Are Repubs Or Dems More Likely To Survive The Apocalypse?

[Legacy User]

So all plant life needing CO2 is empty rhetoric? ok

Ed, baby, the proposition "carbon emissions can't be a problem" does not follow from the propositions that "all life is carbon based," "plants convert CO2 to sugar" and "CO2 makes up a proportionally tiny amount of the atmosphere."

But maybe you don't require valid arguments to be persuaded.

That shit you quoted? This in spades:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... d%20middle

[V DUB]

It doesn't require a scientific study to make the observation that a pile of plastic the size of a small country in the Pacific can't result in good things. That's like stepping outside in a Thunderstorm & checking the weather forecast to make sure it's raining. The amount of influence humans have on the environment shouldn't matter, the fact we're cognizant of the fact & turn a blind eye regardless does. It's fucking irresponsible, IMO, at minimum.

[Legacy User]

So all plant life needing CO2 is empty rhetoric? ok

Ed, baby, the proposition "carbon emissions can't be a problem" does not follow from the propositions that "all life is carbon based," "plants convert CO2 to sugar" and "CO2 makes up a proportionally tiny amount of the atmosphere."

But maybe you don't require valid arguments to be persuaded.

That shit you quoted? This in spades:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... d%20middle

BTW, I did not invoke warming so that fallacy position is a fallacy.

In any case, let’s touch on warming. The only theory over geologic time that attempts to use CO2 as source of warming is snowball earth theory. Which is what, half a billion years ago?

Warming from CO2 can't be verified as reality since the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2. Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all.

That doesn't seem to fit the fallacy meme does it?


BTW, a whole lotta carbon

[V DUB]

It doesn't require a scientific study to make the observation that a pile of plastic the size of a small country in the Pacific can't result in good things. That's like stepping outside in a Thunderstorm & checking the weather forecast to make sure it's raining. The amount of influence humans have on the environment shouldn't matter, the fact we're cognizant of the fact & turn a blind eye regardless does. It's fucking irresponsible, IMO, at minimum.

I'll quote myself, because people seem to skip this basic premise. Seems everyone wants to make a simple issue ultra complicated. Fixing the larger issue HAS TO start with baby steps. Because people especially in groups, can get dumb very quickly.

How many times a day do you see someone throw a non biodegradable product on the ground with a trash/recycling bin within feet? If you can't get people to stop being THAT lazy, on a day to day basis, WTF good is any argument going to do thats more advanced? You tell the masses they're killing themselves, & at least in this country, if it doesn't affect them directly, blind eye. We're a gluttonous society & that won't change with any study. Any change has to be organic/systemic in origin. Arguing is masturbation.

[Legacy User]

So all plant life needing CO2 is empty rhetoric? ok

Ed, baby, the proposition "carbon emissions can't be a problem" does not follow from the propositions that "all life is carbon based," "plants convert CO2 to sugar" and "CO2 makes up a proportionally tiny amount of the atmosphere."

But maybe you don't require valid arguments to be persuaded.

That shit you quoted? This in spades:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... d%20middle

BTW, I did not invoke warming so that fallacy position is a fallacy.

In any case, let’s touch on warming. The only theory over geologic time that attempts to use CO2 as source of warming is snowball earth theory. Which is what, half a billion years ago?

Warming from CO2 can't be verified as reality since the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2. Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all.

That doesn't seem to fit the fallacy meme does it?


BTW, a whole lotta carbon

I referenced what you quoted, not you, didn't I? It has nothing to do with whether one believes in climate change or not and if the the former, whether one supposes the causes are natural or due to human agency. What you quoted draws a conclusion that is not supported by the premises it states. So it's shit.

Regarding "BTW, a whole lotta carbon."
All life is carbon based. Everyone who made it sophomore year in high school knows this. That has nothing to do with whether CO2 emissions contribute to warming or whether under certain conditions CO2 can be problematic.

Also, I'm just going out on a limb, here, but I am willing to bet the CO2 and carbon are different.

