Climate change; fact, scam, or both?

Bogan

@Phite ;    Sure, but not when it's done by liars like Cook.  You don't still take guys like him seriously, do you?  Wouldn't his deliberate misrepresentation of the climate scientists whose studies he used to push his agenda kinda destroy his credibility . . . in your eyes?


Ooooh, Phite.    Looks like you have a juicy scandal involving somebody named "Cook", which I was unaware of.     Please explain the details so that I can add them to my list of evidence destroying the ACC cult.

Phite quote       How about the IPCC?  You consider them to be something you can put your faith in?

I put as much faith in any UN internationalist body as I would in Joe Biden's denials that he is not a crook.    WHO is a paid mouthpiece of China, and UNWRA a part of HAMAS.    Once again we see how organisations full of overpaid and virtue signaling  bureaucrats go radical and end up pursuing policies inimical to the welfare of the people paying their salaries.  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Phite ;    Sure, but not when it's done by liars like Cook.  You don't still take guys like him seriously, do you?  Wouldn't his deliberate misrepresentation of the climate scientists whose studies he used to push his agenda kinda destroy his credibility . . . in your eyes?


Ooooh, Phite.    Looks like you have a juicy scandal involving somebody named "Cook", which I was unaware of.     Please explain the details so that I can add them to my list of evidence destroying the ACC cult.

Phite quote       How about the IPCC?  You consider them to be something you can put your faith in?

I put as much faith in any UN internationalist body as I would in Joe Biden's denials that he is not a crook.    WHO is a paid mouthpiece of China, and UNWRA a part of HAMAS.    Once again we see how organisations full of overpaid and virtue signaling  bureaucrats go radical and end up pursuing policies inimical to the welfare of the people paying their salaries.  

All debunked garbage. It's okay though. You answered in part with honesty. You think asians are going to rule the world with white liberal elistist unless we use all the earth's resources and pollute unabated. Though you forgot that part this time.

Facts on your playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Bogan

@Factfinder

@Factfinder ;  quote      All debunked garbage.

Debunked by who?

Factfinder quote      . You think asians are going to rule the world with white liberal elistist unless we use all the earth's resources and pollute unabated.

I think that is a air enough assessment.   Asian races have slightly higher collective IQ's than white people.     They will not have a bar of multiculturalism, which is tearing apart western civilisation.    And they don't have a bar of ACC either.      So, they will continue to prosper while the west goes backward.    The only limiting factors are, that few Asians are Protestant Christians, which means that corruption in Asian societies will continue unabated.   And corrupt societies eventually fall apart.       Also, that western societies are undergoing a counter revolution towards the leftist cultural revolution which is destroying their societies and economies.    But it is probably too late to save them now.     

Factfinder quote   Though you forgot that part this time.       Facts on your playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 Oh, goody.    Normally I will not debate against links for may reasons.     One of them is because I consider it just laziness on the part of my opponents.     But this time I will make an exception because I think I can display to you how you have been conned.

 

WIKI quote Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change.

 Okay, see the misdirection?     There is no scientific dispute that the climate changes, the question is whether humans have anything to do with it.     This sort of clever language gets my bul-lsheet meter on standby.   

 

WIKI quote     Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.  

 I reject that premise entirely.       After examining both sides of the debate, my own conclusion was, that it is the alarmists who use rhetorical tactics, as well as intimidating and sacking heretics, and fudging the data to get a desired outcome.    The above quote is an example of that.  

 

WIKI quote  Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

 Got that right.

 

WIKI quote To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[6] Several studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[8]: 691–698  pseudoscience,[9] or propaganda.  

 The science is in dispute.      In 2010,  31,478 US scientists publically put their names on a petition saying that they do not accept HIGW.   If that number of US scientists alone did that, then the science is definitely not settled.   Climate alarmists claim that "the science is settled", because 97% of climate scientists, who's careers and continued employment is predicated upon agreeing with HIGW, say it is.    That is like saying that the Australian ABC is not biased because 97% of ABC staff say it is not biased.    As for the other 3%, they had better keep their mouths shut or the next time that there is a staff cutback, that 3% will end up like Professors Ridd and Curry.     Then the ABC can proudly announce that 100% of their staff say that the ABC is not biased.    So there.    It must be true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36HzErkBHA

I will finish it by displaying the WIKI graph which is obviously misinformation.      Okay, if you finished high school then I presume that you have some idea about statistics?     And therefore you know, that you can not infer any conclusions from a very limited sample.   The longer the time baseline, the more accurate the data, right?   Here is the WIKI graph which supposedly shows how the earth is warming over a very limited time scale.     

 Before this post gets too lo 

Now, compare that on a much longer time scale and what does it tell you?   



This is why I do not support the alarmists.      They are willing to submit data which they know is either false. fiddled with, or plain outright deceptive,  to support their "scientific" position.      

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder

@Factfinder ;  quote      All debunked garbage.

Debunked by who?

Factfinder quote      . You think asians are going to rule the world with white liberal elistist unless we use all the earth's resources and pollute unabated.

I think that is a air enough assessment.   Asian races have slightly higher collective IQ's than white people.     They will not have a bar of multiculturalism, which is tearing apart western civilisation.    And they don't have a bar of ACC either.      So, they will continue to prosper while the west goes backward.    The only limiting factors are, that few Asians are Protestant Christians, which means that corruption in Asian societies will continue unabated.   And corrupt societies eventually fall apart.       Also, that western societies are undergoing a counter revolution towards the leftist cultural revolution which is destroying their societies and economies.    But it is probably too late to save them now.     

Factfinder quote   Though you forgot that part this time.       Facts on your playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 Oh, goody.    Normally I will not debate against links for may reasons.     One of them is because I consider it just laziness on the part of my opponents.     But this time I will make an exception because I think I can display to you how you have been conned.

 

WIKI quote Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change.

 Okay, see the misdirection?     There is no scientific dispute that the climate changes, the question is whether humans have anything to do with it.     This sort of clever language gets my bul-lsheet meter on standby.   

