Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

LOL!

You don't even have reliable data to indicate that it is happening at all.

When reality contradicts the leftist narrative, it is not reality that is incorrect.



No facts contradict my ideology.



When scientists are prevented from publishing their data, that's suppression.



Not really. It's not my problem that global warming hysteria has no reliable data to back it up.



It's hard to see how science could disagree with me since I'm not taking a position on the issue.

But if such a thing were possible somehow, the fact that the science is based on bad data means that its disagreement would be irrelevant.

You don't, but I do.

No one has such data, as no reliable data on the matter has ever been collected.

Ah, but there is that 97% consensus that they rely on. Of course, that's been shown to be bullshit, but since acknowledging that would take away from their hysteria, they're not about to let it go.

Utter nonsense. Multiple independently researched and developed data from many different fields of science all converge on the fact that global warming has happened, is happening, and is changing the planet's climate in ways that are unfortunate for us and the planet's life. That's the reality. Ignoring it is not helpful or accurate..

Ghat figure was from a survey of scienyists frlm now about ten years ago. We're now ten years or so of research farther on, which has increased our knowledge of the science and how wather and climate work immeasurably, and the number of skeptics has decreased and the agreement that it's real and is happening is even stronger now than then.

Really? What's the consensus now?

That AGW is real, that it's been happening fo more than a century, that most of it is human-caused, and that it's changing the climate in ways that are going to be very expensive to ameliorate, and we'd better make some very extensive changes now. Pretty much what it was when that 87% figure eas computed, with the added knowledge of ten years that the science was right all along.

Yeah, I know what you believe. But what's the consensus now? The previous consensus was 97%, but that was bullshit. What has changed?

That IS the consensus. What you are asking apparently is not the consensus but rather the figure of how many scientists believe it's correct, which is something entirely different. I don't know if there have been any recent surveys ofscientists to answer that question but I do inow that all major scientific bodies in the world support it and it seems like most of the people opposing it are lay people many of whom have some sort of non-scientific ax to grind.

Already years ago this number was verified resp. clarified, e.g. in Forbes report.

Well no, most of the people opposing it are people who have an axe to grind with those who fraudulently came up with the 97% consensus bullshit.

For your edification:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URE4NMk1DbA

so what is your understanding as to why that 97% number is fraudulent?
I know fr a fact that there are a number of enginers an scientists who oppose the idea but I dont really know of any ones credentials in the climate sciences. Im as much an amateur in climate science as the next guy. I read a lot of the NCSE and Ag and Climate newsletters from Penn State and Cornell. I get fed a few of my journals and one ha recently adopted a paleoclimate science block of papers and so far only one has been a dissenting opinion and that ws because the data was improprly presented as a declining balance T series. I understood the math and the guy was right so the papers got into a point-counter point discussion that resulted in a new batch of figures that supported the Climate science but also delved into a new area of research, using %age time units (like tree rings use %ages of a year)

Usually to call something "fraudulent" the burden of proof is on the name caller. So, Id suggest that you discuss your underpinning evidence or I will conclude that its your opinion that i fraudulent.

K?

LOL. And you can 'know' that how, pray tell?

What your question tells me is that you didn't bother to watch the vide0 I provided. If you had, you wouldn't be asking me that.

Apparently your idea concerning the validity of the 97% consensus turns out to be an opinion. And that opinion turns out to be fraudulent. Therefore your opinion here is fraudulent.

K?

I watched the video AND followed up various of the "xperts" included (LIKE JORDAN PETERSON) , one of Canada's preeminent climate scientists (when hes not teaching his area of expertise "Clinical pychology"


BTW, your harangue above, maks absolutely no sense. Its more lik Whose on First than a fact based rebuttal.


When you pick up on self published , pretty much, denialist about everything from Climate to 9/11 , I see no merit in giving em a place in line. They present nothing wxcept one or two hacknyed points that have been demolished by evidence and facts.

So my qustion rturns to your partial answer that makes sense only to you.(And you whove shown us a pretty big anti-science bent)
"Give me sound evidence that makes you (YOU) call something "FRAUDULENT"

That You-Tube **** is hardly convincing. Hell it aint even peer reviewed.Its published through that right wing denialist newspaper and includes no real credible names in Climate SCience (Unless you call Climato-Psychology a branch)

You've offered nothing to rebut the fact that the 97% consensus claim is bullshit. You're doing nothing but a bunch of handwaving now.

If that's true, where is this evidence and facts that you refer to? In the meantime, while you come to terms with your failure to provide anything to support the 97% bullshit, here are some facts that you will find discouraging to your efforts:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

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?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
___________________________________________________

I could go on . . .

Perhaps your time would be better spent contacting these scientists and telling them what they actually meant to say. Or maybe you'll find out that they made these statements on a Monday, and that because of that, their statements can be disregarded. If I were you, that's what I'd do.

And not to pile on you, but here's some more disparaging facts about the IPCC who has somehow gained your loyalty:

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism withwhich many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

It may sound stupid, but why are you quoting from a WSJ report from 1996 about Seitz' report? (Seitz was the principal organiser of the infamous Oregon Petition, and stood against the scientific consensus that smoking is dangerous to people's health.)