Climate Change!

[RickG]

This is a formal apology

to those I have offended with some of my emotionally driven comments.

Reflecting on some of my replies I have been out of line, discourteous and abusive

I did not stay on message in some instances and for that I am regretful.

Please accept this apology and my renewed commitment to keep the Jibber jabber out of my replies. I got carried away.​

That is very commendable. Many of us from time to time tend to get a little more adrenaline than we need, including myself. I think for me, I make my best received comments when I walk away from composing a post and come back to see how it reads. Quite often, I wind up changing my post (for the better) from the original composition. The preview button is a real good friend. Cheers! And God Bless

 

[RickG]

The leaders of climate science responsible for government policies world wide have been found to at the very least inaccurate. Bot the IPCC and the Australian's were shown to be playing fast and loose with the numbers.
There is plenty of evidence on this thread that shows the debate is not finished as some political agents would like it to be. The over the top alarmists have ruined any credibility others may have had. Confidence in the system is gone. There are many posts here to postpone policies that will increase global hunger, and poverty. It does not seem to be clear that less than 1% of the atmosphere is controlling global temperature.

Taxing farmers, pet owners, and everything that has a breath in it, is a little extreem given the evidence. There seems to be an unrealistic urgency to to act. Trillions of tax payer dollars going to people like Gore and his green companies is not the answer. Planting a tree instead of doing real cuts (carbon credits) is a money scam in my opinion.

Labeling anyone who dissagrees as a climate terrorist/racist or putting them in the same category as a holacost denier, is as extreem as it gets and only verifies the need for more research.

Changing the cause name isn't helpful for credibility either. Climate has become to political now to be believed. It is unfortunate that somebody found a way to make trillions off it.

If its any consolation, I'm no fan of Al Gore. I think the unsettled debate comes mostly from special interests and political ideological differences. Honestly, among practicing climate scientists, there is very little debate about the reality of climate change and the main forcings in play. Most of the debate remains with the details.

 

[[serious]]

CO2

Lol! look at them and their fancy "Science" and "Understanding of chemistry and physics"

I have snarky use of ridiculous numbers of smileys

 

[CabVet]

Taxing farmers, pet owners, and everything that has a breath in it, is a little extreem given the evidence.

Labeling anyone who dissagrees as a climate terrorist/racist or putting them in the same category as a holacost denier, is as extreem as it gets and only verifies the need for more research.

Would you mind providing sources for those claims?

 

[Poptech]

Would you mind providing sources for those claims?

"But refusal to recognize global warming or evidence of man's role has become, ...a 21st century equivalent of Holocaust denial." - Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2005

"These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers - like Holocaust deniers." - Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog, 2005

"An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers." - Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006

"It's about the climate-change "denial industry", ...We should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg." - David Roberts, Grist Magazine, 2006

"If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?" - Scott Pelley, CBS, 2006

"There are now proposals that 'global warming deniers' be treated the same as 'Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail." - Paul JJ Payack, Global Language Monitor, 2006

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers." - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007

"Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust." - Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007

"Global-warming skeptics make more excuses than Holocaust deniers." - Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007

"At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency." - David Fiderer, The Huffington Post, 2009

"Some people don't believe in climate warning - like those who don't believe there was a Holocaust." - Paul McCartney, 2010

 

[idscience]

Would you mind providing sources for those claims?

Climate "Experts" Propose Global One-child Policy, Socialism, Taxes, Carbon Rationing
"Among the climate “solutions” proposed by scientists, officials, and others for the Cancun COP16 “global-warming” summit are ideas like a global “one-child policy” modeled on Communist China’s brutal system, a carbon rationing scheme for every person on Earth, world socialism, and a series of global taxes paid to the United Nations."

Abbotsford News - Carbon tax crunch: Farmers cite competitive disadvantages
"This year, when the carbon tax rises to $1.50 per gigajoule (from $1.25 now), we’ll spend upwards of $175,000 to $180,000 on the carbon tax – that no other jurisdiction pays,” said Janzen.


Labour and energy are a greenhouse operator’s two largest costs, so a heavy energy tax is a burden, he explained. His energy costs have risen 35 per cent because of the tax."

Carbon Tax on Carnivores : Discovery News
"A tax on meat and milk would likely mean we'd buy less of the foods that contribute to climate change. And that's good for the environment, said a study published in the journal Climate Change."

Carbon tax to hit dairy farmers the hardest
"DAIRY farmers will be slugged hard by the carbon tax in the short term, with many expected to pay more than $4000 a year in lost revenue and higher electricity costs for the next few years, a government report has found."