 

WIKI quote     Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.  

 I reject that premise entirely.       After examining both sides of the debate, my own conclusion was, that it is the alarmists who use rhetorical tactics, as well as intimidating and sacking heretics, and fudging the data to get a desired outcome.    The above quote is an example of that.  

 

WIKI quote  Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

 Got that right.

 

WIKI quote To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[6] Several studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[8]: 691–698  pseudoscience,[9] or propaganda.  

 The science is in dispute.      In 2010,  31,478 US scientists publically put their names on a petition saying that they do not accept HIGW.   If that number of US scientists alone did that, then the science is definitely not settled.   Climate alarmists claim that "the science is settled", because 97% of climate scientists, who's careers and continued employment is predicated upon agreeing with HIGW, say it is.    That is like saying that the Australian ABC is not biased because 97% of ABC staff say it is not biased.    As for the other 3%, they had better keep their mouths shut or the next time that there is a staff cutback, that 3% will end up like Professors Ridd and Curry.     Then the ABC can proudly announce that 100% of their staff say that the ABC is not biased.    So there.    It must be true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36HzErkBHA

I will finish it by displaying the WIKI graph which is obviously misinformation.      Okay, if you finished high school then I presume that you have some idea about statistics?     And therefore you know, that you can not infer any conclusions from a very limited sample.   The longer the time baseline, the more accurate the data, right?   Here is the WIKI graph which supposedly shows how the earth is warming over a very limited time scale.     

 Before this post gets too lo 

Now, compare that on a much longer time scale and what does it tell you?   



This is why I do not support the alarmists.      They are willing to submit data which they know is either false. fiddled with, or plain outright deceptive,  to support their "scientific" position.      

Your closedmindedness is so prevalent you can't see the forest through the trees. If you really believed the science to be in dispute, you wouldn't be so far on the extreme fringe fanatical right on this. Let's see, yes you're speaking of that petition that includes signatories like Charles Darwin, Spice girls , star wars, LOL yeah, real credible. The reason why your losing so bad is you prefer indoctrination over education. 

Phite

Factfinder said:

All debunked garbage.

A sample of scientists whose papers were used were asked if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He is a dishonest man who willingly misrepresented these scientists in order to push something.  You debunked that?  Did you discover that those climate scientists don't really exist?  Do you know something about them that you could share with the rest of us, like how you came to the knowledge that they were all lying?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

All debunked garbage.

A sample of scientists whose papers were used were asked if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He is a dishonest man who willingly misrepresented these scientists in order to push something.  You debunked that?  Did you discover that those climate scientists don't really exist?  Do you know something about them that you could share with the rest of us, like how you came to the knowledge that they were all lying?

The silly notion that cook maliciously put out an entirely false report to the extent we should ignore him all together is debunked. He, or a staffer(s) could easily have misinterpreted what the few example you show, honestly. Any lawsuits, liability cook had to pay out? His consensus report back in 2016 was 97% scientist agree on climate change. Since then there have been more consensuses formed. James Powell; 99.94% agree in 2017. In 2021 Krista Myers came out with a report 98.7% agree. Also in 2021 a separate consensus was published by Mark Lynas which put it at 99.53%. Hundreds of scientists pour over thousands of peer reviewed publications in order to compile the data and rate where the findings lead for each consensus report. And they include studies from experts who disagree with the consensus or offer alternative hypothesis. And the consensus remains anthropogenic climate change exists. Any defamation lawsuit pending? Thought not. Such a weak case you defend so valiantly, but totally ignore the fact deniers act with malice. Don't even respond to that. Should we keep the status quo? Pollute at will? Deplete the earth's resources? Let your children worry about it?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Bogan

@Factfinder ;     Your closedmindedness is so prevalent you can't see the forest through the trees. If you really believed the science to be in dispute, you wouldn't be so far on the extreme fringe fanatical right on this. Let's see, yes you're speaking of that petition that includes signatories like Charles Darwin, Spice girls , star wars, LOL yeah, real credible. The reason why your losing so bad is you prefer indoctrination over education. 

Interesting.    I take the time and effort to submit a 1000 word reply to your last post in which I picked apart the "logic" in the WIKI article, and instead of event trying to defend the WIKI article, you just come back at me with a couple of sneery one liners.     It is obvious to me that reason and logic can make no headway over your wishful thinking.     And wishful thinking is all that it is.       Like so many people with religious mindsets, you believe in magic because you want to believe in magic.     Anthropogenic climate change is in scientific dispute.     Nobody can prove either way that it is happening or not.     But that western governments accept it to the detriment of their own economies and the welfare of their own people, while studiously ignoring the alternative view, tends to show that there are other reasons as to why governments only financially support one side of the scientific debate and not the other.     If you ever wanted to find out why, then do what every detective does,   Follow the money.  

Bogan

@Factfinder ;     His consensus report back in 2016 was 97% scientist agree on climate change.

Okay, another manta the alarmists keep chanting.     Who conducted the poll?     When did they conduct the poll?      How many scientists were polled?     Was it a secret ballot?   

If you can not answer these simple questions, then perhaps you might begin to figure out that somebody just made this crap up?   It is B-S.     And they knew that people who really do want to believe in AGW would never bother to check if it was true?      The truth is, that nobody, not from the alarmist side nor the sceptic side  knows where this slogan came from?   It is just a throw away slogan that sounds convincing, which fools the ignorant and reinforces the beliefs of the the people who need to believe.    

AGW is in scientific dispute.    it is just a proposal.    Nobody on either side can prove whether it is happening or not.      But the fact that only one side of the debate is funded by governments, and the alarmists will do anything to "prove" their case, and a lot of money and career advancement is riding on one side only, tends to reveal which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.    

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;     His consensus report back in 2016 was 97% scientist agree on climate change.

Okay, another manta the alarmists keep chanting.     Who conducted the poll?     When did they conduct the poll?      How many scientists were polled?     Was it a secret ballot?   

