Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming

[Rationalt]

The following latest article highlights the complexities of climate science .

http://www.nature.com/news/climatologists-to-physicists-your-planet-needs-you-1.17270

 

[rambot]

Looks like a religious debate between adherents of two religions.

I haven't seen many religious debates (re: dogma) that centre around scientific arguments, research, data and study.

 

[Rationalt]

I haven't seen many religious debates (re: dogma) that centre around scientific arguments, research, data and study.

It is The way I see it. The OP starts the thread as if he is attacking a prophet of organized religion. Obama joined the cool thing at the time where almost every climate scientist is in agreement .It is not like he is a scientist or something.

The opponents to the Op obliges him and really starts treating Obama like a prophet who could never go wrong.It doesn't matter for the defendants what they are defending. It is like our prophet is under attack and let us deploy every trick in our repertoire to discredit his opponents.

 

[Rationalt]

That is a total falsehood. Please back up that "all climate scientists have come to the conclusion that humanity is adversely affecting the climate, through greenhouse gases and destruction of the environment."

May be God is doing it ?. God allowed scientific development and with that came global warming.

 

[rambot]

It is The way I see it. The OP starts the thread as if he is attacking a prophet of organized religion. Obama joined the cool thing at the time where almost every climate scientist is in agreement .It is not like he is a scientist or something.

Course. Like it was cool. Sorta like how I would take the advice of an oncologist for my cancer treatments because it's "cool"and NOT because he knows what he's talking about?
Just because you're not a scientist, doesn't mean you can't agree with them.

The opponents to the Op obliges him and really starts treating Obama like a prophet who could never go wrong.It doesn't matter for the defendants what they are defending. It is like our prophet is under attack and let us deploy every trick in our repertoire to discredit his opponents.

I'm not sure we read the same thread cause I don't even really see Obama's name mentioned...at all. So.... I don't really know where to take this topic of conversation any more.

Besides, if he isn't a scientist, most climate change supporters are SUPER quick to throw people (like, say Al Gore) under the bus; and rightfully so. He isn't a scientist; why quote him in a discussion on the science?

 

[Rationalt]

Course. Like it was cool. Sorta like how I would take the advice of an oncologist for my cancer treatments because it's "cool"and NOT because he knows what he's talking about?
Just because you're not a scientist, doesn't mean you can't agree with them.

You are supporting my view that for some people it is prophet Obama and everybody should address him with reverence.

You missed the part of my post where I said

almost every climate scientist is in agreement

Besides, if he isn't a scientist, most climate change supporters are SUPER quick to throw people (like, say Al Gore) under the bus; and rightfully so. He isn't a scientist; why quote him in a discussion on the science?

That is similar to what I said about the OP.

 

[rambot]

You are supporting my view that for some people it is prophet Obama and everybody should address him with reverence

1) I don't understand how you get that from what I said.
2) I don't know how you extrapolated any of this from this thread
.

You missed the part of my post where I said

I don't understand how that was relevant to my analogy. Should I have said a TEAM of oncologists?

That is similar to what I said about the OP.

You keep bringing up some kind of Obama thing. Could you please refer to some posts that you are speaking of? Because I honestly cannot see how you come to the conclusions that you do regarding the content of this thread.

 

[interpreter]

It is the Nobel-prize winning scientist who is dead wrong. We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues including #4, global warming.

 

[Rationalt]

1)
...I don't understand how that was relevant to my analogy. ...

I was saying there is no need to bring that analogy.I was trying to tell you I didn't say obama was wrong .

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I will admit, I'm not nearly as educated on this topic as I should be, however, it does appear that there is sizable list of scientists who question the official theories on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

They might be in the minority...however, there are people on this list who's expertise is centered around climatology and environmental sciences...it's at least worth considering their opinions IMO.

Some say that it's a non-issue...some suggest that it's happening, but will have little to no impact on everyday life, and other suggest that it's from natural causes.

So it's fair to say that there is at least some division among the scientific community.