Regarding:
"In any case, let’s touch on warming. The only theory over geologic time that attempts to use CO2 as source of warming is snowball earth theory. Which is what, half a billion years ago?

Warming from CO2 can't be verified as reality since the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2. Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all."

That's not what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded. Why are you right and they wrong?
1. "Which is what, half a billion years ago?" Relevance?

2. Why does this:
"the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2"
Prove this:
"Warming from CO2 can't be verified"
You don't bother to say.

What it shows is that warming causes oceans to release their absorbed CO2 molecules, not that CO2 emissions don't contribute to warming or that we can't know. What were the conditions under which the planet warmed and why? I'm not an internet scientist so I wouldn't venture to say.

3. Regarding:
"Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all. "

Suppose this is accepted. Why is it relevant? Because the major climate change thesis is that current warming is driven by human activity, mainly fossil fuel emissions. So to say that in the past that CO2 levels were an effect of warming and not the cause, if accepted, does not mean that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause now. After all, 500 million years ago human beings were pumping all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

And by the way, currently, the ocean is getting more acidic, not less, and yet temperatures are rising. If the oceans are warming and releasing all that stored up carbon, why are the oceans getting more acidic?

I am willing to listen to evidence. I don't like shitty arguments.

I am a lay person, not a scientist.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists claim that CURRENT climate change is real. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that the CURRENT warming trend is due at least in part to increased emission of greenhouse gasses.

I am not impressed by what people say on internet forums.

If you people want to presume that you have equal merit as the climate scientists to reach your conclusions and wish to presume that it's all a giant conspiracy, have at it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[COR-TEN]

Nobody here has a fucking clue as to what my background or what "science" I point to, yet I am being grouped with those that “live in a bubble.” Because I don’t necessarily hold the same view I am ignorant? That is typical of the right..

I have a clue. Language is not lost on practitioners. You can read all day and still not have a clue if you lack the technical knowledge.

I guess the overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists simply don't have the technical knowledge to understand it like you.

Riiiiiiigght. Ok.

...Future modeling is like your basic weather forecast. Tenuous at best.

Absolutely. But that is the core of everything you think you know about Climate Change. And inherently you understand why they feared a global ice age 60 years ago, and now fear a runaway greenhouse affect. Inherently, you know the gross flaws in the research, yet you still accept the conclusions reported by people who have little to no academic training.

Again with the judgements of what I know and what I don't. On top of that you are telling me that I only listen to those with no academic (or scientific) training? So far, you've provided no reports debunking the majority or scientists in regard to human influence on climate change/ global warming. Instead, you've made ad hominem judgements and attacks both on the science and those disseminating it.

Also. Modeling is not intended as a singular 'actual prediction' and 100% correct, but the statistical probability of something occurring based on history and current conditions.

Sure, some models are outliers, but basing one's position and legislating on those outliers is simply narrow minded, stupid, and uninformed.

But again. Read this : http://ejas.revues.org/10305

[Legacy User]

Ed, baby, the proposition "carbon emissions can't be a problem" does not follow from the propositions that "all life is carbon based," "plants convert CO2 to sugar" and "CO2 makes up a proportionally tiny amount of the atmosphere."

But maybe you don't require valid arguments to be persuaded.

That shit you quoted? This in spades:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c ... d%20middle

BTW, I did not invoke warming so that fallacy position is a fallacy.

In any case, let’s touch on warming. The only theory over geologic time that attempts to use CO2 as source of warming is snowball earth theory. Which is what, half a billion years ago?

Warming from CO2 can't be verified as reality since the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2. Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all.

That doesn't seem to fit the fallacy meme does it?


BTW, a whole lotta carbon

I referenced what you quoted, not you, didn't I? It has nothing to do with whether one believes in climate change or not and if the the former, whether one supposes the causes are natural or due to human agency. What you quoted draws a conclusion that is not supported by the premises it states. So it's shit.

Regarding "BTW, a whole lotta carbon."
All life is carbon based. Everyone who made it sophomore year in high school knows this. That has nothing to do with whether CO2 emissions contribute to warming or whether under certain conditions CO2 can be problematic.

Also, I'm just going out on a limb, here, but I am willing to bet the CO2 and carbon are different.

Regarding:
"In any case, let’s touch on warming. The only theory over geologic time that attempts to use CO2 as source of warming is snowball earth theory. Which is what, half a billion years ago?

Warming from CO2 can't be verified as reality since the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2. Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all."

That's not what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded. Why are you right and they wrong?
1. "Which is what, half a billion years ago?" Relevance?

2. Why does this:
"the available historical geological records show the oceans warm and then they outgas CO2"
Prove this:
"Warming from CO2 can't be verified"
You don't bother to say.

What it shows is that warming causes oceans to release their absorbed CO2 molecules, not that CO2 emissions don't contribute to warming or that we can't know. What were the conditions under which the planet warmed and why? I'm not an internet scientist so I wouldn't venture to say.

3. Regarding:
"Therefore the available empirical evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 increases in that past has been an effect of oceans warming, not the cause of warming at all. "

Suppose this is accepted. Why is it relevant? Because the major climate change thesis is that current warming is driven by human activity, mainly fossil fuel emissions. So to say that in the past that CO2 levels were an effect of warming and not the cause, if accepted, does not mean that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause now. After all, 500 million years ago human beings were pumping all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

And by the way, currently, the ocean is getting more acidic, not less, and yet temperatures are rising. If the oceans are warming and releasing all that stored up carbon, why are the oceans getting more acidic?

I am willing to listen to evidence. I don't like shitty arguments.

I am a lay person, not a scientist.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists claim that CURRENT climate change is real. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that the CURRENT warming trend is due at least in part to increased emission of greenhouse gasses.

I am not impressed by what people say on internet forums.

If you people want to presume that you have equal merit as the climate scientists to reach your conclusions and wish to presume that it's all a giant conspiracy, have at it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists /meh nevermind

[955876]

While climate change is very important and should continue to be studied, is it an "eminent threat" to national security like POTUS said just a week ago?

Maybe he just isn't certain on the definition of "eminent"...

[Havoc]

There was a time when doctors were generally viewed as pretty much infallible and your family doctor was someone you could trust and you did not have to give it any thought. But many now understand the many pitfalls and dangers of american medicine, as well as the flaws and limitations of doctors in general.

There is group think in science, especially among science teachers and professors.

Zeke correctly pointed out the leftist philosophy being sold as science regarding the genders. That nonsense is in college textbooks.

I trust undeniable science like the science behind the making of automobiles, refrigerators, and microwaves.

I agree with Kodiak that it's good to have minds weighing in who come from a different background or discipline. An outsider can sometimes see things those on the inside cannot.

Being brilliant at memorizing data is not equal to being brilliant in abstract thought and what that data really means or what it can or cannot tell us. This causes problems in the field I work in.

I am not arguing against the idea that we are trashing the planet at least to some degree and possibly worse.

[jeemie]

While climate change is very important and should continue to be studied, is it an "eminent threat" to national security like POTUS said just a week ago?

Maybe he just isn't certain on the definition of "eminent"...

He didn't say it was imminent...he said it was urgent and has already potentially had some effects on issues that have affected our national security, such as the Arab Spring (which began in part because of food shortages).

Was he using exaggerated language? Of course- that's what politicians do.

But that doesn't mean that what he said was inherently false.

And I find it interesting that no one here has addressed Lit's point about a very real occurrence that is happening and is pretty much unequivocally tied to man-caused carbon emissions- and that is the acidification of the oceans that has the potential to threaten wide swaths of marine species that rely on carbonate ions to form protective outer coatings. There is no doubt the oceans have more CO2 today than in the past, there is no doubt this is in large part due to our CO2 emissions, and it is completely confirmed chemistry that the increase of CO2 in the oceans has decreased the amount of carbonate ions available (not to mentioned the increased pH of the oceans also affects the shell material as it forms as well).