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News
"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent."
​

 

[Jazer]

"Among the climate “solutions” proposed by scientists, officials, and others for the Cancun COP16 “global-warming” summit are ideas like a global “one-child policy” modeled on Communist China’s brutal system, a carbon rationing scheme for every person on Earth, world socialism, and a series of global taxes paid to the United Nations."

You have to look at who you are dealing with here. You have Ted Turner that bought up all the land with trees on it and then cut the trees down to make a profit. The problem is that trees take 30 years to grow, so Turner starts to preach that we do not have the resources to supply the people at current population levels. The thing is that trees are a crop. They are perhaps a 10 or 12 year crop but we are more then able to supply the demand world wide. We have had P&G stock in our family for over 100 years now, so I have studied up on this.

Ted Turner somehow has recruited Bill Gates and Bill Gates has sucked in Warren Buffet. So you have three of the worlds richest men behind this thinking that the worlds population is to high and we need to limit it. Thus you have the Georgia Guide Stones to announce their plan to the world.

"LET THESE BE GUIDESTONES TO AN AGE OF REASON"

the message of the Georgia Guide stones

Russian, Hebrew, Arabic Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Swahili

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.


2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.


3. Unite humanity with a living new language.


4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.


5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.


6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.


7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.


8. Balance personal rights with social duties.


9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.


10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

 

[RickG]

Climate "Experts" Propose Global One-child Policy, Socialism, Taxes, Carbon Rationing
"Among the climate “solutions” proposed by scientists, officials, and others for the Cancun COP16 “global-warming” summit are ideas like a global “one-child policy” modeled on Communist China’s brutal system, a carbon rationing scheme for every person on Earth, world socialism, and a series of global taxes paid to the United Nations."

Abbotsford News - Carbon tax crunch: Farmers cite competitive disadvantages
"This year, when the carbon tax rises to $1.50 per gigajoule (from $1.25 now), we’ll spend upwards of $175,000 to $180,000 on the carbon tax – that no other jurisdiction pays,” said Janzen.


Labour and energy are a greenhouse operator’s two largest costs, so a heavy energy tax is a burden, he explained. His energy costs have risen 35 per cent because of the tax."

Carbon Tax on Carnivores : Discovery News
"A tax on meat and milk would likely mean we'd buy less of the foods that contribute to climate change. And that's good for the environment, said a study published in the journal Climate Change."

Carbon tax to hit dairy farmers the hardest
"DAIRY farmers will be slugged hard by the carbon tax in the short term, with many expected to pay more than $4000 a year in lost revenue and higher electricity costs for the next few years, a government report has found."

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News
"The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent."
​

I think it is important to differentiate between climate science research and proposed policies, not mix the two or condemn one based on what the other says.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The leaders of climate science responsible for government policies world wide have been found to at the very least inaccurate. Both the IPCC and the Australian's were shown to be playing fast and loose with the numbers.

Reference please. First off, to my knowledge, scientifically speaking, the IPCC provides numerous scenarios called SRES's which rely on various "what if" scenarios of people's usage of energy, economic growth, population growth etc. They are grouped into families based on this.

The range of possible outcomes is quite wide:

If you'd like to learn more about what these folks are actuallydoing and saying you can read HERE

It is more helpful to read what the technical details are rather than relying on generalizations.

There is plenty of evidence on this thread that shows the debate is not finished

Keep in mind that as far as the actual scientific community is concerned the debate is largely "finished". There are lots of people who know very little about the actual science, don't read the details or rely on non-scientific literature to "keep the controversy alive".

I think if you actually took many of your current debate points to an actual climatology department at a university involved in this research that you'd find much in the way of anyone taking your points "seriously".

I don't mean that as an insult I merely mean to say that there are very few serious researchers with as many "doubts" as you hear from the very small, but very vocal "skeptic" community.

It is like "evolution". Almost no serious scientist "doubts" it. There may be a small handful who keep reservations, but the loudest voices are those who thrive only on the doubt. Without the doubt they are lost.

Science always contains doubt. Nothing in science is ever 100% settled. If you want to declare the science 100% perfectly settled, you'll never see that in serious science.

BUT, that being said, as I've said a billion times on these fora: there is a point at which the science converges on a most likely hypothesis and at that point we usually start working with it, rather than simply tossing it aside.

You are encouraged to find the holes. That is how science works. But don't expect finding one or two small questions = complete destruction of all physics and chemistry.

