Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: JBG on June 11, 2018, 06:34:31 am
-
How the Ice Age Shaped New York (http://"https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/science/how-the-ice-age-shaped-new-york.html")
Long ago, the region lay under an ice sheet thousands of feet thick. It terminated abruptly in what are now the boroughs, leaving the city with a unique landscape.
The New York Times may not realize it but last week they published a powerful argument against the concept of Anthropocentric Global Warming ("AGW"). New York City forms the southern edge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ar3uO66.jpg?1)
As the article explains, the ice sheet expanded as far as it could before encountering warmer weather, or more likely a higher sun angle. The glaciers retreated, and the warming was apparently as if not more sudden than the events of recent years that have caused much anxiety about AGW. Excerpt:
Some 13,000 years ago, a large accumulation of icy water from melting glaciers was suddenly unleashed upstate. A towering wave of destruction (http://"https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/the-great-flood-of-new-york") crashed down through the Hudson gorge and proceeded to smash the southern end of the local moraine to smithereens.
“It was biblical,” Mr. Horenstein said. The wave created the Narrows, which now connects the Atlantic Ocean to one of the world’s largest natural harbors.
While the jury is out on AGW, man in all likelihood cause this warming-triggered flood, or the warming.
For more, see On a Clear Day You Can See an Ice Age: One Journalist’s View From the Upper West Side (http://"https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/insider/ice-age-ridge-new-york.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article").
-
How the Ice Age Shaped New York (http://"https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/science/how-the-ice-age-shaped-new-york.html")
The New York Times may not realize it but last week they published a powerful argument against the concept of Anthropocentric Global Warming ("AGW"). New York City forms the southern edge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ar3uO66.jpg?1)
As the article explains, the ice sheet expanded as far as it could before encountering warmer weather, or more likely a higher sun angle. The glaciers retreated, and the warming was apparently as if not more sudden than the events of recent years that have caused much anxiety about AGW. Excerpt:While the jury is out on AGW, man in all likelihood cause this warming-triggered flood, or the warming.
For more, see On a Clear Day You Can See an Ice Age: One Journalist’s View From the Upper West Side (http://"https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/insider/ice-age-ridge-new-york.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article").
What ? The glaciers melted and so AGW is in doubt ? This is moronic.
-
What ? The glaciers melted and so AGW is in doubt ? This is moronic.
Exactly. A "sudden warming" episode created the Verrazano Narrows, by a sudden release of melt-water from upstate New York as the glaciers retreated.
-
Still a lot remains unknown about the mechanics of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, but there are some hypothesis out there. The general theory is the Earth has been cooling over hundreds of millions of years from continental drift. While CO2 being released from the southern ocean appears to be the major factor in ending the last ice age (global temperature lags behind CO2 concentration), that appears to be a reaction to an initial warming that is not as well understood.
-
Exactly. A "sudden warming" episode created the Verrazano Narrows, by a sudden release of melt-water from upstate New York as the glaciers retreated.
The article says nothing about a 'sudden warming'.
Please stop wasting my time.
-
JBG is trolling again.
-
Sun hits ancient glacier, forms pools & rivers of water that further melt glacier more quickly, therefore AGW doesn't exist?
-
Sun hits ancient glacier, forms pools & rivers of water that further melt glacier more quickly, therefore AGW doesn't exist?
Not exactly that. During the ice-age, advancing glaciers could create moraines or ice dams that changed the drainage and could form large lakes. If the volume of water in the lake became too much to be held back, these temporary dams could break and the result was a torrential flood. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the New York ice-age situation, but in the western US, south of Kim Country, the southern tip of encroaching glaciers blocked rivers and caused a huge lake to form centered around Missoula Montana. This lake broke through the ice dam, creating a flood of Biblical proportions that had dramatic effects on the landscape of Washington state as it surged towards the ocean. And then the ice dam gradually reformed... and the whole cycle repeated. Again, and again. Possibly dozens of times.
(Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods )
It wasn't the result of sudden melting, it was the result of the interface where the southern end of the glacier started to interfere with lakes and rivers and change drainage patterns.
And no, none of this actually constitutes an argument against AGW. It reminds us that much of our continent was covered by large glaciers that receded, which is something that most of us learned in elementary school.