If you can not answer these simple questions, then perhaps you might begin to figure out that somebody just made this crap up?   It is B-S.     And they knew that people who really do want to believe in AGW would never bother to check if it was true?      The truth is, that nobody, not from the alarmist side nor the sceptic side  knows where this slogan came from?   It is just a throw away slogan that sounds convincing, which fools the ignorant and reinforces the beliefs of the the people who need to believe.    

AGW is in scientific dispute.    it is just a proposal.    Nobody on either side can prove whether it is happening or not.      But the fact that only one side of the debate is funded by governments, and the alarmists will do anything to "prove" their case, and a lot of money and career advancement is riding on one side only, tends to reveal which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.    

Read the debate.

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;     Your closedmindedness is so prevalent you can't see the forest through the trees. If you really believed the science to be in dispute, you wouldn't be so far on the extreme fringe fanatical right on this. Let's see, yes you're speaking of that petition that includes signatories like Charles Darwin, Spice girls , star wars, LOL yeah, real credible. The reason why your losing so bad is you prefer indoctrination over education. 

Interesting.    I take the time and effort to submit a 1000 word reply to your last post in which I picked apart the "logic" in the WIKI article, and instead of event trying to defend the WIKI article, you just come back at me with a couple of sneery one liners.     It is obvious to me that reason and logic can make no headway over your wishful thinking.     And wishful thinking is all that it is.       Like so many people with religious mindsets, you believe in magic because you want to believe in magic.     Anthropogenic climate change is in scientific dispute.     Nobody can prove either way that it is happening or not.     But that western governments accept it to the detriment of their own economies and the welfare of their own people, while studiously ignoring the alternative view, tends to show that there are other reasons as to why governments only financially support one side of the scientific debate and not the other.     If you ever wanted to find out why, then do what every detective does,   Follow the money.  

You've said it all before. Doesn't matter how many words falsehoods contain, they're still false. In that 1000  words you think signatories on a right wing propaganda piece like 'star wars' and 'spice girls' somehow enhance your position, they don't.  Anthropogenic climate change is real. The science behind it is real. Only far right hysterical fanatics deny it. 

Do you think the earth is flat?

Phite

Factfinder said:

He, or a staffer(s) could easily have misinterpreted what the few example you show . . .

Yup, when all else fails, use the old tried and true "Yeah but what about if" argument, which isn't even an argument!

Was cook's study peer reviewed?  If so, didn't his peers check his work thoroughly enough to call him out on his misrepresentation of the climate scientists whose papers he used to make up his 97% consensus bullshyt?

All you've done here is apologize for people who were dishonest in their interpretation of climate scientists whose papers they used.  Personally, I'm pleased that someone took the time to find out just how Cook . . . operates.

Factfinder

@Phite

I get it, you're fixed on cook. Like I said, so what? He's one guy, and your incomplete response let's me know, no repercussions because what was found to be erroneous, wasn't malicious in nature. Not like the rightwing tried with climategate. For some reason THAT ain't so offensive eh? And the fact the consensuses remain consistent before and after cooks.

Do you believe anthropogenic climate change exists? Should we pollute at will? Should we exhaust the earth's resources? Keep the status quo?

Bogan

I asked you four simple and easy questions pertaining to your false claim that "97% of scientists support AGW."     That is the second time I have asked these questions and the second time that you have dodged answering them..     I can tell a lot more about my opponents real intentions from the questions they deliberately dodge, rather than the ones they  ttempt to answer.    Like everybody else, you have no idea where this claim came from, and no idea how to verify it.      So, stop using it to support your premise that the scientific debate is over.    

The scientific debate is not over.      Not only that, but only one side gets funded by governments, and it appears that only one side intimidates scientists who oppose AGW, and only one side which fudges the figures to get a desired outcome.     Which should tell you something, but the reason why you will not acknowledge it is because you want to believe that the alarmist case is true.  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

I asked you four simple and easy questions pertaining to your false claim that "97% of scientists support AGW."     That is the second time I have asked these questions and the second time that you have dodged answering them..     I can tell a lot more about my opponents real intentions from the questions they deliberately dodge, rather than the ones they  ttempt to answer.    Like everybody else, you have no idea where this claim came from, and no idea how to verify it.      So, stop using it to support your premise that the scientific debate is over.    

The scientific debate is not over.      Not only that, but only one side gets funded by governments, and it appears that only one side intimidates scientists who oppose AGW, and only one side which fudges the figures to get a desired outcome.     Which should tell you something, but the reason why you will not acknowledge it is because you want to believe that the alarmist case is true.  

I told you to read the debate because it's been covered. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/174013/#Comment_174013 ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Phite

Factfinder said:

@Phite

I get it, you're fixed on cook.

No I'm not.  You're fixed on excusing him.

So, how did his study get past the peer review process?  Did those peers approve of Cook's misrepresentation of climate scientists' papers concerning climate change?  Well they must have, eh?

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now why do you think they decided to omit those passages from the report?  It takes the least amount of critical thinking skills to determine why those passages were removed from the "approved" version.  Can you guess why they were removed?

Factfinder

@Phite

Do you believe anthropogenic climate change exists? Should we pollute at will? Should we exhaust the earth's resources? Keep the status quo?

Bogan

 @Factfinder ;   I told you to read the debate because it's been covered.

That is a deliberate misdirection.     The fact is that for years we have been hearing this "97% of  scientists claim that AGW is real."      Okay, WHO conducted the poll?     HOW was it conducted, by phone or by post?    How many scientists were polled?    What proportion of world scientists were polled?     Was it a secret ballot?     

If true, your claim would be a very important fact for you to use against AGW opponents.   So, it must be an extremely important poll?   And if it is extremely important, then you should be able to tell us it's name and when and where it was held?   I know that you can not answer these questions because the whole claim, just like AGW itself, is just a crock.     The "evidence" is meant to impress those who need to believe in AGW who the perpetrators of this propaganda know will never bother to verify it.   