If AGW were completely "off-the-rockers" trash science it wouldn't be the small bloggers out there who know almost nothing of science who would have figured it out. It would be the scientists themselves.

as some political agents would like it to be.

Whenever the science gets too difficult we always see "politics" raised as the real driver. Unfortunately that isn't necessarily the case here. Politics didn't come up with agw, politicians were initially approached in the 1960's by scientists like Roger Revelle at Scripps and others who finally, after decades got people to look at the data and what the data was showing.

Do politicians do "right" with the data? Well, that is a good question. But the policy summaries provided to them are coming largely from folks involved with the data. Simplified, yes. But still underlain by more solid data.

The over the top alarmists have ruined any credibility others may have had.

I find this alarmingly disingenuous. It is an "out" that skeptoids want so desperately so they can equally ignore the solid science which isn't a whole lot more "positive".

Yes there are super-alarmists out there. And there are those who think it will only be a little bad.

But by "keeping doubt alive" and removing credibility from the actual science by finding a few extreme POV's so that no one has to take any action on the real issues is a guarantee that it will be made much, much worse.

What's the worst that can happen? Well, we have a good example from earth's own history: The End Permian Extinction which many scientists believe was either caused by global warming or exaccerbated by it and it resulted in wiping out 95% of the planet's life forms.

So there's that.

Confidence in the system is gone.

It isn't really gone. It is just a hope from the skeptic community that they won't have to take action. The confidence in the science is pretty strong.

It does not seem to be clear that less than 1% of the atmosphere is controlling global temperature.

This is an oversimplification and a standard "canard" that some scientifically less-literate sources rely on. It has no bearing on reality.

I can find plenty of materials that occur at less than 1% of a given amount that can have a very strong impact on a system. There are even poisons that can kill a person instantly at microgram levels. For an 80kg person.

Taxing farmers, pet owners, and everything that has a breath in it, is a little extreem given the evidence.

Actually, no it's not. Not in the least.

There seems to be an unrealistic urgency to to act.

"unrealistic urgency" makes it sound like you have better data than the vast majority of climate scientists all over the world.

Trillions of tax payer dollars going to people like Gore and his green companies is not the answer. Planting a tree instead of doing real cuts (carbon credits) is a money scam in my opinion.

Leave Gore out of the discussion. He's a meat puppet. A talking head. You want to discuss real topics, don't go about it by using the standards that the skeptics know. Learn the names of some real scientists. And more than just Hansen and Mann.

There are thousands upon thousands of them.

Labeling anyone who dissagrees as a climate terrorist/racist or putting them in the same category as a holacost denier, is as extreem as it gets and only verifies the need for more research.

And intimating that thousands upon thousands of scientists over the past 150 years are all to a person morons or corrupt is equally offensive (not that you do that, but then very few of us actually call climate "skeptics" racists and holocaust deniers, so...)

Changing the cause name isn't helpful for credibility either. Climate has become to political now to be believed. It is unfortunate that somebody found a way to make trillions off it.

Yes it is. And it's quite sad that some companies and organizations leverage doubt to get funding for "climate skepticism" in order to serve their political and economic ends too.

Bad people exist on both sides of the argument.

It doesn't change the facts of the science.

 

[RickG]

Co2 Global Warming Debunked - Interplanetary Climate Change - YouTube

Three part video showing how AGW is untrue. Furthermore it is the Sun that is at an 8,000 year high and causing climate change.

I have debated with may self the past couple of days as to whether I should respond to this video or not. But since I previously posted that I would look at it and respond, I will do so.

I really don't understand the significance of comparing the SiFi movie "The Day After Tomorrow", with actual climate research; and spending as much time on it as they did. I really like SiFi movies like that, one of my favorites is "Core". Both have a lot of excitement, action and a lot of really bad science.

Next we see John Coleman, one of the founders of The Weather Channel. I suppose that is meant to convey some degree of credibility. John Coleman is not a climatologist, in fact has never even been a practicing meteorologist. His was a "broad cast meteorologist", a TV weatherman. He has never done any research of any kind, much less published anything in the scientific literature in any field as far as I know. Two of my three daughters have the same Bachelor of Science degree he has, less the concentration in broadcasting. Both were encouraged to go into broadcasting but both said they wanted to pursue the science instead, which requires a lot more math and physics, and not a career as a TV weather person. The older one is currently working on an M.S. in meteorology, and the other has just applied for a graduate assistantship Climatology.

