"An Inconvenient Truth," "this indoctrination is obscene" etc
I suggest you read the judgment. Despite the 'errors' Mr Justice Barton wrote: "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "
Regardless of Gore's film and your views on how significant the errors are, we are still adversely changing the climate. That's the real issue.
Radical environmentalists have been using the public schools to brainwash children for decades, and it works. The British High Court ruled in October 2007 that Al Gore's global warming propaganda, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so riddled with factual errors that schools can't show it unless they acknowledge it is scientifically debatable, and the nine main errors are listed on an information pamphlet and handed out. But schoolchildren still believe the exaggerations, this indoctrination is obscene
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
Great video. Lets get on with the actions to improve renewable technologies, both in qualities & quantities of use! To not do so invites too much RlSK. Yeah sure just like the Medicos & other Scientists that spent time & a lot of effort researching Tobacco & Cancer; because many are paid - their conclusions are necessarily false? lf there is a dishonesty relationship with the more $ someone is paid, we should therefore doubt all our top Professionals & Business Leaders?
97.4 % of how many scientists? How many of them rely on funding that they may lose if they do not go along with the "consensus" of the other liberals, err, I mean the other scientists? Just like the "Coming Ice Age" from 1975. The "consensus" can't decide if we're causing it to be cold or hot, so they'll just call it "climate change" then they can't be wrong. Liberals are so transparent that they can't see how transparent they are.
1. The 97.4% refers to 75 out of 77 publishing climatologists (see ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
2. Don't you think more funding would be flow if people claimed they didn't know why the earth was warming?
3. There was no 1970s ice age 'consensus'. Of the relevant papers published from 1965-79, 7 predicted cooling, 17 were neutral & 42 predicted warming. (see: ht tp://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)
@cristop5 - No, of course I know that humans affect the climate. Chopping down all the big forests have had a huge effect on climate. What I said was that the guy in the video said that it is human activities that is responsible for climate change. He gave by far too high importance to us humans with regard to climate - actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false.
@klotjohan53 "actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false."
Watch ALL of Blair's commentary again to understand him fairly. He notes "natural processes" but says that "..the only way to account for the global warming that has taken place - especially over the last 50 years - is by taking into account the changes that humans have made to the atmosphere - the addition of greenhouse gases."
This is all nonsense. The so called scientist in the interview said climate change is due to human activities. What kind answer is that? We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years. We had a small ice age in the 1600s and the temperature has been going up since. And 10.000 years ago we had a real ice age. Totally without the help of humans.
@klotjohan53 "We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years."
You seem to be arguing that because the climate can change without human activities it must be impossible for human activities to affect climate. This is a non sequitur. Here's another one for you:
"Everyone know trees grow better with more water, so how could adding nitrogen possibley have an effect?"
Of them, of the publishing climate scientists, 96.2 agreed with # 1 question
Then the SCIENTISTS were asked question 2.
Your video makes a FALSE CLAIM at this point. They did not give the answer from the SCIENTISTS.
These "small" changes in what was said, are your "thin edge of the wedge" - Inserting small untruths till they add up so that you can make a fabricated statement that sounds as if it's supported.
@pointyhead1 The small change was yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest error, but the article reads: "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
By 'specialists' he means "those who listed climate science 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 individuals in total)."
@pointyhead1 Your nitpicking is quite bizarre. I've had to go back to the video with its annoying music to see what you're on about. It's nothing. She says "of the publishing climatologists 96.2% said it was. Then the scientists were asked if the climate was being significantly affected by humans".
Now you apparently think the scientists referred to in the second sentence are not those referred to in the preceding sentence.
If it wasn't obvious to you from the video, the study makes it clear.
(cont'd) Furthermore while focussing on this detail, which was a result of your own confusion rather than what was communicated in either the video or the original article, you missed a couple of obvious details:
1. I am man, so I couldn't be the person narrating the video.
@cristop5 The video says a poll was conducted of SCIENTISTS, regarding their opinion. this is seen at 1:20.
ed.
Next 1:33 she says "Of the publishing climatologists" , 96.2 % said it was. So "scientist" is established as any or all scientists, and "publishing climatologists" is established as a particular group within. ext, 1:41,
She then says "Then the scientists were asked ... and that is a false statement. The answer applied only to that 75 or so people, not "the scientists".
@pointyhead1 "The video says a poll was conducted of SCIENTISTS.."
I honestly don't know what you're getting at here, but I'll let your comment stand. If anyone else who has watched the video & read the article finds the difference between "publishing climatologists " in one sentence then "the scientists" in the very next confusing, I'd be surprised. Unfortunately such people would be even less able to follow your convoluted reasoning.
@cristop5 As we can see, it was YOU who erred, YOU whohanged to talking about the poll rather than what I had said.
You make the errors,and make the false claims, not I. You should simply admit that when it happens, instead of making new accusations, and apologise for those mistakes, cristop.
The study does make it clear. The video offers the false claim. Most people likely do not go to references. So you get away with making small changes.
You get away with REFUSING to use the original wording
That is totally dishonest, cristop. You need to acknowledge what the actual words were. ( because what you claim is simply NOT what they claim, that is why you cannot abide their ACTUAL WORDS )
I'm done with you, you are too dishonest a player to converse with further.
@pointyhead1 "dishonest tactic" At 5:45 they bring together three separate threads from the video into the one frame. One is the survey of journal articles, one is the survey of publishing climatologists opinions and one is the list of scientific organizations that have issued statements saying humans are causing the earth to warm.
Is that what you are on about?
This is done to re-iterate the point of the video, i.e. the consensus on AGW is solid on three fronts. It's not meant to trick you.
@pointyhead1 "You get away with REFUSING to use the original wording.." I used the original wording of the article, and the wording in the video as I watched it again to see what you were on about. Anyone who bothers to look will see this.
@pointyhead1 The small change was yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest error, but the article reads: "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
By 'specialists' Doran means "those who listed climate science 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 individuals in total)."
@cristop5 we don't really know. And that is why it's easier easy to say that "something or some things " that man is doing, is responsible, than to be specific and say CO2, as was your original argument .
Doran just asked if it was"us". or not. And therefore you cannot abide by the actual words used.
@pointyhead1 If aerosols were generally seen as warming rather than cooling agents I'd be with you. But as they are not, and as the question was about 'changing mean global temperatures', which are going up, activities producing GHGs are the only 'significant contributing factor' in the picture.
@cristop5 The study says up to 45 % or MORE of warming at higher latitudes is perhaps due to aerosols. You can claim that is not significant if you want to. Nobody would believe that claim - it's patently false.
As well, that is where the big warming is happening according to people like you.
So you're just beat. False claims all over the place.
@pointyhead1 Shindell's study is very interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up. It is based on models however and "every model needs to be compared rigorously to real life observations". In time it may become accepted wisdom.
It was published in April 2009, while Zimmerman's survey was published in 2008. There is no way the survey respondents could have been aware of Shindell's study. So I'm still of the view that in answering question 2, the respondents must have been thinking of GHGs.
@cristop5 Your view is one thing...False claims are another. You need to learn to apologize when you make a false claim...particularly when it is about someone, and you are proven wrong.
@cristop5 't was published in April 2009, while Zimmerman's survey was published in 2008. There is no way the survey respondents could have been aware of Shindell's study. So I'm still of the view that in answering question 2, the respondents must have been thinking of GHGs."
Now you're pretending to know what publishing climatologists would or should have known . As if that 2009 study would have been their VERY FIRST INKLING. Amazing.
@pointyhead1 "As if that 2009 study would have been their VERY FIRST INKLING."
The article "Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming" certainly gives the impression this is a new field. But if you know of an earlier study showing that anthropogenic aerosols could have a SIGNIFICANT warming effect, do tell.
"...gives the impression this is a new field. But if you know of an earlier study showing that anthropogenic aerosols could have a SIGNIFICANT warming effect, do tell."
Now wait just a minute there.
You need help.
You here SEEM to have equated "Having some knowledge of the existence of a possible significant factor", with "Seeing a well accepted peer reviewed study measuring and explaining it".
but since you ask, this obviously was no secret even much earlier. You claimed you knew enough to make a statement about no other significant factors. Now you "know" less, and are that much smarter for it.
aerosols and cloud formation..early 2000's
" clouds ...can cause cooling..
Some cloud types can...cause warming...We don't know enough about the types of clouds...so we are not sure yet whether this warming effect partially or completely counteracts the cooling... increase in albedo.
@pointyhead1 This piece by Shindell summarises the knowledge regarding aerosols as it stood in early 2009. You will see that his models show a cooling forcing over nearly all of the planet. You may think that the respondents to Doran's question 2 were thinking about aerosols having a significant warming effect, rather than GHGs but I don't.
"Future climate depends on how climate forcings change — human-made greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, and *****forcings that are not yet well measured, especially aerosols****
@pointyhead1 Good to see you read mainstream scientific opinions as well. The sentence following the one you quote reads: "The speed and degree of climate change also will depend upon how fast amplifying feedbacks, such as Arctic sea ice, the large ice sheets, and methane hydrates come into play."
If it makes you happy I'll concede the apparent rise in aerosols would be due to human activity. Aerosols are a cooling climate driver however. They cannot explain the global warming we've seen over the past few decades.
Your entire focus seems to be on poiint scoring. Does it concern you at all that we are changing the climate and we should try to limit the damage?
"the researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience."
You just need to face the facts, You made an incorrect statement regarding the poll. You can delelte comments showing your error,, yes.
@pointyhead1 Notwithstanding high latititude models, aerosols are mostly understood to be cooling agents: "Although MOST aerosols reflect sunlight, SOME also absorb it. An aerosol’s effect on light depends primarily on the composition and color of the particles. Broadly speaking, bright-colored or translucent particles tend to reflect radiation in all directions and back towards space. Darker aerosols can absorb significant amounts of light."