A couple points I did want to make though...
The fact that these scientists are in the minority doesn't necessarily mean that their theories should be immediately dismissed. There have been other examples where a few scientists have been correct and the majority was wrong. A more recent instance being the discovery in the field of medical science pertaining to the true nature of ulcers. Marshall & Warren were labeled as quacks for their theory that it was bacteria and not stress/smoking/acidic-diet that caused ulcers since they were in a very small minority. After nearly 20 years, the were awarded the Nobel prize after it was proven that the minority was actually right on that one.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that I'm always very skeptical of scientific studies that are funded by government grants with an agenda in mind. The government has a habit of hand picking scientists who already agree with what they want to believe. An example would be how we ended up with the failed nutritional guidelines by the USDA.

As I stated though...I'll admit I'm not as educated on the subject as I should be and would like to see a variety of non-government funded studies on the matter in making my decision.

 

[Rationalt]

It is the Nobel-prize winning scientist who is dead wrong. We are now experiencing the 7 last plagues including #4, global warming.

I guess Global warming causing plague is not entirely unimaginable.Keep working on that .

 

[Rationalt]

Climate change appears to be a tough nut to crack. There is one end of the spectrum who think it doesn't matter what humans do.That thinking comprises of people who are sure that end times are near and they all be flown over to heaven.

I will admit, I'm not nearly as educated on this topic as I should be, however, it does appear that there is sizable list of scientists who question the official theories on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

They might be in the minority...however, there are people on this list who's expertise is centered around climatology and environmental sciences...it's at least worth considering their opinions IMO.

Some say that it's a non-issue...some suggest that it's happening, but will have little to no impact on everyday life, and other suggest that it's from natural causes.

So it's fair to say that there is at least some division among the scientific community.

A couple points I did want to make though...
The fact that these scientists are in the minority doesn't necessarily mean that their theories should be immediately dismissed. There have been other examples where a few scientists have been correct and the majority was wrong. A more recent instance being the discovery in the field of medical science pertaining to the true nature of ulcers. Marshall & Warren were labeled as quacks for their theory that it was bacteria and not stress/smoking/acidic-diet that caused ulcers since they were in a very small minority. After nearly 20 years, the were awarded the Nobel prize after it was proven that the minority was actually right on that one.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that I'm always very skeptical of scientific studies that are funded by government grants with an agenda in mind. The government has a habit of hand picking scientists who already agree with what they want to believe. An example would be how we ended up with the failed nutritional guidelines by the USDA.

As I stated though...I'll admit I'm not as educated on the subject as I should be and would like to see a variety of non-government funded studies on the matter in making my decision.

 

[rambot]

I will admit, I'm not nearly as educated on this topic as I should be, however, it does appear that there is sizable list of scientists who question the official theories on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

They might be in the minority...however, there are people on this list who's expertise is centered around climatology and environmental sciences...it's at least worth considering their opinions IMO.

Some say that it's a non-issue...some suggest that it's happening, but will have little to no impact on everyday life, and other suggest that it's from natural causes.

So it's fair to say that there is at least some division among the scientific community..

There is some division in the scientific community on things as basic as cell theory as well. "Some division" does not mean, "paralyze and hinder from forward action" yet this is how it is being sold too often.

A couple points I did want to make though...
The fact that these scientists are in the minority doesn't necessarily mean that their theories should be immediately dismissed. There have been other examples where a few scientists have been correct and the majority was wrong. A more recent instance being the discovery in the field of medical science pertaining to the true nature of ulcers. Marshall & Warren were labeled as quacks for their theory that it was bacteria and not stress/smoking/acidic-diet that caused ulcers since they were in a very small minority. After nearly 20 years, the were awarded the Nobel prize after it was proven that the minority was actually right on that one.

I don't know. You present an interesting example, however I don't know if it's a fair comparison. First Marshall and Warren studied an alternative explanation to prevailing though; they HAD an answer to the question. Skeptics do NOT have explanations for rises in temps that HAVE occurred. They are simply arguing "there is no problem" OR..."there is no problem that isn't also a solution". Marshall and Warren were vindicated by further study and evidence that supported them. Skeptics continue to rarely be supported in their assertions.
If you get 100 doctors looking at your diagnoses and 90 of them agree on what it is with the remainder not being sure about WHAT it is, but just disagree with the other 90, a rational person (in my mind) would probably side with the 90 doctors. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be room for reservations or questions, but it just seems like utter folly to me to say "Well, I dunno. Those 10 doctors think it's wrong. Sure they can't explain my symptoms but because not all 100 of them agree, I don't think I'm going to get any treatment done."