Bogan

@Phite ;    No I'm not.  You're fixed on excusing him.

Who's "Cook?"

Factfinder

Bogan said:

 @Factfinder ;   I told you to read the debate because it's been covered.

That is a deliberate misdirection.     The fact is that for years we have been hearing this "97% of  scientists claim that AGW is real."      Okay, WHO conducted the poll?     HOW was it conducted, by phone or by post?    How many scientists were polled?    What proportion of world scientists were polled?     Was it a secret ballot?     

If true, your claim would be a very important fact for you to use against AGW opponents.   So, it must be an extremely important poll?   And if it is extremely important, then you should be able to tell us it's name and when and where it was held?   I know that you can not answer these questions because the whole claim, just like AGW itself, is just a crock.     The "evidence" is meant to impress those who need to believe in AGW who the perpetrators of this propaganda know will never bother to verify it.   

No, it's not an important 'poll' at all. Educate yourself. Mainly because every census report before and after conducted by different entities confirms the vast majority, always above 98%, climate scientist agree with the consensuses being done. Anthropogenic climate change is real. Australia's tax dollars will help fund climate scientists around the world to reduce our confirmed effects on climate change. Get over it. And learn to follow a debate. 

MayCaesar

The claim that "97% of scientists agree..." is wrong on so many levels. The evidence presented in the original paper that published this finding did not support this claim at all: in https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002 the authors sent out an invitation to a survey consisting of 9 questions to 10,257 "Earth scientists" (a pretty loose definition that can include anyone from a theoretical physicists modelling the structure of Earth's minerals, to an evolutionary biologist), with the response rate of 30.7%, and within a tiny subset of them (77 individuals that listed "climate science" as their area of expertise and over a half of whose papers were related to the subject of climate change), 75 answered the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" with "Yes". 

So the claim is literally based on a sample of 77 individuals that self-identified as experts on the subject and whose publications were predominantly focused on the topic of climate change - quite a few sources of bias right here (for example, you do not expect many people who do not think that humanity significantly affects climate change to publish anything - why publish something on a phenomenon that you do not think exists?). 75 individuals said "yes" and 2 said "no" - the statistical error of this is whoopingly high even for this group.

The authors immediately add that there were groups of specialists within which percentages were very different: 47% among economical geologists and 64% among meteorologists. Among the general group of Earth scientists, the number is merely 82%. Now, the authors add at the end a pretty dubious passage:

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.

This, of course, contradicts the figures they published right before that, is not scientific (rather, clearly political - see the last sentence), and is published in EOS, a journal with a very low impact factor (0.22; ranked >200 among Earth Science journals, 21793 overall) - for scientific purposes, a junk-rate journal. There are countless basic errors and missing analyses in this article, including the analysis of statistical errors (which are highly significant for samples this small) and systematic errors (which naturally arise from such strong and somewhat arbitrary cuts).

This is a small article written by a graduate student and containing an undergraduate freshman course project-level analysis. I have had medical school freshmen write stronger course papers than this in my classes. Reviewing other similar articles, I see similar levels of sloppiness, although this one certainly takes the cake.

It is also worth adding that even if 97% consensus held, it would be fairly weak. In particle physics, for instance, the significance level required for a hypothesis to be just considered "plausible" is 99.7%, and for it to be considered "confirmed", 99.99994%. When 3 out of 100 specialists disagree with one of the most fundamental claims in the field, then something is off. How many physicists disagree with the three Newton's laws, or with Einstein's relativity equations? I have never met one, and I have met hundreds of physicists. Seems a bit weak to use this kind of value when justifying spending hundreds billions of public dollars.

But that is the problem with these discussions: these things are not that straightforward. It takes quite a bit of training to learn to properly read scientific papers, to develop the sense of what statistical analysis is appropriate there. A layman who has never read a serious scientific paper with this kind of analysis does not know what to expect. 
Which is why it is a good idea to not have an opinion on something you do not know much about. I do not have an opinion on what the best way to build a thermonuclear reactor is: despite having spent hundreds of hours on studying nuclear physics, I simply do not know much about this particular issue. I certainly can make some very basic assumptions, but the closer to the "bone" we get, the less my opinion matters - and at some point I will just say, "I do not know - but I have connections and can use them to get onto someone who can weight in on this".
Which is also why I rarely say anything on these topics, unless I know that who I am talking to has somewhat of an expertise in relevant fields. It is just not going to be productive.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

The claim that "97% of scientists agree..." is wrong on so many levels.

It is not 'the claim', it is the consensus repeatedly: 

The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields qualitative and self-reported researcher expertise (2). Our findings capture the added dimension of the distribution of researcher expertise, quantify agreement among the highest expertise climate researchers, and provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning ACC. In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 publications; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 10−14), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications). Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

This does not address a major part of my criticism, and these statements have much of the same issues: bias intrinsic to the sample, small sample size and very superficial analysis of significance of the results, arbitrariness of selection (number of publications, for instance, is valued much less in science than such things as h-index or i10-index). And, again, the fraction is fairly low even if all of that was not the case: imagine if only 97% of liver cancer researchers agreed that overconsumption alcohol is a significant risk factor... The latter is a bit of a playful jab at my position, as I actually have read a fairly well cited paper that claimed that the connection is questionable. But that was one paper out of, what, thousands?

This appears to be more similar to what archaeologists do when they dig out a new artifact and then make reasonable assumptions about its origin: there will typically be quite a bit of disagreement in the field, and the dominant hypothesis can be agreed on by 75-85% experts. Which is fine - it is the best they can do given how noisy the data is - but they also do not make it into a multi-trillion dollar industry.

