Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: 10,853 out of 10,855 scientists agree: Global warming is happening.

  1. #1
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,068

    Exclamation 10,853 out of 10,855 scientists agree: Global warming is happening.

    10,853 out of 10,855 scientists agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

    Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change


    Lindsay Abrams
    March 25, 2014
    Salon.com
    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/1085...ium=socialflow




    As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,855 in total (more on his methodology here). Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming. The consensus, as he defines it, looks like this:



    Powell even had to expand that itty bitty slice of the consensus pie five times for us to make it out – the actual doubt about climate change within the scientific community is even tinier.
    Adding this new data to his previous findings, Powell estimates that the going rate for climate denial in scientific research is about 1 in 1,000. The outliers, he adds, “have had no discernible influence on science.” From this, he comes up with a theory of his own:

    Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.

    What can we conclude?

    1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.

    2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

    These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.









  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    The IPCC claims a confidence level of 99% or something. I reckon praps 90%. The exakt figure aint important, what iz important iz that AGW might be true. The fakt that it might be true shood make everyone krapp their pants.

    Re numbers of scientists, quality trumps quantity.
    Gatekeepers. The mainstream keeps skeptiks out, keeps skeptikal articles out.
    Pal Review. Peer review iz more like pal review.
    Wiki iz payd for and kontrolled by mainstream science, they own wiki.

    Re denyers -- they are az important az beleevers. Denyers shood get funding, to investigate their angles. I like reading some of the stuff from denyers.

    Re IPCC AGW fraud, or at least scientists wildly overstating their case (fraud), overstating their data etc (fraud).
    I know of glacier fraud, north atlantic cyclone fraud, and (possibly) pacific water level fraud. I think that in some cases modern data supports the early stuff, but the early stuff woz nonetheless fraud at that time (eg cyclone stuff).

    Certainly mainstream science iz a fraud. Einstein stuff. Big bang. Dark Matter. Dark Energy. Dark Flow. Nuclear Atom. Black Holes. CMB. This lowers their 99% confidence to ??% confidence.

    No one kan in fakt put a confidence figure on theory. U kan put a confidence figure on data, but not on theory. So, in fakt, unfortunately, the first IPCC fraud, the biggest IPCC fraud, iz their 99% confidence figure.

    On serious issues like AGW a % of scientists in the teams shood be engaged fulltime on skeptikal review, rather than review being an amateur part-time adhoc charity no-thank-u's jealousy us&them celebrity exhibition i'll kick the ball to u if u kick the ball to me team sport.
    Had review been made professional then the contribution of cloud reflection, sunspot cycles, deep water CO2, tree rings etc etc would hav been better understood much earlyer.
    But "reviewers" aint ever gonnaget a Nobel, a cleaner would hav a better chance.

    Mathis' Charge Field theory that the milkyway and Jupiter (not just the Sun) affekt glaciations will never be mentioned by the IPCC. Nor how Earth gets heat.
    http://milesmathis.com/ice.html
    http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-26-2014 at 08:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    .....Now that you know a little about the man, how about a look at his take on peer review?

    In another bold strike, Tracz is taking aim at science's life force: peer review. "Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight," he contends. The biggest problem, he says, is the anonymity granted to reviewers, who are often competing fiercely for priority with authors they are reviewing. "What would be their reason to do it quickly?" Tracz asks. "Why would they not steal" ideas or data?

    Anonymous review, Tracz notes, is the primary reason why months pass between submission and publication of findings. "Delayed publishing is criminal; it's nonsensical," he says. "It's an artifact from an irrational, almost religious belief" in the peer-review system.

    As an antidote, the heretic in January launched a new venture that has dispensed altogether with anonymous peer review: F1000Research, an online outlet for immediate scholarly publishing. "As soon as we receive a paper, we publish it," after a cursory quality check. Peer review happens after publication, and in the light of day. F1000Research selects referees, who post their names and affiliations alongside their critiques. Papers become like wikis, with reviewers and authors posting comments and revisions as the need arises......
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-26-2014 at 07:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    ................Climate scientist Roger Pielke Snr - not an alarmist - finds from the leaked emails that he’s a victim of behind-the-scenes lobbying by Professor Phil Jones, which results in the watering down of his paper.
    (Via Watts Up With That.)

    Steve McIntyre discovers how Professor Michael Mann snowed colleagues inside the global warming team, particularly Jeff Severinghaus, who’d begun to pick up what McIntyre publicly exposed - that the author of the highly influential “hockey stick” graphic (above) showing unprecedented warming relied on unreliable proxies.

    And other objections, this time from climatologist Tom Bradley, were also kept private, and stifled. McIntyre again:

    The Yang Chinese composite, after the Mann PC1 and Yamal, had the third-largest hockey stick shape of the proxies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph. I’d commented on this series on several occasions – see http://www.climateaudit.org/tag/yang

    The new emails show that Bradley thought that this series was, to use the technical term preferred by climate scientists, “crap” and should not be used in multiproxy studies – an issue raised by Bradley in connection with Mann et al (EOS 2003) – their attack on Soon and Baliunas 2003.

    Needless to say, Bradley did not publish a comment criticizing the use of this series. It has subsequently been used over and over again in IPCC multiproxy studies, commencing with Mann and Jones 2003.

    Another example of the “the team” excluded papers which - correctly - questioned the alarmism of the IPCC, not to mention Al Gore.