-k
-
And no, none of this actually constitutes an argument against AGW. It reminds us that much of our continent was covered by large glaciers that receded, which is something that most of us learned in elementary school.
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?
-
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?
nobody is saying warming didn't end the ice age.
-
The Ice Age was ended by orbital forcing and Milankovitch cycles. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)
Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist)) has a great series of videos and this 13 minute video includes cites of papers and interviews with scientists, skeptics and even deniers. I don't usually like videos as a means of explaining but there don't seem to be a lot of sources that break down the science and also address skeptics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A
I like the series because it doesn't ascribe motives to people, even those who ignore obvious facts, and does find fault with both sides, eg. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" film. In retrospect, that film may have done a disservice to public discussions of climate change, however we could not hav e known that.
-
Well, it seems more snow doesn't equal more ice in the Antarctic.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208
Glad I moved from the flood plain to the top of the hill six years ago.
-
Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist)) has a great series of videos and this 13 minute video includes cites of papers and interviews with scientists, skeptics and even deniers.
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/
Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.
-
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?
Your argument is apparently that since human activity didn't cause the end of the ice age, human activity couldn't be causing warming present-day either.
As Michael charitably put it, that's moronic.
It's like arguing that since human activity didn't cause the dinosaurs to go extinct, human activity couldn't be causing species to go extinct present-day either.
Good grief.
I'm not exactly sure where to rank this one on the stupid-scale, but it's somewhere in the same neighborhood as "it's cold today so global warming is obviously fake" and "if humans evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys?"
-k
-
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
still pimpin' for Crazy Aunt Judy? Still? Deniers gotta deny!
-
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/
Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.
So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld
-
So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.
-
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.
Point being your never ending attempts to discredit the majority of legitimate climate scientists continue to fall flat. But keep tryin' l'il buddy.
-
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/
Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.
If you want to read a hack who is funded by the oil industry, check out Judith Curry. Yeah.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
-
Your posts are generally bizarro nonsense that completely miss the point. This takes it to a whole new level. Try reading what I say for once and coming up with a response that actually addresses the argument I made instead of responding to whatever odd delusion pops into your head.
What you say is nonsensical garbage that shouldn't even be dignified with responses. You post fringe hacks on climate, as if their words are gospel, ignoring all of the problems with their arguments, whilst claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong. If you were half as skeptical about crackpot climate change deniers as you are about the scientific consensus, you would see how stupid you look.
-
Alarmists ... resort to naming calling and other ad-homs
Alarmists - says the denier.
-
Alarmists - says the denier.
Would this be a good time to paste a link to Merriam-Webster under "hypocrisy"?
-
What you say is nonsensical garbage that shouldn't even be dignified with responses. You post fringe hacks on climate, as if their words are gospel, ignoring all of the problems with their arguments, whilst claiming that the scientific consensus is wrong.
Pathetic. You are just like a Trumpette running off to propaganda sites screaming ad homs whenever you hear an argument that offends your ideological obsessions. If you actually cared about science you would learn what the well founded counter arguments are and try to understand the limitations of current knowledge. Except you don't care about understanding the world or science. You only care about pushing your ideologically driven viewpoints under the bogus premise of "consensus" science. And you have the nerve to lecture me. Look in a mirror.
-
Pathetic. You are just like a Trumpette running off to propaganda sites screaming ad homs whenever you hear an argument that offends your ideological obsessions. If you actually cared about science you would learn what the well founded counter arguments are and try to understand the limitations of current knowledge. Except you don't care about understanding the world or science. You only care about pushing your ideologically driven viewpoints under the bogus premise of "consensus" science. And you have the nerve to lecture me. Look in a mirror.
The well founded counter arguments account for ~3% of peer reviewed reports. So who is pushing ideologically driven viewpoints?
-
So once again you try to flog this nonsense that 97% of climate scientists must somehow be "pseudo" and so I guess you think the deniers must be the only actual scientists involved in the issue. Sorry, fail. However you did manage a good reiteration Rumsfeld
There's a pretty strong consensus on AGW but where do you get the 97% number?
-
There's a pretty strong consensus on AGW but where do you get the 97% number?
That number has been talked about in a lot of places
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
-
2 days from now is supposed to be sunny with cloudy periods, 10% of rain. The vast majority of meteorologists forecast this. There are a small minority of meteorologists who forecast scattered showers throughout the day, 80% of rain.
