistically analysing the consensus on other papers like this, then -maybe- I'd start believing.
Until then, I'M VOTING TRUMP AND/OR HILLARY!!
I too believe global warming is real and man made, but I also recognize that scientific "consensus" means absolutely nothing whatsoever when controversial ideas are involved. At one point the scientific consensus was in favor of earth being flat, and not washing hands before surgery. If you want a more recent example, look up the discovery of heliobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers. Dude almost got laughed out of his scientific field because "consensus" at the time was that ulcers are "because of the nerves, or something you eat". I'm sure others could come up with many other examples of varying vintage.
So don't beat people over the head with "consensus". Show them the data in a way mere mortals can understand. Appeal to their belief structure. That's really the only way to make a real difference.
Limits to growth wlll hit decades sooner and lead to major losses of food productivity and non-renewable resources (like chromium used to make stainless steel).
Food and population are higher than when first projected in 1972 so the overshoot will be that much worse. Other limits basically on track except pollution (we are doing really well on pollution).
Likely reduction of earth's carrying capacity will likely be from 12 billion to under 2 billion in the space of 20 to 30 years (pretty horrific). Human population is already almost 100% over sustainable levels. Basically the Mayans (who destroyed all their trees) or the Easter islanders (who destroyed all their trees), but played on a global scale.
But hey, it's too late to do a anything about. So you can't even get all overwrought about it.
These are the people who projected a 380ppm Co2 over 50 years ago. They were sharp cookies.
And no where NEAR as politicized as people are today. They were rational and drew the logical unpleasant conclusions from the data.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Simply because vast numbers of people agree that an idiocy is true is no proof that the idiocy is not idiocy.
PERSONALLY, I have been 'green' for most of my sentient life. I recycle, I recover useful things from the rubbish/street. I drive old used cars I pay cash for (retaining money). I believe that 'stewardship' of our world is a 'commandment' in most all religious faiths be they cosmic muffin or hairy thunderer. "If its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down".
However, I am old enough to remember it was 'global ice age' in the '70s due to humans was the riff. And AIDS was the way to get NSF grants/money no matter how remote your research had to do with AIDS so long as you mentioned it. I mean come on, you know where the money is at the time, you want/need money, it is only natural...green.... So now 'global warming' is the current source of 'green'. Make no mistake about it, Al Gore for example has a stake in 'carbon credit trading market' - would make lots of 'green' - even though he personally isn't exactly 'environmental'. In his case its just scamming to make 'green' - personal opinion. And would not do a damn think to solve the problem, if there is even a problem.
As for 'evidence' I have a few problems as well:
Yes there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature. The problem is that the data, primarily ice core, is that the rise in CO2 happened about 700 years or so *after* a rise in temperature. Sorta 'cause *before* affect, neh? Perhaps rising temperatures are good for oxygen metabolizing organisms- such as animals, and even people.
Retreating glaciers in Greenland, yeah. But underneath are evidence of human farms and settlements. Vinland as well as Britain used to be warm enough to grow grapes (hence 'the name Vinland') that currently requirer warmer temps. Retreating glaciers in Switzerland reveal silver mine with tools carefully put away for the winter - but the winter didn't end. Analysis of the alloy reveals that human jewelry in graves in northern Italy came from that mine, and the only passes that could have allowed that trade in the past - before cars- are still currently ice locked.
Global Warming has occurred on mars. Not too many cars being driven on mars.
CO2/CO data from Moana Kea show increases. Yes. The problem is that the rate of increases simply correlate best - anova- with the number of registered cars in Hawaii. If you look more closely at the data you find it goes up and down over the course of any year you look at. Guess what? If you are from Hawaii (no ka oi!) you know that the tradewinds shift over the year so during 'Kona Weather' the direction *away* from the Moana Kea observatory shifts. (Yeah, I know. It sucks when it does that. And now especially with 'VOG' - which is a heck of a lot more CO2/CO and other nasty stuff than humans can put into the local environment (like stink of DOLE on Oahu when we used to grow pineapple here, or burning sugar cane when we used to grow that). (Now all we do is grow houses and deplete the aquifer further - someday the water gonna run out on Oahu you know. Worry bout dat.)
Not precisely. The thing at the center of the universe ... is my dick.
Yeah, i don't believe climate even exists! You are all liars, climate is just a story told to make kids behave!
There are other planets in this solar system.. in the case where the other planets are also warming it would suggest the phenomenon is non-global.. and potentially galactic. Those poor people who opened themselves up and convinced sold themselves on the idea of global warming (ie. playing politics with nature and the Earth) are burdened with the proof on this.. and until it's proven with reliable definitive alternative confirmations by multiple objective sources.. they are officially way ahead of themselves and just talking nonsense.
For starters, this so-called "consensus" is garbage, and secondly, does anybody really give a toss about this failed area of science anymore? Saying you have a new model on climate change is like saying you have a screen play in Hollywood. Yawn. The temperatures have flat-lined despite what Al Gore and his high-priests said years ago. Not interested anymore.
In an upcoming 1938 survey, 97% of Nazis agree that Jews have cooties. Or worse.
I agree with your sentiment.
I've found a few intelligent people who adamantly deny global warming, and their reasoning usually revolves around "If someone says don't do something or something bad will happen, it's purely an attempt to control you".
I somewhat understand that as the call against terrorism has always seemed like a giant power/vote grab to me, but then again we're all free to see the numbers of how little terrorism is a threat in day to day life.
The fact that different scientists all over the world do studies and come to a general consensus just makes them nervous of a global conspiracy instead of it might be the underlying truth, or somehow by default the more experts that agree on something the wronger it is.
The universal truth for these people is authority is bad and will always try to lie to you and screw you 100% of the time. I'm not sure how you educate against such an absolutist view.
It's turtles all the way down.
Science is not a democracy.
As to this "study" there are a few problems with it that were immediately noticed:
1. Sample size is not stated.
2. The people that collect the data at phase 1 are different enough from the people in phases 2 and 3 to introduce problems.
3. People in higher phases have access to the data in the lower phases which introduces the opportunity to bias results.
Look, why is this so fucking hard for the sophists to grasp. Release the RAW fucking data with full disclosure of methodology with the maximum transparency.
The actual analysis of that data is not something you're even trusted with at this point. Just release the raw data. Raw. Actually raw. Not processed. And if you want to supplement that data with some analysis... super. You do that, cupcake. But for a statistical opinion survey, you'd think we could get access to the raw data.
But no. Pretty much any opinion statistical study would give you that no problem. You wouldn't even have to prompt them. It would just be there. But with these clowns... its probably in a cipher scribed onto a mummy's leg stored in a secret warehouse guarded by ninja vampire assassins.
Because transparency is apparently something totally alien to climate scientists. Its like talking to the fucking Clintons.