Aside from all that, does the Weather Channel support John Coleman's views on ACC? The answer is no. In fact, here is their official stated position on it. weather.com - Storm Encyclopedia - Global Warming Position Statement

Concerning the 30,000 PhD petition, there are several petitions in circulation, none of which is a polling specifically of climate scientists. I don't recall which one it was in the video, the Oregon petition perhaps. If the Oregon petition, it's not 30,000 PhD's, it 30,000 with a B.S. degree or higher, many not even in a scientific field, much less climatology. Really, lists like that hold no credence, not to mention that it is not even verified. Here's the petition card.

Also, the 30,000 number is quite small when one considers all people with a B.S. degree or higher. For instance, the Digest of Education Statistics: 2008 lists the following:

B.S. 78,817,295
M.S. 2,237,087
PhD 632,677
Total 10,687,059

But even those figures don't really quantify anything. The thing to do is look at the actual published research and see what it says. Well, as I have posted several times before, look at the following:

Anderegg 2010
Oreskes 2004
Doran 2009And I won't even post all the National Academies world-wide that agree that AGW/ACC is occurring.

At the 13:55 minute mark I stopped watching. There were just too many false accusations and ad hominems. Really, when one comes across accusations of wrong doing, fudging data and hostile ad hominem attacks, that ought to throw up a red flag right there as to their credibility and obvious agenda.

Now, instead of going back and digging up more myths and misinformation from blogs and political think-tanks, none of which are staffed by actual practicing climate scientists, look at the scientific literature and make an informed decision on what you think the science says.

Oh! One thing more. Since I didn't watch the entire series, did they interview Christopher Monckton?

 

[Greatcloud]

RickG you stopped watching the video at the most important part. This is the part that talked about the 8,000 year high in solar activity and that, that is what is causing the GW on Earth and also the rest of the planets. It is proven that all the other planets in our solar system are expierencing warming and climate change.

Sun - Astronomy, Solar Maximum, Sunspots and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, Mythology, News - Crystalinks

With the coming cycle 25 we will be expierencing a minimum a LIA like the Maunder minimum. It is all about the Sun and not GHG as is believed by the theory.

 

[Poptech]

If the Oregon petition, it's not 30,000 PhD's, it 30,000 with a B.S. degree or higher, many not even in a scientific field, much less climatology.

This is incorrect, it is 31,487 American Scientists. The B.S. degree has to be in a scientific field as that is a requirement,

"Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." - Petition Project

There are 18,772 who have graduate degrees.

It is a common myth that scientists who study the climate all have degrees in climatology,

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Annan, D.Phil. Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Michael Tobis, Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Phil Jones, Ph.D. Hydology
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry

Anderegg 2010

Worthless, the results are not reproducible because the authors did not understand the limitations of Google Scholar.

Oreskes 2004

Cherry picked propaganda, hundreds of skeptical papers exist in the time range she used that do not include her biased search phrase "global climate change".

Doran 2009

The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively cherry picked "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

I won't even post all the National Academies world-wide that agree that AGW/ACC is occurring.

Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

 

[RickG]

RickG you stopped watching the video at the most important part. This is the part that talked about the 8,000 year high in solar activity and that, that is what is causing the GW on Earth and also the rest of the planets. It is proven that all the other planets in our solar system are expierencing warming and climate change.

Sun - Astronomy, Solar Maximum, Sunspots and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, Mythology, News - Crystalinks

With the coming cycle 25 we will be expierencing a minimum a LIA like the Maunder minimum. It is all about the Sun and not GHG as is believed by the theory.

Ok, I'll go back and watch that part and comment on it as the rest of this post, but that will be later today. First I have to do stuff to pay the bills.

 

[[serious]]

What you said:

The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively cherry picked "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

What I read:

Hah! I am unfamiliar with research techniques or what is a good response rate for this type of survey. I do not understand sampling or design methodology and probably have not done any graduate level research.

1. The list of 10,257 individuals "was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth)."
2. 30% response rate for this type of survey is typical (they cover this in the paper too)
3. "The most specialized and knowledgeable respondents" where operationally defined within the paper as "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-[bless and do not curse] eviewed papers on the subject of climate change" in keeping with standard scientific practice.

Your claims are based on very poor assumptions about the experimental design and show an ignorance of standard research practices. Even a cursory reading of the paper would show that each of those areas are addressed within the paper as is standard practice.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What you said:

What I read:


1. The list of 10,257 individuals "was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth)."
2. 30% response rate for this type of survey is typical (they cover this in the paper too)
3. "The most specialized and knowledgeable respondents" where operationally defined within the paper as "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-[bless and do not curse] eviewed papers on the subject of climate change" in keeping with standard scientific practice.