But more research is needed, as Makiko Sato suggests.
@pointyhead1 Pointy, did you notice that the other 7 questions asked have not been revealed ?
Why would THAT be ?
Other Pointy, it's obvious that Doran is very fishy. An attempt to do spin work. Perhaps Mr. Cristop can find us the other 7 questions for the "study" he flaunts.
@pointyhead1 "7 out of the 9 questions were hidden from us."
'Hidden' in "Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2008), The consensus on the consensus: An opinion survey of Earth scientists on global climate change, 250 pp., Univ. of Ill. at Chicago."
Shame on Doran for not summarizing the entire 250 page study in this two page piece in 'Climate Change'.
@cristop5 Yes, of COURSE people would call it "significant". That was not in question and it's not a probolem.
The problem is that Doran 2009 does not ask about CO2. It asks about "everything"...and this would almost guaranteee a rise in positive response rate, wouldn't it ?
Are you going to deny that adding more possibilities makes it easier to agree ?
@cristop5 "Are you going to deny that adding more possibilities makes it easier to agree?"
I agree - in theory. But this could only be the case in actuality if there are human activities, other than those associated with production of greenhouse gases, that could be significant contributing factors in changing mean global temperatures. I am not aware of any such activities.
There comes a point when all that can be said has been said. We are way past that.
@pointyhead1 "Your "unawareness" of any, is not an acceptable excuse to claim that you are correct."
It certainly is. I know enough about climate drivers to know that there are no anthropogenic activities, other than those causing GHG accumulation, that are believed to have a significant impact on our climate.
@pointyhead1 Pointy, honesty would include admitting that CO2 is a major part of what most people would be thinking about vis a vis AGW. Of course, Other Pointy ! And there is no argument given that CO2 is not a major factor.
However we are talking about climatologists and what they were asked. AGW is man-made global warming, including ALL factors. Not just the one Cristop demands.
By Increasing the possible reasons and factors, you should get increased "yes" replies.
Sigh, more science by consensus. Real science requires observation, measurement and repetition.
Demonstrate via observation, measurement and repetition that CO2 from humans has caused an increase in global temperature beyond natural variations and I will start believing in human caused global warming.
It is irrelevant what scientists believe, what they can demonstrate is all that matters.
@Dexiclecom You're imagining that the science demonstrating AGW hasn't been done. It has. That's why there's a consensus among climate scientists.
/watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU
The climate changes in response to real drivers. The deliberately vague term "natural variation" is a copout. The only credible explanation for RECENT warming is the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. But if you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the temperature has risen 0.6-0.8C in just 35 years, lets hear it.
@cristop5 CO2 is a greenhouse gas, science is done. Humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere, duh. CO2 from humans has increased the earths temperature, no science to prove this.
Natural variation is easily determined by examining Earth temps when humans have had zero effect on it.
That video refers to AGW opponents as 'climate science deniers', such cheap smear tactics reduces the video's credibility to the point where it is not worth watching. Got a video that does not use ad hominems for me?
@Dexiclecom You may be surprised to learn that people who research climate science for a living are aware that the climate varied in pre-industrial times, due to factors other than CO2! Yes, they know these factors are still at work, however they cannot explain most of the warming in the 20th century, especially over the last 35 years.
I invited you to offer an alternative hypothesis as to why the temperature has risen 0.6-0.8C in just 35 years. You have not done so.
@cristop5 I presume that since you are posting videos on YouTube on the subject of climate change that you have done some of your own research into the matter. If so I find it extraordinary that you have not heard of the sun as a real credible reason for global warming.
If you have not done any of your own research than I have to wonder if you are interested in examination or just promotion of a particular point of view.
@Dexiclecom So your hypothesis as to why the earth has warmed over the last 35 yrs is that solar activity has increased? The climate science community doesn't go along with this idea because solar activity has NOT risen, while temperatures have according to papers such as these:
@cristop5 No that is not my hypothesis, you asked for an alternative and I provided it. I can find plenty of info online saying the sun is and is not the cause. Even if the sun is not causing GW it still does not prove that CO2 is. All I am asking for is the demonstration, using observation, measurement and repetition that human released CO2 is the cause.
Again you are arguing using scientist's belief. What they can demonstrate is all that matters.
1. "..you asked for an alternative and I provided it." No. I asked you to cite peer reviewed research. You did not do that.
2. "Even if the sun is not causing GW it still does not prove that CO2 is" Science never supplies this kind of watertight "proof" e.g. it STILL has not been "proved" that smoking causes lung cancer, & this 'argument' was used to defer tobacco regulation for decades. By whom? By Fred Seitz, Fred Singer et al.
The same men went on to apply this strategy to AGW.
@cristop5 Ah, relating the smoking issue to AGW, it does not take long for AGW proponents to descend into rhetoric. Thanks for revealing your lack of credibility. Your seeming lack of a desire for the demonstration of human released CO2 causing GW reveals a lot. Science has used demonstration to prove many things. Those demonstrations then become the basis to further confirm or falsify things we believe are proven.
If it is not observable, measurable and repeatable then it is not science.
cristop, Your argument is worthless, as the early studies on tobacco were simply no good. RA Fisher, no less, showed them as worthless. Similar situation with Climate "Science" - the truth is whatever it is but the studies are often pap.
"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) .. English statistician...described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science,"
@pointyhead1 "Your argument is worthless, as the early studies on tobacco were simply no good."
Did I say all studies on tobacco were impeccable? No. I said that the device whereby an unreasonable level of "proof" is demanded was used to delay tobacco regulation for decades. The architects of this style of denialism - people like Fred Seitz & Fred Singer went on to attack climate science using the same tricks they had learned while defending the tobacco industry.
@pointyhead1 The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s. In 1953 a landmark study showed that cigarette tar painted on mice caused cancers. On Dec 15, 1953 execs from American Tobacco, Benson & Hedges, Philip Morris & US Tobacco met & agreed to commission PR firm Hill & Knowlton to attack the science linking tobacco to cancer. This campaign continued & evolved through to 1999, when they were indicted under the RICO statute. Seitz worked from 1979-88. Singer was active in the 1990s
(cont'd) As the tobacco disinformation campaign wound down Singer went on to attack the science linking sulfur emissions to acid rain, studies linking CFCs to ozone depletion, and the science behind AGW.
@cristop5 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
Cristop, you are prone to exaggeration of claims you've heard.
From Oxford Toxicology Science page "The link between the smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer began to be suspected by clinicians in the 1930s...in The Handbook...no particular importance was given to the smoking of cigarettes" "About 2 decades later the role ...firmly established. "
Now please show which regulation was delayed for decades.
Here you see , there was no Singer denying tobacco/cancer cause/effect and preventing legislation.
There were many factors ( economic and social) involved in historical opposition, not just denial by industry.
It was not even on the table thst early for the public health people
"The first statement from the Public Health Service on the subject was made by its Surgeon General, Leroy F. Burney, M.D., in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November, 1959.
@pointyhead1 This board is supposed to relate to the video about the scientific consensus around global warming, not tobacco. But brielfy, Singer created the Science & Environmental Policy Project in 1990 in part to defend the tobacco industry. In the early 1990s he worked with Philip Morris' PR firm APCO Associates, helping them characterise studies on second hand smoke as "junk science".
Google "Junk science at the EPA" to see some of his work.
@pointyhead1 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
My statement was based on D.L.Davis (2007) book 'The Secret War on Cancer' which mentions German researchers linking smoking to lung cancer in the 1930s. I am not interested in debating whether or not this constitutes "clear" etc. I only brought this up as background info in reference to my point about Singer & Seitz' working for the tobacco industry.
Please post further comments re tobacco etc on relevant boards.
@cristop5 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
My statement was based on D.L.Davis (2007) book 'The Secret War on Cancer' which mentions German researchers linking smoking"
Cristop, this is why I say you exaggerate claims you've read. You're full of hype, when you aren;t outright being dfishonest, as in claiming that "all of man's acitivities" is THE SAME as "CO2"
You now claim they are THE SAME THING...what a filthy liar you are Cristop.
"You're imagining that the science demonstrating AGW hasn't been done. It has. That's why there's a consensus among climate scientists"
You are imagining that when someone says "I can't think of anything else that could be doing it", it is proven.
This fact, combined with all the shenanigans, and with so many studies not making data method and code avaialable, means nothing at all was shown scientificaly. Unverifiable claims were made, that's all.
@pointyhead1 "You are imagining that when someone says "I can't think of anything else that could be doing it", it is proven."
Not 'proven'. In science proof is too absolute a term. But when you have an excellent theory that's consistent with many independent lines of evidence, it becomes accepted. That is what has happened with anthropogenic global warming, and that is why there is a consensus.
As for hidden data codes etc, which ones did you want? Most are available now.
Start with Lonnie Thomson Dunde . Where is the goods ? "Not saying. Ha ha"
These are most influential proxies... see "Al Gore and Dr. Thomson's Thermometer" ( Gore had it wrong. He did not know he was not showing what he thought he was showing. )
@pointyhead1 There are two studies I know of looking at the level of support the theory of anthropogenic climate change among climatologists. Here they are:
Both studies found 97-98% of working climatologists support AGW. If you have specific criticisms of the methodologies we can debate. But if you simply don't like the findings of the studies, we can't debate that.
Re question 2. You seem to think the question "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?." doesn't relate to "anthropogenic" (caused or produced by humans) "global warming" (changing mean global temperatures).
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor..changing mean global temperatures?." doesn't relate to "anthropogenic" .."global warming" ?.
Why is that?"
crisptop. in case I wasn' clear enough: I'm saying that your claim is about CO2 and this statement is not regarding CO2 and GW - it's about man's influence and GW, and therefore, of course, it leaves your claim "out there on it's own". No match.