This is a real byproduct of our carbon emissions, with no real doubt as to its effects. The science behind it is neither controversial nor politicized- it is simply physics and chemistry- textbook example of Le Châtelier's Principle.

So what do we do about it?

[COR-TEN]

While climate change is very important and should continue to be studied, is it an "eminent threat" to national security like POTUS said just a week ago?

Maybe he just isn't certain on the definition of "eminent"...

He didn't say it was imminent...he said it was urgent and has already potentially had some effects on issues that have affected our national security, such as the Arab Spring (which began in part because of food shortages).

Was he using exaggerated language? Of course- that's what politicians do.

But that doesn't mean that what he said was inherently false.

And I find it interesting that no one here has addressed Lit's point about a very real occurrence that is happening and is pretty much unequivocally tied to man-caused carbon emissions- and that is the acidification of the oceans that has the potential to threaten wide swaths of marine species that rely on carbonate ions to form protective outer coatings. There is no doubt the oceans have more CO2 today than in the past, there is no doubt this is in large part due to our CO2 emissions, and it is completely confirmed chemistry that the increase of CO2 in the oceans has decreased the amount of carbonate ions available (not to mentioned the increased pH of the oceans also affects the shell material as it forms as well).

This is a real byproduct of our carbon emissions, with no real doubt as to its effects. The science behind it is neither controversial nor politicized- it is simply physics and chemistry- textbook example of Le Châtelier's Principle.

So what do we do about it?

Good points. For those that don't care about owls, fishies, or crustacea, and place more importance of feeding the economy? Nothing. But. . .

Geological and climactic time is not measured in years, but in hundreds and thousands of years. By the time major changes start occurring (and they have already), it might be too late. Melting glaciers and the rise of the oceans will have a direct impact on coastal cities, the acidification of the oceans threaten fisheries as well as the disruption of the food chain (as does the rise of ocean temperature - which adversely affects many species that cannot survive even a 3 degree temp rise), and droughts threaten land food supplies. Look at California. But then again, if you ask certain people, GMO'S will solve everything. . .

National security isn't just Isis, the Chinese economic juggernaut, Russia threatening NATO, or any other extremist group. It's the overall security of the nation (in addition to poverty, corporatism, pollution, and class divisions). Katrina was a small(!) example of national security being compromised by climate. Add to that tornado ally, droughts in California, flooding and contamination of/ drying up of fresh water aquifers, and wild swings in global temperatures. But again, for those that don't care about the poor starving or being washed away (social darwinism). . .

Climate change is definitely a threat. It's not just the crisis in the Middle East - which is also why we need to wean ourselves off of oil and look to sustainable and renewable energy sources. Even though the US gets a minimal amount of oil from the middle east, OPEC determines global oil prices which has a direct effect on our economy and the distribution of products and services. Did anyone think the low price of gas would make it through the summer?

Everything points to big oil taking a back seat. Now. Not when we've exhausted fossil fuels and it gets to a point where there is nothing we can do to influence our natural world (Like the ocean of plastic in the Pacific Ocean) and the economy is in the toilet.

Yeah, that's what needs to be done.

[955876]

He didn't say it was imminent...he said it was urgent and has already potentially had some effects on issues that have affected our national security, such as the Arab Spring (which began in part because of food shortages).

Was he using exaggerated language? Of course- that's what politicians do.

I just pulled it up. The word he used was "immediate" which is much closer in meaning to "imminent" than it is to "urgent".

"Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act - and we need to act now".

I haven't seen a single speech where he discusses the ISIS situation so strongly.

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

[jeemie]

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

It has quite a bit to do with it. People in the Second and Third World are much more vulnerable to food price shocks than industrialized nations like America.

Even a small change in the availability of basic food stocks can make the political environment ripe for exploitation by those entities that wish to exploit it.

