Technology, Science and the Environment.

[ozleicester]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Buy property in Greenland.

You are Donald Trump and i claim my $5

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

So, that's you openly calling for no public debate between scientists/science and the public? No discussion? Are you actually advocating for a one-sided top-down approach and - to some extent - forcing change on people?

 

I've never dismissed the vast majority of climate scientists as incompetent or malicious, quite the contrary. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

My main criticism lays deeper and somewhere else - Climate Change as a scientific field on its own, the measures and data used, the role of the IPCC in the grand scheme of things, the media, climate change activism.

 

Now more than ever before - in the light of these ridiculous, orchestrated climate change protests - we do need a serious, honest and open public debate, we need to reach a better general understanding what science agrees upon, what the main debated talking points are and how we as individuals and nations can make an impact for real, not by having school kids taking a leave of absence on a regular school day.

I'm pretty sure skeptics can and would be swayed that way.

 

#lessgretasmoredebate

This lack of clarity thing must be catching today. I'm saying that I'm unsure of the utility of such a debate because everyone's position is already seemingly entrenched, not that I don't want to see it happen. If it can be shown that such a debate would have a positive effect on public opinion, then by all means, go ahead.

 

WRT the bolded part, you've not needed to - with respect, you're incredibly good at making inferences without direct accusations that have just enough rope that you are then able to cry foul and innocence when questioned upon them. It's a useful skill to have and you are very good at it. But make no mistake, when you question the work of the IPCC and the data they produce as you do you question the scientists who work for them and the scientists that trust them, and you imply that they are coming up with erroneous data either because they're no good at their jobs or because they are part of a conspiracy. If you don't want to be seen as doing that, perhaps reconsider your criticisms of that organisation and their practices.

 

I'd agree that I'd like to see more effective science communication out there, but as I said above, I'm unsure about how much good it will do when all the facts and all of the required responses by governments in particular are already out there to be seen.

 

 

24 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

So whilst scientists - actual experts in the field - giving public lectures remain a rarity in the media or are nowhere to be seen or pushed, activists are using children as "scientists" which in turn are pushed by the media:

You can't make it up.

As above, what makes one think that folks will listen to an expert on the topic in this day and age, given the positions of many with respect to it?

 

17 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

As a side effect of the Climate Change movement hysteria, psychologists see a growing Climate Change anxiety among children:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-climate-children/children-suffering-eco-anxiety-over-climate-change-say-psychologists-idUSKBN1W42CF

 

Sickening - in many ways.

Yeah, the possible downfall of civilisation in their lifetimes, coupled with people in power unable or unwilling to take the action to mitigate it and the subsequent feeling that you individually are totally powerless to prevent all of it isn't depressing at all.

 

NB. While I can see why the anxiety is a thing because of the above, hopefully that anxiety can be channelled into action.

[MC Prussian]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This lack of clarity thing must be catching today. I'm saying that I'm unsure of the utility of such a debate because everyone's position is already seemingly entrenched, not that I don't want to see it happen. If it can be shown that such a debate would have a positive effect on public opinion, then by all means, go ahead.

 

WRT the bolded part, you've not needed to - with respect, you're incredibly good at making inferences without direct accusations that have just enough rope that you are then able to cry foul and innocence when questioned upon them. It's a useful skill to have and you are very good at it. But make no mistake, when you question the work of the IPCC and the data they produce as you do you question the scientists who work for them and the scientists that trust them, and you imply that they are coming up with erroneous data either because they're no good at their jobs or because they are part of a conspiracy. If you don't want to be seen as doing that, perhaps reconsider your criticisms of that organisation and their practices.

 

I'd agree that I'd like to see more effective science communication out there, but as I said above, I'm unsure about how much good it will do when all the facts and all of the required responses by governments in particular are already out there to be seen.

 

 

As above, what makes one think that folks will listen to an expert on the topic in this day and age, given the positions of many with respect to it?

 

Yeah, the possible downfall of civilisation in their lifetimes, coupled with people in power unable or unwilling to take the action to mitigate it and the subsequent feeling that you individually are totally powerless to prevent all of it isn't depressing at all.

 

NB. While I can see why the anxiety is a thing because of the above, hopefully that anxiety can be channelled into action.

What logic dictates that people should listen to children instead of experts on the topic?

It's a complete sham, and you know it.