Here is the point of this stupid paper... "I have a high number here... na nah na naaaah"... its basically that. This does nothing to further the discussion. Its just childish crap to confuse the proles.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
There is scientific consensus about a lot of ideas. Should we therefore reject them?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The problem for me is that a lot of denialist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies to get people to deny climate change. So much of the denialist FUD looks like a power grab by fossil energy companies to give to pet politicians and astroturfing organisations to funnel the money back to their coffers.
FTFY
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
No it's not, the scientific method is based on proof and a chain of reproducibility. If you ask, "How do we know X is true?" You can find a paper, and reproduce its results. The paper is probably based on other papers, and if you want to, you can reproduce those results. If you want to, you can follow the chain all the way back to Galileo dropping balls off the leaning tower of Pisa.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken. Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Aren't all economic systems by definition? Resources are here, people who need resources are there, how do we facilitate the transfer of one to the other?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Skepticism means demanding to be disproved by evidence. You seem to have the word confused with cynicism, which is being distrustful of the motives of others.
Generally I find that climate change deniers fall into the latter category.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Of course -- otherwise all their funding will dry up and they will have to do some real work.
Do I get it correctly that they have analysed metapapers analysing research which analyses the (A)GW? So, it is not longer enough to have consensus on AGW, it is now required to prove that people have consensus on having consensus?
I don't think this is going to convince people with doubts - only meta-meta-meta analysis done by same people could possibly do that...
So they analyzed a paper and made another paper that says something of no value. Is this science in 2016? They couldn't simply, I don't know... figure out if HUMANS are the problem of if the climate is just normally cycling?
This is part of the reason why I don't deny the earth is warming (well, cooling in the last few years) but that humans are the problem. Even the ice cores they holdup as proof are not truly definitive. Every time they mention the ice core's its weasle worlds like 'seems to suggest' or 'points to'.
The scientific method has to be a little more concrete than that.
Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Show them the data in a way mere mortals can understand. Appeal to their belief structure. That's really the only way to make a real difference.
That has already been done many times. But you can't convince anybody that has vested interest in not listening.
For all the harping of the issue, lets pretend for a min that 100% of everyone agrees, AGW is real and it is a problem.
Now what?
What I do NOT see is anyone putting fourth solutions that will prevent it from becoming a massive problem over time.
In order to stabilize CO2 concentrations at about 450 ppm by 2050, global emissions
would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. Industrialized countries greenhouse gas
emissions would have to decline by about 80% by 2050.
Well, how about we cut emissions by not renewing permits for existing coal plants, shifting to solar thermal and PV, wind and nuclear?
We can also start proactively executing tens of millions of per year until we hit our targets.
Or we can listen to Trump, trigger trade and real wars, trigger famine and disease outbreaks outside the World War Z zombie wall he pretends can be built and then hope none of those diseases or nukes floating around jumps the fence.
Does the horizon really look flat to anyone? Show of hands, please.
The trick is to stick your head in a hole before looking.
As a scientist, there is plenty of evidence for climate change. However consensus studies are not science. What these authors have published is not science. This type of circle jerk only harms the credibility of those doing real studies.
Hey, that whole gravity thing could be bogus! I know other researchers have verified it thousands of times, but maybe they're wrong. Let's just do some calibration tests every day in the lab to be sure stuff doesn't randomly start floating UP instead of falling down. After all, we can't accept consensus!
The existing consensus on gravity has been overthrown before. Your 1001st gravitational calibration tests might be the one finally sensitive enough to detect that Newtonian gravity is incorrect.
"Well, I was going to do a chemistry experiment today, but I don't really believe that whole atomic theory of matter. I mean, there's 'consensus' on the idea that molecules are made up of atoms, and a substance has consistent properties based on that. But maybe water isn't really made up of H2O. Maybe if I zap it with electricity, it will turn out that it's actually made of microscopic gnomes! The gnomes could be magically giving the illusion of molecular structure. Before I start my chem experiments, I need to be sure my hypothetical gnomes aren't going to ruin the properties of my solvent. So let's test for gnomes every day!"
If your 'gnome' turns out to be nucleons and electrons, you would be right to challenge the atom ("indivisible") view. Or if it refers to polymeric chains comprised of H2O subunits. Zapping water with electricity does have important effects. It can decompose it into hydrogen and oxygen, it can restructure the arrangement of the molecules. Water is fairly sensitive to such effects.
The trouble with relying on consensus is that the scientific refinements we are searching for are precisely those which have eluded our previous knowledge and intuition.
My counter to
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
is that consensus is the enemy of the scientific method. People have been studying the universe as long as there has been people. Why did the scientific method spark so much progress? Because it disregarded consensus. The scientific method didn't care what Aristotle and all the intellectual giants had written about science, it said anything was fair game to be contested and disproven. Humanity was no longer beholden to oligarchy of thinkers in deciding what could and could not be so.
I don't disagree that there is something practical in establishing broad consensus. We have to choose which experiments we want to perform. Sometimes that is done by Senate committees. Sometimes it is done by individuals. We have finite resources and have to spend them wisely, and so science inherits a political aspect. But is that really in keeping with the scientific method? I think that's more of a practical sacrifice to achieve social goals. But scientists should always remember that the essence of their practice is in subjecting human conjecture to every suspicion, to be vindicated only by relentless experiment. And political expedience or no, I would hope there would always be a small contingent of holdouts against every theory, just to make sure we never find ourselves permanently entrenched in a pocket of false truths.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
So what is it about the science of climate change that you cannot verify yourself ?
The climate past about 150 years ago. For example, a key problem about which there is a great deal of confidence, but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Just because a problem is hard, doesn't justify that sort of short cut. And you ignore huge confirmation bias here. Let us keep in mind that there is all sorts of money for confirming global warming and exaggerating its effects. Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
This is not a serious work. There's too many authors from the Cook et al 2013 study which came up with the bogus 97% consensus claim in the first place.
To outline what was wrong with the 2013 paper, the primary author, John Cook, who incidentally is also the primary author of this current work, already had started working out the propaganda uses of the research before he started the 2013 study, the raters (of which eight of the nine coauthors of that 2013 work are coauthors on this paper) discussed papers and authors in what was supposed to be a double-blind study, there was plenty of bias exhibited by the raters in internal discussions, and a bunch of misclassified and/or ignored papers. A couple of key discussions of these problems can be found here and here.
Bottom line is that the Cook 2013 study was so bad, biased, and predisposed to use as pro-climate change propaganda, that it should have never been published. I consider it outright fraud. Now, he and his fellow coauthors get to contaminate another such survey? That's very foolish.
Ultimately, the problem here is that this is an argument from authority fallacy, written by a primary author, John Cook who has already demonstrated that he is too biased to do credible scientific work.
You just called Creationism science.