This is what the climate "debate" sounds like to me. Not that I'm comparing weather with climate (you can't), the analogy just means that if there's some skeptics with different science conclusions that's fine, but if you're going to plan your day two days from now based on the weather, the only logical choice is to put more weight in the what the vast majority of scientists say than what a small minority say.
It's amazing to me how frequently one's political leanings will match what they believe about climate change. There is no "belief", there's only science, statistics/evidence, and probabilities.
-
There's a pretty strong consensus on AGW but where do you get the 97% number?
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.
-
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.
It would be interesting to hear what actual scientists have to say about your claim that their professional, peer reviewed findings are nothing more than propaganda. Did you ever try and push a rope up hill as well?
-
This is what the climate "debate" sounds like to me. Not that I'm comparing weather with climate (you can't), the analogy just means that if there's some skeptics with different science conclusions that's fine, but if you're going to plan your day two days from now based on the weather, the only logical choice is to put more weight in the what the vast majority of scientists say than what a small minority say.
Except what is really happening is meteorologists are giving medical advice. i.e. it will rain in the next 2 days so you need to have your appendix removed. If one is going to put weight on the advice of experts one must choose the right experts and the sad fact is climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy system design so they have nothing useful to tell us about the cost of reducing CO2 vs. the cost of adapting.
-
the cost of reducing CO2 vs. the cost of adapting.
What is the cost of reducing? I mean the real cost, not some artificial monetary cost but real world cost.
-
Aside from all the the other stuff resulting from global warming, 10% of the worlds population live in coastal zones below 10M above sea level. So what is the cost of adapting?
-
The number is pure propaganda because it is based on a question which almost every scientific skeptic agrees with too. Studies that ask the question that matters (i.e. are CO2 emissions a serious concern) then the consensus is closer to 80%. Still a majority but 20% is a significant minority. Large enough that people that simply dismiss skeptical POVs are clearly anti-science.
The number's i've seen previously were somewhere around 80%. 97% seems high.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg)
-
The number's i've seen previously were somewhere around 80%. 97% seems high.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg)
Your feelings on the percentage don’t really matter.... hard numbers are what count.
It seems high because it is high!
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
-
Your feelings on the percentage don’t really matter.... hard numbers are what count.
Logic fail! What matters is the question asked. No one cares about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or whether the earth is warming or whether they believe that 50% of the observed warming is due to human CO2. The question that matter is how many scientists think that reducing human CO2 emissions rapidly is a useful response. When it comes to that question there is no 97% consensus - it is closer to 80%.
More importantly, 20% of scientists who dissent from the alarmist view is not an insignificant minority. It is certainly large enough to expect that their opinions be heard in the policy debate and people who try to prevent the dissenting opinions from being expressed are anti-science toletarians.
-
What is the cost of reducing? I mean the real cost, not some artificial monetary cost but real world cost.
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem. The trouble is we cannot wave a magic wand and deploy technology that does not exist and any estimates of future costs are no better than wild guesses. Most people don't take economic forecasts for a year or two as facts so why should anyone take economist predictions for 50 or 100 years from now as facts?
-
Your feelings on the percentage don’t really matter.... hard numbers are what count.
It seems high because it is high!
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You post a source from NASA and Tim marks it dumb. But he cares about the science. Like really REALLY cares. lol
-
You post a source from NASA and Tim marks it dumb. But he cares about the science. Like really REALLY cares. lol
Posting links to scientific papers *is* dumb if the papers don't address the question being asked. It is called the strawman fallacy.
-
The question that matter is how many scientists think that reducing human CO2 emissions rapidly is a useful response. When it comes to that question there is no 97% consensus - it is closer to 80%.
More importantly, 20% of scientists who dissent from the alarmist view is not an insignificant minority. It is certainly large enough to expect that their opinions be heard in the policy debate and people who try to prevent the dissenting opinions from being expressed are anti-science toletarians.Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem.
"the problem" you speak to: is not a problem you accept. As the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to accept that anthropogenic sourced C02 is the principal causal tie to warming/climate change..... as the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to, when challenged, state your understood alternative principal causal tie. Instead, you perpetually draw on your, "adapt only, no mitigation" charade; you perpetually draw on your "denigrating climate scientists" routine that presumes to favour "economists/engineers" to work to deploy problem resolutions in line with policy related decisions - again, all for a problem you don't accept in the first place.
your disingenuous nature is well understood/recognized:
- when pressed to respond to requests for details related to your "adapt only" posturing, you provide nothing other than to suggest adaptation is a localized per country concern... for global impacts that reflect upon borderless oceans/atmosphere - yeesh! Oh wait now; you also dropped a nugget (under the waldo's pressing scrutiny of your BS) that adaptation is a "futures concern" - that nothing needs to be initiated now/today. All of which follows the, "do nothing/delay at all costs", implicit position of deniers/fake skeptics.
- you continually natter on about a broad-based reference to "economists/engineers" overseeing enforcement/deployment of any policy decisions (those that might be under your undetermined/unqualified stated influence of those wascally "climate scientists"... you know, that body of world-wide scientists working in a myriad of disciplines within and peripheral to climate science proper). Of course, when the waldo pressed you to provide (rather recognize) the formal positions of recognized international/national bodies & organizations of economists and engineers, you resorted to one of your ready-goto fallbacks: you said something along the lines of why should you/one recognize the ideological and political positions of biased bodies/organizations... press me on this and I will find your exact quote!
citation request to align with your statement/claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"... you know, a response to a problem you refuse to accept in the first place. It's also heeelarious to read you attempt to counter the consensus on the prevailing science with this narrowly aligned (claimed) percentage on problem response - heeelarious! ;D
-
Good question. The answer is a question of economics and technology which are not fields where climate scientists have any special expertise so the number of climate scientists who think CO2 should be reduced is not something that should have any effect on policy decisions. The opinion of climate scientists only mean that economists and engineers should look the problem. The trouble is we cannot wave a magic wand and deploy technology that does not exist and any estimates of future costs are no better than wild guesses. Most people don't take economic forecasts for a year or two as facts so why should anyone take economist predictions for 50 or 100 years from now as facts?
Well at least you seem to be coming around to the fact that most climate scientists agree on AGW and its causes. And you are right that it will take more than just scientists to deal with the problem. However there is no need to jump to the conclusion that it could only be fixed by waving a wand. After all we didn't need a magic wand to create the billion or so automobiles that roam the earth today.
-
Aside from all the the other stuff resulting from global warming, 10% of the worlds population live in coastal zones below 10M above sea level. So what is the cost of adapting?
It doesn't look good if you live in say Florida if things don't change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/13/antarctic-ice-loss-has-tripled-in-a-decade-if-that-continues-we-are-in-serious-trouble/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f72d97e5352c
-
As the denier you are, you steadfastly hold in your refusal to accept that anthropogenic sourced C02 is the principal causal tie to warming/climate change.....
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering. Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.
-
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering. Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.
Maybe you should re asses your tired old sources and study the vast majority of peer reviewed ones so you won't continue to rack up so many "dumbs"
-
Your argument is apparently that since human activity didn't cause the end of the ice age, human activity couldn't be causing warming present-day either.
As Michael charitably put it, that's moronic.
It's like arguing that since human activity didn't cause the dinosaurs to go extinct, human activity couldn't be causing species to go extinct present-day either.
Good grief.
I'm not exactly sure where to rank this one on the stupid-scale, but it's somewhere in the same neighborhood as "it's cold today so global warming is obviously fake" and "if humans evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys?"
-k
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.
-
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.
We are being advised by scientists to adjust how we derive energy from our environment so we don't continue to destroy it. Economically it's probably a good idea to adjust away from fossil fuels lest we stqnd around shivering when we burn the last bbl of oil. And yes, certain things are out of our control. i.e. an asteroid hit the earth ~65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs and it seems the deniers have an attitude that uses that sort of incident to keepo their heads buried.
-
I know you don't like to address the arguments I actually make because those arguments can't be dismissed with tired alarmist propaganda that you endlessly spout. However, it is getting tedious. A discussion board is supposed to about discussion and ideas - not regurgitating the irrelevant talking points to keep the peanut gallery cheering. Why don't you try demonstrating that are something more than an alarmist bot by addressing the arguments I make rather than the ones you wish I would make.
say what! After relaying yet another pointed summation on your tired nattering... I did speak directly to your so-called "latest argument"... and you ignored it. Here, have another go (at ignoring it).
citation request to align with your statement/claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"... you know, a response to a problem you refuse to accept in the first place.