[COR-TEN]

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

It has quite a bit to do with it. People in the Second and Third World are much more vulnerable to food price shocks than industrialized nations like America.

Even a small change in the availability of basic food stocks can make the political environment ripe for exploitation by those entities that wish to exploit it.

I'm still trying to figure out who said anything about food shortages in Syria.

[jeemie]

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

It has quite a bit to do with it. People in the Second and Third World are much more vulnerable to food price shocks than industrialized nations like America.

Even a small change in the availability of basic food stocks can make the political environment ripe for exploitation by those entities that wish to exploit it.

I'm still trying to figure out who said anything about food shortages in Syria.

Obama did.

[955876]

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

It has quite a bit to do with it. People in the Second and Third World are much more vulnerable to food price shocks than industrialized nations like America.

Even a small change in the availability of basic food stocks can make the political environment ripe for exploitation by those entities that wish to exploit it.

Jeemie you are a smart man. Jihadist aren't setting Christians on fire or cutting off their heads because of food shortages.

[jeemie]

And please, a food shortage in Syria has zero to do with global jihad. It insults ones intelligence to even imply that.

It has quite a bit to do with it. People in the Second and Third World are much more vulnerable to food price shocks than industrialized nations like America.

Even a small change in the availability of basic food stocks can make the political environment ripe for exploitation by those entities that wish to exploit it.

Jeemie you are a smart man. Jihadist aren't setting Christians on fire or cutting off their heads because of food shortages.

I didn't say they were.

I said it was a factor in the Arab Spring.

There's a difference.

[955876]

Well, when I said food shortages in Syria have nothing to do with global jihad your response was...

It has quite a bit to do with it.

So what does that infer?

POTUS tried to tie the two together which should be highly insulting to everyone. It's disgusting actually that the person currently responsible for "leading" this country is trying to sell that load of bullshit.

He can talk about climate change all he wants. Just don't do so in conjunction with terrorism because climate change literally has zero to do with global jihad.

[Legacy User]

And I find it interesting that no one here has addressed Lit's point about a very real occurrence that is happening and is pretty much unequivocally tied to man-caused carbon emissions- and that is the acidification of the oceans that has the potential to threaten wide swaths of marine species that rely on carbonate ions to form protective outer coatings.

No one has directly addressed it because it is a very, "Inconvenient Truth."

The fact is, if conclusions of physics were economically inconvenient, the same people would be on these threads proclaiming the obvious problems with relativity theory, decrying the leftist philosophical conspiracy rampant among theoretical and experimental physicists. People are economically biased against the conclusions of climate science and are therefore predisposed to do everything they can not to take it seriously.

Even the AAGP (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, you can imagine who donates) admits release of CO2 warms the fucking planet and admits that its membership is divided on whether the warming is anthropogenic. If the worlds largest professional fossil fuel geology association is admitting it has "divided membership", a membership whose livelihood depends on finding and extracting fossil fuels, well, I'm not going to prattle on about the obvious.

But, no, you who are in sales, or whatever it is that you do for a living, and who made it through precal and once opened chemistry or statistics textbook in college have reviewed the data you found on the internet and have confirmed it's all just a big hoax motivated by leftist hatred of capitalism by American scientists.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Is there controversy? Sure: over what the short and long term effects of the warming are ultimately going to be and what some possible doomsday tipping point may or may not be. And it is a legitimate controversy. Is there really controversy in the scientific community over what is driving the CURRENT warming? Not so much.

[Havoc]

From the Wall Street Journal...


The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
818 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[jeemie]

From the Wall Street Journal...


The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
818 COMMENTS
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

An entire opinion piece (by the Heartland Institute, no less) that doesn't bring up any of the evidence for or against man's influence on climate change, but instead talks about various polls that have been done about what scientists feel about it.

Do you not see how this is deflection from the actual argument about climate change itself?