Until a few centuries ago, creationists had consensus. Then actual science came along and proved the consensus wrong. After that, it took a long time to change consensus, to the point that there are still places where creationism does have consensus (Alabama, Syria...)
how much money has been wasted on this? all funding for global warming should now end as it's solved science. no more studies are needed.
nothing to see here - move along
Put enough co2 and shit get hotter. Now Is the proposed solution a form of communism?
Thank you for this Post.........
http://ekrasta.com
http://ekrasta.com/fashion/Shirtdetail.aspx?code=49
http://ekrasta.com/fashion/Shirtdetail.aspx?code=70
http://ekrasta.com/fashion/Manshirt.aspx
My counter to
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
is that consensus is the enemy of the scientific method.
You're both wrong. Consensus is the goal of the scientific method. It's not part of it any more than the highway is part of the mall. But that's still where that road leads.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
AGW needs to be provded. Science does not require evidence that every crackpot idea is false. The alarmists behind said crackpot idea have the burden of proof. The rest of us will c0ntinue happily about our lives until such times as real proof backed by resl evidence is presented.
Thanks for playing!
The crackpots with the whacky theory (AGW) have the burden of proof. They have yet to prove anything. Until then status quo is they're still full of crap.
You have it all backwards but that is expected from a religous whacky nut who believes cow farts are turning the planet into Venus.
Notice how well the blurb was? Its because these guys, every year or so, do the same thing and go to great fan faire to shout "we found the missing 97% consensus". Le sigh. Maybe this is them measuring the amount of money invested in this 'science', when it could have been spent to increase the quality of living for people living today?
Also, argument of numbers means nothing to nature. Nature does what it does, no matter how long you wave you hands on the beach, the tide will always come in ;)
The Chinese have a major project underway. They expect to have working reactors in the 2025 time range. Check www.thoriumremix.com
Next. In the website you will find many talks from a conference.
The breakthrough BTW happened in the 1960's
If you want to know why this technology is not in common use then check out the Wikipedia article on fallacy. Appeal to emotion. The pollies and others are very adept at lying to the general population and the reason according the article on fallacy is that people rely more on emotion than on logic.
consensus means that it based on opinion, science is NOT opinion!!
and meta-studies are utter shit, just cherry picking for wanted answer.
A study analyzing previous studies that argued about a scientific "consensus" seems like it belongs in the realm of sociology, psychology, or maybe "political science". Demonstrating consensus opinion is not "science". If they're trying to make an argument in favor of global warming, it's simply an aggregate "appeal to authority". These studies analyzed the opinions of studies of climate change and there's a consensus that there's a consensus, therefore ... what?
We all know that at one time there was an overwhelming "consensus" among scientists that the sun orbited the earth and anyone who questioned the "consensus" opinion was subject to attack. Back in the 1970s, there was a "consensus" among nutritionists that a high carb, low fat diet was good for health. The rare people who argued against the "consensus" saw their work summarily dismissed and were personally attacked and marginalized.
"Consensus" becomes "orthodoxy" and it spells death for critical thinking. It means the dismissal of evidence challenging the "consensus" and the marginalization of dissenters.
Their "consensus" has absolutely nothing to do with truth or science.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/12/john-cook-is-cooking-up-more-97-consensus-while-two-papers-refute-his-statistical-sleights-of-hand/
sorry, but 97% of climate scientists are as thick as the bullshit they peddle.
Some of them can't even use "excel" spreadsheets.
Intelligent people understand that facts are what matter , not consensus opinion.
and the facts do not add up.
"We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."
No *real* expert in climate science disagrees...
...what is the cause of human caused global warming?
If you're wondering why we're questioning government-funded research that's been going on since Bush41 and was designed to obtain one and only one conclusion; that we are somehow warming the Earth and therefore need government oversight and regulation over every human activity that will, in the end, enslave our children, grandchildren, grand-grandchildren, etc... then yes, we are seeing thru the thinly veiled plan.
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
it seems that most of these people are far more interested in hypocritical glory and powers over people that communist dictators would relish. For many years the environmentalist movement has been a watermelon--green on the outside, red on the inside. The Marxist language used is a clear tell:
"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection", says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
"Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
And the condescension runs deep, too:
"That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(I've no doubt that his answer will be "Not so much, so well control it for them.")
I'm sure you're a nice person, but you are 100% wrong on this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Search for "consensus" yields one line:
"In that vein he defined truth as the correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object and, pragmatically, not as actual consensus of some definite, finite community (such that to inquire would be to poll the experts), but instead as that final opinion which all investigators would reach sooner or later but still inevitably, if they were to push investigation far enough, even when they start from different points..."
Consensus matters for crap in science. Experiments and reproducible results are the only things that matter. Climate is hard because reproducing exact conditions is difficult without a spare earth... but hard doesn't mean we should resort to polling.
Here we go again. Slashdot making themselves irrelevant by allowing themselves to be taken over by whacky left-wing activists to use it for a propaganda soapbox.
If you want to see what happens when you allow these activists to take over your site, look what they did to Digg.
Damn, you're an idiot. Please outline where the facts don't add up. Please show us how you have concluded that 97% of climate scientists are as thick as the bullshit they peddle. Also, just because someone doesn't know how to use Exel doesn't mean they're stupid or incompetent.
There is nothing to get over. Temps go up, temps go down. I do not care. Your bought and paid science means nothing to me. Too much money involved, too many scandals, to believe the hype. 30 years ago global cooling scam, now global warming scam. Nothing more. You need to stop believing 'experts' and FOLLOW THE MONEY.
97% of all climate scientists receive politically motivated funding and drink the same cool-aid. That said, in my spot on the planet we receive the gift of temperature inversion every winter. This traps the air blown in from China in my valley and everyone gets upper respiratory problems. I don't have a problem with people releasing as much CO2 as they want (plants love it! Green houses are good for plants), but particulates ... well please keep it down India, China, LA, factory down the highway.
this sig is deprecated
People get angry when they're being manipulated.
1. The temperature records show that we've been hotter than we are right now -- pre industrial revolution.
2. There is significant evidence that man has contributed to high CO2 levels in the last century.
3. AGW Nazi's claim we need to gas everyone (economically or physically) to reverse those man-made levels.
But this doesn't follow: it means that nature has often eclipsed man's industrial output. Essentially even if we wipe out all of man's affects on nature -- nature can still warm the planet beyond current levels.
AGW Nazi's will double-down and say we need to hurry up and gas the populace before nature changes her mind and goes warm again on top of man's contribution. But this is harder to accept when they themselves concede that the AGW Nazi policies are just a form of militant socialism.
This paper is not "make[ing] the case that humans are causing global warming". There's a meme among politicians that "there is disagreement between experts", so that they can appeal to that to please their voting base. This paper:
1. makes a hypothesis: "there is consensus"
2. observes that "97% of papers assign human activity as the cause of global warming"
3. conclude "yeah, that sounds like consensus, which is the opposite of disagreement"
Let's take for example your fear that alternative climatoligists are being bullied out of research. Sounds like a meta study to me!