@pointyhead1 What a refreshing approach! Am I right in thinking you think that the respondents answered "yes" because they were thinking of ANOTHER human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
@cristop5 "What a refreshing approach! Am I right in thinking you think that the respondents answered "yes" because they were thinking of ANOTHER human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
What on earth would that be?"
Excuse me. You made a claim. What you offered as support for your claim does not make the same statementl. You need to admit that before you go further , questioning me on my thoughts.
Your claim vs. the poll claim: I'm saying that your claim is about CO2 and this statement is not regarding CO2 and GW - it's about man's influence and GW, and therefore, of course, it leaves your claim "out there on it's own". No match.up on this one.
@pointyhead1 He knows that he made an error. He's trying to get you to expand on anything he can, so that you may make an error too. Don;t fall for that little trick.
Of course not, Other Pointy. Who do ya think you're talking to ?
@pointyhead1 Like now he's TRYING hard to say they ARE the same thing, that the answer to the question is the same as he said.....without saying "They are the same thing" ( which is obviously FALSE )
@pointyhead1 You've gone all clintonesque on me. True, the question didn't specifically mention CO2 etc, just 'human activity'. Now it seems I'm not allowed to ask what human activity they could possible be thinking about if it is not the production of greenhouse gases!
So OK, if the respondents were not thinking in terms of greenhouse gases (but some other factors that must remain forever nameless!) then Bill Clinton did not have 'sex' with that woman.
@cristop5 "So OK, if the respondents were not thinking in terms of greenhouse gases (but some other factors that must remain forever nameless!) then Bill Clinton did not have 'sex' with that woman.
Lets drop the silliness, OK?"
Slimeball, now you extend as if your claim was inclusive of all greenhhouse gases.
It was not. It was strictly CO2.
There are other factors,besides CO2, as you know.
Deforestation, urbanization. and OTHER greenhouse gases.
1. CO2 is the principle GHG. If I don't list them all to save space that doesn't make me a "slimeball"
2. "Deforestation, urbanization. " The main (not only) influence of these factors is their impact on CO2 (all right, maybe other GHGs too)
3. Your equivocating is thoroughly dishonest. That the question was referring to anthropogenic GHGs is self evident to anyone (including you) who knows anything about the science of GW. To deny this, as you do, is to argue in bad faith.
(cont'd) Posts along these lines, i.e. that question 2 on the Doran survey was not referring to anthropogenic GHGs, are denying the obvious and are in bad faith. Therefore the discussion is over. Posts to date will be retained as a record of your "thinking", but subsequent posts will be deleted to stop them cluttering up the board.
@pointyhead1 This is getting repetive. I deleted your last few comments because they were abusive. This one can stand. If anyone follows this thread and thinks that the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" refers to something other than greenhouse gases, they can side with you.
If they think the only human activity being a SIGNIFICANT contributing factor would have to be our emissions of GHGs they will side with me.
@cristop5 " If anyone follows this thread ... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" refers to something other than greenhouse gases, they can side with you."
No, that is not correct. Human activity includes deforestation, changes to rivers, changes in forest fires, much cattle farming, and urbanization effects, .
It simply is not the same.
The other question COULD have been asked..but was NOT asked !.
@pointyhead1 Why was the "burning " question, what cristop wants it to say, ( about CO2 and GW) NOT ASKED ?
Ask yourself THAT.
by including EVERYTHING, it should raise the response rate or "yes" replies...it's that much more sure. It raises the numbers somewhat for that "consensus".
The RESULT was about ALL influences , not about you "MAIN element", or anything else. ALL. If they meant CO2, they should have ASKED about CO2 and GW. They did NOT.
The satellite, Landsat 7, is broken. And it's emblematic of the nation's battered satellite environmental monitoring program. The bad news: It's only going to get worse, unless the federal agencies criticized for their poor management of the satellite systems over the past decade stage a fast turnaround.
Also absent is a critical sensor that monitors temperature changes over time on Earth
@Dayversion "Dimmer view of Earth" This article was about the lack of funding for the satellite program following Bush's 2004 announcement that NASA would turn its focus to more manned space missions. Did you read it?
Had you done so you'd see it has nothing to do with whether or not the planet is warming and why.
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a Catastrophe
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Dr Charles R. Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, 1 of the 4 agencies charged with responsibility for collecting global climate temperatures NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists
@Dayversion "Dr. Anderson is the founder of Anderson Materials Evaluation Inc and is a co-owner of the company. Dr. Anderson has long specialized in the characterization of surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and coatings. "
By attacking climate science this guy has suddenly become a "leading US physicist"!? Can you tell what papers he has published in the field of atmospheric science, statistics or indeed anything vaguely related to the earth sciences?
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)
@Dayversion "The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." No they don't. The satellite data show warming of ~0.5C since 1979. See for yourself here:
@fatbowe ".IF THEY DID NO MORE MONEY FOR THEM....DUH"
Perhaps you think climate research should not be carried out by people who get paid.
But why stop with climatology? Anyone who gets paid might want to keep their job, so lets apply your idea to all scientific research - chemistry, genetics, pharmocology, oceanography, cancer research etc.
Its amazing how fearful people cant comprehend someone not being fearful as they are. The extremety of this is a madman like hitler who lives out his fears and expects everyone in the world to adapt around his own fear.
Global Warming alarmism is certainly not that extreme but the concept is the same. The IPCC's grave warnings of 1' rise in sea levels in next 100 years is totaly unwaranting of fear or panic or any reaction at all.
Stay afraid if you wish, it is a poison to your mind & body
@ptangboy Whether or not you become "alarmed" is up to you and has no bearing whatsoever on the science, but at least face some facts. This May Pakistan experienced the hottest temperatures in Asia's history, 53.5°C (128.3°F) and Russia experienced the longest heat wave for at least one thousand years, leading to massive crop failures. Hundreds of people died. Maybe they were "alarmed". Whether or not you find this alarming is irrelevant. GW is happening, it's worsening and it's a problem.
There are too many variables to say that Pakistan's heat wave this summer is due to GW. The same goes for the other recordings in your reply. If you look at these things from a predetermined mind set - that anything relating to heat is a result of GW - then you are not being open minded,
The plain, sober truth is that this planet could suddenly dip in temperatures for the next 1000 years - we dont know! and we arent able to differentiate our impact from that of the suns.
@ptangboy If the increase in tropospheric temperatures was due to the sun, you would have to see an increase in sunspot activity or total solar irradiance over the last 40 years or so. This hasn't happened. Read these.
I would read those but it wouldnt change anything - its actually quite likely I have already read them if they are reputable. That is the whole point - there is information to support any stance you take and the accusations made at one for being dishonest can just as easily be made to the opposite side. I was once convinced about AGW, but the more I researched the more uncertain I became. No one really knows, its an edjucated guess that has become like a religion to many.
@ptangboy The types of things that basically make me believe the 97% of working climatologists are on the right track fall into two catergories.
Firstly, claims made by skeptics/denialists never stand up to close examination - e.g. the earth is cooling, the planets are all warming, the MWP was warmer, it's the sun etc. All wrong.
Secondly, they never posit a credible alternative hypothesis to carbon gases. It's always some vague myterious cyclical process in which the drivers are never defined.
Please Please Please!!! do another one of these and give me the facts on the "consensus" of scientists that in the mid 70's agreed we are entering another ice age. That would be a remarkable achievement and take some real research.
Before 1492 there was a scientific 'consensus' that the earth was flat. Yes FLAT.
Wrong.
Before 2010 there was a scientific 'consensus' that Neanderthals did not interbreed with modern humans. Wrong again.
Before the eighties there was a scientific 'consensus' that dinosaurs were cold blooded creatures. Another wrong again.
So stop hiding behind 'peer-reviewed' articles. CO2 does not play such a huge role in temperature as most scientists think. Do your own research and find out yourself.
@robbieopen Yes the peer review process is problematic. Papers can get rejected simply because others in the field think the methodology or interpretation of results are inadequate. It stifles creativity. So I propose to start a new climatology journal free from peer review. it will be called the Ireckon Journal of Climatology. The only proviso is that each paper should commence with the words
"I reckon..."
Next will be the Ireckon Journal of Oncology, Ireckon Journal of Oceanography etc, etc
@cristop5 Likewise it was very astute of you to point out that a scientific consensus around a theory actually gives us LESS reason to take it seriously - quite the opposite of what "sensible" people would have us believe.
This refreshing perspective of yours is most timely and should immediately be applied to other fields. The consensus about the relationship between smoking & cancer, lets challenge that.
Oh wait, the same people challenging the climate change consensus already did that.
@cristop5 the first part of your video neglects that the figures you mention : 96.2% and 97.4%, are from a sample of 79 climatologists (from a larger hand-picked sample) , you make out like it is all encompassing, but it is not.
it is intentionally misleading, and unrepresentative
as someone put it: it is like asking 79 priests if god exists, and then shouting "ITS OFFICIAL"
mikesomething This is the link to the survey paper: ht tp://tigger.uic.e du/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pd f
No sample was "hand picked". The opinions of EVERYONE who responded to the survey were tallied in terms of their field of expertise, & shown. Nobody claims the survey itself proves AGW is real, so what's the priest thing about? It simply shows that the more knowledgeable people are in the area of climate science, the more likely they are to think temps have risen due to human activity.
@mikesomething "what were the criteria for building the database?"
Well they wanted to survey earth scientists, so the criteria were that they should be earth scientists. They needed a list to work from. Here's a link to the directory:
w ww.agiweb.or g/pubs/pubdetail.ht ml?item=300349 (remove spaces)
How would you have gone about getting the names and addresses of as many geoscientists as possible?
@cristop5 yes, well if one wanted to create a biased sample, it wouldnt be to hard. this sample is not representative and cannot be classed as a consensus. as we all know very well that creating a study to support an already held view is common.
i repeat, 79 climatologists do NOT equal a consensus. OK ?
mikesomething A recent article's identified five key tactics employed by denialists. The tactics serve equally well whether you are denying HIV causes AIDS, smoking causes cancer, evolution happens, vaccines protect against disease etc.
