The Global Warming Consensus by Climate Experts is a Group of Errant Scientists

FreeinChrist · Oct 17, 2015

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review

98cwitr · Oct 19, 2015

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned. The flaming, goading, and trolling need to stop. This is not Christ-like behavior. If you see your post missing, consider this a warning.

MOD HAT OFF

RickG · Oct 19, 2015

brinny said:
Honesty, competence and credibility, eh?

LOL!

I don't care what Al Gore said, he's not a climate scientist, or for that matter not even a scientist.

As for climate 'scientists' predicted the ice caps would be gone by the summer of 2013, please provide citations for what climate scientists and when that was.

BukiRob · Oct 19, 2015

RickG said:
Are you talking about "Climategate"? You know, where the University of East Anglia's email server was hacked resulting in stolen emails, then subsequently "quote mined" and misrepresented. And never mind that there were a number of independent investigations which found no fraud or conspiracy by UEA or any individual. Sorry, but the guilty party is the people who broke in, stole the emails, and misrepresented them, including people such as yourself who continue to propagate continued false claims about climate science and climatologists.

Here, try finding out the real facts: http://www.cce-review.org/

The only political agenda is by the denial side. Climate scientists are doing science.

Oh! Here we go again. Go ahead a present your list of scientists, who are not qualified in any area of climatology. There is a difference between personal opinion based on no science, and an opinion based on actual peer reviewed scientific research.

That is blatantly false and you know it.

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre

Timothy Ball, historical climatologist

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri

Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University

Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University

This is just a partial list of those scientists who are EMINENTLY Qualified to speak on the topic who take the position that Climate change is being driven primarily through natural processes

RickG · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
That is blatantly false and you know it.

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre

Timothy Ball, historical climatologist

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri

Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University

Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University

This is just a partial list of those scientists who are EMINENTLY Qualified to speak on the topic who take the position that Climate change is being driven primarily through natural processes

May I ask why you quoted my post concerning climate gate along with a link to the findings of the investigation, call it false and then list a number of AGW contrarians?

When quoting someone and posting a reply, it is generally expected that the subject in the quote is about that quote.

BukiRob · Oct 19, 2015

RickG said:
May I ask why you quoted my post concerning climate gate along with a link to the findings of the investigation, call it false and then list a number of AGW contrarians?

When quoting someone and posting a reply, it is generally expected that the subject in the quote is about that quote.

Oh no you dont! YOu said

AND I QUOTE " Oh! Here we go again. Go ahead a present your list of scientists, who are not qualified in any area of climatology. There is a difference between personal opinion based on no science, and an opinion based on actual peer reviewed scientific research."

So, I DID respond to you... you were wrong and now you want to play a shell game with words.

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
Oh no you dont! YOu said

AND I QUOTE " Oh! Here we go again. Go ahead a present your list of scientists, who are not qualified in any area of climatology. There is a difference between personal opinion based on no science, and an opinion based on actual peer reviewed scientific research."

So, I DID respond to you... you were wrong and now you want to play a shell game with words.

Those who disagree with AGW are in a small minority. Listing a handful does not make the overwhelming scientific consensus go away.

BukiRob · Oct 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Those who disagree with AGW are in a small minority. Listing a handful does not make the overwhelming scientific consensus go away.

Ah but there in lies the problem... that is NOT what he contended or said and I replied SPECIFICALLY to what was said that was point blank, straight up factually incorrect.

He said "Oh! Here we go again. Go ahead a present your list of scientists, who are not qualified in any area of climatology."

His words, not mine. I did supply a list of qualified scientists who take the view that the current climate change we are experiencing is PRIMARILY a natural process.

And even the fact that a consensus hold a view does not make it the correct answer scientifically. Since is fairly consistent in that it is wrong frequently and that the consensus view is quite often the wrong view.

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
Ah but there in lies the problem... that is NOT what he contended or said and I replied SPECIFICALLY to what was said that was point blank, straight up factually incorrect.

Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of climatologists support AGW?

And even the fact that a consensus hold a view does not make it the correct answer scientifically.

Then why do the anti-AGW try so hard to bring up scientists who they think support their position? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

BukiRob · Oct 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Do you agree that the overwhelming majority of climatologists support AGW?