The obvious elephant in the room is also the fact that science is not a democracy and it is absolutely irrelevant how strong the consensus is. Science is about making an argument and countering rebuttals, most of which (if you are fair) come from you. It is not about voting for what is right. When I publish a paper, I play games such as "What are the 10 ways I can be wrong?", and the results of these games often make it into the paper: "Hey, this conclusion rests on that assumption, but I can think of how that assumption may be flawed, and here are two papers in which the authors made a mutually exclusive one and their conclusion also seemed to make sense". I never talk about how many people agree with me. I only care that the referee accepts my argument (he/she does not have to accept my conclusion).

This is the difference between science, and politics. And I would prefer people to use the correct word out of the two when making strong arguments on these topics.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

This does not address a major part of my criticism, and these statements have much of the same issues: bias intrinsic to the sample, small sample size and very superficial analysis of significance of the results, arbitrariness of selection (number of publications, for instance, is valued much less in science than such things as h-index or i10-index). And, again, the fraction is fairly low even if all of that was not the case: imagine if only 97% of liver cancer researchers agreed that overconsumption alcohol is a significant risk factor... The latter is a bit of a playful jab at my position, as I actually have read a fairly well cited paper that claimed that the connection is questionable. But that was one paper out of, what, thousands?

This appears to be more similar to what archaeologists do when they dig out a new artifact and then make reasonable assumptions about its origin: there will typically be quite a bit of disagreement in the field, and the dominant hypothesis can be agreed on by 75-85% experts. Which is fine - it is the best they can do given how noisy the data is - but they also do not make it into a multi-trillion dollar industry.

So what, you're criticism means you think acc is a hoax to fleece the wealth from the west that 97% of scientist are in on? Or to be more precise up to around 20% of the 97% are in on? Since you'd be fine if 75-85% agreed? 

@MayCaesar Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

Phite

Bogan said:

@Phite ;    No I'm not.  You're fixed on excusing him.

Who's "Cook?"

6:15 mark

Now there's a face you can trust.

Factfinder

@Phite

Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

So what, you're criticism means you think acc is a hoax to fleece the wealth from the west that 97% of scientist are in on? Or to be more precise up to around 20% of the 97% are in on? Since you'd be fine if 75-85% agreed? 

@MayCaesar Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

My criticism is very specific and I do not make any far-fetched claims (unlike the authors of many articles citing this data). I personally suspect that what takes place here is miscommunication between scientists and the general public: academia is a bit of an insular environment and many scientists simply do not have much experience talking to people outside of their academic circle. I have seen some awful examples of absolutely brilliant mathematicians bombing something as simple as an HR interview, because they simply did not think of adjusting their communication to the audience.
There is quite a bit of elitism in academia, people thinking that outside of academia everyone is a simpleton. Conversely, in the public space many people take academicians' complicated speech patterns as indication of some profound wisdom that mere mortals cannot hope to comprehend. It is not difficult to see how the communication between the two groups can go wrong.

I somehow never had a hard time explaining my research to someone from outside the academia - could be that my research simply is less abstract than many scientists', but nonetheless the art of explaining sophisticated concepts in simple terms can be learned at will. I cannot say the same about many of my colleagues, unfortunately... And if pure mathematicians or theoretical physicists can be somewhat excused given the level of abstraction in these fields, a climatologist absolutely cannot.
Feynman made the most complicated areas of quantum mechanics into a show for everyone, so it absolutely is possible. But there are not many feynmans around.

To your question, yes, it is a reality.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

So what, you're criticism means you think acc is a hoax to fleece the wealth from the west that 97% of scientist are in on? Or to be more precise up to around 20% of the 97% are in on? Since you'd be fine if 75-85% agreed? 

@MayCaesar Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

My criticism is very specific and I do not make any far-fetched claims (unlike the authors of many articles citing this data). I personally suspect that what takes place here is miscommunication between scientists and the general public: academia is a bit of an insular environment and many scientists simply do not have much experience talking to people outside of their academic circle. I have seen some awful examples of absolutely brilliant mathematicians bombing something as simple as an HR interview, because they simply did not think of adjusting their communication to the audience.
There is quite a bit of elitism in academia, people thinking that outside of academia everyone is a simpleton. Conversely, in the public space many people take academicians' complicated speech patterns as indication of some profound wisdom that mere mortals cannot hope to comprehend. It is not difficult to see how the communication between the two groups can go wrong.

I somehow never had a hard time explaining my research to someone from outside the academia - could be that my research simply is less abstract than many scientists', but nonetheless the art of explaining sophisticated concepts in simple terms can be learned at will. I cannot say the same about many of my colleagues, unfortunately... And if pure mathematicians or theoretical physicists can be somewhat excused given the level of abstraction in these fields, a climatologist absolutely cannot.
Feynman made the most complicated areas of quantum mechanics into a show for everyone, so it absolutely is possible. But there are not many feynmans around.

To your question, yes, it is a reality.

What far fetched claims are you talking about? I'm asking in respect to the scientific community. Not left wing has-beens like al gore. Or alarmists. 

As complicated as academic speech can be, people do have the resources to dig into the facts. You concede acc is a reality. What if anything do you feel can be done about it? 

Bogan

Factfinder

@Bogan

So...do you believe in creationism too? LOL

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

What far fetched claims are you talking about? I'm asking in respect to the scientific community. Not left wing has-beens like al gore. Or alarmists. 

As complicated as academic speech can be, people do have the resources to dig into the facts. You concede acc is a reality. What if anything do you feel can be done about it? 

I am talking precisely about the far-fetched claims in the public space. The scientific community has its own issues, but, at least, people in it typically do not have a habit of using "X% of my colleagues agree with me" as an argument.

Before asking what can be done about something, one needs to make sure that something should be done about it. That I am highly doubtful of. But if one thing is to be done, it is certainly promotion of increased standards of rigor. Sloppiness is one of the greatest enemies of the truth, and humanity is seriously impaired by constantly being led on by charismatic, but sloppy thinkers. If someone wants to seriously affect public policy on a multinational scale, their argument has to be impeccable. You do not get to demand a $10 billion investment into your windmill plantation when you forget to specify the confidence level of the output of your model.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

What far fetched claims are you talking about? I'm asking in respect to the scientific community. Not left wing has-beens like al gore. Or alarmists. 

As complicated as academic speech can be, people do have the resources to dig into the facts. You concede acc is a reality. What if anything do you feel can be done about it? 

I am talking precisely about the far-fetched claims in the public space. The scientific community has its own issues, but, at least, people in it typically do not have a habit of using "X% of my colleagues agree with me" as an argument.

Before asking what can be done about something, one needs to make sure that something should be done about it. That I am highly doubtful of. But if one thing is to be done, it is certainly promotion of increased standards of rigor. Sloppiness is one of the greatest enemies of the truth, and humanity is seriously impaired by constantly being led on by charismatic, but sloppy thinkers. If someone wants to seriously affect public policy on a multinational scale, their argument has to be impeccable. You do not get to demand a $10 billion investment into your windmill plantation when you forget to specify the confidence level of the output of your model.

So what specifically are the 'far fetched claims' in the public space? What exactly do you mean by 'standards of rigor'? What physical action should be taken if any to reduce our carbon footprint? 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

For instance, the claim that "the debate has been settled". That "experts universally agree" and so on.

"Standards of rigor" are expectations of proper justification of claims/requests. When one hears an argument in support of public spending, it should not be enough to just say a few words about how it will help the poor or something. People should be expected to explain the economical and scientific models they are using, what are the possible downsides of their approach, what their confidence levels are, et cetera.

I have not seen a strong argument, for example, in favor of reduction human "carbon footprint". That said, if one wants to move from fossil fuels to more efficient and easily available sources of energy such as nuclear fusion, then it should be pretty clear what should be done.

Phite

Factfinder said:

@Phite

Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

Cook's assessment concluded that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.  But I've shown you that he was dishonest in his approach and conclusion.  So, why are you still going on about the 97% bullshyt?

You doubt those climate scientists whose papers he misrepresented?  Odd that you would side with the deceiver instead of those scientists . . .

Anyway, here's something from some scientists.  Why don't you critique their work and tell us where they went wrong?

https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

For instance, the claim that "the debate has been settled". That "experts universally agree" and so on.

"Standards of rigor" are expectations of proper justification of claims/requests. When one hears an argument in support of public spending, it should not be enough to just say a few words about how it will help the poor or something. People should be expected to explain the economical and scientific models they are using, what are the possible downsides of their approach, what their confidence levels are, et cetera.

I have not seen a strong argument, for example, in favor of reduction human "carbon footprint". That said, if one wants to move from fossil fuels to more efficient and easily available sources of energy such as nuclear fusion, then it should be pretty clear what should be done.

Like you said earlier, what's considered scientific loses something when it's announced publicly because scientist aren't generally public speakers. By the time laymen hear it the information already has a certain amount of spin. Albeit from the left or right. But the evidence is out there, in scientific circles on climate change they pretty much agree it's real and we are contributing. On those two core points anyway. Obviously there are some dissenting opinions as nothing seems to be universally agreed upon. What that means, what if anything can be done, to what degree, what natural trends are happening in the climate simultaneously, all these aspects and more are not 'settled' as you said. But the debates we hear are the political and media debates concerning all of it. The scientific community is still researching and studying the issues. 

I tend to agree, it hasn't truly been settled whether or not we can effect any real change aimed at reducing our carbon in significant amounts or that it would make a real difference. I think monies would be better spent on transitioning from fossils to a more renewable sources like nuclear fusion. It's like a no brainer, either way we should move in that direction.

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

@Phite

Do you accept anthropogenic climate change is a reality? 

Cook's assessment concluded that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.  But I've shown you that he was dishonest in his approach and conclusion.  So, why are you still going on about the 97% bullshyt?

You doubt those climate scientists whose papers he misrepresented?  Odd that you would side with the instead of those scientists . . .

Anyway, here's something from some scientists.  Why don't you critique their work and tell us where they went wrong?

https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

An assessment despite all the controversy still holds today. You've shown me why YOU distrust him so. I do not go on about 97%, you do. But that figure still holds because people have improved on cooks methodology to increase accuracy and reduce legitimate criticisms. And the scientific community remains in agreement to the point it's even above that 97% figure. I only address this as you or others bring it up. You're fixed on cook, but there are a whole lot of consensus reports.

I do not doubt them no. Misrepresenting a body of work is very serious. That's why evaluating consensus reports have undergone changes.

Why would I want to? Why don't you posit your conclusions? 

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

Like you said earlier, what's considered scientific loses something when it's announced publicly because scientist aren't generally public speakers. By the time laymen hear it the information already has a certain amount of spin. Albeit from the left or right. But the evidence is out there, in scientific circles on climate change they pretty much agree it's real and we are contributing. On those two core points anyway. Obviously there are some dissenting opinions as nothing seems to be universally agreed upon. What that means, what if anything can be done, to what degree, what natural trends are happening in the climate simultaneously, all these aspects and more are not 'settled' as you said. But the debates we hear are the political and media debates concerning all of it. The scientific community is still researching and studying the issues. 

I tend to agree, it hasn't truly been settled whether or not we can effect any real change aimed at reducing our carbon in significant amounts or that it would make a real difference. I think monies would be better spent on transitioning from fossils to a more renewable sources like nuclear fusion. It's like a no brainer, either way we should move in that direction.

I think that the proper way to communicate with the customer (taxpayer in this case) is always by producing demonstrably effective deliverables. If I see a Tesla Cybertruck running into a wall at 50 mph and barely getting dented, I will not need to understand the intricacies of engineering that came into it to see clearly that this is a high quality product.

That is not where things stand with respect to modern climate models. Running even on the most powerful computer clusters in the world, they feature massive error bars, their predictions do not match the observations, and some of them even suggest that humanity induces global cooling rather than global warming. There are no deliverables yet, hence there is little to talk about.
I have done a similar project in the past, running a simulation of a large set of galaxy clusters. The science of that is much better developed than the science of climate, and still I was only able to make a couple of solid claims about the results - one of them was that this approach will not get us far until a petabyte of storage costs virtually nothing.
The claims that people (even some scientists) make based on such poor models are indefensible.