1. hypothesis: "alternative theories are rejected from jobs, publications"
2. observe: "number of papers submitted versus numbers of papers published"
Meta-studies are not "fucking useless". If alternative theories being pushed out of the community is such a big deal, then a meta-study around that (preferably a systematic literature review detailing methods, venues, and the body of prior supporting work) would expose the conspiracy you seem to believe is taking place in academia. The difference between the claim the authors make and the claim you make is that they have quantitative data. What do you have to back up your claim?
Fun fact, most science is not groundbreaking - it's boring and incremental. Most research out there is "we did the same thing we did last year and nothing changed."
After all, 30 Helens agree.
Climate change is climate change.
30 Helens agree.
"Proof is for mathematics and liquor". The word you are looking for is "evidence".
Studies like this have to be released because when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality. The evidence has been produced and made available to anyone who wishes to overturn it. So far no one has.
So climate scientists agree man is causing global warming,now called climate change,soon to be called climate disruption. http://www.scientific-alliance... you heard it here first. What happened to all scientists are in a agreement according to Cook et al (2013)? Apparently it was a complete fraud. https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
I'll agree with the AC that consensus is meaningless. Try to understand that this is being conflated with Gore's infamous 'the science is settled' line. It should be obvious that the very idea of 'settled science' is antithetical to science, and the consensus claim is intended to bolster that dangerously anti-science assertion. The consensus point, then, is intended to lend credibility to AGW claims without reference to any actual science. (I may be stretching the AC's "supporting science with anti-science" line a bit, but I think I'm on the mark.)
The problem is the the claim that consensus is meaningless is disingenuous. The consensus is important for non-scientists to understand the subject matter. The nay-sayers are trying to confuse lay people by pretending that there is disagreement on the issue. They know that people are more likely to accept doing nothing about a problem if they think the experts can't agree that there is a problem in the first place. Frankly, it's nothing more than manipulation and trickery.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Consensus matters for crap in science.
That does not reflect how any scientist ever actually does science.
Experiments and reproducible results are the only things that matter.
Yeah? Those are results, and they contribute to the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is best described as "the current state of knowledge".
And the consensus is very useful. No one has time, funds or will to go back and follow the entire chain of evidence for everything. Secondly, if you want to do science, the best thing is to start from the consensus and work forwards. If the consensus is wrong, you'll eventually see an inconsistency at which point you go back and start investigating things that there's a consensus on more deeply. If you don't---and this is by far the most common case---you save a vast amount of time.
No one ever works through the last 400 years of science from scratch before getting started on new research because that is completely infeasible. As a result people use the scienific consensus as a necessary shortcut to get started.
Finally if you're not currently actively investigating then having an unjustified opinion that differs from the scientific majority (i.e. consensus) basically shows you form opinion not based on any rational thought process.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Don't worry, if global warming every gets too bad we can always cancel it out with nuclear winter like what happened in Futurama.
Are you arguing with yourself? In that entire post you didn't manage to say a single thing beyond kindly illustrating the boundaries of your knowledge, and showing everyone how prepared you are to leap over them when it suits you. Strange.
Seeing as the Earth was shown to be spherical before the birth of science, I'd say your first claim is entirely rubbish.
Firstly, the consensus is not the evidence of AGW. The evidence that has been released time and time again and which remains unsuccessfully challenged is the evidence. That was released and then people started complaining that because some kook somewhere voiced concerns (devoid of evidential support), the whole idea is nonsense. Then studies like this are released to show that not only is there a shit-tonne of evidence, but that the vast majority of scientists in the field agree with it.
It's understandable that studies like these have to be released if people (and media outlets) adopt the irrational position of decrying all the research because they don't like the findings, and try to hand-wave it away as simply being a minority position. What should happen instead?
"...have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all."
Except we decided NOT to include the scientists who disagree with us.
FAIL.
Animal agriculture is said to cause 51% of greenhouse gases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
Something very simple to do, which you can do today.
And greenhouse gases are only part of the environmental destruction caused by the animal agriculture.
Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0
The problem for me is that a lot of warmist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong, and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies, and deliberately misrepresent data to get people to accept climate change. So much of the warmist FUD looks like a scam to give to key politicians and astroturfing organisations a way to funnel the money back to their coffers.
FTFY
> This is why they went from Global Cooling
Wrong. There was never a scientific censuses on global cooling. I think there was one article, in a news magazine, published in the 1970s. And the article was just a thought, not a conclusion reached by serious scientific research.
This study is not the evidence. The studies upon studies chock-full of evidence are the evidence. This study is just to shut up the people who say "Oh but this guy I read on some blog says it's all nonsense, so I will ignore the science and also say it is nonsense". This study wouldn't be necessary if people understood the scientific method, and were not unsettled by the findings.
AGW has evidence and consensus. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument made against the findings by people too scared, ignorant, or apathetic to accept the evidence itself.
https://xkcd.com/1447/
51% of greenhouse gases caused by animal agriculture.
Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/study-claims-meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html
Animal agriculture also causes numerous other environmental problems.
Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlTBC91L-x0
Nuclear futures: thorium could be the silver bullet to solve our energy crisis
http://theconversation.com/nuclear-futures-thorium-could-be-the-silver-bullet-to-solve-our-energy-crisis-14056
Will Thorium Save Us From Climate Change?
http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/11/will-thorium-save-us-from-climate-change/
Studies like this have to be released
No they don't.
when scientists say "We know X because of all this evidence", and receive the response "but not all scientists agree!".
That's a political goal, not a scientific point. On top of that, there isn't much agreement on the question that matters for political purposes, "What, if anything should we do?"
Don't pretend this is the evidence of AGW - doing so might be good for your argument, but it's not founded in reality.
Indeed, it's not, well said.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This particular paper is an attempt to deceive. It gives the impression that there is broad agreement among scientists about the actions we should take, or that we should do anything, or that the human caused change is even measurable. Those are not true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In the words of Dom DeLuise in Blazing Saddles, WRONG. The tried and approved method of science developed by scientists over recent history says wrong. The hypothesis failed. Anyone who says otherwise cannot call themselves a scientist.
Because I see a lot of people agreeing that "There is no such thing as consensus that can be used as a fact to back up anything." and it seems to be a consensus that this is true, however, this means it itself is not a fact and cannot be used to prove a claim.
It's DEFINITELY false that a consensus is proof of an error. And when you GET a consensus, if you wish to go against it, you have to ask "Why do all those people agree, then?". And in this case, it's because the facts that they have looked at prove the case. Facts you haven't bothered to read.
but not a great deal of evidence is the assertion that solar forcing is not responsible for a majority of the global warming since 1850.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
Sure, you would be free to disagree with the consensus and show evidence, but you aren't going to get significant funding to do so.
That makes no sense. As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
Just because a problem is hard, doesn't justify that sort of short cut.