Your claims are based on very poor assumptions about the experimental design and show an ignorance of standard research practices. Even a cursory reading of the paper would show that each of those areas are addressed within the paper as is standard practice.

It becomes even more compelling when the PNAS study using a completely different methodology arrives at a similar figure of about 97%. And though Poptech decrees it "worthless" due to limitations of Google Scholar, I am unconvinced by Poptech's "ex cathedra" declaration.

Perhaps he should flesh that out.

But when two different techniques by unrelated studies converge on a similar number it would seem to speak volumes.

But there's another bit in play here: many of us have actually worked around some of these places (institutions doing earth systems research) and we've met some of the players, we've interacted with some of the field and we simply don't see this mass of "confusion" that the skeptics wish were epidemic in the science.

For me, speaking as geochemist/chemist I have to say that while I may not be the most skilled in atmospheric hydrodynamics generally the basic science seems pretty solid, the foundational science seems robust.

It takes a good bit of digging to find something so controversial that you call into question much about it. That isn't to say there aren't unanswered questions, but at some point the science just makes such good sense and seems so very solid that finding a few "doubt points" or finagling a controversy when almost none exists won't substantially hurt the core hypothesis.

It's like the creationism debate. Yeah you can point to a few questions in the earth sciences, but that hardly guts the idea of "deep time" or an "old earth". In fact in order to destabilize the core hypothesis you'd pretty much have dismantle so much of the rest of science you'd be left with almost nothing at all.

 

[rambot]

... PNAS study .

teeheee

 

[RickG]

This is incorrect, it is 31,487 American Scientists. The B.S. degree has to be in a scientific field as that is a requirement,

"Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields." - Petition Project

There are 18,772 who have graduate degrees.

It is a common myth that scientists who study the climate all have degrees in climatology,

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Annan, D.Phil. Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Michael Tobis, Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science
Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D. History of Science
Phil Jones, Ph.D. Hydology
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry


Worthless, the results are not reproducible because the authors did not understand the limitations of Google Scholar.


Cherry picked propaganda, hundreds of skeptical papers exist in the time range she used that do not include her biased search phrase "global climate change".


The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively cherry picked "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.


Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released by a handful of their council members or in many cases signed just by the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

Your posts are absolutely precious. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Poptech]

What I read:
1. The list of 10,257 individuals "was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth)."
2. 30% response rate for this type of survey is typical (they cover this in the paper too)
3. "The most specialized and knowledgeable respondents" where operationally defined within the paper as "those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-[bless and do not curse] eviewed papers on the subject of climate change" in keeping with standard scientific practice.

Your claims are based on very poor assumptions about the experimental design and show an ignorance of standard research practices. Even a cursory reading of the paper would show that each of those areas are addressed within the paper as is standard practice.

You really are not understanding the 97% is only 75 subjectively chosen "specialists" that is only 0.7% of the participant group.

There is nothing standard about choosing specialists based on them declaring themselves so and then arbitrarily biasing your sample requiring 50% of their "recent" (last 5 years) papers being on the subject of climate change.

This creates some very disturbing facts,

You are not considered a "specialist" if you did not declare yourself a "climate scientist" even if more than 50% your peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.

190 scientists were excluded from the final results because they did not indicate they were "climate scientists" even though more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change".

You are not considered a "specialist" even if more than 49% of your peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.

You are not considered a "specialist" even if more that 50% of your peer-reviewed publications in the past 6 years have been on the subject of climate change.

It seems you need to read more carefully.

 

[Poptech]

It becomes even more compelling when the PNAS study using a completely different methodology arrives at a similar figure of about 97%. And though Poptech decrees it "worthless" due to limitations of Google Scholar, I am unconvinced by Poptech's "ex cathedra" declaration.

Perhaps he should flesh that out.

Certainly, please provide the reproducible method to obtain the 724 climate publications for Phil Jones using Google Scholar. Make sure to show your work.

You can also read my complete refutation of this paper here, "Google Scholar Illiteracy in the PNAS".

But when two different techniques by unrelated studies converge on a similar number it would seem to speak volumes.

It speaks that both "studies" were intent on arriving at the same worthless number for propaganda reasons.

 

[Poptech]

Your posts are absolutely precious. The gift that keeps on giving.

What is priceless is my complete refutation of all your meaningless conjecture. This would be complete and total, the only thing saving you is that I am unable to post links due to the idiotic forum rules here.