Note: I'm not even challenging your number - I'm most curious about the particulars: who/what arrived at it/based on what. (make sure to clarify your reference to, "rapidly")
-
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess. I am stating historical facts, that there has already been massive warming not caused by human activity that may well be continuing.
just who/what are your declared "alarmists"? In terms of your stated historical fact - BFD! What caused that past glacier melting (the warming)? Are you offering a correlation between the causal ties to that long past historical warming and the relatively recent warming (forward from the beginning of the 'Industrial Age' to present)? If so, citation request - sure you can!
-
say what! After relaying yet another pointed summation on your tired nattering.
Your "summation" had absolutely nothing to do with my arguments (i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).
https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf
To the question:
22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?
Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.
The 97% number is a meaningless deception based on a question that no one asked.
-
Your "summation" had absolutely nothing to do with my arguments (i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).
https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf
To the question:Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.
The 97% number is a meaningless deception based on a question that no one asked.
97% and 80% are "meaningless" to you? Give it up buddy, I doubt anybody takes you too seriously.
-
(i.e. I have never argued that CO2 was not a significant factor in the observed warming. I have even said that even though I think the evidence is enough to justify CO2 reductions if and only if there a cost effective options).
I will take back calling this reply of yours, 'weasel words', if... if, you simply rephrase and state that you agree with the following:
I, member TimG, categorically and unequivocally accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change.
-
https://www.coastalatlas.de/imperia/md/content/gkss/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/gkss_berichte_2010/gkss_2010_9_.pdf
To the question:Only 80% answered yes. The rest were either neutral or answered no.
22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?
before I actually speak to your reference: c'mon man... "only" 80%? Only? ;D Since when does 80% warrant an "only"?
- there does appear to be a tad liberty taken here: your original statement/claim was that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response". Notwithstanding your quoted 'question 22' could have... should have... been tailored more precisely, your original stated interpretation of that question is open to several interpretations itself.
- in any case, your link is to an unsecured website, but I didn't need to open it as the question itself is well recognized and associates with a single survey; the 2008 survey (published in 2010) by authors Bray & von Storch... the single survey that had 370 respondents (an approximate 18% response rate).
(https://i.imgur.com/0oKW6Wb.png)
- that's quite the broad-based leverage you're attempting to make off a single survey with a smallish response rate - yes? "Only 80%... only!"
- as for the scientific consensus itself... whether you accept the oft quoted 97% or, alternatively, >90%, surely you're not going to offer up another "only" here in terms of the scientific consensus on the (principal) causal tie to global warming - yes? What's your consensus understanding; your preferred number/range... based on what?
-
What happened to Tim’s old position that he believes global warming is caused by human activities but that it’s just too expensive to do anything about it?
-
- as for the scientific consensus itself... whether you accept the oft quoted 97% or, alternatively, >90%, surely you're not going to offer up another "only" here in terms of the scientific consensus on the (principal) causal tie to global warming - yes? What's your consensus understanding; your preferred number/range... based on what?
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result. 20% is not a small collection of cranks; it is a significant minority and it is ridiculous to suggest that policy makers should not hear what they have to say. The only way that 20% could exist is if the uncertainties inherent in the science are much greater than what alarmists claim. The 97% is deceptive propaganda because it is used to deny these uncertainties and suppress minority voices. This is not only wrong in principle but it has also destroyed any chance of a sensible debate. For example, I periodically try to get people to learn about the minority position and I am greeted with screams of "denier" and "oil company shill". It is pathetic.
As for methodological problems: every study of scientific opinion I have seen has methodological issues. This one is better than most. But the most important point is it actually attempts to find out what scientists think with a wide range of questions. "studies" that only look at a single question are propaganda exercises.
Lastly, the politics surrounding climate change has made the field extremely hostile for any career academic that dissents from the party line. Judy Curry retired from her tenured position because she got tired of the abuse she received for advancing opinions which she felt were justified given the state of the scientific knowledge. She did not have to retire - she could have simply ignored the scientific evidence as she saw it and continued on but her scientific integrity would not allow her to do that. But not every scientist has the options that Curry did and instead has to leave the field entirely or simply refuse to explore research that might create conflict. The result is a serious problem with group think which means all of the so called "truths" we have been told may actually be complete BS. Respectfully listening to minority scientific opinions is the only way to prevent group think from fooling us even if the minority opinion is not enough to alter the broad conclusions.