 

With regards to the Climate Change anxiety in children, well it's a side product of Climate Change hysteria. And a consequence of children believing in emotional peers on stage and propaganda more than education and experts.

Great times ahead.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

What logic dictates that people should listen to children instead of experts on the topic?

It's a complete sham, and you know it.

 

With regards to the Climate Change anxiety in children, well it's a side product of Climate Change hysteria. And a consequence of children believing in emotional peers on stage and propaganda more than education and experts.

Great times ahead.

The fact that people aren't listening to experts on this matter anyway is plenty of sham for me, no need for children to get involved - calling it all "hysteria" is exactly that. The expert data is out there, it has been for some time, people just choose to not listen to it and oddly enough children (who the effects are most likely to hit) get anxious about it.

 

And quite frankly, our own positions on this matter seem to reflect those in society and why I think a big kind of conference with experts talking to the public wouldn't be as effective as hoped - simply because everyone has chosen a side anyway and forgotten that the Earth doesn't care about ideology and will make the choices for us in due course if we don't make them for ourselves.

 

You have your position, I have mine - and whatever way this all turns out I hope the necessary action is taken either way because it will mean there is still a civilisation to talk about it all afterwards.

 

I think I'm going to leave it at that because our relative positions on the topic are abundantly clear and are not seemingly going to change, so further discussion is pointless. I'll part with what I said a page ago:

 

- by practically any credible source, there is a consensus among climate scientists that the IPCC's models are accurate

- even if these models fail to predict the future temperature increases and their consequences (because all things are possible, after all) relevant action should still be taken to apply the tech as detailed in the Drawdown report and elsewhere because of the sheer number of other benefits it will bring anyway at (comparatively) small economic cost

- doing nothing and letting the dice fall where they for reasons of...some kind of authoritarian boogeyman, I guess(?) is unbelievably irrational, because firstly why on Earth would one think every single one of these scientists were in on some commie conspiracy to change the world needlessly, and secondly because even if it were the case, barring the ultimate in 1984-style hellhole dystopias the eventual potential consequences of climate change in terms of death and suffering are worse and as resources dwindle governments are likely to become more authoritarian in that way anyway.

 

There is no good reason, none whatsoever, for governments to not seek to apply these changes, beyond short-term self-interest.

[MC Prussian]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The fact that people aren't listening to experts on this matter anyway is plenty of sham for me, no need for children to get involved - calling it all "hysteria" is exactly that. The expert data is out there, it has been for some time, people just choose to not listen to it and oddly enough children (who the effects are most likely to hit) get anxious about it.

 

And quite frankly, our own positions on this matter seem to reflect those in society and why I think a big kind of conference with experts talking to the public wouldn't be as effective as hoped - simply because everyone has chosen a side anyway and forgotten that the Earth doesn't care about ideology and will make the choices for us in due course if we don't make them for ourselves.

 

You have your position, I have mine - and whatever way this all turns out I hope the necessary action is taken either way because it will mean there is still a civilisation to talk about it all afterwards.

 

I think I'm going to leave it at that because our relative positions on the topic are abundantly clear and are not seemingly going to change, so further discussion is pointless. I'll part with what I said a page ago:

 

- by practically any credible source, there is a consensus among climate scientists that the IPCC's models are accurate

- even if these models fail to predict the future temperature increases and their consequences (because all things are possible, after all) relevant action should still be taken to apply the tech as detailed in the Drawdown report and elsewhere because of the sheer number of other benefits it will bring anyway at (comparatively) small economic cost

- doing nothing and letting the dice fall where they for reasons of...some kind of authoritarian boogeyman, I guess(?) is unbelievably irrational, because firstly why on Earth would one think every single one of these scientists were in on some commie conspiracy to change the world needlessly, and secondly because even if it were the case, barring the ultimate in 1984-style hellhole dystopias the eventual potential consequences of climate change in terms of death and suffering are worse and as resources dwindle governments are likely to become more authoritarian in that way anyway.

 

There is no good reason, none whatsoever, for governments to not seek to apply these changes, beyond short-term self-interest.

That point is naught because following your logic, if we should be encountering another ice age - which, looking back at previous climates on Earth based on core samples isn't unusual and a more or less regular occurrence on this planet -, then there's nothing we can do about it. Because an extremely cold planet is a much worse scenario for mankind than an increase in one degree Centigrade over the course of 250 years. And because, err, Earth.