    First, Roger Pielke Jr has just noted that the US has set a new record - for the number of days between major hurricanes hitting the US coast:

    This, of course, will shock people who believed Al Gore’s opportunistic warnings after Hurricane Katrina that we’d get more and worse hurricanes, thanks to man-made warming. Here he is in An Inconvenient Truth:

    Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States… And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you’ll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane’s eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.

    But the link between warming and any change in hurricane activity to date is now so unclear that even warmists hestitate to make it.

    Now to Climategate 2:0

    In 2005, Roger Pielke Jr co-wrote a peer-reviewed paper warning against linking man-made warming to hurricane impacts:

    To summarize, claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature for three reasons. First, no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes . . . Second, the peer-reviewed literature reflects that a scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability . . . And third, under the assumptions of the IPCC, expected future damages to society of its projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes are dwarfed by the influence of its own projections of growing wealth and population . . . While future research or experience may yet overturn these conclusions, the state of the peer-reviewed knowledge today is such that there are good reasons to expect that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or their impacts will not be made in the near term.

    “The team” concluded this was heresy. Pielke writes:

    Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at NCAR here in Boulder and the person (along with Phil Jones) in charge of the 2007 IPCC AR4 chapter that reviewed extreme events including hurricanes, said this in the Boulder Daily Camera (emphasis added) about our article:

    I think the role of the changing climate is greatly underestimated by Roger Pielke Jr. I think he should withdraw this article. This is a shameful article.

    And Professor Phil Jones - yes, him again, demonstrating how few people it takes to scare the world on warming - agreed that here was one more paper that wouldn’t even be referred to in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report:

    Jones to Trenberth on 22 June 2005:
    Kevin,
    I’ll read the Pielke et al piece for BAMS that came over the skeptic email today. Presumably we’ll get forced to refer to it [in the 2007 IPCC report].

    Trenberth replies:
    Don’t see why we should refer to the Pielke piece. It is [n]ot yet published. It is very political and an opinion.

    Jones soon comes around, despite noting its peer-reviewed status:
    Kevin,
    Read the article on the new patio at home with a glass of wine. I thoroughly agree that we don’t need to refer to it. Wrote that on it last night. It is very political. Several sentences and references shouldn’t be there. I don’t know who was supposed to have reviewed it - maybe Linda [Mearns] will know, as she used to or still does have something to do with BAMS. The inference in the email (from whence it came) is that it has been accepted !
    Cheers
    Phil

    The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.

    This is how the “consensus” was manufactured by “peer review”. It is a scandal, and the consequences have been enormous and costly.............
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-26-2014 at 07:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,914
    You're not actually denying that Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it, isn't true, and that burning fossile fuels, increased carbon and hydrogen in the atmosphere is causing it, are you?

    Just a simple yes or no answer, please. Anyone can look up a slew of denials and post them, but we do have huge agreement among scientists on the subject, and those who are most respected in the world, are in agreement. The Science Deniers aren't worth even a glance, as far as I'm concerned.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    Gayle -- Yes I beleev in AGW. However re denyers, they shood be a part of the A-team. Their claims shood be investigated properly. Denyers are very important.
    A major issue iz that the mere possibility of AGW shood be enuff to make everyone krapp their pants.
    mac.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cushioncrawler View Post
    Gayle -- Yes I beleev in AGW. However re denyers, they shood be a part of the A-team. Their claims shood be investigated properly. Denyers are very important.
    A major issue iz that the mere possibility of AGW shood be enuff to make everyone krapp their pants.
    mac.
    "10,853 out of 10,855 scientists agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

    Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change."

    In my opinion deniers do not deserve any respect, nor any notice. They are the stupid among us, who also think that the earth is only sic thousand years old! There is only one thing to do regarding those who deny the factual evidence of threatening Global Warming, and that is to fight against them, and against any of them who run for office.

    Repiglicans must be voted out of political offices across this country, or the world will suffer extraordinary devastating results.

    They are nothing but greedy tools of corporate fascism.




  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    Gayle -- There are denyers and there are denyers.
    Allmost 100% of historic science haz been prooven wrong.
    Allmost 100% of modern science will be prooven wrong.
    mac.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cushioncrawler View Post
    Gayle -- There are denyers and there are denyers.
    Allmost 100% of historic science haz been prooven wrong.
    Allmost 100% of modern science will be prooven wrong.
    mac.

    Mac,
    I don't agree! Global Warming is a fact, so is the Theory Of Evolution. Science is not just a scam, it's how we learn the truth about the world. I do not respect the views of those who deny Science, particularly then they are bible thumpers, who are known to suspend critical thinking skills, in order to believe what makes them feel safe from their own mortality.

    Organized Religion has always been at war with Science, and Repiglicans always hurt this country, partly because of their redical religious beliefs.

    The only way to save this world is to vote all Repiglicans out of office. To launche a war on corporate crooks, to overturn Citizens United, and to impeach Clarence Thomas, who has broken Federal Laws!

    G.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,817
    Darwin's stuff will of course survive. Or at least 99% of it.
    Religion iz our main enemy.
    Krappynomix iz evil. Remember that krappynomicysts get an annual Swedish bank prize for krappynomix science in memory of alf.

    Unlikely, unfortunately, but there are a few simple ways that AGW might yet be shown wrong.
    (1) Firstly the climbing historyk hockey stick temperature record might proov wrong.
    (2) Or in the near future the hockey stick might bend back down and even drop to an ice-age.
    (3) The hockey stick temps might be found to hav been caused by a non-AGW.
    (4) Other ways.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-01-2014 at 03:38 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •