Proof There is NO Climate Consensus

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by mojo, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Heres a poll of climate scientists ,and its has some interesting information.
    44 % do NOT see a 50/50 chance that global temperatures will rise 2 degrees in the next 50-100 years.
    "A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)"
    7% of climate scientists pressured to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming

    "Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors."

    "Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,"

    STATS:
     
  2. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    The 29% may not be confident for very diffent reasons! Some may think it is likely to be worse!

    56% (of those that should know!) believe we are going to se 2C or more,, it may not be "consensus" but it is largely a semantic distinction.

    The next question,, let's see the methodology of the poll. Question the message, question the messenger.

    Icarus
     
  3. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    56% think theres half of a chance of a 2 degree rise.
    Thats not a whole lot of confidence.
    Methodology is by Harris poll.The link is the word "STATS" in the original post.STATS:

     
  4. fuzzy1

    fuzzy1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    15,444
    8,705
    90
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    So the bulk of that 44% still believe AGW is happening, but not as fast as 2C/50-100 years. From the very same article you link:

    "Major Findings
    Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
    Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, ..."

    "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure."

    This really knocks the wind out of your thread title.
     
    finman likes this.
  5. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,287
    3,208
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I enjoyed reading that link about a 2007 poll. It says more, and with less spin, than Mojo's excerpts. but he linked the link so all is forgiven.

    Five years having passed, lots of new data so one can only wonder...
     
  6. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Not really .My point is that the "97% consensus of all scientists" meme quoted weekly is total BS.
    56% believe CAGW is a half possibility.
    Thats the relevant figure that should be quoted.But that figure doesnt show any consensus.


     
  7. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    I wonder how many climate scientists have been pressured to lie today.Its accumulative so by now it could have easily doubled.
    This was also pre-Climategate.A lot of eyes were opened with that information.
     
  8. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Question then becomes, who did they poll and how? What was (is) the threshold to be "polled"? How many (as a percentage) were polled? How many chose not to be polled? I would like to see Nate Silver's take!

    Icarus
     
  9. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    This is a professionally conducted poll +- 4% error .
    Whereas the Poll quoted by the AGW cheerleaders was a BS poll of 77 scientists .With the questions so vague that I would have answered yes to both of only 2 questions.

    "Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points."

     
  10. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I see your poll, and raise you mine"


    "Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

    Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:"

    "Doran 2009
    Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures."

    "Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

    "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."


    "
    Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?


    There is lots more, but my guess is that you will still be unconvinced

    Icarus
     
  11. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,287
    3,208
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    "A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years..." (the poll according to STAT)

    "56% believe CAGW is a half possibility." (the spin)

    The difference between these two quotes is not subtle.

    I am very sympathetic to the idea that scientific views may have changed since 2007. Accumulating data tells its own story. Do purloined emails trump data? Apparently this is a personal decision. Throwing out the data is not an option for me, but I cannot speak for others.

    My own views have been changed in two different ways. Data, sure, but the coupled atmosphere-ocean circulation models still do a poor job of handling ENSO PDO AMO and those things. I did not think about that as much, a few years ago. The ocean has massive heat-storage potential. So for me, it's like this: it seems increasingly certain that the 3 oC rise per CO2 doubling will occur. It seems not more certain, and possibly less certain, that all of that energy-balance response can be accurately projected during 50 years or even 100 years.

    So I'm not sure whether I'd poll with the 56%. Would have to see the stated question and the choices offered in response.
     
  12. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Both studies you cite are ridiculous .
    I agree there are probably very few studies which will reject global warming.
    Even if their conclusions prove an aspect which doesnt support AGW.
    If you state that in your conclusion you dont get any more funding.
    I can point you to many thousands of peer reviewed studies which poke hole in the AGW theory.
    That meme is just pathetic.

    The next poll is the one everyone refers to as proof of consensus.I agree "yes "to both questions asked, so how can those questions have a shred of value as evidence of any consensus?Absolutely worthless wouldnt you agree?




     
  13. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    2 degrees being the IPCC threshold for catastrophe.
    I dont see any discrepancy in my wording.
    BTW Im certain thats why they chose 2 degrees specifically in the question.

     
  14. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,287
    3,208
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Scientists pressured to lie.

    Perhaps my viewpoint is of no great interest, but this seems wrong in two fundamental ways. Generally, science is self-correcting over time and I do not doubt that is also the case in earth-system science as a subset. The vast amount of freely available data (including temperatures, and humidity as I recently saw at the NOAA re-analysis web site) would make it a perilous thing to intentionally get it wrong.

    Second, scientists can get attached to their own personal interpretations of data. I see it in my own field, which is not climatology. I see it in myself. My interpretation of 'priming' was that it causes net loss of carbon from soils. I helped a student analyze data which showed the opposite. I 'pushed back' against that, so we went to the literature and re-analyzed several other studies. In those we generally found a not gain, not loss. That accumulation of evidence changed my opinion. I had been wrong.

    This is not lying. Charitably, is is human nature, and something that scientists (at least) need to be on guard against.

    I'd go so far as to say that it should be something for climate skeptics to be on guard against as well. If your opinion says "A" but the data say "B", don't be too sure that "B" is wrong.
     
  15. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    This is what I call lying.Hansens GISS temp adjustments.
    Forging historical temp data.See attached graph below
    The Mann-Made Climate Catastrophe | Real Science


     

    Attached Files:

  16. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    Over time climate science fraud will soon be revealed and all scientists will share the shame.
    Sorry but your profession is being dragged in the dirt by liars.
     
  17. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,287
    3,208
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    This is perhaps not a bad example. Goddard's wordpress says "A" and the Berkeley temperature re analysis says "B". (using my terminology fro #14 post)
     
  18. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,519
    390
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Three
    BEST.
    You are citing a study which did not pass peer review.
    Also Mueler didnt bother to investigate GISS data adjustments.He just accepted them.

     
  19. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    20
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Science has spoken on climate. Sorry it disagrees with your religious beliefs but it is a common problem. You can read the actual science data here IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     
  20. drysider

    drysider Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    823
    329
    1
    Location:
    Liberty Lake WA
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Four
    The issue that concerns me the most is that "Proof" does not come from polls or votes. 44% could be wrong. 100% have been known to be wrong in the past. Science changes its' mind on a regular basis, sometimes in a very radical way. Knowing things "for sure" is not something that science is good at doing. If climate change is a fact, the inertia of the weather world-wide will make it very obvious regardless of what we do in the next decade. Will the last person out of New Orleans please turn off the lights.
     
    mojo likes this.
Loading...