 

Interestingly enough, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is helping in delaying what is predicted to be another coming unstoppable, natural ice age. But maybe by then we'll have found means to live underground or on other planets completely, who knows.

We will survive because we have adapted well to changing environments in the past and because of technology. And because we are already undertaking great efforts at protecting this planet, some countries more than others.

And just because we two don't agree or disagree (on some things more than others) doesn't mean we cannot be swayed by an in-depth public debate, presented by scientists and other specialists. I find the lack thereof quite frankly disappointing and close to fatal.

 

Global intervention only works if the worst offenders start applying the same measures Western Europe or countries such as Morocco are taking. Climate doesn't stop in front of your national doorstep (border). And like I said before, all this talk, all this activism is preaching to the choir as long as countries such as China, India or many nations in Africa are still continuing to pollute this planet like crazy and aren't held accountable.

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That point is naught because following your logic, if we should be encountering another ice age - which, looking back at previous climates on Earth based on core samples isn't unusual and a more or less regular occurrence on this planet -, then there's nothing we can do about it. Because an extremely cold planet is a much worse scenario for mankind than an increase in one degree Centigrade over the course of 250 years. And because, err, Earth.

 

Interestingly enough, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is helping in delaying what is predicted to be another coming unstoppable, natural ice age. But maybe by then we'll have found means to live underground or on other planets completely, who knows.

We will survive because we have adapted well to changing environments in the past and because of technology. And because we are already undertaking great efforts at protecting this planet, some countries more than others.

And just because we two don't agree or disagree (on some things more than others) doesn't mean we cannot be swayed by an in-depth public debate, presented by scientists and other specialists. I find the lack thereof quite frankly disappointing and close to fatal.

 

Global intervention only works if the worst offenders start applying the same measures Western Europe or countries such as Morocco are taking. Climate doesn't stop in front of your national doorstep (border). And like I said before, all this talk, all this activism is preaching to the choir as long as countries such as China, India or many nations in Africa are still continuing to pollute this planet like crazy and aren't held accountable.

Milankovitch cycles a recurring thing, yes - but I'm not entirely convinced that a much colder planet (as one day will likely happen) will be more damaging to human civilisation than a 2 degree increase in the next 80 years (not a 1 degree over 250 years) in terms of overall effects. Adapting to either will be tough and we need to work on that.

 

I'd like to think that human ingenuity will prevail in a pinch too, but the sore truth is that we only have to fail on a large scale once and global long-term problems like this need global long-term projects which are difficult to originate and co-ordinate - you clearly know the truth of that because as you say not all nations are pulling their weight and they do need to start. Government lobbying by other governments is the only likely way that happens

 

I'm sorry, Prussian, but given I have presented a vast array of datasets to you from a variety of different sources (and you are smart enough to find others yourself, clearly) and yet we're still here arguing the same thing, forgive me for expressing doubt that any expert or experts could convince you of the need and the requirements necessary to help this situation meaningfully for the future. I see no reason for us to keep going round and round when such would be a waste of time (perhaps the most valuable resource out there) so I intend to do more productive things - namely just presenting the articles and trying to convince other people not so entrenched of the need.

 

I'll reply to your posts on this thread if and when you present misinformation on this matter, but beyond that I am no longer interested in "debate" when it has all been hashed out over the last however-many months and we are both still exactly where we were when we started.

 

Have a pleasant evening.

[MC Prussian]

@Carl the Llama:

 

With regards to the 97% scientific consensus, I think it's important to differentiate:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

 

In the comments section:

Quote

“Our team’s review of the abstracts yielded a 97.1 percent consensus that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming; ”

Actually, it doesn’t. The 97.1% number comes from section three of your study, which specifically states that 3896 papers out of almost 12,000 papers are considered to endorse AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). It also states that this 3896 includes papers that consider man may be responsible for only 1-2% of the warming seen, not the primary cause of warming.

It is misrepresenting your numbers that allows people to dismiss them (rightfully or otherwise).

 

Quote

Anyone touting the 97% figure should definitely include the fact that this percentage is relative to the number of papers that took a definite stance on whether climate change is man-made or not.

This omission is NOT helping our cause, because it provides ammunition to deniers by making it seem like we’re deliberately skewing the numbers.

And therein lies one of the problems for me when talking about climate science. "Consensus" is relative, and oftentimes used out of context in the public discourse or in the media in order to push a certain agenda. All the nuance gets lost.

 

Another factor is time: The reported 97% here refer to papers published in between 1991 and 2011, and it's safe to say the science, data, parameters and technology have evolved quite a bit since.

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

@Carl the Llama:

 

With regards to the 97% scientific consensus, I think it's important to differentiate:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

 

In the comments section:

 

And therein lies one of the problems for me when talking about climate science. "Consensus" is relative, and oftentimes used out of context in the public discourse or in the media in order to push a certain agenda. All the nuance gets lost.

Sure, take the word of a random guy in the comments over a peer-reviewed researcher describing their methods and results 

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sure, take the word of a random guy in the comments over a peer-reviewed researcher describing their methods and results 

Standard

[MC Prussian]

56 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sure, take the word of a random guy in the comments over a peer-reviewed researcher describing their methods and results 

Ok, not convinced. I don't see how this warrants ridicule, since you also fail to argue against the commenter (whom we don't know at all).

Nuccitelli is also commenting on the page, so that opens him up for ridicule just because he's commenting?

Nuccitelli is being completely honest and the 97% don't refer to only a portion of said 12'000 papers?

 

How about this discussion on here with regards to the 97%?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/28/on-the-97-percenters-you-must-admit-they-were-careful/

 

Quote

At the end of the day, there is AGW and CAGW.
Most sceptics accept there is some AGW, but that it is not quantifiable due to the myriad factors involved. In any event, it is of minor importance compared to the impact of cyclical changes in the Sun’s energy output.
and the Earth’s orbit. In other words. It is a mildly interesting phenomenon.
CAGW, on the other hand, is a figment of imagination in the minds of the scientifically challenged.
AGW is a non problem, while CAGW is a hoax. So much for climate science.

 

Quote

I find that most in the media & the public affected by them always say “97% of scientists”, including the president, not of “actively publishing climate scientists”. Of course even that is tendentious, since 75 out 77 cherry picked individuals responding to questions worded so that even most skeptics might assent to them is gross opinion survey malpractice, designed not to discovery anything but to provide an easily spread advocacy sound bite.

 

Quote

Yes Mr/Ms Naive, 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing warming. Are you aware that there is considerable disagreement among those same scientists as to the magnitude of the warming and the costs of mitigation versus adaptation?

 

Quote

Problems:
1. Authors of papers not dealing with attribution (e.g., on impacts and mitigation, which are more numerous) may call themselves climatologists, but they do not have relevant expertise on what causes climate change. They’re just bystanders. Only authors dealing with attribution (atmospheric physics and chemistry) should be polled.
2. Papers on attribution written in the last five years are most relevant. Papers that are more than ten years old should be down-weighted.
3. Authors need to be asked the sort of probing questions that the 2007 George Mason U. survey asked, such as how confident are they in climatology’s knowledge-state and projections, how much of a threat do they consider future warming to be, etc. Cook and N. must have been aware of those questions, but deliberately avoided asking them.
Someone should commission George Mason or somebody to do a survey with the points above in mind.

 

Quote

Nutticelli: “… the ~4,000 abstracts that took a position on the cause of global warming”
So they openly regard it as a “cause” not a scientific issue.
So their survey apparently shows that 97% of scientists take a position on a cause. That may be nearer to the truth than they intended.

 

Quote

For the true “consensus” their own data file shows is that just 0.3% of all 11,944 papers endorsed the standard definition of the climate consensus – that more than half the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Happy to hear from you, defending the 97%.

Edited 30 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Ok, not convinced. I don't see how this warrants ridicule, since you also fail to argue against the commenter.

Nuccitelli is being completely honest and the 97% don't refer to only a portion of said 12'000 papers?

 

How about this discussion on here with regards to the 97%?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/28/on-the-97-percenters-you-must-admit-they-were-careful/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happy to hear from you, defending the 97%.

That didn't take long, did it?

 

Misinformation, not in any way peer reviewed, by the shameless hack Anthony Watts (though he seems to have been less active of late.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

 

There, Carl - saved you the trouble.

[MC Prussian]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That didn't take long, did it?

 

Misinformation, not in any way peer reviewed, by the shameless hack Anthony Watts (though he seems to have been less active of late.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.htm

 

There, Carl - saved you the trouble.

Of course you can criticize the blog, but you also fail to address the questions raised by the comments - which have nothing to do with Anthony Watts.

 

You're deflecting.