They are:
1. Conspiracy theories
2. Fake experts
3. Cherry picking
4. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
(ht tp://eurpub.oxfordjournals.o rg/cgi/reprint/19/1/2.p d f)
@mikesomething You seem to think the survey's methodology is flawed. I've asked you a couple of times what is wrong with it, and how you would improve it but you gave no answer. They got about 31% of canvassed earth scientists to respond, so they could have got more accurate results if they were able to somehow compel ALL of them to respond. Of course that would be impossible.
Hence point 4. "Impossible expectations of what research can deliver"
@cristop5 their sample is a self-chosen list compiled from another incomplete list.
your video is stating that there is a general worldwide consensus amongst scientists (that is what is in your description), and im saying to you, for the third time now, 79 people do not equal a consensus, OK ?
mikesomething For the third time, how would you have improved on the survey's methodology? How would you get a more 'complete' list? How would you prevent "self-selection" if not by somehow compelling people to respond? Are suggesting that scientists who don't believe in AGW would not respond to the questionnaire?
Seriously, I want to know exactly what sort of biases you are concerned about, and how you would survey the opinions of earth scientists in such a way these biases would be avoided.
@cristop5 all i am saying is, to claim a consensus, you first of all need one thing ................... a consensus. 79 people do not make one, so please stop claiming otherwise.
Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark has a different theory on Global Warming. He does not think that CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. Check it out.
TheKickerboy99 This is from Krivova & Solanki 2003 (ww w.mps.mpg.d e/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf) "..between 1970 & 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it & cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"
This sort of flaw is why other climatologists considered but disregarded Svensmark's theory.
Where do we get our heat from? Answer the sun. What is the main GHG? Answer the water. What other question do you have? The whole notion that CO2 drives our climate is a joke.
TheKickerboy99 It's true, water vapor is the most important GHG. But I'm afraid there is more for you understand than just that. Water vapor concentration increases with heat in a +ve feedback loop (up to a point). So it acts to amplify the effect of CO2, roughly doubling the amount of warming you get from CO2 alone.
So yes, water is a GHG. But no, it doesn't just increase of its own accord and 'drive' global warming!
Only silly people would believe that could happen.
syncro16se: You picked the wrong place to post this. I am a card carrying member of the NWO, and I've reported you to the Re-education Committee for investigation and possible internment by FEMA.
At our weekly NWO barbeques we are steadily refining our plans to dominate the world. We have lots of evil scientists on-side, all hell bent on depopulating the planet via a carbon tax.
We are still unsure of the timing for our takeover bid. Some think 21/12/2012.
What's with the medieval music? The real question is how much trust do we put on computer models? That is where the skepticism and the alarmist comes from- Without the models, there is no controversy- this video is also misleading-
2. Climate models are tested by seeing how they fit against or 'explain' the historical record. Without including CO2 they cannot account for warming in the late 20th century. Why? Because the other 'natural' climate drivers are mostly negative over this period.
Here's a review of climate modeling:
w ww.ipcc.c h/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF (remove spaces from link)
Maybe you have another theory as to why it's warming. If so, what is it?
That is one of the main arguments against the models- Simply because the computer programs they designed cannot explain the warming from the 1970's on without co2 does not necessarily mean that that is the cause- Climate scientists admit vast uncertainties in regards to possible negative forcings, and the modelers have responded by leaving practically all the negative feedback out or drastically reducing them to their minimal level, while inflating the positive feedback to maximum-
-therefore the current warming must be primarily co2-
Although slightly logical, it doesn't really add up in solid scientific terms does it-
Ask Phil Jones where the significant warming went since 1995, he laid it out for the BBC-
We started taking the earth's temp right at the end of the little ice age, and the warming has been quite uniform since- And why did temps go down 1940-70, while co2 increased dramatically?
keithmlarsen The lag in temps from 1940-70 has been blamed on aerosol pollution. Industrial and volcanic aerosols reflect incoming radiation, acting as a cooling agent. The enactment of clean air legislation around the world throught the 1950s & 1960s has led to a reduction in aerosols. So these no longer offset the warming drivers so much.
@cristop5 "lag in temps from 1940-70 has been blamed on aerosol pollution"
yes, and there are some blaming the current lack of warming on aerosols...don't you find it odd that aerosol release happens on what appears to be a 30 years or so cycle? Keep in mind the IPCC even declared their confidence in their knowledge of aerosols low.
capemall. I haven't heard anyone refer to aerosols being linked to the "current lack of warming". Have there been more aerosols recently? Kerr 2007in "Is a Thinning Haze Unveiling the Real Global Warming?" suggests aerosols had fallen over the previous 10yrs!
Denialists may well argue that we have record heat because of record low aerosols. They would also argue the lack of recent warming is due to aerosols. I'm sure they'd argue both at once!
@cristop5 I've read that recently but honestly can't remember where...if I run into it again I'll give you a source..I doubt deniers would argue cooling was from an increase in aerosols...they would argue ocean currents or the sun...if it warmed suddenly they may be inclined to arguing decreasing aerosols...it is true that both sides use it as a wild card...that is because it is so poorly understood
keithmlarsen: Also have a look at the video on my channel titled "Where's the evidence?"
If, after watching that you still don't like carbon gases as a credible explanation for warming over the past 40 years or so, please offer an alternative hypothesis.
Human beings discharge 73 million tonnes CO2 per day.
No human beings discharge 0 tonnes CO2 per day.
Human beings chop down 11 million hectares Rainforest per year.
No human beings chop down 0 hectares.
Rainforest alone recycles 20-25% of CO2.
These facts come independent of climatologists or the Democratic Party.
Yes, the indoctrination that counters - and puts spin - on these irrefutable facts is most definitely OBSENE.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 month ago
"An Inconvenient Truth," "this indoctrination is obscene" etc
I suggest you read the judgment. Despite the 'errors' Mr Justice Barton wrote: "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.' "
Regardless of Gore's film and your views on how significant the errors are, we are still adversely changing the climate. That's the real issue.
cristop5 1 month ago
Radical environmentalists have been using the public schools to brainwash children for decades, and it works. The British High Court ruled in October 2007 that Al Gore's global warming propaganda, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so riddled with factual errors that schools can't show it unless they acknowledge it is scientifically debatable, and the nine main errors are listed on an information pamphlet and handed out. But schoolchildren still believe the exaggerations, this indoctrination is obscene
1000frolly 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged.We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
1000frolly 1 month ago
Great video. Lets get on with the actions to improve renewable technologies, both in qualities & quantities of use! To not do so invites too much RlSK. Yeah sure just like the Medicos & other Scientists that spent time & a lot of effort researching Tobacco & Cancer; because many are paid - their conclusions are necessarily false? lf there is a dishonesty relationship with the more $ someone is paid, we should therefore doubt all our top Professionals & Business Leaders?
dmlt12 7 months ago
97.4 % of how many scientists? How many of them rely on funding that they may lose if they do not go along with the "consensus" of the other liberals, err, I mean the other scientists? Just like the "Coming Ice Age" from 1975. The "consensus" can't decide if we're causing it to be cold or hot, so they'll just call it "climate change" then they can't be wrong. Liberals are so transparent that they can't see how transparent they are.
4SmallGov 8 months ago
@4SmallGov
1. The 97.4% refers to 75 out of 77 publishing climatologists (see ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
2. Don't you think more funding would be flow if people claimed they didn't know why the earth was warming?
3. There was no 1970s ice age 'consensus'. Of the relevant papers published from 1965-79, 7 predicted cooling, 17 were neutral & 42 predicted warming. (see: ht tp://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)
That myth was based on a magazine article.
cristop5 8 months ago
@cristop5 - No, of course I know that humans affect the climate. Chopping down all the big forests have had a huge effect on climate. What I said was that the guy in the video said that it is human activities that is responsible for climate change. He gave by far too high importance to us humans with regard to climate - actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false.
klotjohan53 8 months ago
@klotjohan53 "actually he hinted that it is human activities alone that forms the climate changes. Without us it would be no change. Which is obviously false."
Watch ALL of Blair's commentary again to understand him fairly. He notes "natural processes" but says that "..the only way to account for the global warming that has taken place - especially over the last 50 years - is by taking into account the changes that humans have made to the atmosphere - the addition of greenhouse gases."
cristop5 8 months ago
This is all nonsense. The so called scientist in the interview said climate change is due to human activities. What kind answer is that? We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years. We had a small ice age in the 1600s and the temperature has been going up since. And 10.000 years ago we had a real ice age. Totally without the help of humans.
klotjohan53 8 months ago
@klotjohan53 "We all know climate changes perfectly well without the help of humans. The climate have been changing for hundreds of millions of years."
You seem to be arguing that because the climate can change without human activities it must be impossible for human activities to affect climate. This is a non sequitur. Here's another one for you:
"Everyone know trees grow better with more water, so how could adding nitrogen possibley have an effect?"
ps. Why is it warming?
cristop5 8 months ago
Doran asked "the SCIENTISTS" .
Of them, of the publishing climate scientists, 96.2 agreed with # 1 question
Then the SCIENTISTS were asked question 2.
Your video makes a FALSE CLAIM at this point. They did not give the answer from the SCIENTISTS.
These "small" changes in what was said, are your "thin edge of the wedge" - Inserting small untruths till they add up so that you can make a fabricated statement that sounds as if it's supported.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 The small change was yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest error, but the article reads: "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
By 'specialists' he means "those who listed climate science 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 individuals in total)."
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "The small change was yours. I'll give you the benefit.... but the article reads:
Cristop, very funny.
The change made was YOURS. Now you've made another misleading comment. Look at what I wrote. It was that your VIDEO that made the false claim.
"Your video makes a FALSE CLAIM at this point."
You then choose to give a reply about the report instead, and falsely attribute fault to me.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Your nitpicking is quite bizarre. I've had to go back to the video with its annoying music to see what you're on about. It's nothing. She says "of the publishing climatologists 96.2% said it was. Then the scientists were asked if the climate was being significantly affected by humans".
Now you apparently think the scientists referred to in the second sentence are not those referred to in the preceding sentence.
If it wasn't obvious to you from the video, the study makes it clear.
cristop5 1 year ago
(cont'd) Furthermore while focussing on this detail, which was a result of your own confusion rather than what was communicated in either the video or the original article, you missed a couple of obvious details:
1. I am man, so I couldn't be the person narrating the video.
2. The video is acknowledged as a mirror.
Point 2 helps explain point 1.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 The video says a poll was conducted of SCIENTISTS, regarding their opinion. this is seen at 1:20.
ed.
Next 1:33 she says "Of the publishing climatologists" , 96.2 % said it was. So "scientist" is established as any or all scientists, and "publishing climatologists" is established as a particular group within. ext, 1:41,
She then says "Then the scientists were asked ... and that is a false statement. The answer applied only to that 75 or so people, not "the scientists".
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "The video says a poll was conducted of SCIENTISTS.."
I honestly don't know what you're getting at here, but I'll let your comment stand. If anyone else who has watched the video & read the article finds the difference between "publishing climatologists " in one sentence then "the scientists" in the very next confusing, I'd be surprised. Unfortunately such people would be even less able to follow your convoluted reasoning.
Further repetition of this point will be deleted.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 As we can see, it was YOU who erred, YOU whohanged to talking about the poll rather than what I had said.
You make the errors,and make the false claims, not I. You should simply admit that when it happens, instead of making new accusations, and apologise for those mistakes, cristop.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@cristop5
The study does make it clear. The video offers the false claim. Most people likely do not go to references. So you get away with making small changes.
You get away with REFUSING to use the original wording
That is totally dishonest, cristop. You need to acknowledge what the actual words were. ( because what you claim is simply NOT what they claim, that is why you cannot abide their ACTUAL WORDS )
I'm done with you, you are too dishonest a player to converse with further.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
There are more examples of the same dishonest tactic in the video.
e.g.
Near the end 5:13 they talk about all the scientific organizations in the world that accept AGW and none that do not.
Then they say it might not be so, flash the figure 97.4 % again while saying "but when there is this much agreement on a scientific issue.."
That example is pretty damn clear. No "publishing climatologists" even mentioned.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "dishonest tactic" At 5:45 they bring together three separate threads from the video into the one frame. One is the survey of journal articles, one is the survey of publishing climatologists opinions and one is the list of scientific organizations that have issued statements saying humans are causing the earth to warm.
Is that what you are on about?
This is done to re-iterate the point of the video, i.e. the consensus on AGW is solid on three fronts. It's not meant to trick you.
cristop5 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "You get away with REFUSING to use the original wording.." I used the original wording of the article, and the wording in the video as I watched it again to see what you were on about. Anyone who bothers to look will see this.
cristop5 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 The small change was yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest error, but the article reads: "Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
By 'specialists' Doran means "those who listed climate science 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 individuals in total)."
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 we don't really know. And that is why it's easier easy to say that "something or some things " that man is doing, is responsible, than to be specific and say CO2, as was your original argument .
Doran just asked if it was"us". or not. And therefore you cannot abide by the actual words used.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 If aerosols were generally seen as warming rather than cooling agents I'd be with you. But as they are not, and as the question was about 'changing mean global temperatures', which are going up, activities producing GHGs are the only 'significant contributing factor' in the picture.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 The study says up to 45 % or MORE of warming at higher latitudes is perhaps due to aerosols. You can claim that is not significant if you want to. Nobody would believe that claim - it's patently false.
As well, that is where the big warming is happening according to people like you.
So you're just beat. False claims all over the place.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Shindell's study is very interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up. It is based on models however and "every model needs to be compared rigorously to real life observations". In time it may become accepted wisdom.
It was published in April 2009, while Zimmerman's survey was published in 2008. There is no way the survey respondents could have been aware of Shindell's study. So I'm still of the view that in answering question 2, the respondents must have been thinking of GHGs.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Your view is one thing...False claims are another. You need to learn to apologize when you make a false claim...particularly when it is about someone, and you are proven wrong.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 False claim??
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 't was published in April 2009, while Zimmerman's survey was published in 2008. There is no way the survey respondents could have been aware of Shindell's study. So I'm still of the view that in answering question 2, the respondents must have been thinking of GHGs."
Now you're pretending to know what publishing climatologists would or should have known . As if that 2009 study would have been their VERY FIRST INKLING. Amazing.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "As if that 2009 study would have been their VERY FIRST INKLING."
The article "Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming" certainly gives the impression this is a new field. But if you know of an earlier study showing that anthropogenic aerosols could have a SIGNIFICANT warming effect, do tell.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 said:
"...gives the impression this is a new field. But if you know of an earlier study showing that anthropogenic aerosols could have a SIGNIFICANT warming effect, do tell."
Now wait just a minute there.
You need help.
You here SEEM to have equated "Having some knowledge of the existence of a possible significant factor", with "Seeing a well accepted peer reviewed study measuring and explaining it".
cont.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
but since you ask, this obviously was no secret even much earlier. You claimed you knew enough to make a statement about no other significant factors. Now you "know" less, and are that much smarter for it.
aerosols and cloud formation..early 2000's
" clouds ...can cause cooling..
Some cloud types can...cause warming...We don't know enough about the types of clouds...so we are not sure yet whether this warming effect partially or completely counteracts the cooling... increase in albedo.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
"nature" 2007 "Climate change: Aerosols heat up"
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 This piece by Shindell summarises the knowledge regarding aerosols as it stood in early 2009. You will see that his models show a cooling forcing over nearly all of the planet. You may think that the respondents to Doran's question 2 were thinking about aerosols having a significant warming effect, rather than GHGs but I don't.
ht tp://ww w.realclimate.or g/index.php/archives/2009/04/yet-more-aerosols-comment-on-shindell-and-faluvegi/langswitch_lang/de/#more-672
cristop5 1 year ago
Makiko Sato, NASA GISS says
"Future climate depends on how climate forcings change — human-made greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, and *****forcings that are not yet well measured, especially aerosols****
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Good to see you read mainstream scientific opinions as well. The sentence following the one you quote reads: "The speed and degree of climate change also will depend upon how fast amplifying feedbacks, such as Arctic sea ice, the large ice sheets, and methane hydrates come into play."
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Yes, and it puts th lie to your claim that there are no other significant factors other than CO2.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Have a look at this series of clips.
watch?v=bLfBXRPoHRc
If it makes you happy I'll concede the apparent rise in aerosols would be due to human activity. Aerosols are a cooling climate driver however. They cannot explain the global warming we've seen over the past few decades.
Your entire focus seems to be on poiint scoring. Does it concern you at all that we are changing the climate and we should try to limit the damage?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
NASA says
"the researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience."
You just need to face the facts, You made an incorrect statement regarding the poll. You can delelte comments showing your error,, yes.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Notwithstanding high latititude models, aerosols are mostly understood to be cooling agents: "Although MOST aerosols reflect sunlight, SOME also absorb it. An aerosol’s effect on light depends primarily on the composition and color of the particles. Broadly speaking, bright-colored or translucent particles tend to reflect radiation in all directions and back towards space. Darker aerosols can absorb significant amounts of light."
But more research is needed, as Makiko Sato suggests.
cristop5 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Pointy, did you notice that the other 7 questions asked have not been revealed ?
Why would THAT be ?
Other Pointy, it's obvious that Doran is very fishy. An attempt to do spin work. Perhaps Mr. Cristop can find us the other 7 questions for the "study" he flaunts.
Think so ? Not likely !
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 oh, but we are supposed to BELIEVE Doran. Even though 7 out of the 9 questions were hidden from us.
right, Cristop? we're supposed to believe a biased interest poll where the author hides 7 out of 9 questions asked.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "7 out of the 9 questions were hidden from us."
'Hidden' in "Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2008), The consensus on the consensus: An opinion survey of Earth scientists on global climate change, 250 pp., Univ. of Ill. at Chicago."
Shame on Doran for not summarizing the entire 250 page study in this two page piece in 'Climate Change'.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Yes, of COURSE people would call it "significant". That was not in question and it's not a probolem.
The problem is that Doran 2009 does not ask about CO2. It asks about "everything"...and this would almost guaranteee a rise in positive response rate, wouldn't it ?
Are you going to deny that adding more possibilities makes it easier to agree ?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "Are you going to deny that adding more possibilities makes it easier to agree?"
I agree - in theory. But this could only be the case in actuality if there are human activities, other than those associated with production of greenhouse gases, that could be significant contributing factors in changing mean global temperatures. I am not aware of any such activities.
There comes a point when all that can be said has been said. We are way past that.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 It was about CO2 only. You agan attempt to change what you were trying to show, which was STRCTLY CO2 and GW, remember ?
Now that you agree in principle, we can explore it.
Suppose you say it would only be the case if there are human activities that are not CO2 related, and are significant contributing factors.
Your "unawareness" of any, is not an acceptable excuse to claim that you are correct.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Your "unawareness" of any, is not an acceptable excuse to claim that you are correct."
It certainly is. I know enough about climate drivers to know that there are no anthropogenic activities, other than those causing GHG accumulation, that are believed to have a significant impact on our climate.
Topic closed,
cristop5 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Pointy, honesty would include admitting that CO2 is a major part of what most people would be thinking about vis a vis AGW. Of course, Other Pointy ! And there is no argument given that CO2 is not a major factor.
However we are talking about climatologists and what they were asked. AGW is man-made global warming, including ALL factors. Not just the one Cristop demands.
By Increasing the possible reasons and factors, you should get increased "yes" replies.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Pointy, honesty would include admitting ..." etc
Again, see my earlier post & note the word "significant.
cristop5 1 year ago
Sigh, more science by consensus. Real science requires observation, measurement and repetition.
Demonstrate via observation, measurement and repetition that CO2 from humans has caused an increase in global temperature beyond natural variations and I will start believing in human caused global warming.
It is irrelevant what scientists believe, what they can demonstrate is all that matters.
Dexiclecom 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom You're imagining that the science demonstrating AGW hasn't been done. It has. That's why there's a consensus among climate scientists.
/watch?v=5Pjbykd2ywU
The climate changes in response to real drivers. The deliberately vague term "natural variation" is a copout. The only credible explanation for RECENT warming is the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. But if you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the temperature has risen 0.6-0.8C in just 35 years, lets hear it.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 CO2 is a greenhouse gas, science is done. Humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere, duh. CO2 from humans has increased the earths temperature, no science to prove this.
Natural variation is easily determined by examining Earth temps when humans have had zero effect on it.
That video refers to AGW opponents as 'climate science deniers', such cheap smear tactics reduces the video's credibility to the point where it is not worth watching. Got a video that does not use ad hominems for me?
Dexiclecom 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom You may be surprised to learn that people who research climate science for a living are aware that the climate varied in pre-industrial times, due to factors other than CO2! Yes, they know these factors are still at work, however they cannot explain most of the warming in the 20th century, especially over the last 35 years.
I invited you to offer an alternative hypothesis as to why the temperature has risen 0.6-0.8C in just 35 years. You have not done so.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 I presume that since you are posting videos on YouTube on the subject of climate change that you have done some of your own research into the matter. If so I find it extraordinary that you have not heard of the sun as a real credible reason for global warming.
If you have not done any of your own research than I have to wonder if you are interested in examination or just promotion of a particular point of view.
Dexiclecom 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom So your hypothesis as to why the earth has warmed over the last 35 yrs is that solar activity has increased? The climate science community doesn't go along with this idea because solar activity has NOT risen, while temperatures have according to papers such as these:
ht tp://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.or g/content/464/2094/1367.full
ht tp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
ht tp://ww w.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
Please cite peer reviewed studies showing otherwise.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 No that is not my hypothesis, you asked for an alternative and I provided it. I can find plenty of info online saying the sun is and is not the cause. Even if the sun is not causing GW it still does not prove that CO2 is. All I am asking for is the demonstration, using observation, measurement and repetition that human released CO2 is the cause.
Again you are arguing using scientist's belief. What they can demonstrate is all that matters.
Dexiclecom 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom
1. "..you asked for an alternative and I provided it." No. I asked you to cite peer reviewed research. You did not do that.
2. "Even if the sun is not causing GW it still does not prove that CO2 is" Science never supplies this kind of watertight "proof" e.g. it STILL has not been "proved" that smoking causes lung cancer, & this 'argument' was used to defer tobacco regulation for decades. By whom? By Fred Seitz, Fred Singer et al.
The same men went on to apply this strategy to AGW.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Ah, relating the smoking issue to AGW, it does not take long for AGW proponents to descend into rhetoric. Thanks for revealing your lack of credibility. Your seeming lack of a desire for the demonstration of human released CO2 causing GW reveals a lot. Science has used demonstration to prove many things. Those demonstrations then become the basis to further confirm or falsify things we believe are proven.
If it is not observable, measurable and repeatable then it is not science.
Dexiclecom 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom
1. CO2 absorbs long wave radiation & refracts half of it back to earth
2. The concentration of CO2 has increased 40% in 150 years, most of that in the last few decades
3. The amount of EM radiation escaping into space at the wave lengths known to correspond to CO2, CH4, CFCs etc has been shown to have decreased
4. The troposphere has warmed
5. Glaciers & ice sheets are retreating, oceans are rising
6. No other alternative hypothesis has explained warming over the last 30-40 years.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
cristop, Your argument is worthless, as the early studies on tobacco were simply no good. RA Fisher, no less, showed them as worthless. Similar situation with Climate "Science" - the truth is whatever it is but the studies are often pap.
"Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962) .. English statistician...described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science,"
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Your argument is worthless, as the early studies on tobacco were simply no good."
Did I say all studies on tobacco were impeccable? No. I said that the device whereby an unreasonable level of "proof" is demanded was used to delay tobacco regulation for decades. The architects of this style of denialism - people like Fred Seitz & Fred Singer went on to attack climate science using the same tricks they had learned while defending the tobacco industry.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Did I say you said all tobacco studies were impeccable ? No.
Which decades are you talking about ?.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s. In 1953 a landmark study showed that cigarette tar painted on mice caused cancers. On Dec 15, 1953 execs from American Tobacco, Benson & Hedges, Philip Morris & US Tobacco met & agreed to commission PR firm Hill & Knowlton to attack the science linking tobacco to cancer. This campaign continued & evolved through to 1999, when they were indicted under the RICO statute. Seitz worked from 1979-88. Singer was active in the 1990s
cristop5 1 year ago
(cont'd) As the tobacco disinformation campaign wound down Singer went on to attack the science linking sulfur emissions to acid rain, studies linking CFCs to ozone depletion, and the science behind AGW.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
Cristop, you are prone to exaggeration of claims you've heard.
From Oxford Toxicology Science page "The link between the smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer began to be suspected by clinicians in the 1930s...in The Handbook...no particular importance was given to the smoking of cigarettes" "About 2 decades later the role ...firmly established. "
Now please show which regulation was delayed for decades.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Here you see , there was no Singer denying tobacco/cancer cause/effect and preventing legislation.
There were many factors ( economic and social) involved in historical opposition, not just denial by industry.
It was not even on the table thst early for the public health people
"The first statement from the Public Health Service on the subject was made by its Surgeon General, Leroy F. Burney, M.D., in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November, 1959.
"
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 This board is supposed to relate to the video about the scientific consensus around global warming, not tobacco. But brielfy, Singer created the Science & Environmental Policy Project in 1990 in part to defend the tobacco industry. In the early 1990s he worked with Philip Morris' PR firm APCO Associates, helping them characterise studies on second hand smoke as "junk science".
Google "Junk science at the EPA" to see some of his work.
cristop5 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
My statement was based on D.L.Davis (2007) book 'The Secret War on Cancer' which mentions German researchers linking smoking to lung cancer in the 1930s. I am not interested in debating whether or not this constitutes "clear" etc. I only brought this up as background info in reference to my point about Singer & Seitz' working for the tobacco industry.
Please post further comments re tobacco etc on relevant boards.
cristop5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cristop5 "The link between smoking & cancer was clear by the 1930s."
My statement was based on D.L.Davis (2007) book 'The Secret War on Cancer' which mentions German researchers linking smoking"
Cristop, this is why I say you exaggerate claims you've read. You're full of hype, when you aren;t outright being dfishonest, as in claiming that "all of man's acitivities" is THE SAME as "CO2"
You now claim they are THE SAME THING...what a filthy liar you are Cristop.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
"You're imagining that the science demonstrating AGW hasn't been done. It has. That's why there's a consensus among climate scientists"
You are imagining that when someone says "I can't think of anything else that could be doing it", it is proven.
This fact, combined with all the shenanigans, and with so many studies not making data method and code avaialable, means nothing at all was shown scientificaly. Unverifiable claims were made, that's all.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "You are imagining that when someone says "I can't think of anything else that could be doing it", it is proven."
Not 'proven'. In science proof is too absolute a term. But when you have an excellent theory that's consistent with many independent lines of evidence, it becomes accepted. That is what has happened with anthropogenic global warming, and that is why there is a consensus.
As for hidden data codes etc, which ones did you want? Most are available now.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
What has not been disclosed? Tons.
Start with Lonnie Thomson Dunde . Where is the goods ? "Not saying. Ha ha"
These are most influential proxies... see "Al Gore and Dr. Thomson's Thermometer" ( Gore had it wrong. He did not know he was not showing what he thought he was showing. )
pointyhead1 1 year ago
after Dunde, ask for Bona Churchill.
Why does he bother oing to these locations and then not archiving ? When he dies it's all gone. It's lost already most likely, but he won;t admit it.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@Dexiclecom Yes, "Science by consensus" is a widespread lowbrow meme.
Even the producing of the "consnesus" claim, was a dishonest effort .
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 There are two studies I know of looking at the level of support the theory of anthropogenic climate change among climatologists. Here they are:
1. ht tp://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
2. ht tp://w ww.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
Both studies found 97-98% of working climatologists support AGW. If you have specific criticisms of the methodologies we can debate. But if you simply don't like the findings of the studies, we can't debate that.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 you showed Doran, a joke. An effort at activism. Is it peer reviewed work ?
Let's get into this Doran poll a bit more, to the specific questions asked, all of them, and how they got their respondents.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
"2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?"
Neither of the two questions offers the ability to claim the answer you claimed it did, cristop. Why is that ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
Re question 2. You seem to think the question "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?." doesn't relate to "anthropogenic" (caused or produced by humans) "global warming" (changing mean global temperatures).
Why is that?
cristop5 1 year ago
Comment removed
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@cristop5
"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor..changing mean global temperatures?." doesn't relate to "anthropogenic" .."global warming" ?.
Why is that?"
crisptop. in case I wasn' clear enough: I'm saying that your claim is about CO2 and this statement is not regarding CO2 and GW - it's about man's influence and GW, and therefore, of course, it leaves your claim "out there on it's own". No match.
pointyhead1 1 second ago pointyhead1 1 second ago
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 What a refreshing approach! Am I right in thinking you think that the respondents answered "yes" because they were thinking of ANOTHER human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
What on earth would that be?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "What a refreshing approach! Am I right in thinking you think that the respondents answered "yes" because they were thinking of ANOTHER human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
What on earth would that be?"