-
We are being asked by the alarmists to undertake massive restrictions in our economic activity, based on, essentially, a wild guess.
Horse ****.
1. The Greenhouse Effect is real
2. Greenhouse gases are being produced by humans at an accelerated rate
3. Temperature goes up correlated to the amount of new gases being added
No one would call this a "wild guess"
-
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result.
Except the survey you reference doesn't come anywhere close to that stupid allegation. That is the problem of taking a survey result, and putting your own frigen words to it to justify your position. Go back and restate your "opinion" is based on personal desires, and nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the survey you reference.
-
Except the survey you reference doesn't come anywhere close to that stupid allegation.
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".
-
It is close to a direct quote from the survey.
No, it is not. There is a lot of daylight between serious and a threat to humanity.
-
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".
So you're saying that NASA is simply an alarmist outfit that simply cherry picks questions to get the results they want. Do you think they faked the moon landing too? How 'bout the shape of the earth?
-
It is close to a direct quote from the survey. That you seem to have missed the point the exact question *matters* when evaluating these kinds of "appeals to authority". The 97% nonsense that gets tossed around is pure propaganda that alarmists only use because they cherry picked questions that gave them the answer they liked. It is not a useful starting point for any discussion. OTOH, the survey I referenced is very broad and covers a lot of ground. If you see other questions that you feel are more meaningful from a policy perspective then say what they are. Note that we don't really care about how many scientists think CO2 is a GHG or that humans are waning the planet. Policy related questions are things like "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?".
Even if you don't want to read the fine print, the opening picture should tell you something.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/impact-climate-change-health-is-major-threat-21st-century
-
distraction.
-
So? This is more appeals to authority where you cherry picked the authorities willing to push the message that you like. Their opinion is not the only opinion among authorities although there has been a concerted political effort to silence dissenters in the field. The fact that they think that dissenters should be silenced the primary reason why the "majority" opinion has to be taken with a huge grain a salt.
So everything that refutes your opinion on the matter must be "cherry picked". We get the picture.
-
No, it is not. There is a lot of daylight between serious and a threat to humanity.
You need a some lessons in reading comprehension:
The question asked was:
"22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"
My summary was:
"20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat"
All I did was invert the question which does not change its meaning. i.e. if someone is "not convinced" that climate change is serious then they are saying that they "don't see climate change as a serious threat".
-
You need a some lessons in reading comprehension:
The question asked was:
"22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"
My summary was:
"20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat"
All I did was invert the question which does not change its meaning. i.e. if someone is "not convinced" that climate change is serious then they are saying that they "don't see climate change as a serious threat".
So even if you're numbers are somehow correct, you will continue to ignore the (your) 80% who do conclude climate change IS a serious threat. Gotcha.
-
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result. 20% is not a small collection of cranks
FFS! You're basing your nonsense on a single survey with an ~18% response rate... which equates to 66 scientists that bothered to respond in alignment with your stated 20%. If you state/claim 80% warrants an "ONLY", what tag would you use for 20%? ;D
notwithstanding your self-serving, agenda-driven interpretation of that question is bogus man, bogus! Again, your original statement, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response" is quite liberally drawn from the actual question: "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"
as I said, the question was poorly framed in the first place... any literal interpretations of the question might call for clarification of "serious", of "dangerous", of "threat"... to ALL of humanity... all?
-
Lastly, the politics surrounding climate change has made the field extremely hostile for any career academic that dissents from the party line. Judy Curry retired from her tenured position because she got tired of the abuse she received for advancing opinions which she felt were justified given the state of the scientific knowledge. She did not have to retire - she could have simply ignored the scientific evidence as she saw it and continued on but her scientific integrity would not allow her to do that.
ya ya, your darling 'Crazy Aunt Judy' has gone walk-about! ;D And here I thought I read references suggesting she had become a pariah 'on campus'... that few students were interested in her teachings, that she was a liability for any students pursuing masters/doctorate. She, the ready Congressional committee go-to for charlatan/denying Republicans! Just a few of her gem statements in regards her 2017 "retirement":
Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down. We can always hope.
I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science
-
You're basing your nonsense on a single survey with an ~18% response rate...