The other thing I wanted to point out is that I'm always very skeptical of scientific studies that are funded by government grants with an agenda in mind. The government has a habit of hand picking scientists who already agree with what they want to believe.

I would note that there that you are making the assumption that the government has "an agenda in mind". I don't see how that has been proven, or really, shown anywhere. A lot of good climate data was produced during the Bush years. Just because they agree with science, doesn't mean they trying to influence; it's kind of a "chicken and egg" scenario.

As I stated though...I'll admit I'm not as educated on the subject as I should be and would like to see a variety of non-government funded studies on the matter in making my decision

Non-governmental bodies are just as, if not more prone, to a lack objectivity. I would LOVE to see (not calling on it from you, just anyone) a list of governmental bodies that do scientific grants and who has influence over who gets what money.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would note that there that you are making the assumption that the government has "an agenda in mind". I don't see how that has been proven, or really, shown anywhere. A lot of good climate data was produced during the Bush years. Just because they agree with science, doesn't mean they trying to influence; it's kind of a "chicken and egg" scenario.

Non-governmental bodies are just as, if not more prone, to a lack objectivity. I would LOVE to see (not calling on it from you, just anyone) a list of governmental bodies that do scientific grants and who has influence over who gets what money.

I'm not sure if it's a case of an agenda in mind when it comes to climate change...I was just simply pointing out that there have been other instances where the government has shopped around for scientists that agree with them (IE: the Mcgovern commission from the video I linked).

We do have to keep in mind, elected politicians often serve two masters...one being us, and the other being people who are heavily backing them financially...typically the latter wins unfortunately in terms of certain policies.

For a hypothetical example, if a politician is heavily backed by a pharmaceutical company, and that same politician is on a committee that appoints scientists (via grants) to research the safety of certain pharmaceuticals as part of a public health policy...that politician has every personal interest in picking a scientist that's going to "be on the same page".

 

[brewmama]

You should not post things that you can't argue as you are less than sufficiently informed about the information presented in ALL of these articles and rebuttals given.
For example:Your article in "sciencedirect" ACTUALLY links to the reply to the critique of the original paper, refuting Dr. Cook's claim.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003747

Given a track record of posting rebuttals and no follow up and COMPLETELY LUDICROUS papers on sociology of business and passing them off as "calling into question climate change consensus", these avalanche posts you put up do NOTHING to further a debate, nor provide ACTUAL credibility to denialist claims.

You expect people to look at the 97 articles in WUWT article (yet he includes that bunk paper as well) and yet every time I look into ANY ONE of these papers, the argument you are attempting to support falls completely flat. And then when confronted on it, you appear to have no comment on the matter.

This seems like more and more, a strategy of denialists on this website: FLOOD the discussion with POOR SCIENTIFIC analysis that they pass off as robust.

If you choose to pass off terrible science as an argument, then it is your credibility at stake. So, and obviously you have no obligation to do so but I suggest, you should read a smattering of papers, figure out which ones you ACTUALLY see as viable science and present them to us here to actually read and consider.

Cause as it is, you're passing off a lot of garbage (or, at best, detritis). Find good science and SHARE it with us.

Surely you must be kidding. There is abounding comment and proof to negate the claim that "97% of scientists agree with CAGW". There is plenty of evidence showing that the supposed results of these supposed polls are not as claimed. One example in the list


"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."


So far the person who made the claim that almost all scientists agree with CAGW has offered no proof to support his claim. I have offered plenty to rebut it. I'd say the ball is in his (or your) court.

 

[Armoured]

Posting blind, but based on headline alone, I'm gunna guess either a quote mine, or a scientist from a field with precisely zero to do with the climate, or some combination of the two.

How'd I go?

 

[rambot]

Surely you must be kidding. There is abounding comment and proof to negate the claim that "97% of scientists agree with CAGW". There is plenty of evidence showing that the supposed results of these supposed polls are not as claimed. One example in the list


"Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."