Empirically, as technology improves, so does the environment. Medieval villages featured fecal matter splattered across the streets, diseased rats running around, horse and cow corpses at intersections... Then in the 70-s - 80-s major cities looked like this:



Nowadays the environment is arguably the cleanest in human history - at the very least, the cleanest over the past two millennia. Humanity is on the right track, and it would do well to celebrate the accomplishments every now and then, instead of constantly looking for problems to worry about.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Factfinder said:

Like you said earlier, what's considered scientific loses something when it's announced publicly because scientist aren't generally public speakers. By the time laymen hear it the information already has a certain amount of spin. Albeit from the left or right. But the evidence is out there, in scientific circles on climate change they pretty much agree it's real and we are contributing. On those two core points anyway. Obviously there are some dissenting opinions as nothing seems to be universally agreed upon. What that means, what if anything can be done, to what degree, what natural trends are happening in the climate simultaneously, all these aspects and more are not 'settled' as you said. But the debates we hear are the political and media debates concerning all of it. The scientific community is still researching and studying the issues. 

I tend to agree, it hasn't truly been settled whether or not we can effect any real change aimed at reducing our carbon in significant amounts or that it would make a real difference. I think monies would be better spent on transitioning from fossils to a more renewable sources like nuclear fusion. It's like a no brainer, either way we should move in that direction.

I think that the proper way to communicate with the customer (taxpayer in this case) is always by producing demonstrably effective deliverables. If I see a Tesla Cybertruck running into a wall at 50 mph and barely getting dented, I will not need to understand the intricacies of engineering that came into it to see clearly that this is a high quality product.

That is not where things stand with respect to modern climate models. Running even on the most powerful computer clusters in the world, they feature massive error bars, their predictions do not match the observations, and some of them even suggest that humanity induces global cooling rather than global warming. There are no deliverables yet, hence there is little to talk about.
I have done a similar project in the past, running a simulation of a large set of galaxy clusters. The science of that is much better developed than the science of climate, and still I was only able to make a couple of solid claims about the results - one of them was that this approach will not get us far until a petabyte of storage costs virtually nothing.
The claims that people (even some scientists) make based on such poor models are indefensible.

Empirically, as technology improves, so does the environment. Medieval villages featured fecal matter splattered across the streets, diseased rats running around, horse and cow corpses at intersections... Then in the 70-s - 80-s major cities looked like this:



Nowadays the environment is arguably the cleanest in human history - at the very least, the cleanest over the past two millennia. Humanity is on the right track, and it would do well to celebrate the accomplishments every now and then, instead of constantly looking for problems to worry about.

Nothing wrong with your logic there. I'd add that one main reason our cities don't look like that anymore is we did recognize we were polluting the environment. And after much arguing and debate we acted to enact positive change. And it's logical to presume we will continue to do so. We have done some good and we should celebrate it once in a while. 

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   So...do you believe in creationism too? LOL

I know that I have my opponent on the ropes when they stop even trying to debate and resort to sneery one liners.     Here is Thomas Sowell, "just-sayin's" favorite social commentator, on the corruption of science.    I can probably write a 2000 word essay on the corruption of science, but I will let Mr Sowell explain it to you.    Oh, and thank you for forcing me to do some more research.    Ten years ago, nobody had any idea where this "97% of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming" came from,, but now I know it was dreamed up by an Australian bloke named "Cook."      And once again, we see how a person with a particular social agenda misuses science and fudges the facts to get a desired :"scientific" outcome."    I saw this so many times from the alatmist camp that I quickly figured out who was lying and who was telling the truth.      Other examples were...

1.    The Climategate emails
2.   Al Gore using a spurious graph to impress a classroom full of doe eyed university students that global warming was real, which was a complete misrepresentation of what it really meant.
3.    Michael Manne's laughable "hockey stick graph" which, true to good old Soviet science, airbrushed out The Little Ice Age.
4.   The attempt by Michael Manne to his sceptic critics by taking them to court.   (He has already lost his first case.)
5.   The Australian Bureau of Meteorology's attempt to deliberately fudge the historical Australian climate statistics to conform to get a desired outcome.  

If you had approached this question with an open mind, and then done your homework and examined both sides of the argument, you would not have fallen for this "progressive", woke hysteria.       At least when it dawns on you that you have been had, you may in future look at other "progressive" woke causes with a more jaundiced eye?  


 

Phite

Factfinder said:

You've shown me why YOU distrust him

. . . people have improved on cooks methodology

So, you believe that those climate scientists who've made it clear that Cook misrepresented their studies on climate would tell you that you can trust Cook?  You're not thinking before posting.

And what about these scientists: https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

I doubt they would trust Cook either.  But nothing they've said matters to you because you've already made up your mind.

Funny.  You speak of Cook's deception as a "methodology."  They said he lied about their papers!!  What part of that don't you get?

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

Nothing wrong with your logic there. I'd add that one main reason our cities don't look like that anymore is we did recognize we were polluting the environment. And after much arguing and debate we acted to enact positive change. And it's logical to presume we will continue to do so. We have done some good and we should celebrate it once in a while. 

I agree with your general statement. However, it is not clear to me that recognition here is in order. With pollution, you could see the smog in large cities every day and its absence outside; you could see pipes throwing out clouds of smoke everywhere; you could measure the chemical composition of air and find overabundance of various carcinogenic agents. That it was a problem was very easily demonstrable.