Then why do the anti-AGW try so hard to bring up scientists who they think support their position? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

I merely corrected a factually FALSE assertion he made. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do think it is probable that the consensus is wrong. As I said science has a long, long list of consensus views that turned out to be completely wrong.

More importantly, I don't think it even matters. Get back to me when India and China are willing to forgo social, economic and scientific advances that come as a result of use of fossil fuels...

That is REALLY what this argument is REALLY about anyway.

Even if theoretically the US had 0 footprint (an impossible supposition) you would only reduce carbon emissions by a meaningless 17%

China has almost TWICE the Carbon emissions..... good luck with that! As India continues to see an emerging middle class their footprint will QUICKLY exceed that of the US and move into China levels of emission....

Contrary to the POLITICS, China and emerging countries who are developing GROWING middle classes are the problem IF the consensus view is correct. The fact that there is enough evidence to cause qualified people to hold a dissenting view IS a problem

So people are essentially chasing windmills over something that A) isn't going to change on B) science that is FAR from being a settled FACT.

RickG · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
And even the fact that a consensus hold a view does not make it the correct answer scientifically. Since is fairly consistent in that it is wrong frequently and that the consensus view is quite often the wrong view.

The 97% consensus is not a view, opinion or derived from a poll or list of signatures. It is based on the fact that 97% of the published research confirms it is.

Anderegg 2010

And here is a list of organizations that endorse the consensus.

As well as the National Academy of Sciences in 80 different countries.

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
I do think it is probable that the consensus is wrong. As I said science has a long, long list of consensus views that turned out to be completely wrong.

Why do you think that?

More importantly, I don't think it even matters. Get back to me when India and China are willing to forgo social, economic and scientific advances that come as a result of use of fossil fuels...

That would be the 4th stage of AGW denial.

BukiRob · Oct 19, 2015

RickG said:
The 97% consensus is not a view, opinion or derived from a poll or list of signatures. It is based on the fact that 97% of the published research confirms it is.

Anderegg 2010

And here is a list of organizations that endorse the consensus.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO

British Antarctic Survey

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Environmental Protection Agency

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

Federation of American Scientists

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London

International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Royal Meteorological Society

Royal Society of the UK

As well as the National Academy of Sciences in 80 different countries.

Drop the propaganda spin.

I listed QUALIFIED scientists who hold the view that climate change is primarily being driven by natural processes, an assertion you claimed did not exist.

We got a while back that you drank the pitcher of kool-aide and ordered a second.

It wasnt all that long ago that almost every scientist of qualification believed that the universe had always existed that it didnt have a beginning.

As few as 15-20 the theory of dark energy and matter was considered by pretty much everyone as pure crackpot thinking.....

So sorry if I'm not overly impressed by "almost everyone" thinking that its entirely manmade....

And as I said earlier, it frankly doesn't really matter because its not changing anything. China, India and the other rapidly growing emerging markets with their growing middle class are not about to forgo the use of fossil fuels and we are eon's away from having viable alternatives

Loudmouth · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
Drop the propaganda spin.

I listed QUALIFIED scientists who hold the view that climate change is primarily being driven by natural processes, an assertion you claimed did not exist.

We can list 10x more qualified scientists that think the Earth is warming, and that it is primarily driven by human activities.

If you have no intention of accepting the words of scientists, then stop referencing them.

We got a while back that you drank the pitcher of kool-aide and ordered a second.

It is the AGW deniers that have shown near ignorance of such basic physics as the greenhouse effect and black-body radiation.

eclipsenow · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist

Oh no you don't! He's not a climatologist, but geographer!
He has collaborated with the now infamous Willie Soon, busted for warping science for oil-money!
But then, when the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet and every scientific academy on the planet all say one thing, and there's a minority screaming inconsistent and contradictory conspiracy theories say another thing, you've got to expect that the group in the minority is going to have some disreputable paid up shills for the oil industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

eclipsenow · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
I listed QUALIFIED scientists who hold the view that climate change is primarily being driven by natural processes, an assertion you claimed did not exist.