 

And again - instead of discussing the points/questions raised (which are genuine), you attack the messenger (an open forum).

 

Good on you.

 

Still no word on the 97% and how they came about.

[Nicolo Barella]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Buy property in Greenland.

I was thinking rural Tasmania

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

I was thinking rural Tasmania

Ok but just the high up bits

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Of course you can criticize the blog, but you also fail to address the questions raised by the comments - which have nothing to do with Anthony Watts.

 

You're deflecting.

 

And again - instead of discussing the points/questions raised (which are genuine), you attack the messenger (an open forum).

 

Good on you.

 

Still no word on the 97% and how they came about.

You've literally sourced and posted an article written by the man who came to the 97%, where he details exactly how it came about.   Here's the link again:

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

 

 

Honestly it's like trying to have a discussion with Alex Jones, you can't see the facts through your conspiracy glasses.  Is the scientific peer review method just a manipulative tool to you?

[MC Prussian]

16 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've literally sourced and posted an article written by the man who came to the 97%, where he details exactly how it came about.   Here's the link again:

 

Honestly it's like trying to have a discussion with Alex Jones, you can't see the facts through your conspiracy glasses.  Is the scientific peer review method just a manipulative tool to you?

All you do is deflect here, not interested in a debate. You ridicule and dish out "conspiracy theorist" just in order not to go into detail, stifles all debate instantly.

Congrats.

 

The 97% are a questionable number - why you fail to point that out?

 

Quote

... the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

 

Quote

 ... in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

Quote

Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

 

Quote

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

 

Quote

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

 

Quote

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

 

 

Quote

A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

 

Quote

A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

a) The alleged 97% consensus in the Cook study isn't based on "scientists", it's based on papers.

b) The first time 97% were mentioned, the number was based on 79 respondents in 2009 (with 77 out of those agreeing) - 77 out of 79? Not really truly reflecting of science in total and a skewed way of looking at "consensus"

Quote

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

c) The actual amount of papers in the Cook study who are convinced that mankind is the sole responsible for 50% or more of global warming is near the 2% mark

d) The actual amount of papers that state that mankind is in parts responsible for global warming is way lower than 97%, somewhere between 45% and 55%

e) The studies included are partially nearly 30 years old, the oldest or older studies should either be disregarded or at least weighed differently

f) There are enough examples of scientists who feel misrepresented/misquoted in Cook's study (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html)

 

Some "consensus" does exist, I have no issues with that - but to what extent is debatable, and on what basis. Certainly not 97% among (all) scientists. There's lots of room to talk about nuance and varying types of agreement level. What do most scientists agree on? That mankind has some influence on global warming, that's about it.

 

Please refute. Thank you.

 

I find it mind-boggling that some people rely solely on a site such as Skepticalscience, taking everything they offer as gospel... When one of the men behind the site is the one spreading the 97% myth, John Cook.

 

To close this long post:

Quote

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

Quote

One of the problems with Cook's appeal to authority is this: So far, no one has quantified the consensus among natural scientists on global warming. In fact, it cannot be done easily, said Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford University who has been studying communication strategies for decades.

While the Cook study may quantify the views expressed in published literature, it does not establish the beliefs of any defined group of scientists, Krosnick said.

"How do you determine who qualifies to be surveyed and who doesn't qualify?" he asked. "Personally, I haven't seen anyone accomplish that yet."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

Quote

One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#16fd80081157

Edited 1 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49891569

 

A long time coming, but it would be good to see the speed record broken again.

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-british-payload-to-the-moon-by-2021/

 

Surprised this isn't bigger news tbh.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49891569

 

A long time coming, but it would be good to see the speed record broken again.

Fascinating and good on the UK's science and engineering departments, kudos for being able to build such a great piece of machinery.

It certainly acts as one big tech playground, being able to build such a car from scratch, amassing practical knowledge in the process.

 

Only downside for me is the scientific value in terms of mass production. You can clearly gain valuable data, but such a jet engine would only be a potential option for future high-speed trains (depending on the fuel source) or planes, as on the ground, machines at that speed can only go in straight lines (on surfaces or tracks).

Let's hope it doesn't end simply as a £25m vanity project.

 

Edited 1 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Fascinating and good on the UK's science and engineering departments, kudos for being able to build such a great piece of machinery.

It certainly acts as one big tech playground, being able to build such a car from scratch, amassing practical knowledge in the process.

