Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
Stand-over thuggery has been in play for years, various resignations are testimony to that, including a resignation from the GWPF and 'warnings' to individuals wbout writing anti-windymill letters to the media (iirc the police were involved in the latter, by those being threatened) and the items were removed. These are just the tip of the iceberg - no precariously positioned polar bears though.Prof Lennart Bengtsson said:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me.
GWPF Press Release said:
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/
There are plenry of boats sailing on a train of gravy that don't like a-rockin'.
Also I've removed surnames from the BWEA 'PR' slides.
Steve McIntyre highlights what appears to be another example of political rather than scientific review of a paper that tries ever so hard to support The Cause by using statsmagic to 'explain' The Pause, and thereby reassure everyone that climate models really are rather super. Anyone not wanting the heavy heavy fuel can stop at "In order to show why the paper’s conclusions are not justified..."
http://climateaudit.org/2015/02/05/marotzke-and-fo...
http://climateaudit.org/2015/02/05/marotzke-and-fo...
He's a funny guy that Hussein Obama.
U.S. President Barack Obama has some less-than-laudatory words for Canada’s oil industry.
The president says the way oil is extracted in Canada is extraordinarily dirty and that’s why a lot of environmentalists are concerned about it.
Obama then spoke about what he called the catastrophic threat of climate change, with wildfires, rising sea levels, crop losses, drought, hunger, war, and the spread of insect-born diseases.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/obama-canadia...
U.S. President Barack Obama has some less-than-laudatory words for Canada’s oil industry.
The president says the way oil is extracted in Canada is extraordinarily dirty and that’s why a lot of environmentalists are concerned about it.
Obama then spoke about what he called the catastrophic threat of climate change, with wildfires, rising sea levels, crop losses, drought, hunger, war, and the spread of insect-born diseases.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/obama-canadia...
zygalski said:
mybrainhurts said:
Stumbled across this. It made me chuckle...
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
No it wasn't, and there was no causality to humans in its position as measured from the corrupted near-surface gridded database...so whatever position it was in reality is meaningless.
Meh.You go with the 3%
I'll go with the 97%
Any post about 'hottest since X' is completely pointless for The Cause, as all it means is that it was hotter before X with so-called human greenhouse gas emissions pretty much limited to farts at the time. That's a fail.
No established causality to humans means it's all a waste of time even if 20XX was the hottest since ever and ever.
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
No it wasn't, and there was no causality to humans in its position as measured from the corrupted near-surface gridded database...so whatever position it was in reality is meaningless.
Meh.You go with the 3%
I'll go with the 97%
Any post about 'hottest since X' is completely pointless for The Cause, as all it means is that it was hotter before X with so-called human greenhouse gas emissions pretty much limited to farts at the time. That's a fail.
No established causality to humans means it's all a waste of time even if 20XX was the hottest since ever and ever.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
No it wasn't, and there was no causality to humans in its position as measured from the corrupted near-surface gridded database...so whatever position it was in reality is meaningless.
Meh.You go with the 3%
I'll go with the 97%
Any post about 'hottest since X' is completely pointless for The Cause, as all it means is that it was hotter before X with so-called human greenhouse gas emissions pretty much limited to farts at the time. That's a fail.
No established causality to humans means it's all a waste of time even if 20XX was the hottest since ever and ever.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.
one deconstruction of the non existent 97 percent consensus said:
“0.3% climate consensus, not 97%”
PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.
There's more.PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.
another deconstruction of the non existent 98 percent consensus as I suggested earlier said:
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
And again.Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
yet another deconstruction of the non existent 97 percent consensus said:
In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper cites?
Just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey? Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero.
There's more still but as the nonsensical consensus is already back in oblivion where it belongs, what's the point...data is what matters and there is still no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.Just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey? Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero.
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
No it wasn't, and there was no causality to humans in its position as measured from the corrupted near-surface gridded database...so whatever position it was in reality is meaningless.
Meh.You go with the 3%
I'll go with the 97%
Did they agree that we should stop burning fossil fuels?
Did they agree that temperatures would rise by 2 d9egrees)C, 3 dC, 4 dC, 5 dC or even 6 dC?
Did 97% of scientists agree that the temperature rise would be bad, or did some of them think that it would be beneficial?
Finally, when it is so blindingly obvious that you know nothing at all about the subject, why are you worried about it?
As per previous replies it was a few dozen responses from localised respondents answering vague questions i.e. meaningless but it remains a soundbite that the faithful trot out regularly as though it actually means something.
don4l said:
Finally, when it is so blindingly obvious that you zygalski know nothing at all about the subject, why are you zygalski worried about it?
Clearly z is a wind-up merchant but not a particularly good one. 
So I'm out of touch with the scientific community according to you guys?
Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 7th March 19:49
zygalski said:
So I'm out of touch with the scientific community according to you guys?
Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
start using your own head instead of google, it doesn't hurtShame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 7th March 19:49
(oh and just look one post above yours)
zygalski said:
So I'm out of touch with the scientific community according to you guys?
Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
Well, I see that you have ignored my simple questions. maybe I confused your scientific mind by asking too many questions at once.Shame google doesn't seem to agree. I suppose they're in on the PH tinfoil hat conspiracy along with virtually every scientific seat of learning in the western world and all the governments signed up to emissions controls etc....
You can paste as many conflicting data graphs as you like. For every one of those there are more that paint a very different picture.
Even if you're right (and I really think you lot aren't) it makes sense to reduce the amount of non-renewables we rely on in the medium/long term.
You're going to pay a certain amount of taxes regardless - stop being so naive - so may as well pay them for environmental reasons.
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 7th March 19:49
How would you feel if I only ask one question?
Here it is...
What exactly do you think that 97% of scientists agreed on?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff