Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Jaskalas]

That is an EXTREMELY dishonest way of approaching it. It is trying to count every paper that doesn't have an explicit position on AGW as a knock against it. The 97% figure is far more accurate. They even asked people who wrote the papers to self identify them and ended up with the same figure.

If you're concerned about propaganda you definitely shouldn't be posting images like that. Surely you don't want to be tricked by those people?

There's no trick. The 97% is anyone who believes in the physical properties of CO2. It is a flat out lie to say 97% endorse the IPCC. The papers were categorized.

Category 1 (Man majorly responsible): 65 papers.

 

[fskimospy]

There's no trick. The 97% is anyone who believes in the physical properties of CO2. It is a flat out lie to say 97% endorse the IPCC. The papers were categorized.

Category 1 (Man majorly responsible): 65 papers.

You're being misled yet again; I strongly suggest you expand your reading outside of denier blogs.

In a later part of the study that the author of your link either did not read or deliberately decided to conceal from his readers the scientists who wrote the papers that Cook categorized were invited to rate their own papers and the results came back as an even stronger endorsement.

 

[Jaskalas]

You're being misled yet again; I strongly suggest you expand your reading outside of denier blogs.

In a later part of the study that the author of your link either did not read or deliberately decided to conceal from his readers the scientists who wrote the papers that Cook categorized were invited to rate their own papers and the results came back as an even stronger endorsement.

They were asked if their papers were correctly categorized. They agreed.

Category 1 is 65 papers.
0.5% of all papers.
1.6% of those with opinions on it.

NOT 97%

 

[fskimospy]

They were asked if their papers were correctly categorized. They agreed.

Category 1 is 65 papers.
0.5% of all papers.
1.6% of those with opinions on it.

NOT 97%

That is an insanely misleading way of presenting the data, especially the attempt to label it 0.5% of all papers. Including papers that did not make a statement on the issue is a basic error of logic.

More importantly, if you want to restrict yourself to papers that take an explicit stand, I'm glad to do so! That would mean categories 1 and 7, either explicitly accepting or explicitly rejecting. Guess what percentage of those two categories endorsed category 1? You guessed it, 96%.

With all that in mind, the answer is quite clearly at or around 97%, as confirmed by multiple independent studies. If you were trying to argue that it's actually even higher than 97% as some studies had concluded I'd be willing to admit that might be the case?

 

[chucky2]

So...How significant is human activity contributing to climate change...?

 

[Paratus]

So...How significant is human activity contributing to climate change...?

Basically all of it since the natural forcings were pushing us cooler.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
This is the summation of a bunch of papers describing the percentage of human forcing in global warming.

 

[xaeniac]

climate change is real, how much of it is human effected is another question

 

[Paratus]

Basically all of it since the natural forcings were pushing us cooler.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57
This is the summation of a bunch of papers describing the percentage of human forcing in global warming.

climate change is real, how much of it is human effected is another question

You may have missed this post. But basically all of the rise in temperature since at least 50's is attributed to human causes. Seriously.

 

[chucky2]

Awesome. How much of that is attributable to first world nations vs third world nations who have zero regulations?

 

[ivwshane]

Awesome. How much of that is attributable to first world nations vs third world nations who have zero regulations?

Does that matter? Are you seriously using the childish logic that if everyone isn't helping then why should we?

That must be some of that leadership talk the right is always complaining about.

 

[fskimospy]

Does that matter? Are you seriously using the childish logic that if everyone isn't helping then why should we?

That must be some of that leadership talk the right is always complaining about.

It does matter if other people don't join in. The U.S. is the second largest carbon emitter in the world, and we wield unprecedented influence over other countries. China's recent carbon reductions closely followed ours.

So not only are we a huge emitter, but we can exert influence over other huge emitters. Talk about everyone winning, right!?

 

[ivwshane]

It does matter if other people don't join in. The U.S. is the second largest carbon emitter in the world, and we wield unprecedented influence over other countries. China's recent carbon reductions closely followed ours.

So not only are we a huge emitter, but we can exert influence over other huge emitters. Talk about everyone winning, right!?

I agree but I believe that wasn't the argument he was trying to make.

 

[schmuckley]

oh..oh.So everybody should stop breathing, right?
cuz you know them millions of acres of natural land they tear up for fertilizer in order to grow biofuel crops don't amount to much..

 

[Paratus]

oh..oh.So everybody should stop breathing, right?
cuz you know them millions of acres of natural land they tear up for fertilizer in order to grow biofuel crops don't amount to much..

Bio fuel from corn is assinine. But farmers have a great lobby so there you go.

And respiration is part of the natural carbon cycle so no problem. Unless you've been huffing gasoline. :hmm:

 

[BlueWolf47]

You may have missed this post. But basically all of the rise in temperature since at least 50's is attributed to human causes. Seriously.