[Legacy User]

Here is the Cook study.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Upon googling the Cook paper has been called into question

Conclusion
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Note the difference between something self-selected and self-published by some dude at the head of an institute as you have done versus something blind submitted and blind-peer reviewed as the Cook piece. Magically, the percentile of consensus was confirmed by people who work in the relevant field.

As I have repeated over and over in this thread:
The controversy in the scientific community is not over whether CURRENT warming is at least in part anthropogenic. The controversy is over how dangerous the warming is. That piece Havoc quotes wants vaguely to leave the impression that because there is controversy over the effects of warming, that somehow there is wide dissent over the cause of the warming in the scientific community. Utter bullshit.

The Cook study claims to rely on actual, factual published work in the field. Work that is blind submitted and blind peer reviewed. If there was such large dissent, there could not be a 97% consensus among published work actually taking a stance on the cause of warming. Why not? Because were dissent really so widespread, dissenters would be among journal referees. And that means that dissenters would 1) be rejecting articles championing anthropogenic warming on the grounds that the studies are fallacious and 2) allowing more articles to be published denying anthropogenic warming. The fact that you have 97% consensus among published work shows that neither 1 nor 2 is happening. Why not? Because there is not widespread dissent about the rigor and quality of the research, nor the conclusions the research arrives at! This is easy to see if you understand how academic publishing works.

Did Cook use fanciful math to arrive at his conclusions? Maybe.

[Havoc]

I am not arguing against the idea that we are trashing the planet at least to some degree and possibly worse.

I have already made this statement.

I know it is an opinion piece, Lit. I was just putting it out there.

[Legacy User]

I am not arguing against the idea that we are trashing the planet at least to some degree and possibly worse.

I have already made this statement.

I know it is an opinion piece, Lit. I was just putting it out there.

I already altered the silly tone of my response.

I would like to see some honest, accurate statistics on the percentages of just what published articles in the filed are concluding.
I don't need biologists to agree. I want to see what people who study the climate for a living are concluding in the blind peer reviewed published journals. Some digging shows that the Cook study has not simply been debunked.

[StillMadAtSlobber]

And I find it interesting that no one here has addressed Lit's point about a very real occurrence that is happening and is pretty much unequivocally tied to man-caused carbon emissions- and that is the acidification of the oceans that has the potential to threaten wide swaths of marine species that rely on carbonate ions to form protective outer coatings.

No one has directly addressed it because it is a very, "Inconvenient Truth."

The fact is, if conclusions of physics were economically inconvenient, the same people would be on these threads proclaiming the obvious problems with relativity theory, decrying the leftist philosophical conspiracy rampant among theoretical and experimental physicists. People are economically biased against the conclusions of climate science and are therefore predisposed to do everything they can not to take it seriously.

Even the AAGP (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, you can imagine who donates) admits release of CO2 warms the fucking planet and admits that its membership is divided on whether the warming is anthropogenic. If the worlds largest professional fossil fuel geology association is admitting it has "divided membership", a membership whose livelihood depends on finding and extracting fossil fuels, well, I'm not going to prattle on about the obvious.

But, no, you who are in sales, or whatever it is that you do for a living, and who made it through precal and once opened chemistry or statistics textbook in college have reviewed the data you found on the internet and have confirmed it's all just a big hoax motivated by leftist hatred of capitalism by American scientists.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Is there controversy? Sure: over what the short and long term effects of the warming are ultimately going to be and what some possible doomsday tipping point may or may not be. And it is a legitimate controversy. Is there really controversy in the scientific community over what is driving the CURRENT warming? Not so much.

Well some people have problems with the methodology of how climate change (CC) has been researched and presented to them. That has a negative impact on the message.