 

Only downside for me is the scientific value in terms of mass production. You can clearly gain valuable data, but such a jet engine would only be a potential option for future high-speed trains (depending on the fuel source) or planes, as on the ground, machines at that speed can only go in straight lines (on surfaces or tracks).

Let's hope it doesn't end simply as a £25m vanity project.

 

There is an awful lot of "because it is there" about all of this, but I can think of much greater money sinks in the UK and around the world and you would hope that the data (particularly thermal and aerodynamic data from such high speeds at ground level on a wheeled vehicle) would be of some use for future projects, even if those projects don't involve everyday vehicles for the foreseeable future.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Not very tech orientated but today, while watching youtube, discovered that if I pressed play on the PC I could watch it on my telly.

To normal people this is nothing, to me this is a joyous revelation.

[Carl the Llama]

10 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

All you do is deflect here, not interested in a debate. You ridicule and dish out "conspiracy theorist" just in order not to go into detail, stifles all debate instantly.

Congrats.

 

The 97% are a questionable number - why you fail to point that out?

 

 

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

a) The alleged 97% consensus in the Cook study isn't based on "scientists", it's based on papers.

b) The first time 97% were mentioned, the number was based on 79 respondents in 2009 (with 77 out of those agreeing) - 77 out of 79? Not really truly reflecting of science in total and a skewed way of looking at "consensus"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

c) The actual amount of papers in the Cook study who are convinced that mankind is the sole responsible for 50% or more of global warming is near the 2% mark

d) The actual amount of papers that state that mankind is in parts responsible for global warming is way lower than 97%, somewhere between 45% and 55%

e) The studies included are partially nearly 30 years old, the oldest or older studies should either be disregarded or at least weighed differently

f) There are enough examples of scientists who feel misrepresented/misquoted in Cook's study (http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html)

 

Some "consensus" does exist, I have no issues with that - but to what extent is debatable, and on what basis. Certainly not 97% among (all) scientists. There's lots of room to talk about nuance and varying types of agreement level. What do most scientists agree on? That mankind has some influence on global warming, that's about it.

 

Please refute. Thank you.

 

I find it mind-boggling that some people rely solely on a site such as Skepticalscience, taking everything they offer as gospel... When one of the men behind the site is the one spreading the 97% myth, John Cook.

 

To close this long post:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#16fd80081157

If your point is that the 97% figure isn't 100% reliable because such things can't be perfectly quantified and using it implies the scientists agree on every single point when they don't but it's still true that modern science points overwhelmingly to the climate being adversely impacted by our activities, then I guess that's an accurate interpretation of the evidence you've provided as far as I can make out without bypassing paywalls.

 

If your point is that we can't trust the idea of a consensus because there are varying estimations of exactly how much impact we've had and continue to have then that's a bad faith interpretation.

 

Trouble is you kicked this whole debate off coming at it from the view of being sceptical that we have any impact on the climate's "constant flux" as you put it.  So when you start trying to paint the 97% as a misleading figure when it's clearly just intended as a broad representation of the reality that there's a scientific consensus on the matter, it looks like you're trying to deny that there is a "consensus".  But you've just said you have no issue with the idea of a "consensus" and the air quotes reassure me that you definitely mean it so I guess we can end this here?

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Not very tech orientated but today, while watching youtube, discovered that if I pressed play on the PC I could watch it on my telly.

To normal people this is nothing, to me this is a joyous revelation.

It won't be long now before there's a single "entertainment system" that acts as a game console, media player and PC all in one rather than the need for separate devices, and it'll be all wirelessly linked to whatever screen around the house you wish.

 

I mean, to a degree, we're already there.

[The Bear]

Kids (or the general public) appealing for the world to do something about it's leaders with regards to how they are running the planet, is essentially no different to football fans complaining at a game to make the club do something about the manager.

 

Neither are experts in the field, but their mass opinion counts. 

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

Kids (or the general public) appealing for the world to do something about it's leaders with regards to how they are running the planet, is essentially no different to football fans complaining at a game to make the club do something about the manager.

 

Neither are experts in the field, but their mass opinion counts. 

nah, i reckon its closer to reality TV

 

Lets be honest, elections are just grown up versions of big brother or love island.

 

Then the media/producers spin the stories so that we get the most "entertaining".

 

BTW, we do all realise much of the globe is about to go into a recession dont we?