Keep up the good work. I gave up a long time ago trying to explain science to the layman on these forums. You seem to have a strong grasp of the subject.


I feel like we shouldn't have to explain things like the natural carbon cycle and green house effect.

 

[Zorkorist]

Bio fuel from corn is assinine. But farmers have a great lobby so there you go.

LOL! Seriously my first laugh of the day.

So, right, on.

-John

 

[TheSlamma]

The good thing is by the time we find out we'll all be dead

 

[Paratus]

Keep up the good work. I gave up a long time ago trying to explain science to the layman on these forums. You seem to have a strong grasp of the subject.


I feel like we shouldn't have to explain things like the natural carbon cycle and green house effect.

:thumbsup:

What I find affirming when I answer these questions is I don't have the links to the data to back up my arguements when I start the post. I use my knowledge of thermo and heat mass transfer to formulate a response and then I look up the data. I know the data has to be out there and from a reputable source. If it wasn't, the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, the EPA , et al wouldn't be making the claims about global warming that they are. The data is always there and from multiple sources as you know.

I wonder if our resident skeptics ever wonder why most of their links are from business rags like the WSJ, political blogs or at best Judith Curry. :hmm:

 

[Paratus]

LOL! Seriously my first laugh of the day.

So, right, on.

-John

Corporations are farmers my friend. (Didn't the supreme court rule that? :hmm: :sneaky

 

[Cozarkian]

More importantly, if you want to restrict yourself to papers that take an explicit stand, I'm glad to do so! That would mean categories 1 and 7, either explicitly accepting or explicitly rejecting. Guess what percentage of those two categories endorsed category 1? You guessed it, 96%.

Category 1: 65
Category 7: 10
65/(65+10) = 65/75 = 86.67% (not 96%)

Also, it is, as you would say "insanely misleading" to ignore the middle class of papers. I'll accept cutting out category 4, but you can't ignore the other papers that actually state a position. Thus, the honest presentation of the data would be:

1.62% of papers that state a position on global warming believe humans are the dominant cause, .25% of such papers deny humans are a cause, the remaining 98.13% do not express certainty as to the extent of the human contribution to global warming.

 

[OverVolt]

No its both real and human caused, they just have no freaking clue what happens next or the actual consequences. Nor do they have any idea when the warming will happen, or by how much. Nor do they have any idea if cooling would be worse for crops, or warming, or somewhere in-between. I feel like the most important factor is actually how the biome reacts with regard to forests, oceans and such. Burning fossil fuels is just as bad as deforestation but you don't see most of you here living in a house made of something other than wood, so stfu!

Like the people cutting down the rain forests in Brazil in order for their family to survive give a crap what the University of Berkeley thinks about them, or whoever.

 

[fskimospy]

Category 1: 65
Category 7: 10
65/(65+10) = 65/75 = 86.67% (not 96%)

I was using the author self rating where the people who wrote the papers said what they meant. That would be the most accurate measure. And that is 96%.

Also, it is, as you would say "insanely misleading" to ignore the middle class of papers. I'll accept cutting out category 4, but you can't ignore the other papers that actually state a position. Thus, the honest presentation of the data would be:

1.62% of papers that state a position on global warming believe humans are the dominant cause, .25% of such papers deny humans are a cause, the remaining 98.13% do not express certainty as to the extent of the human contribution to global warming.

That would be a very dishonest way to put it, as the papers do not communicate their degree of certainty.

You're right though, the best thing to do would be to accept the broader expression of preference. It doesn't really matter what way you try to manipulate the data. The 97% consensus is extremely robust. It's also backed up by other independent studies. Hell, even some of the deniers accept the result.

 

[chucky2]

Does that matter? Are you seriously using the childish logic that if everyone isn't helping then why should we?

That must be some of that leadership talk the right is always complaining about.

I'm asking who has contributed the most, overwhelmingly, to the problem (as alleged) of man induced climate change. That shouldn't be that hard to determine right?

 

[OverVolt]

What they have, is a climate computer sim that keeps overshooting the temperature increases.

Anything other than that, is a bunch of SWAG. Scientific wild ass guessing. They don't know what will happen at XYZ degrees C of increasing temperature, clearly. Because one day the glaciers are shrinking the next they are growing again. None of their predictions have ever been correct. The moment the glaciers shrink they start yaking I told you so and when they start growing again you could hear a pin drop. Its so hypocritical and stupid of them it blows my mind that people think that the climate scientists are still the intelligent mans choice. As if you guys hadn't learned your lesson with Al Gore by now.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm asking who has contributed the most, overwhelmingly, to the problem (as alleged) of man induced climate change. That shouldn't be that hard to determine right?

Again, it doesn't matter. Now if you want to ask "what has contributed the most", so that we can tackle that with the highest priority, otherwise pointing fingers doesn't really fix anything.