Climate Science Is Not Settled

[chucky2]

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.

Oh, I think it's going to matter very much. Do you think some village in Africa that burns water buffalo pies for fuel is going to want to hear they need to somehow cut back on their 4th hand boat motors because they pump out CO2 like a mofo? (not to mention other pollutants) Or that they're going to have to pay (somehow) for an emissions controlled engine that isn't going to be servicable out in the boonies? Do you think the Leadership of a developing nation is going to want to hear they're going to have to earn less - by cutting into their profits, or even getting the work at all - because they have to enact limits on emission outputs? These are going to go over like lead balloons.

So, Yes, it does matter who has made the most of the man made contribution.

 

[BlueWolf47]

: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:

They feel blogs are adequate sources to use as a rebuttals to peer reviewed studies. If they stuck to peer reviewed studies we would no longer have to debate whether or not climate change is occurring. We could finnaly move on to discussing emerging technologies and ways of combating the effects of climate change.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Paratus]

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%

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.

Eskimospy answered this question already and provided a link. You are wrong. ~97% of climatologist publishing climatology papers said yes to increasing temperatures and yes to humans being the significant factor.

Results show that overall, 90% of par- ticipants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our sur- vey, the most specialized and knowledge- able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate sci- ence as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individu-
als in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques- tion 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup .com/poll/1615/Environment.a

 

[Pray To Jesus]

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.

Science is hypothesis of Agw to model temp. Models don't work.


Hypothesis is still unproven.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, I think it's going to matter very much. Do you think some village in Africa that burns water buffalo pies for fuel is going to want to hear they need to somehow cut back on their 4th hand boat motors because they pump out CO2 like a mofo? (not to mention other pollutants) Or that they're going to have to pay (somehow) for an emissions controlled engine that isn't going to be servicable out in the boonies? Do you think the Leadership of a developing nation is going to want to hear they're going to have to earn less - by cutting into their profits, or even getting the work at all - because they have to enact limits on emission outputs? These are going to go over like lead balloons.

So, Yes, it does matter who has made the most of the man made contribution.

No, none of that matters, what other countries do should have no bearing on our action. Thanks for continuing with you adolescent logic though

 

[dphantom]

Considering we are measuring the scientists' opinion on climate change, significant is whatever they personally consider it to be. That's the way it should be.

in other words, meaningless. thanks for clearing that up

 

[dphantom]

They feel blogs are adequate sources to use as a rebuttals to peer reviewed studies. If they stuck to peer reviewed studies we would no longer have to debate whether or not climate change is occurring. We could finnaly move on to discussing emerging technologies and ways of combating the effects of climate change.

Keep up the good work.

you must have missed the peer reviewed article in this thread. try to keep up

 

[Paratus]

you must have missed the peer reviewed article in this thread. try to keep up

lol.

Takes others to task for ignoring his peer reviewed article

Ignores everyone else's peer reviewed articles

 

[dphantom]

lol.

Takes others to task for ignoring his peer reviewed article

Ignores everyone else's peer reviewed articles

lol your funny. I have read several peer reviewed articles over the last few years. Including Mann and hansen. If you have not, perhaps you shoudl read the two peer reviewed papers I posted. Both agree to some human induced warming.

 

[fskimospy]

in other words, meaningless. thanks for clearing that up

If you consider well informed opinion on authoritative research by experts in the field to be meaningless that is of course your prerogative. I find that one of the common steps people on here take when confronted with research that tells them what they don't want to hear is to simply declare that it doesn't matter. It seems a lot like people engaging intellectual defense mechanisms to avoid changing their mind.

 

[dphantom]

If you consider well informed opinion on authoritative research by experts in the field to be meaningless that is of course your prerogative. I find that one of the common steps people on here take when confronted with research that tells them what they don't want to hear is to simply declare that it doesn't matter. It seems a lot like people engaging intellectual defense mechanisms to avoid changing their mind.

No, I find your definition of significant in the context of that so called survey to be completely meaningless.

One person could say man is significant if he causes 1% while another says it is not significant until 99%. Well if u have 2 in the survey, you now have 100% saying man's contribution is significant. That is utter crock and has no scientific meaning.

You know that.

Scientists opinions matter very much. And it appears you and a few others are the ones doing everything you can to ignore findings even from IPCC data that does not agree with your belief that man is the primary cause of GW.

You and others simply cannot accept that we do not know enough to make that determination but we do know there is some effect by man. We need to find out how much.

But you and others are so bent on laming man for all the GW that you have completely closed your mind to other possibilities that may be more significant.

You are the ones ignoring contrasting ideas. Your ideology simply will not allow you to objectively view the science of climatology.

 

[Greenman]

If you consider well informed opinion on authoritative research by experts in the field to be meaningless that is of course your prerogative. I find that one of the common steps people on here take when confronted with research that tells them what they don't want to hear is to simply declare that it doesn't matter. It seems a lot like people engaging intellectual defense mechanisms to avoid changing their mind.

That's not what they taught as science way back when I was in school. Back then a theory would be used to make predictions about whatever was being studied. Those predictions had to be correct or the theory was modified until it worked, or tossed out. Now it appears that "pier review" has replaced that system, which strikes me as both lazy and foolish. I was also taught that if it couldn't be measured, it wasn't science.

Simpler times I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what they taught as science way back when I was in school. Back then a theory would be used to make predictions about whatever was being studied. Those predictions had to be correct or the theory was modified until it worked, or tossed out. Now it appears that "pier review" has replaced that system, which strikes me as both lazy and foolish. I was also taught that if it couldn't be measured, it wasn't science.

Simpler times I guess.

I think you're confused about theories and the models derived from them.

Also, didnt you have a science textbook in the 70s that didn't know that quarks existed? Maybe not the best science education.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I find your definition of significant in the context of that so called survey to be completely meaningless.

One person could say man is significant if he causes 1% while another says it is not significant until 99%. Well if u have 2 in the survey, you now have 100% saying man's contribution is significant. That is utter crock and has no scientific meaning.

You know that.

Scientists opinions matter very much. And it appears you and a few others are the ones doing everything you can to ignore findings even from IPCC data that does not agree with your belief that man is the primary cause of GW.

You and others simply cannot accept that we do not know enough to make that determination but we do know there is some effect by man. We need to find out how much.

But you and others are so bent on laming man for all the GW that you have completely closed your mind to other possibilities that may be more significant.

You are the ones ignoring contrasting ideas. Your ideology simply will not allow you to objectively view the science of climatology.

It's always interesting to me when people attempting to ignore the overwhelming conclusions of science try to invoke science while doing so.

I pray that you and the rest of the denier community come to embrace science. The evidence is there, you just have to be able to swallow your pride.

 

[dphantom]

It's always interesting to me when people attempting to ignore the overwhelming conclusions of science try to invoke science while doing so.

I pray that you and the rest of the denier community come to embrace science. The evidence is there, you just have to be able to swallow your pride.

when all else fails, begin the insults. Sorry for you but I hold a very rigorous stance toward science, trained in engineering.

 

[Paratus]

No, I find your definition of significant in the context of that so called survey to be completely meaningless.

One person could say man is significant if he causes 1% while another says it is not significant until 99%. Well if u have 2 in the survey, you now have 100% saying man's contribution is significant. That is utter crock and has no scientific meaning.

You know that.

Scientists opinions matter very much. And it appears you and a few others are the ones doing everything you can to ignore findings even from IPCC data that does not agree with your belief that man is the primary cause of GW.

You and others simply cannot accept that we do not know enough to make that determination but we do know there is some effect by man. We need to find out how much.

But you and others are so bent on laming man for all the GW that you have completely closed your mind to other possibilities that may be more significant.

You are the ones ignoring contrasting ideas. Your ideology simply will not allow you to objectively view the science of climatology.

The nice thing about science is I get to ignore ideas that don't have objective support.

The Judith Curry study you linked to fundamentally supports MMGW, only differing with the mainstream in the magnitude of climate sensitivty. In fact it's not much different than the range provided by IPCC 4.


So if you agree with that article why do you continue to have this belief that there are "unknown" effects that would dramatically alter the science behind global warming or its effects or how to combat it.

If it was 60 years ago you might have an arguement but today we have over a centuries worth of direct measurements in some areas and have been seriously studying climate for over 50 years.

Throw us a bone here. Give us some area that hasn't been or isn't being researched and how that oversight totally means business as usual is the right way to go.

Otherwise your primary arguement has no support and is easily ignored.

 

[Paratus]

That's not what they taught as science way back when I was in school. Back then a theory would be used to make predictions about whatever was being studied. Those predictions had to be correct or the theory was modified until it worked, or tossed out. Now it appears that "pier review" has replaced that system, which strikes me as both lazy and foolish. I was also taught that if it couldn't be measured, it wasn't science.

Simpler times I guess.

Well it's true that theories are modified as new data comes in. But you may also remember that before theories are theories they are hypothesis which have to proven. In general to be proven a theory a hypothesis and its supporting data have to stand up to peer review.

In terms of global warming all the theories supporting it use measurable data. Including, solar flux, earths albedo, atmospheric composition, atmospheric absorption spectra, air, ocean, and land energy retention, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

when all else fails, begin the insults. Sorry for you but I hold a very rigorous stance toward science, trained in engineering.

There are no insults here, I'm just noting your lack of scientific rigor while attempting to claim the mantle of science. I sincerely hope you take a step back and ask yourself if you're actually applying the approach to science that you claim.

I have the utmost respect for science. The most important part of that is to accept ALL the evidence. Even evidence that challenges your assumptions. That's what leads to accepting the overwhelming evidence in support of the consensus opinion on AGW.

 

[xBiffx]

when all else fails, begin the insults. Sorry for you but I hold a very rigorous stance toward science, trained in engineering.

x2 to everything there.