What's your alternative ?
Terrorists, foreign invasion, illegal immigrants and so on are all available for use by governments. And there's a huge amount of science to be done, any of it would be possible to use to fluff up fear and anger. So why AGW?
Why not keep complaining about it in the knowledge that as long as you're dead by the time anything is done about it or falls apart because of it, you would be better off just denying there's a problem at all, despite knowing it's untenable.
Which is exactly what you're doing.
In fact, the consensus view at present is that the impact of CO2 is overestimated.
Nope. That's not the current consensus view. There have been some studies which have rejected the more dire models for CO2. But your links are a few years old. Basically, your links are referring to issues where models didn't predict the "slowdown" in climate change that happened in the early 2000s. It has now picked up again.
And this is likely just due to random elements in a chaotic system. Subsequent studies have suggested that randomness in the earth's climate from year-to-year probably has multiple times the amount of impact that alterations to the CO2 model (or other factors, like sunlight absorption models, ocean absorption models, etc.) have.
Bottom line: the validity of these models has to be judged over longer timespans, to avoid the year-to-year blips in a chaotic system. With that taken into account, the general CO2 models likely aren't that far off.
The models didn't just fail to predict the 'slowdown'. 111 out of 114 of the models the IPCC evaluated overestimated the only 15 years of data they had to compare them against. You are correct though, the models need to be judged over longer time frames...
The IPCC has an entire section devoted to evaluating models in their last assessment report. If you look down to Box 9.1 they discuss model tuning, and the example of comparing longer time frames through hindcasting, like pre-industrial model runs. The IPCC says the following:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
For the record, the sum of all natural and human climate forcings act together by changing the TOA energy imbalance. It's the fundamental physics behind more CO2 trapping more energy means warmer temperatures. The part I'd like to draw attention to is that the part of the models that we 'tune' is still sufficient to cause drifting to an unrealistic state.
With 111 out of 114 models underestimating the only dataset we DO have to compare them against, and with the models requiring manual adjustment to hindcast longer time frames realistically, I lack your confidence in their predictive power. The models tell us lots of important things about what we know and what we are trying to test and understand. Don't reject that one of the things they tell us however is that the sum of the unknowns we still tune the models by are important enough to drive the climate to unrealistic states.
Seeing things like "100%" makes me suspicious, critical, or leery of the whatever the statement is, particularly when concerning science, which generally doesn't work that way.
Just like when some tyrannical despot gets 100% of the "democratic" vote in their country, usually sparks my disbelief.
That is not to say I disagree with the assertion that climate changes exists, nor that it isn't likely influenced by humans, only that when I get that 100% of anything (that isn't some conceptual absolute mathematical proof or something), it really sets off my bullshit alarm.
Wow, Spiro Agnew is alive and well and posting on Slashdot.
Several of the Essays Authors, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook among others, had a paper on the same subject retracted. and last I heard Lewandowski is under investigation for fraud, both scientific and financial and has secured employment in a country other than where the alleged fraud occurred. So yes some of these nut-cases will destroy their careers by using made-up data, and it makes it hard for many of us to just except their data or their crony- reviewed papers hiding behind pay-walls.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Population: " OH NO!! WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?"
Scientists/Politicians " WE JUST NEED LOTS OF YOUR MONEY AND FREEDOM."
Population: "..........uh how about no."
Scientists/Politicians: "WE ARE ALL DOOMED EVERYTHING IS GOING TO GOTO HELL"
Population: "Fuck off"
Twenty years later
Scientists/Politicians: "WE HAVE A NEW PROBLEM!!!!!!!"
Population: "WHAT'S WRONG!!!???"
Scientists/Politicians: "IT'S TOTALLY NEW PROBLEM...cough...cough that's just like the old one that nothing ever came of cough...cough"
Population".................let me guess all you need is my money and freedom"
Scientist/Politicians "YES HOW DID YOU KNOW?"
Population "Fuck off".
Twenty Years later.......
The academics are probably right, but it still pisses me off how they engage in circular reasoning.
It's been decades already that expressing severe skepticism over anthropogenic over global warming has been tantamount to a suicidal CLM, creating a situation within climate-science academia where "expertise" and "orthodoxy" are 90% interchangeable.
This doesn't mean they are wrong. It does mean they should check for a second elbow before they congratulate themselves for being able to pat their dorsal desk-jockey humps.
Science doesn't operate on consensus. Science operates on the scientific method, hypotheses, theories, and laws. We don't advance science by taking votes on which hypothesis or theory is correct.
Which is fine because this study isn't about declaring global warming as true or false. It's about applying the scientific method to determine if a consensus exists.
Those same scientists and researchers (I'm grouping them generally) are also the ones showing how little risk there is of terrorism in daily life.
So there's consensus on global warming (potentially catastrophic to the human race) and also consensus on terrorism (people will die, but you're more likely to get hit by a plane while being struck by lightning).
No, it's been cancelled,
Many models of the final predicted rise in temperature do not take us over the warmest the planet has ever been. So why exactly do you imagine us to be suddenly immune from an ice age?
Multi-thousand year cycles are simply not that easy to escape.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you really that daft? The consensus is based on a consensus of published papers. Ie, sufficient papers have been published and the topic research sufficiently that the majority of scientists and researchers concur that X is true. Once this general scientific consensus is reached they stop rerunning the fundamental basic tests and move on to studying the consequence related to X because a scientific consensus has been reached.
Relying on the prior papers is exactly relying on the authority of the group. Unless every day you redo every study in every paper.
Consensus does not mean 'Let's hold a vote'.
Relying on the prior papers is exactly relying on the authority of the group
Yes. And relying on the authority of the group is exactly not science, for reasons that have been shown over and over again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
All theory with no actual data.
Too narrow of a view, there are plenty of different reasons, most of which are never addressed at all or dismissed out of hand.
People evolved in warm climates. Everybody loves summer. What is the problem here?
. That's the point of studies like this - it takes away yet another nonsensical argument
I think that it's foolish to believe that this will disarm them in any way. (Was their any question about majority consensus in the first place?) Rather, I suspect it will reinforce their beliefs regarding dishonestly and corruption, given what we can see in this thread.
Required reading for internet skeptics
The food scientist consensus was that saturated fats etc made people fat, so they switched America to a low-fat high-carb diet. Well evidence shows that's total BS, yet they discount it.
So what does a scientific consensus really mean?
I think most people would agree that the Earth's climate has changed and will continue to change.
The bone of contention is between those that believe it is caused by human activity and those that that don't.
.
Assume for the moment that it is caused by human activity and not solar radiation or a change in the tilt of the earth's axis.
That means that there must be something that we can do to reduce or eliminate the portion of the change caused by humans.
Given that the population will continue to grow, and that there will be a need to provide food, shelter, transportation, etc for an ever increasing number of people, it is unlikely that we will be able to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by an amount to have any effect on global warming.