Excuse me. You made a claim. What you offered as support for your claim does not make the same statementl. You need to admit that before you go further , questioning me on my thoughts.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Let me remind you again
Your claim vs. the poll claim: I'm saying that your claim is about CO2 and this statement is not regarding CO2 and GW - it's about man's influence and GW, and therefore, of course, it leaves your claim "out there on it's own". No match.up on this one.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 He knows that he made an error. He's trying to get you to expand on anything he can, so that you may make an error too. Don;t fall for that little trick.
Of course not, Other Pointy. Who do ya think you're talking to ?
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Like now he's TRYING hard to say they ARE the same thing, that the answer to the question is the same as he said.....without saying "They are the same thing" ( which is obviously FALSE )
: )
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 You've gone all clintonesque on me. True, the question didn't specifically mention CO2 etc, just 'human activity'. Now it seems I'm not allowed to ask what human activity they could possible be thinking about if it is not the production of greenhouse gases!
So OK, if the respondents were not thinking in terms of greenhouse gases (but some other factors that must remain forever nameless!) then Bill Clinton did not have 'sex' with that woman.
Lets drop the silliness, OK?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "So OK, if the respondents were not thinking in terms of greenhouse gases (but some other factors that must remain forever nameless!) then Bill Clinton did not have 'sex' with that woman.
Lets drop the silliness, OK?"
Slimeball, now you extend as if your claim was inclusive of all greenhhouse gases.
It was not. It was strictly CO2.
There are other factors,besides CO2, as you know.
Deforestation, urbanization. and OTHER greenhouse gases.
You are thoroughly dishonest .
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1
1. CO2 is the principle GHG. If I don't list them all to save space that doesn't make me a "slimeball"
2. "Deforestation, urbanization. " The main (not only) influence of these factors is their impact on CO2 (all right, maybe other GHGs too)
3. Your equivocating is thoroughly dishonest. That the question was referring to anthropogenic GHGs is self evident to anyone (including you) who knows anything about the science of GW. To deny this, as you do, is to argue in bad faith.
cristop5 1 year ago
(cont'd) Posts along these lines, i.e. that question 2 on the Doran survey was not referring to anthropogenic GHGs, are denying the obvious and are in bad faith. Therefore the discussion is over. Posts to date will be retained as a record of your "thinking", but subsequent posts will be deleted to stop them cluttering up the board.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 " The point is that you were making claims about agreement to CO2 and warming, and brought Doran for support.
Doran's question #2 does allow an answer on CO2, as THAT question was NEVER ASKED.
If you made a small error, that would be OK !
You simply need to admit that the question was not actually about CO2.. Neither is it only about GHG's.
One could be much more SURE ( and therefore reply positively) about ALL of man's activities, than about just the one item.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 This is getting repetive. I deleted your last few comments because they were abusive. This one can stand. If anyone follows this thread and thinks that the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" refers to something other than greenhouse gases, they can side with you.
If they think the only human activity being a SIGNIFICANT contributing factor would have to be our emissions of GHGs they will side with me.
cristop5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cristop5 " If anyone follows this thread ... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" refers to something other than greenhouse gases, they can side with you."
No, that is not correct. Human activity includes deforestation, changes to rivers, changes in forest fires, much cattle farming, and urbanization effects, .
It simply is not the same.
The other question COULD have been asked..but was NOT asked !.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 Why was the "burning " question, what cristop wants it to say, ( about CO2 and GW) NOT ASKED ?
Ask yourself THAT.
by including EVERYTHING, it should raise the response rate or "yes" replies...it's that much more sure. It raises the numbers somewhat for that "consensus".
The RESULT was about ALL influences , not about you "MAIN element", or anything else. ALL. If they meant CO2, they should have ASKED about CO2 and GW. They did NOT.
You bend the facts here.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 "Why was the "burning " question, what cristop wants it to say, ( about CO2 and GW) NOT ASKED ?" etc
See my previous comment. Note the word "significant".
cristop5 1 year ago
Dimmer view of Earth
Suzanne Bohan
Contra Costa Times
The satellite, Landsat 7, is broken. And it's emblematic of the nation's battered satellite environmental monitoring program. The bad news: It's only going to get worse, unless the federal agencies criticized for their poor management of the satellite systems over the past decade stage a fast turnaround.
Also absent is a critical sensor that monitors temperature changes over time on Earth
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion "Dimmer view of Earth" This article was about the lack of funding for the satellite program following Bush's 2004 announcement that NASA would turn its focus to more manned space missions. Did you read it?
Had you done so you'd see it has nothing to do with whether or not the planet is warming and why.
cristop5 1 year ago
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a Catastrophe
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Dr Charles R. Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, 1 of the 4 agencies charged with responsibility for collecting global climate temperatures NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion "Dr. Anderson is the founder of Anderson Materials Evaluation Inc and is a co-owner of the company. Dr. Anderson has long specialized in the characterization of surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and coatings. "
By attacking climate science this guy has suddenly become a "leading US physicist"!? Can you tell what papers he has published in the field of atmospheric science, statistics or indeed anything vaguely related to the earth sciences?
Thanks for the giggle.
cristop5 1 year ago
the same way of "consensus" is there for several topics, for example aids, history....
vanillacokemz 1 year ago
• 2007 Year of Global Cooling
Washington Times
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Dayversion 1 year ago
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion "The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." No they don't. The satellite data show warming of ~0.5C since 1979. See for yourself here:
ht tp://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The data never seem to back up the deniers claims for some reason.
cristop5 1 year ago
...IF THEY DID NO MORE MONEY FOR THEM....DUH.....
fatbowe 1 year ago
@fatbowe ".IF THEY DID NO MORE MONEY FOR THEM....DUH"
Perhaps you think climate research should not be carried out by people who get paid.
But why stop with climatology? Anyone who gets paid might want to keep their job, so lets apply your idea to all scientific research - chemistry, genetics, pharmocology, oceanography, cancer research etc.
duh..
cristop5 1 year ago
Its amazing how fearful people cant comprehend someone not being fearful as they are. The extremety of this is a madman like hitler who lives out his fears and expects everyone in the world to adapt around his own fear.
Global Warming alarmism is certainly not that extreme but the concept is the same. The IPCC's grave warnings of 1' rise in sea levels in next 100 years is totaly unwaranting of fear or panic or any reaction at all.
Stay afraid if you wish, it is a poison to your mind & body
ptangboy 1 year ago
@ptangboy Whether or not you become "alarmed" is up to you and has no bearing whatsoever on the science, but at least face some facts. This May Pakistan experienced the hottest temperatures in Asia's history, 53.5°C (128.3°F) and Russia experienced the longest heat wave for at least one thousand years, leading to massive crop failures. Hundreds of people died. Maybe they were "alarmed". Whether or not you find this alarming is irrelevant. GW is happening, it's worsening and it's a problem.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
There are too many variables to say that Pakistan's heat wave this summer is due to GW. The same goes for the other recordings in your reply. If you look at these things from a predetermined mind set - that anything relating to heat is a result of GW - then you are not being open minded,
The plain, sober truth is that this planet could suddenly dip in temperatures for the next 1000 years - we dont know! and we arent able to differentiate our impact from that of the suns.
ptangboy 1 year ago
@ptangboy If the increase in tropospheric temperatures was due to the sun, you would have to see an increase in sunspot activity or total solar irradiance over the last 40 years or so. This hasn't happened. Read these.
ht tp://arxiv.o rg/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf
ht tp://adsabs.harvard.e du/abs/2009JGRD..11414101B
ht tp://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o rg/content/464/2094/1387.abstract
ht tp://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf
etc, etc.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
I would read those but it wouldnt change anything - its actually quite likely I have already read them if they are reputable. That is the whole point - there is information to support any stance you take and the accusations made at one for being dishonest can just as easily be made to the opposite side. I was once convinced about AGW, but the more I researched the more uncertain I became. No one really knows, its an edjucated guess that has become like a religion to many.
ptangboy 1 year ago
@ptangboy The types of things that basically make me believe the 97% of working climatologists are on the right track fall into two catergories.
Firstly, claims made by skeptics/denialists never stand up to close examination - e.g. the earth is cooling, the planets are all warming, the MWP was warmer, it's the sun etc. All wrong.
Secondly, they never posit a credible alternative hypothesis to carbon gases. It's always some vague myterious cyclical process in which the drivers are never defined.
cristop5 1 year ago
Please Please Please!!! do another one of these and give me the facts on the "consensus" of scientists that in the mid 70's agreed we are entering another ice age. That would be a remarkable achievement and take some real research.
Follow the money!
Kilmarley 1 year ago
@Kilmarley You want a video about the "in the 1970s everybody thought there was going to be an ice age" myth? It's already been done.
/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
If you want to read something other than denialist tripe start with:
w ww.realclimate.o rg
and
skepticalscience.c om
(remove spaces)
cristop5 1 year ago
we should follow scientists like sheep. i agree. NOT
KINKYG11242 1 year ago
@KINKYG11242 Deep.
cristop5 1 year ago
Before 1492 there was a scientific 'consensus' that the earth was flat. Yes FLAT.
Wrong.
Before 2010 there was a scientific 'consensus' that Neanderthals did not interbreed with modern humans. Wrong again.
Before the eighties there was a scientific 'consensus' that dinosaurs were cold blooded creatures. Another wrong again.
So stop hiding behind 'peer-reviewed' articles. CO2 does not play such a huge role in temperature as most scientists think. Do your own research and find out yourself.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Yes the peer review process is problematic. Papers can get rejected simply because others in the field think the methodology or interpretation of results are inadequate. It stifles creativity. So I propose to start a new climatology journal free from peer review. it will be called the Ireckon Journal of Climatology. The only proviso is that each paper should commence with the words
"I reckon..."
Next will be the Ireckon Journal of Oncology, Ireckon Journal of Oceanography etc, etc
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Likewise it was very astute of you to point out that a scientific consensus around a theory actually gives us LESS reason to take it seriously - quite the opposite of what "sensible" people would have us believe.