Well, I haven't checked all the others but the fact that you think Tim Ball is a QUALIFIED scientist is hilarious!

amanuensis63 · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
I listed QUALIFIED scientists who hold the view that climate change is primarily being driven by natural processes, an assertion you claimed did not exist.

HINT: When someone says "97%" that means there's 3% that are not included in the metric. (Pro-tip: Math is very important).

But the fact remains that almost every climatologist and every researcher studying climate change feels that the current warming is due in large part to human activities. Yes, you can find skeptics, but they occupy such a small number that one has to wonder how all the other scientists could be SO WRONG.

ESPECIALLY when their science makes very good sense.

We got a while back that you drank the pitcher of kool-aide and ordered a second.

SOME of like RickG and myself actually got university degrees in the sciences. So it isn't "kool aid"...it's called reading the actual science with some degree of skill in understanding it.

RickG · Oct 19, 2015

BukiRob said:
Drop the propaganda spin.

The Anderegg 2010 link I gave you is a peer review article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of siences (PNAS). What Anderegg, et al, did was to perform an in depth study of the climate science literature and found that 97% of that published research confirmed ACC. There are other such studies published in the peer review literature as well.

I listed QUALIFIED scientists who hold the view that climate change is primarily being driven by natural processes, an assertion you claimed did not exist.

A drop in the bucket, well actually the ocean.

We got a while back that you drank the pitcher of kool-aide and ordered a second.

You mean back when I was in graduate school (M.Ed. 1975, M.S. 1977 - Univ. of Memphis) studying Earth Science, with a concentration in Paleoclimatology; or was it during my 25 plus years as a research chemist? What's in your (climate science) wallet?

It wasnt all that long ago that almost every scientist of qualification believed that the universe had always existed that it didnt have a beginning.

Yup! 1931, Georges Lemaître. When tools become available, science advances. Do you know how long we've known about greenhouse gases and their effect on Earth's temperature? Do you know how long ago global warming was predicted with respect to increased atmospheric CO2?

ron4shua · Oct 20, 2015

" .... there is no new matter under the sun. "

Why is there a huge rush to install a new world monetary system ?

The short answer ;
There's no bloodless way to enforce a one world government without control of the money !

Termites contribute over 50% of all greenhouse gas , animals in the wild & in feed lots around 30 to 35% , Humans with all their endeavors contribute less than 8 % .
Steady since the early fifties . Give it a Google .
http://iceagenow.info/2014/12/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/

amanuensis63 · Oct 20, 2015

ron4shua said:
Termites contribute over 50% of all greenhouse gas , animals in the wild & in feed lots around 30 to 35% , Humans with all their endeavors contribute less than 8 % .

There is a difference between natural portions of the carbon cycles and what humans are doing. Termites didn't start existing in the 1850's. They've been around a long time digesting wood. It's part of the natural carbon cycle.

The key is that humans have taken carbon that was sequestered out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and which took millions of years to accumulate and re-released it in a matter of 150 years.

Just like water is good for you if you drink it, but if you drink a lifetimes worth of water in a day you will probably die.

Steady since the early fifties . Give it a Google .

Really?

Now here's something you probably don' t know. Carbon has several different ISOTOPES, based on the number of neutrons it has. 12-C is the most common and 13-C is reasonably common.

For about 10,000 years it appears that the ratio of 13-C/12-C in atmospheric CO2 was pretty stable. But in about the middle of the 19th century just as humanity started to ramp up the burning of fossil fuels the ratio of 13-C/12-C DROPPED! It became "lighter", more enriched in 12-C.

The weird thing is: plants and algae preferentially fix 12-C vs 13-C during photosynthesis!

So, JUST AS ONE WOULD EXPECT, when humans started burning fossil fuels, made up of plant and algal materials, we start seeing a drop in 13-C in atmospheric CO2!

So we see a human fingerprint shifting the isotopic ratio of C in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Here's a simplified schematic of carbon fluxes. Note the excess coming from human activities...

The Global Warming Consensus by Climate Experts is a Group of Errant Scientists

CF Advisory team

Lord forgive me

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Newbie

Senior Veteran

" ... each in our own order " , Hallelu-YAH .

Newbie

Similar threads