But what are we talking about here? 
1. Increase of average global temperatures - "global temperature" is a bit of a loose term, and there is an entire branch of mathematics (differential geometry) that deals with such questions as "average of function over the surface and time". Temperatures change differently in different latitudes and different environments and different seasons... It is not something easily quantifiable.
2. Significance of human contribution to this increase. Given how weak the current models are, for all we know, humanity may actually be slowing it down.
3. Alleged harm of such increase. Why? Historically humans thrived in warmer and humider climates and struggled in colder and drier ones. The first serious civilizations were born in the lush hot (then) jungle/savannah of Northern Africa and south-western Asia, and the closest humanity was to extinction was during various Ice ages and sub-ages - in Europe, for example, the cooling of ~1300-1500 was associated with significant decrease of the population and significant regrowth of forests. Why is warming seen as harmful?

In conjunction with the fact that the most vocal proponents of measures towards combatting the allegedly undesirable climate change also tend to embrace pretty terrible totalitarian ideologies, it does not seem like the desire to do something here is primarily driven by data.

Factfinder

@Bogan

Parroting the same debunked tripe  repeatedly and then claiming victory is childish. Do you reject evolution?

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

You've shown me why YOU distrust him

. . . people have improved on cooks methodology

So, you believe that those climate scientists who've made it clear that Cook misrepresented their studies on climate would tell you that you can trust Cook?  You're not thinking before posting.

And what about these scientists: https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

I doubt they would trust Cook either.  But nothing they've said matters to you because you've already made up your mind.

Funny.  You speak of Cook's deception as a "methodology."  They said he lied about their papers!!  What part of that don't you get?

Because they, like you are fighting for what they believe. I admitted several times climate change is real. The consensus remains fact. No obfuscation on my part. You do not acknowledge the malice in your camp however; and tried to be ambiguous about the fact you've made up your mind. Why would someone who hasn't made up their mind claim 'irrelevant' when asked where they stand?  Honest response would be to tell your position clearly even if you hadn't made up your mind. Everyone knows you have though. And you only argue your forgone conclusions. Never answer a question directly. I trust cook more than you.

Bogan

@Factfinder ;   Parroting the same debunked tripe  repeatedly and then claiming victory is childish. Do you reject evolution?

Another sneery one liner.   I have got you on the ropes, all right.       Did you click on the youtube video I sent you?   Of course not.    To examine the other side of the argument might instill some DOUBT, in your brainwashed mind.    And when you really do have a deep, compulsive psychological need to believe that some woke fairy tale is true, then you must never try to understand the other side of the argument.  

Factfinder

Bogan said:

@Factfinder ;   Parroting the same debunked tripe  repeatedly and then claiming victory is childish. Do you reject evolution?

Another sneery one liner.   I have got you on the ropes, all right.       Did you click on the youtube video I sent you?   Of course not.    To examine the other side of the argument might instill some DOUBT, in your brainwashed mind.    And when you really do have a deep, compulsive psychological need to believe that some woke fairy tale is true, then you must never try to understand the other side of the argument.  

I know your side. Debunked. Your video says 'intercepted' emails. We all know they were 'hacked emails' rearranged to make it as though they said something they didn't. It was a fanatical far right deception because the right hates science,  loves bigotry and lies. You've lost. The only rope you have are the ones I toss you. If you had intellect you would stop lying about climate gate and admit your oil masters put you up to it.

Bogan

Factfinder quote   Do you reject evolution?

Of course I don't.   What has that to do with climate change?     

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Of course I don't.   What has that to do with climate change?     

Nothing but it has every thing to do with your repetered dishonesty and posting false made up rubbish to support your half brain claims. Don’t you ever get what every one is trying to tell you?

Phite

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

Honest response would be to tell your position clearly even if you hadn't made up your mind.

My position is that, despite the fact that Cook lied about the conclusions in the papers of the climate scientists he used to make his 97% consensus bullshyt, people like you hold out hope that Cook didn't misrepresent them.  The climate scientists said that he did.  You believe he didn't.  They have more credibility than either you or Cook.  You believe Cook over the scientists he misrepresented?

Also, I've posted a bunch of other scientists' opinions on the subject, but because they don't support your original belief, you must have decided that they can't be trusted.  I asked you where you believe they got it wrong, and you're predictably quiet about that . . .

https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/

Factfinder

Phite said:

Factfinder said:

Phite said:

Honest response would be to tell your position clearly even if you hadn't made up your mind.

My position is that, despite the fact that Cook lied about the conclusions in the papers of the climate scientists he used to make his 97% consensus bullshyt, people like you hold out hope that Cook didn't misrepresent them.  The climate scientists said that he did.  You believe he didn't.  They have more credibility than either you or Cook.  You believe Cook over the scientists he misrepresented?

Also, I've posted a bunch of other scientists' opinions on the subject, but because they don't support your original belief, you must have decided that they can't be trusted.  I asked you where you believe they got it wrong, and you're predictably quiet about that . . .

Nope. You do not control the debate. That has been your goal from the start. You do not know what I hold out hope for because of your lack of objectivity. Your ad hominems and special pleading to authority because there are a few dissenting opinions do not change the fact the consensus stands true. Now, it's even higher than 97%. Get over it. It is a fallacy to suggest I can't have my opinion even though I see things from both cooks perspective and the scientists who claimed misrepresentation points of view, their perspective as well. The self righteous irrational hatred you feel for the guy is irrelevant. You say nothing about the deception of the deniers. And you know it's there. Why the lack of condemnation on that?

Meanwhile you haven't answered a direct question. Do you believe anthropogenic climate change is real? Trying to cast an air of mystery in your posts while ignoring facts that blow holes is your narrative doesn't imply any sort of mystique, it just reveals ignorance. 

You agree with dissenting views, explain in your words from your position, why? I agree with the consensus and I've stated why throughout this thread. Go.

Bogan

Geologists have become the main opponents of AGW.     Here in Australia, Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer is the bane of the alarmists.      He has now written two books proving that AGW is just malarky.   Opposition to AGW was once rare, and sceptics treated by the press as cranks.    But today, opposition to AGW is becoming much more mainstream.    The alarmists are losing the debate.  

Bogan

The pushback by the productive members of society in every country against this daft AGW hysteria has already begun.      Alarmists are losing the debate.