So that leaves us with one solution. Reduce the number of humans on the Earth.
That leaves two options.
1. Export people from Earth to other worlds.
2. Eliminate people.
Of these the second is the easiest and the quickest solution. We have the means. Those in power are working up the will to execute option 2.
Those proofs will come right after the climate change evangelists prove that warming is caused by man.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was found by John Tyndall in the 1950s.
2) Human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is easily shown by the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half the total year to year human emissions of CO2.
What more do you need?
The crackpots with the whacky theory (AGW) have the burden of proof.
You don't get to tell people what to do. You can post proofs of your simpleton worldview and hope to convince us if you want. Or just go back to lying under a rock and quivering.
They have yet to prove anything. Until then status quo is they're still full of crap.
Why should I believe you? Your language and attitude is not conducive to convincing me that your theory involving zombies and time travelling invisible Svante Arrehenius has any merit.
You have it all backwards but that is expected from a religous whacky nut who believes cow farts are turning the planet into Venus.
tsk tsk. You won't convince me by insulting me.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken.
Oh good lord! Do you seriously think climate scientists got together and voted on a consensus? The claims of consensus come from outside the climate science community from a review of what they are publishing. In science consensus is something that happens organically when so many scientists accept a point that only the cranks argue about it any more. I doubt scientists spend much time thinking about consensus. It's something for outsiders to use to judge the degree of certainty about things in a scientific field.
...but when they have been caught fudging the raw data used to "prove" warming it just proves what they want it to prove. I'm tired of these scandals coming out and then the outfit sponsoring it comes out with a finding of "nothing here, move along" and leaves the same lying bastards in charge of it. If global warming is all that provable then why the hell don't LIBERALS bother to do anything about it? Does algore get rid of his planes and use rail? Does Obama stop using Air Force One every time he wants a Big Mac? Liberals don't walk the walk no matter how much they talk the talk. Give it a rest, people.
Nah. You're reading more into my comment than what I said. I am not denying that climate scientists do science, rather denying that this particular thing is science.
Scientists don't depend on consensus.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
consensus means that it based on opinion, science is NOT opinion!!
and meta-studies are utter shit, just cherry picking for wanted answer.
Consensus in science means something that scientists don't waste their time arguing about because the (nearly) all agree about it.
Except we're not just relying on the authority of the group. There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
The consensus here is of experts in the field who have reviewed that cited evidence and all reached the same conclusion.
There are obviously a few experts who disagree, but it's telling that their arguments have failed to convince the vast majority of climatologists, don't you think?
The evidence for the case of AGW is clearly far more compelling, to those who have proven, in-depth expertise in the subject.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Oh, the Telegraph has proved the scientists all wrong, lol. Pack it all up guys, a tabloid has disproved our peer-reviewed evidence, who knew..
As for the alleged "lying" in your WSJ link, no fewer than eight independent investigations all cleared the CRU of any misconduct. What we need now is an investigation into why this dead horse is still being beaten..
I could go on but why bother.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Alternative? Keep observing. If there are any real problems with climate change, it will turn up eventually.
A great deal of warming happened after 1970, and we have excellent measurements of the solar forcing in that period. On average, solar forcing went down as temperatures went up.
No, solar forcing is a calculated value based on a rather standard model not a direct observation. And given that there's still a factor of three difference between lowest and highest value of the temperature forcing from CO2, I don't buy that we have precise enough determination of solar forcing to justify your claim.
As demonstrated by their lack of solutions, it's clear that politicians have no interest to deal with the AGW problem. Paying someone to make it go away would be a perfect solution.
Lack of solutions doesn't mean one isn't interested in using the problem. The US has various interminable wars on vague concepts which weren't started because their politicians had solutions or interest in dealing with the problems.
The story being so long alone is evidence of global warming change being a scam.
Start talking about MASSIVE chemical pollution you fucking liars, stop trying to hijack legitimate environmental damage for your global mega-corporation purposes! /. being another mouthpiece is a sad end to a once great news site. Long live http://lobste.rs!
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
I'm not sure we'll make it to 600 ppm. Long before we get there I would expect civilization to collapse and billions of people around the world to die of starvation and wars. If we hit 600 ppm you can pretty much guarantee over 100 feet of sea level rise although it will take centuries to get there.
The key points are:
Climate sensitivity to CO2
Longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere
Positive feedbacks
Natural variability
None of which are known except that the current guestimates don't match reality. They certainly don't match the predictions from Hansen, Mann and Gore.
All the rest is just bollocks. Studies about studies are bollocks. Meta-studies about studies about studies are bollocks. Climate science is an embarrassment. Lost records, withheld data, pal review, gobs of money being thrown at it, global conferences in really nice places, mansions on the beach, private fucking planes, grants going to family members, etc. Run by the same body that puts totalitarian governments on their Human Rights Commission.
Bollocks
I am pretty much on board that the planet is going through a warming period. My questions include (1) what is causing it? (2) how is separated from other warming causes which we know happen all the time (3) what we can do about it (4) what we should do about it (cost vs benefit) (5) why government and Goldman Sachs should be allowed to GROW and profit from the crisis. It is VERY clear that government and GS never waste a good crisis but love to foment them. Government "science" should always be suspect; it is a significant conflict of interest. That doesn't mean the science is necessarily bad -- but it sure should be held to a much higher standard than other science.
The first tell is the 97% number. Why not 96% or 98%? All the AGW propagandists use that 97% number because it has become part of their dogma. I'm not going to waste my time re-typing all the details that people can google for themselves once they know what to look for. People need to remember that they did a survey a few years ago in which they asked climate scientists if they were onboard with the AGW thing, and they got a 97% result which they have been citing like a religious mantra ever since.....but there's a problem: the number is bogus. First, it was a pre-selected group known to already be in agreement. Second, they made no effort to validate the respondents to make sure they, and not some secretary or assistant were the ones who responded. Third, they only did the math on the ones who chose to respond, not on the total group. Fourth, the respondents polled included people who were not actually climate scientists. The 97% number is of no value.
The second tell is that they site stats involving peer reviewed papers. The "climategate" e-mails however revealed that the AGW people have actively rigged the peer review process so that no contrary papers could get published. If the cartographers were to rig their paper publishing process to eliminate all papers that argued against a flat earth, it would take very little time for the papers supporting a flat earth to become the vast majority of published peer reviewed papers in cartography. Once you rig the peer review process and the paper publishing process, you can no longer used those things as evidence of anything. In NAZI Germany, the peer reviewed and published papers all agreed and the scientific consensus was that Jews were sub human and needed to be eliminated.
Nobody with a brain will be able to trust anything from the AGW crowd until they get the politics out of it.
"“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole... we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” - Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Working Group III co-chair
There's those IPCC reports and all the evidence cited there, as has also been said many times.