And what are you basing your assertion that the number is different on? Blind faith? The studies claiming 97% only asked one or two meaningless questions designed to maximize their propaganda value. Do you have a study that asks relevant questions, has better response rates and supports you claim that more a larger number of scientists think that AGW is a serious threat?
s I said, the question was poorly framed in the first place... any literal interpretations of the question might call for clarification of "serious", of "dangerous", of "threat"... to ALL of humanity... all?
The wording is fine for its purpose: assessing the degree of concern felt by scientists and a significant minority of scientists are not that concerned about it. Reasonable people should want to know why.
-
she was a liability for any students pursuing masters/doctorate.
She was a liability because the of AGW zealots that has taken over the scientific establishment that accept no deviation from the party line. A student could not risk their career with her as mentor. Nothing Curry has said is unreasonable from a scientific perspective. Denigrating her as a "crazy lady" is a perfect example how your opinions have nothing to with science and it is absolutely laughable to suggest that you have anything useful to say about the actual science.
-
And what are you basing your assertion that the number is different on? Blind faith? The studies claiming 97% only asked one or two meaningless questions designed to maximize their propaganda value. Do you have a study that asks relevant questions, has better response rates and supports you claim that more a larger number of scientists think that AGW is a serious threat?
c'mon man! You were asked to substantiate your claimed 20% statement. That single survey... based on 66 responses... appears to be your sole basis for your continued generalized and broad-based statement about scientists. Again, if you tag 80% with your "ONLY" label, what should we label your single-survey 20% as? ;D
studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications? In any case, I'll ask again: what percentage figure do you associate with the scientific consensus - and how have you (how was it) arrived at?
The wording is fine for its purpose: assessing the degree of concern felt by scientists and a significant minority of scientists are not that concerned about it. Reasonable people should want to know why.
again, those 66 scientists that bothered to reply in line with the question? That question is so open to interpretations - why... look how you interpreted it for your self-serving, agenda-driven purposes!
-
studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications?
Peer-reviewed scientific publications are all biased. The true reality is contained in bloggers' posts and disgruntled ex-academics ramblings on social media. Because, you know, alternatives, by virtue of being alternative, are far more reliable than the scientific method and the process of having your research evaluated by equally educated and qualified peers.
-
c'mon man! You were asked to substantiate your claimed 20% statement.
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.
But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.
studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications?
Those metastudies are also completely useless. Making inferences based a couple lines of text in a paper is a ridiculous way to determine a scientists opinion. More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.
-
She was a liability because the of AGW zealots that has taken over the scientific establishment that accept no deviation from the party line. A student could not risk their career with her as mentor. Nothing Curry has said is unreasonable from a scientific perspective. Denigrating her as a "crazy lady" is a perfect example how your opinions have nothing to with science and it is absolutely laughable to suggest that you have anything useful to say about the actual science.
and here I thought her richly deserved 'Crazy Aunt' designation was a term of endearment! And here I thought she claims "natural forces" are more significant (more than human influence) in regards warming causation. Wait now - is that why you refuse to state you accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/climate change? Is that why... you're forever quoting and referencing her?
-
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.
But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.
Yeah I'll never trust that dang NASA outfit again. They throw out bogus numbers all the time don't ya know!
-
Yeah I'll never trust that dang NASA outfit again. They throw out bogus numbers all the time don't ya know!
If their so-called "scientists" were as educated as Tim's favourite bloggers, then maybe he would trust their arguments.
-
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.
But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.
Those metastudies are also completely useless. Making inferences based a couple lines of text in a paper is a ridiculous way to determine a scientists opinion. More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.
ya ya, the scientific establishment has long been keepin' the denier-man down! Skeptical/denying studies can't get a break cause that wascally peer-review/peer-response process is either so biased or so corrupt... or so unfair in challenging & countering studies that presume to challenge consensus science. /snarc
-
More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.
oh my! Who knew those meta-studies should have reviewed scientific publications that supported your most liberally interpreted, self-serving, agenda-driven question" --- your stated claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"? Wait now - surely someone/some organization has done just that, yes? Surely!
wait now! Are you suggesting scientific publications should include summary statements on policy assessment/risk/determinations? Aren't you the forever guy stating scientists have no foundation to do so... that only your favoured, "engineers and economists" are qualified in that regard? Make up your mind, hey!