And thanks for all your posts. :thumbsup:

 

[Greenman]

I think you're confused about theories and the models derived from them.

Also, didnt you have a science textbook in the 70s that didn't know that quarks existed? Maybe not the best science education.

Doesn't the model have to behave in a way predicted by the theory?
I'm not arguing about climate change here, but science in general.

Yes, back in the late 60's my grade school text book did indeed say that the smallest particles were protons, neutrons, and electrons. Given that stunted approach to science I suppose it would be fair to say I didn't have a very good science education. But I did learn to read, and there haven't been all that many changes to written American English since then, so I've managed to keep up to a limited extent.

 

[Cozarkian]

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

If the papers do not communicate their degree of certainty, then the statement "they do not express certainty," is 100% true. My suggestion reports the exact truth of the study without any attempt to mislead or spin the results toward a particular position.

However, if you would prefer to say ~98% don't communicate their degree of certainty, that's fine too.

 

[fskimospy]

If the papers do not communicate their degree of certainty, then the statement "they do not express certainty," is 100% true. My suggestion reports the exact truth of the study without any attempt to mislead or spin the results toward a particular position.

However, if you would prefer to say ~98% don't communicate their degree of certainty, that's fine too.

By that logic you should count every study ever made in your denominator. Very few studies on infant mortality express their degree of certainty in the presence or absence of AGW as well, for example. See how silly that is?

Studies that implicitly accept a premise are definitely communicating their thoughts on AGW.

 

[Cozarkian]

You are wrong. ~97% of climatologist publishing climatology papers said yes to increasing temperatures and yes to humans being the significant factor.

77 out of 79 (97.4%) of people who self-identify as climate specialists, publish most of their papers on the climate, and deigned to respond to an internet survey said yes to humans being a significant factor in changes to the mean global temperature. That doesn't equate to 97% of climatologist.

I also find it interesting that while 76 of these self-identified experts claim humans are a significant factor in mean global temperature change, only 75 think the mean has risen, so one of these scientists might actually think humans are causing global cooling.

If I wanted to find the best curveball pitchers in baseball, I wouldn't ask pitchers to self-identify as curveball specialists, nor would I look at who throws the most curveballs, I'd ask the hitters who has the best curveball. Similarly, rather than trusting the opinions of 79 self-identified specialists, I'd rather ask a bunch of scientist who they think are the experts on climate science and then poll those scientists.

Here's an article that attempts to http://www.garnautreview.org.au/upd...-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf refute some of the popular criticisms of the consensus linked earlier. I find the information on page 5 interesting.

Ultimately, I think most well-written and honest attempts to identify a consensus among some group of scientists is probably going to land in the70% or 80% range. Honestly, though, what is important isn't really the number of scientist declaring something to be true, it is the quality of the opinions.

There are credentialed scientists with legitimate scientific explanations that disagree with the consensus, and we shouldn't discount their opinions just because those scientists are in the minority. That's my real problem with the consensus argument. It is trying to ramrod passed dissenting opinions to persuade the public to enact drastic measures without honestly addressing the differences in scientific opinion and testing the differing hypotheses.

"We have to act now because most scientist agree on a partially-tested hypothesis, even though there are legitimate alternative explanations" is not a very scientific way of behaving.

 

[Cozarkian]

By that logic you should count every study ever made in your denominator.

Your attempt at logic is a non sequitur. You use the denominator that provides the most useful information. If you are attempting to determine the level of certainty, if have to include all papers that state a position in order to evaluate the level of uncertainty.

Compare the following:

99.99% of all papers ever published don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
99.99% of all scientific, peer-reviewed papers don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
over 99% of all peer-reviewed papers discussing climate don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
approximately 98% of papers stating a position on global warming don't express certainty as to human caused global warming

It doesn't even take half a brain to realize the first two statements are practically worthless. The third might have some minutia of value. The fourth is a clear indication that we need more information before declaring whether global warming science is settled.

 

[fskimospy]

Your attempt at logic is a non sequitur. You use the denominator that provides the most useful information. If you are attempting to determine the level of certainty, if have to include all papers that state a position in order to evaluate the level of uncertainty.

Compare the following:

99.99% of all papers ever published don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
99.99% of all scientific, peer-reviewed papers don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
over 99% of all peer-reviewed papers discussing climate don't express certainty as to human caused global warming
approximately 98% of papers stating a position on global warming don't express certainty as to human caused global warming

It doesn't even take half a brain to realize the first two statements are practically worthless. The third might have some minutia of value. The fourth is a clear indication that we need more information before declaring whether global warming science is settled.

That's not what a non sequitur is. It was showing the huge hole in your logic.

None of the statements you listed apply to the argument you were trying to make. You're trying to pull a fast one with semantics where papers that do not discuss a topic are being used to make a judgment on that topic. This is an elementary logical failure.

It doesn't matter if its a climate paper, a pediatrics paper, or any other paper. You don't attempt to include something in an analysis that it doesn't address. That should be something that doesn't take half a brain to understand, surely.