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it? Are you one of the people who can't understand the evidence? If so, then I pity you, but I'm more interested in discussing this topic with people who can understand it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The next question is: Ok, so we're causing climate change; so what do we do about it?
And yes, some of the ideas out there are pretty radical (i.e. crazy). That's of course not to say that impopular (lifestyle) changes absolutely cannot be imposed on the population at large. They can (even if the same "conservative" politics seem to violently resist that notion).
The best course of action is not so self-evident since it touches upon a fundamental issue of our society. If some sub-group wishes to engage in a conduct that's endangering the rest of us, do we have the right to compel them to stop?
And what do we do if and when we find that some among us are using such compulsory measures to further their own agenda?
So, before we resort to any crude compulsory measures, we'd better make triple certain that (1) they are absolutely necessary (i.e. there is no more cost-effective way to achieve something equivalent using e.g. persuasion, education, innovation, stimulation, subsidies, taxation, or regulation) and (2) that imposing them is really unavoidable and therefore justified and (3) that we have a viable way of dealing with groups (or nations) that deliberately refrain from taking measures in order to gain material advantage..
Seen in this light I think we'll be seeing more low-key measures that simply internalise external costs (e.g. through taxation) than draconic and disruptive ones.
Let's not forget there's a bright side to all this too. As a society we're pretty good at adapting and innovating. It's likely that we can find areas in which we're better able to adapt than others.
Take the manufacturing industry for example, let's say: steel making. Who is likely to be more adaptive to stricter environmental standards: the Chinese, European, or US industries? Who's therefore likely to gain competitive advantages from stricter regulation (backed by e.g. international agreements and import tariffs)? I'm not pessimistic.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/20...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
There is the option to reproduce. And every time, the conclusion has fallen in line with the consensus. That's pretty damned scientific.
While I agree that global warming is happening and man made. I don't like science being based on a "consensus of experts" it makes it sound like a popularity contest. Like there's paparazzi following scientists around, and if one group of researchers gets mad at another over some embarrassing photos, then they'll change their mind, consensus will drop to 80%, and global warming won't be as true anymore ;)
The part where I bring up that all the planets in the solar system have warmed in the last 30 years.
The part where I bring up that human-caused CO2 makes up less than 10% of worldwide CO2 and that CO2 can't even be reliably proven as a GREENHOUSE GAS unlike other, confirmed greenhouse gases.
The part where I can disprove tons of bullshit "consequences of global warming" by keeping fish alive and breeding in an aquarium under severe conditions, such as adding acidity to the water, increasing the temperature, and increasing/lower the artificial current -- creating an entire, livable ecosystem in 14 days that supposedly takes "50+ years to inhabit!"
What's the response to these besides autistic shitflinging like telling me that I'm not a scientist or that until I spend 50,000 hours personally researching a bunch of oddly compiled data retrieved via questionable methods, in many cases, found on a website? Well -- I shouldn't have to be a scientist to be able to run a simple experiment like "Is Carbon Dioxide a Greenhouse Gas?" I should be able to criticize bad data collection and comparison methods, as my profession is data collection and comparison -- just not *CLIMATE* data.
What's being packaged and sold as "Global Warming" is nothing but hot, wet shit from a poxxy bull. You know what DOES affect humanity in a provable, noticeable way? Air quality. Water Quality. Sustainable resources. I care about those.
You see -- there's this huge difference between "data" and "actionable data" that climate scientists don't fucking understand, but because they're wearing the white coats, and the spirit of Milgram is strong and alive in modern society, people will scream and shout that the sky is falling because an apple dropped on someone's head.
... is a political concept, not a scientific one. It doesn't matter if everyone says Loius Pasteur's germ theory is a fantasy. The germs still grow in that little petri dish.
At one time the Luminiferous Aether theory was "Consensus" before we got relativity. All I see is a bunch poorly designed experiments. I've noticed that most of the hysterical conclusions come from anti-human, anti-capitalist newspapers and magazines, not from the peer-reviewed journals.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. That said, I am NOT a HCGW denier, do don't pile on me. It's just that we gotta do better than this, people.
Here comes the usual conga line of denialist trolls, repeating their debunked talking points as though they meant anything. Yawn.
There's no such thing as AGW, because Jesus. And the constitution. And Ronald Reagan. Also, Al Gore is fat and has a beard.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Pretty simple: this bias only occurs in fields that have "consensus". Any field that does not rely on a popular vote for validation has a chance of using the scientific method and decent peer review.
Another example of "consensus" science was "fat makes you fat". It was more political than science based, and as a result it won the debate. The results of that "win" are all around any society that adopted food policy based on that junk science.
We're not very smart (collectively) if we think this flawed method will produce good results this time. Truth has never been about consensus.
Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.
Cook was shamed / discredited for his moronic "study" trying to claim "consensus" before. He had a team of grad students "audit" published papers and inject their own bias by deciding if the author was in agreement with a statement asserting humans are warming the planet via CO2 emissions.
Rather than actually ask the authors, he just reached straight for the conclusion he wanted. Authors contacted in follow-ups by people questioning the "study" did NOT necessarily agree with Cook's assumptions about their respective papers.
Cook is a political hack - cooking the books - just as many of the "scientists" are now doing at NOAA and NASA. They've drawn a conclusion - and they are torturing data to make it fit their narrative.
Consensus on the cause of ulcers was that spicy foods, acidic foods, or salt were the culprit......until one person deigned to question the orthodoxy and show that bacterial infections were the reason for thinning and lesions of the stomach lining.
For 40 years our government pushed bad science regarding "saturated fats" being the poison in our food sources. This false narrative was pumped like mad, hurting the egg industry, disparaging butter, red meat, etc., all healthy, natural sources of protein. This narrative about "saturated fats" was based on a "consensus" the went unquestioned for decades. It wavered in fits and starts every so often, but any attempts to question it were demonized as "biased" due to being funded by companies or industries that stood to gain.
Well, the industry that stands to gain from pumping false panic is the Climate Alarmism industry. Trillions are being burned on it - and power is retained or shifted because of it. It isn't a science any longer, it is a cudgel, a muzzle, an Orwellian blanket dismissal machine.
I'm not sure why this is news. The authors of 7 papers on the consensus surrounding anthropogenic climate change got together and agreed that their original papers were correct. Their original papers largely agreed with each other, and now they all agree that they were right in the first place. Wow! It must be true!!!
Consensus: 100% of scientists would have said CO2 was not a pollutant to be covered by the Clean Air Act when it was passed. If you want to cut carbon, write a new law, don't redefine pollutant to fit your ultraliberal agenda.
"A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"(g) The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.
(h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants." 42 U.S. Code 7602 - Definitions https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Are these people really so dense, or do they just believe that we are?
There is no consensus by long stretch, regardless of how much they say there is. Until the science, not the waffling about how great these self-appointed pseudo-scientists are, is clear and more importantly, until their computer models actually match the temperatures measured (without blatantly hacking the numbers to suit their agenda), there will be no agreement and nothing is settled .