This refreshing perspective of yours is most timely and should immediately be applied to other fields. The consensus about the relationship between smoking & cancer, lets challenge that.
Oh wait, the same people challenging the climate change consensus already did that.
cristop5 1 year ago
What a load of rubbish - what planet are they talking about - not this one.
roadkingreggae 1 year ago
@roadkingreggae Well that just sprung into your mind, so it trumps evidence collected in surveys.
cristop5 1 year ago
no consensus, dont be an idiot
mikesomething 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikesomething "no consensus, dont be an idiot"
OK, so either you have a different understanding of what scientific consensus means, or the information presented in the video is wrong. Which is it?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 neither, information presented is misleading, and false conclusions are drawn
mikesomething 1 year ago
@mikesomething So which information is misleading?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 the first part of your video neglects that the figures you mention : 96.2% and 97.4%, are from a sample of 79 climatologists (from a larger hand-picked sample) , you make out like it is all encompassing, but it is not.
it is intentionally misleading, and unrepresentative
as someone put it: it is like asking 79 priests if god exists, and then shouting "ITS OFFICIAL"
mikesomething 1 year ago
mikesomething This is the link to the survey paper: ht tp://tigger.uic.e du/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pd f
No sample was "hand picked". The opinions of EVERYONE who responded to the survey were tallied in terms of their field of expertise, & shown. Nobody claims the survey itself proves AGW is real, so what's the priest thing about? It simply shows that the more knowledgeable people are in the area of climate science, the more likely they are to think temps have risen due to human activity.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 the sample was hand-picked "The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007]" what were the criteria for building the database ? who knows
mikesomething 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikesomething "what were the criteria for building the database?"
Well they wanted to survey earth scientists, so the criteria were that they should be earth scientists. They needed a list to work from. Here's a link to the directory:
w ww.agiweb.or g/pubs/pubdetail.ht ml?item=300349 (remove spaces)
How would you have gone about getting the names and addresses of as many geoscientists as possible?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 yes, well if one wanted to create a biased sample, it wouldnt be to hard. this sample is not representative and cannot be classed as a consensus. as we all know very well that creating a study to support an already held view is common.
i repeat, 79 climatologists do NOT equal a consensus. OK ?
mikesomething 1 year ago
@mikesomething Why do you think the survey is biased? How would you have done a survey of geoscientists' views on AGW differently?
cristop5 1 year ago
mikesomething A recent article's identified five key tactics employed by denialists. The tactics serve equally well whether you are denying HIV causes AIDS, smoking causes cancer, evolution happens, vaccines protect against disease etc.
They are:
1. Conspiracy theories
2. Fake experts
3. Cherry picking
4. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
(ht tp://eurpub.oxfordjournals.o rg/cgi/reprint/19/1/2.p d f)
Your objections come under point 4.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 no they dont
mikesomething 1 year ago
@mikesomething You seem to think the survey's methodology is flawed. I've asked you a couple of times what is wrong with it, and how you would improve it but you gave no answer. They got about 31% of canvassed earth scientists to respond, so they could have got more accurate results if they were able to somehow compel ALL of them to respond. Of course that would be impossible.
Hence point 4. "Impossible expectations of what research can deliver"
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 their sample is a self-chosen list compiled from another incomplete list.
your video is stating that there is a general worldwide consensus amongst scientists (that is what is in your description), and im saying to you, for the third time now, 79 people do not equal a consensus, OK ?
mikesomething 1 year ago
mikesomething For the third time, how would you have improved on the survey's methodology? How would you get a more 'complete' list? How would you prevent "self-selection" if not by somehow compelling people to respond? Are suggesting that scientists who don't believe in AGW would not respond to the questionnaire?
Seriously, I want to know exactly what sort of biases you are concerned about, and how you would survey the opinions of earth scientists in such a way these biases would be avoided.
cristop5 1 year ago
@mikesomething Or to put it another way, how would try to find out whether or not there is a consensus among earth scientists about AGW?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 all i am saying is, to claim a consensus, you first of all need one thing ................... a consensus. 79 people do not make one, so please stop claiming otherwise.
mikesomething 1 year ago
Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark has a different theory on Global Warming. He does not think that CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming. Check it out.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
TheKickerboy99
I've replied to this already and given you a link to a paper by Krivova & Solanki 2003 which explains what is wrong with Svensmark's theory.
Did you read my response and follow the link?
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 Yes, didn't sway me, even a little bit.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
TheKickerboy99 Well if you wanted to debate you'd have to explain why you weren't swayed.
Just repeating the same question counts for nothing.
cristop5 1 year ago
how dumb do you have to be to agree with this vid? Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1) try this theory.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
TheKickerboy99 This is from Krivova & Solanki 2003 (ww w.mps.mpg.d e/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf) "..between 1970 & 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it & cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase"
This sort of flaw is why other climatologists considered but disregarded Svensmark's theory.
This is not being "dumb".
cristop5 1 year ago
Where do we get our heat from? Answer the sun. What is the main GHG? Answer the water. What other question do you have? The whole notion that CO2 drives our climate is a joke.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
TheKickerboy99 It's true, water vapor is the most important GHG. But I'm afraid there is more for you understand than just that. Water vapor concentration increases with heat in a +ve feedback loop (up to a point). So it acts to amplify the effect of CO2, roughly doubling the amount of warming you get from CO2 alone.
So yes, water is a GHG. But no, it doesn't just increase of its own accord and 'drive' global warming!
Only silly people would believe that could happen.
cristop5 1 year ago
AGW is a fraud, how could you possibly have missed this ?
Are you all brainwashed by the UN / EU / Greenpeace / NWO agenda
If you want to be enslaved by the falsely founded AGW movement, then you deserve it !
in 2010 the human being hasn't learned anything about politics, manipulation, lies, even if it's written on their nose
Go on, get your prisonplanet
stupid
syncro16se 2 years ago
syncro16se: You picked the wrong place to post this. I am a card carrying member of the NWO, and I've reported you to the Re-education Committee for investigation and possible internment by FEMA.
At our weekly NWO barbeques we are steadily refining our plans to dominate the world. We have lots of evil scientists on-side, all hell bent on depopulating the planet via a carbon tax.
We are still unsure of the timing for our takeover bid. Some think 21/12/2012.
Do you think that might be too late?
cristop5 2 years ago
What's with the medieval music? The real question is how much trust do we put on computer models? That is where the skepticism and the alarmist comes from- Without the models, there is no controversy- this video is also misleading-
keithmlarsen 2 years ago
keithmlarsen
1. I don't like the flutes either
2. Climate models are tested by seeing how they fit against or 'explain' the historical record. Without including CO2 they cannot account for warming in the late 20th century. Why? Because the other 'natural' climate drivers are mostly negative over this period.
Here's a review of climate modeling:
w ww.ipcc.c h/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-12.PDF (remove spaces from link)
Maybe you have another theory as to why it's warming. If so, what is it?
cristop5 2 years ago
That is one of the main arguments against the models- Simply because the computer programs they designed cannot explain the warming from the 1970's on without co2 does not necessarily mean that that is the cause- Climate scientists admit vast uncertainties in regards to possible negative forcings, and the modelers have responded by leaving practically all the negative feedback out or drastically reducing them to their minimal level, while inflating the positive feedback to maximum-
keithmlarsen 2 years ago
keithmlarsen
1. It is known that CO2 & CH4 are rising due to human activity
2. Satellite & surface measurements have found less energy escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths
3. The oceans, land and troposphere are accumulating heat.
So the questions are:
a) (again) why is the earth heating up if it is not carbon gases?
b) why haven't negative forcings prevented heating to date?
c) what -ve forcings will kick in, and when?
cristop5 2 years ago
So basically...your saying-
-we are emiting co2-
-we know co2 is a ghg-
-therefore the current warming must be primarily co2-
Although slightly logical, it doesn't really add up in solid scientific terms does it-
Ask Phil Jones where the significant warming went since 1995, he laid it out for the BBC-
We started taking the earth's temp right at the end of the little ice age, and the warming has been quite uniform since- And why did temps go down 1940-70, while co2 increased dramatically?
keithmlarsen 2 years ago
keithmlarsen The lag in temps from 1940-70 has been blamed on aerosol pollution. Industrial and volcanic aerosols reflect incoming radiation, acting as a cooling agent. The enactment of clean air legislation around the world throught the 1950s & 1960s has led to a reduction in aerosols. So these no longer offset the warming drivers so much.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5 "lag in temps from 1940-70 has been blamed on aerosol pollution"
yes, and there are some blaming the current lack of warming on aerosols...don't you find it odd that aerosol release happens on what appears to be a 30 years or so cycle? Keep in mind the IPCC even declared their confidence in their knowledge of aerosols low.
capemall 2 years ago
capemall. I haven't heard anyone refer to aerosols being linked to the "current lack of warming". Have there been more aerosols recently? Kerr 2007in "Is a Thinning Haze Unveiling the Real Global Warming?" suggests aerosols had fallen over the previous 10yrs!
Denialists may well argue that we have record heat because of record low aerosols. They would also argue the lack of recent warming is due to aerosols. I'm sure they'd argue both at once!
Anything as long as it's not CO2.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5 I've read that recently but honestly can't remember where...if I run into it again I'll give you a source..I doubt deniers would argue cooling was from an increase in aerosols...they would argue ocean currents or the sun...if it warmed suddenly they may be inclined to arguing decreasing aerosols...it is true that both sides use it as a wild card...that is because it is so poorly understood
capemall 2 years ago
keithmlarsen: Also have a look at the video on my channel titled "Where's the evidence?"
If, after watching that you still don't like carbon gases as a credible explanation for warming over the past 40 years or so, please offer an alternative hypothesis.
cristop5 2 years ago