They have a problem with

1) IPCC, a body whose mission isnt to research CC, but to prove its man made.
2) The suppression of contrary papers through peer censorship, err peer review.
3) The policy of labeling people who disagree with their conclusions as CC deniers, trying to lump them in with holocaust deniers.
4) A group of scientists suppressing FOI acts regarding their work.
5) The deliberate omission of contrary existing data (Gore's hockey stick).
6) The near universal exclusion in the "science" of CC of the nuclear furnace 83 million miles away and the impact of its activity.
7) A disdain for the empirical method in aspects of CC research (i.e. the sampling of readings from temperature stations not taking into account development near said stations).
8) The failure of the rate of temperature change to meet the doomsday pronouncements issued previously. Models of what the rate of temperature change will be failing to come true.
9) The position that global warming is responsible for everything. Every powerful storm is stronger because of global warming, any severe storm, hurricane, tornado would have been weaker if it wasnt for global warming. Pronouncements of how worse and worse weather patterns will occur due to global warming which then dont happen.

[Legacy User]

2) The suppression of contrary papers through peer censorship, err peer review.

What's the evidence that rejection of anonymous papers by blind refereeing amounts to "suppression" and that blind peer review where the referee has no clue who wrote the paper amounts to censorship? Please understand that I am not being confrontational (no tone or facial expression visible over the internet alert), but do you understand how academic publishing works? Again, if there were such widespread dissent, then dissenters would be among referees, and yet those dissenters are allowing all these papers to be published upon review affirming at least some anthropogenic role in CURRENT warming.

All due respect, but your 2) is nonsense, IMO.

3) is irrelevant as many CC deniers try to lump supporters in with Mao.

4) I'd like to see links to this.

5) By whom? Al Gore? Has he had papers published in Nature recently or ever? Let's leave politicians out of it.

6) Do climate scientists in fact not take into account solar activity?

7) By whom?

[Havoc]

.

[R_S]

This thread has put me in the mood to kill an endangered species and burn fossil fuel. Brb.

[zeke5123]

And I find it interesting that no one here has addressed Lit's point about a very real occurrence that is happening and is pretty much unequivocally tied to man-caused carbon emissions- and that is the acidification of the oceans that has the potential to threaten wide swaths of marine species that rely on carbonate ions to form protective outer coatings.

No one has directly addressed it because it is a very, "Inconvenient Truth."

The fact is, if conclusions of physics were economically inconvenient, the same people would be on these threads proclaiming the obvious problems with relativity theory, decrying the leftist philosophical conspiracy rampant among theoretical and experimental physicists. People are economically biased against the conclusions of climate science and are therefore predisposed to do everything they can not to take it seriously.

Even the AAGP (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, you can imagine who donates) admits release of CO2 warms the fucking planet and admits that its membership is divided on whether the warming is anthropogenic. If the worlds largest professional fossil fuel geology association is admitting it has "divided membership", a membership whose livelihood depends on finding and extracting fossil fuels, well, I'm not going to prattle on about the obvious.

But, no, you who are in sales, or whatever it is that you do for a living, and who made it through precal and once opened chemistry or statistics textbook in college have reviewed the data you found on the internet and have confirmed it's all just a big hoax motivated by leftist hatred of capitalism by American scientists.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Is there controversy? Sure: over what the short and long term effects of the warming are ultimately going to be and what some possible doomsday tipping point may or may not be. And it is a legitimate controversy. Is there really controversy in the scientific community over what is driving the CURRENT warming? Not so much.

Isn't that what we were talking about? The result of global warming? Basically, it is complicated. Just like the result of the acidification of the Ocean is complicated. Of course, in all this I would suggest precautionary principle. But fighting global warming is basically a prisoner's dilemma wherein the dominate strategy is to cheat.

So, until someone offers a solution to this dilemma, I say hope for the best (i.e. the dire predictions are wrong). Otherwise, we might have a solution to the Fermi paradox.

(It would be interesting to see how market prices are impacted by AGW. In other words, talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than words.)

[V DUB]

I feel like y'all are over complicating things. Clouding issues with more issues is a good way to go nowhere fast. I feel like this thread is a good case study of how to not get shit resolved in politics. All over the map, not a single point agreed upon or resolved. Humans, despite thinking we do, do not group think well.

Like I said, it's just masturbation.