So far the person who made the claim that almost all scientists agree with CAGW has offered no proof to support his claim. I have offered plenty to rebut it. I'd say the ball is in his (or your) court.

Just so I understand what is going on in this post:
* You are supporting your claim that the "97% of climate scientists support AGW is false" based on a SINGLE (1) scientific report and the quote from a SINGLE (1) scientist that is not even addressing the "97%" study.
* You are claiming that no support has been offerred for the "97%" hypothesis...and yet the paper ITSELF has not been called into question. Why does support need to be offerred in addition to the paper? IT's not like that number was pulled out of thin air. As of this point, it was done through vigorous study and those who have attempted to call into question it's veracity by challenging its methodology have been put in their place. So the paper itself still stands.
* As I stated earlier, you are providing LINKS that may or may NOT have specious evidence (thus far in our discussions, they tend to be weak). What you've done in this post is BETTER in terms of simplifying and presenting the evidence. But, as mentioned, this particular study does not speak to consensus.

I have no said you are not including support for your claim. I'm indicating that EVERYTHING put forward so far has not sufficiently disproven the 97% claim and I've explained why. Again with this study, I have explained why.

 

[Belk]

Posting blind, but based on headline alone, I'm gunna guess either a quote mine, or a scientist from a field with precisely zero to do with the climate, or some combination of the two.

How'd I go?

Close! The later with a dash of "Gone round the bend" thrown in.

 

[Armoured]

Close! The later with a dash of "Gone round the bend" thrown in.

Ahh! Well, "former highly distinguished scientist goes a bit funny in his dotage" is always the dark horse, isn't it? But just look at Watson or Hoyle, you can never discount it.

 

[brewmama]

Just so I understand what is going on in this post:
* You are supporting your claim that the "97% of climate scientists support AGW is false" based on a SINGLE (1) scientific report and the quote from a SINGLE (1) scientist that is not even addressing the "97%" study.
* You are claiming that no support has been offerred for the "97%" hypothesis...and yet the paper ITSELF has not been called into question. Why does support need to be offerred in addition to the paper? IT's not like that number was pulled out of thin air. As of this point, it was done through vigorous study and those who have attempted to call into question it's veracity by challenging its methodology have been put in their place. So the paper itself still stands.
* As I stated earlier, you are providing LINKS that may or may NOT have specious evidence (thus far in our discussions, they tend to be weak). What you've done in this post is BETTER in terms of simplifying and presenting the evidence. But, as mentioned, this particular study does not speak to consensus.

I have no said you are not including support for your claim. I'm indicating that EVERYTHING put forward so far has not sufficiently disproven the 97% claim and I've explained why. Again with this study, I have explained why.

This is getting rather tiresome. First, you misquoted what I said initially, which was that "almost all climate scientists have come to the conclusion that humanity is adversely affecting the climate, through greenhouse gases and destruction of the environment" is false. My point is that none of the touted 97% polls actually say that. I gave many examples of climate scientists who don't believe that climate change is catastrophic, or that we are destroying the environment. They are ignored or mischaracterized, which is typical of this argument. Many scientists even think that global warming will have a positive effect and stave off future ice ages. They are also ignored or mischaracterized. And they are lumped into the mythical 97% who agree that man is having some effect on the environment. The example I gave that you for some reason have such a problem with, is one of those scientists. There are many more, I just used one as an example.

No, no one has offered any support for the claim that 97% agreeing that man has in influence or impact on the climate equals 97% agreeing that humanity is adversely affecting the climate, through greenhouse gases and destruction of the environment, and that we should take drastic measures. You certainly haven't.

Of course the paper itself has been called into question. It's mind-boggling that you deny it.

BTW, it is somewhat surprising that you view the fact that WUWT posts rebuttals and replies to original papers and claims as a negative thing to be belittled. Is that because it's such an alien thing for your side to do so? If someone contradicts or rebuts a global warming dogma, they are mocked and accused of all kinds of treachery and quackery. Never are they given a fair representation or hearing. Perhaps that is why you are so unfamiliar with them, and so willing to mock those who do publish the other side.