I've read a lot of the IPCC report. Which evidence specifically are you referring to from it?
I too have read a lot of it, and I'm referring mostly to WG1 as a whole, and the many papers cited there.
If you feel that some/all of that evidence is not valid for some particular reason, feel free to cite peer-reviewed papers that support your case. I'd say I had a reasonable understanding of the topic for a layman, but not enough to contradict experienced climatologists who doubtless know considerably more than I do on the subject. OTOH if you feel your own subject knowledge exceeds that of the experts, then perhaps it's best if we don't waste each other's time.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I too have read a lot of it, and I'm referring mostly to WG1 as a whole, and the many papers cited there.
WG1 never says that AGW is worth worrying about.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, WG1 just shows that it's happening. WG2 is the part that shows it's worth worrying about.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Now you're starting to get into scientific arguments instead of appeals to authority, so that's good, keep it up. You've pointed to a specific point, and have given a body of evidence to support it (as opposed to saying, "lots of people believe it, so it must be true").
Now the scientific conversation can continue by saying, "The ipcc report rests heavily on climate models. Since it's recently been shown that much work needs to be done before they can accurately model hydroclimate variability, the ipcc report needs to be updated."
Then we can have counter arguments, and run experiments to see which side is correct. And that is science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Except that would be off-topic, in this article.
The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process, allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree. And the consensus discussed in TFA is about AGW, not about degrees of impact, which as you say is less firmly understood.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The discussion here is about consensus, which is and has always been a vital part of the scientific process,
Nope, you're wrong, science is about the ability to reproduce results. If you can't explain why something is true in enough detail that they can reproduce your results, then it's not science.
allowing the community as a whole to move on and produce useful results, even if a small minority of its members disagree.
You don't need to wait for the community to agree to move on. You just need to look at the evidence and decide to move on.
Consensus is not science. It's politics.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
science is about the ability to reproduce results.
And when those results have been reproduced, and confirmed and corrorborated by hundreds of papers over decades of research, yet a few die-hards still insist that the evidence is invalid and the conclusions are all wrong? This happens regularly in science.
Consensus doesn't provide 100% definitive answers or "settle" the question once and for all (arguably an impossible task); new evidence can and has changed mainstream views (though even evidence is rarely definitive either). But given that there will always be some inevitable disagreement in any complex field, how else would you suggest choosing the current best scientific opinion to be given for laymen and policymakers? If you wait until agreement is 100% total, nothing will happen - science results will get "stalled in committee". Consensus isn't picking votes out of a hat, it's the considered expert opinions of the large majority of practicing scientists, and as the saying goes it may not always be perfect but it's useful.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you're a scientist, you need to understand the reasoning and experiments behind your field, going back to the beginning.
For example, every physicist knows about Galileo's experiments on the tower of Pisa, and could reproduce them if they had the desire (or funding). And actually, they probably have reproduced them in some form or another.
Every neuroscientist knows about Ramachandran's experiments on phantom limbs, and can reproduce them if they can find an amputee and a Q-tip.
If you are one of the unfortunate people who can't understand science, then you have no choice but to trust other people. That is unfortunate, but it's not science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history, then they have little choice but to trust the results of others. And unless they also have a detailed understanding of every contributing field, and are willing to take the time to read, grasp, and critique every significant paper in every field that's relevant to their own work, then they generally accept and trust the findings of the experts in that field as well. And since even the less squishy fields rarely achieve 100% total agreement in every detail, those findings are usually the product of the majority conclusion.
I understand many scientific principles, and I've read numerous climate papers, but I don't pretend to have a detailed knowledge of a complex field like climatology, so I'm aware that my opinion doesn't count for much in that field. If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
Unless an equally expert climatologist disagreed with him. Presumably they also know things I don't. Possibly something Tol doesn't - or vice versa. I could try to judge for myself, but it's still an uninformed opinion, and it doesn't really answer the question - what is the source of their disagreement? Discounting conspiracies or kickbacks or whatever, I have to assume that the point in question is open to some interpretation. So I would reserve judgement until they can reach agreement.
And if 1000 equally expert climatologists all disagreed with Tol? Clearly his interpretation is not shared by many. Unless vital information is being hidden, perhaps Tol is a true genius among his peers, yet is unable to clearly communicate his insights - or perhaps he's just wrong. Occam's Razor suggests the latter.
For the layman observer who needs to make decisions, such a consensus provides a way to pick the more likely correct interpretation - and if further evidence comes to light that vindicates Tol, then the consensus will change, policies may also need to change, and Tol will be famous. But historically, this happens rarely. The minority is more often wrong, so the consensus interpretation is usually safest.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history,
No, but they should know how to reproduce every significant experiment in their field.
then they have little choice but to trust the results of others.
There's a difference between trusting that someone performed an experiment correctly, and trusting their interpretation. Come on man, you know that.
If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
He better be able to explain himself, and lead you to the start of a chain you can follow to verify what he is saying, otherwise he's not doing science, he's bloviating.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
...about facts, and reality, it is not about consensus.
....not about consensus, it is about facts, and reality. Remember when scientists formed a consensus that the Earth was flat? The notion of scientific consensus is a fraud. Either something is, or it is not, and no amount of consensus can change the facts.
The study that they are referring to that has a the 97% was a survey done online by someone, and she threw out all the people that did not that did not agree with climate warming. That tells you how small the sample size was. From there the myth grew and grew and grew. Part of the momentum behind it is the four billion dollars per year in funding by the federal government. Nobel prize-winning scientists and experts and climate change don't agree. I have heard many of the best experts said that it's all bologna. I would say it's bologna with fake cheese on top.
Here is scientific evidence:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/
OK so what happened to the Sahara Forest ? Why was the one in In Arizona Petrified ? So the real question is how to make money off this and where do I start ? Me thinks it has been going on for some time. It just took a few thousand years for those big brained humans to catch on.
The bit of video I saw showed Dr Spencer arguing against genetic randomness. Maybe he believes the only other possibility is Intelligent Design? I don't know. I haven't looked into it.
And I would absolutely not be surprised IF there was contradictory evidence to "genetic randomness" that is simply ignored or dismissed out of hand. Because that's how people behave, and how you are behaving when you ignore and dismiss all the evidence that shows Cooks paper is complete garbage, regardless of whether his results happen to be consistent with other papers. Integrity of method is more important than producing "correct" results.
But I know nothing about competing genetic randomness theories, so my lack of surprise has nothing to do with the actual science, in case you misunderstood. (I haven't looked into it.) But I won't be surprised if that doesn't stop you from trying to paint me as a "neo-creationist" or whatever. Because that's how people behave.
As to the graph I posted by Spencer, what if it's accurate? What then?? Will you become a creationist?
https://climateaudit.org/2016/...