Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

News from Denmark highlights the problem with the IPCC/world's limited CO2-centric view on climate change:

Danish Council on Ethics proposes a "climate tax" to discourage consumption of, what I have mentioned in various threads is the most inefficient and wasteful of all our livestock, beef.

I have repeated over and over the problems with producing beef and how we need to switch to more sustainable livestock instead. Beef production wastes freshwater, wastes grain, wastes literally every resource we put into it in order to produce just one pound of edible beef. The environmental costs of industrial scale beef production are also outrageous.

So, completely setting aside any ethical objections, here's what the ruling party spokesperson had to say about the proposed tax:

{ “Maybe it would get beef consumption to fall in Denmark, but it wouldn’t do much of anything for the world’s CO2 emissions,” Thomas Danielsen told broadcaster DR. }

Just kill me.

You literally could not find a more perfect example of the environmental losses willingly and knowingly incurred by the AGW agenda.

Obama administration expands federal rule which gives high-speed wind farms a 30 year exemption from penalties for deaths caused to the federally protected bald and golden eagle species.

The revision raises the number of eagles that can be killed without penalty to FOUR TIMES the current limit, which brings it to 4200 bald eagles a year. They're projecting this as a positive.

{ Dan Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the proposal will "provide a path forward" for maintaining eagle populations while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source that's intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's energy plan.

Ashe said the 162-page proposal would protect eagles and at the same time "help the country reduce its reliance on fossil fuels" such as coal and oil that contribute to global warming.

Under the new proposal, companies would pay a $36,000 fee for a permit allowing them to kill or injure eagles. Companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than estimated, or if new information suggests eagle populations are being affected.

The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill. Now such reporting is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information. }

They are literally trying to pass off the concentrated slaughter of a limited area's population of eagles as WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.

And a further point on how useless wind energy is to us atm:

Another taxpayer funded wind farm is being torn down after an astoninging NEGATIVE 99.14 return on investment.

{ The turbines were funded by a $2.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, but the turbines lasted for less than four years and were incredibly costly to maintain.

“Since the installation in 2012, the college has spent $240,000 in parts and labor to maintain the turbines,” Kelly Allee, Director of Public Relations at Lake Land College, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The college estimates it would take another $100,000 in repairs to make the turbines function again after one of them was struck by lightning and likely suffered electrical damage last summer.

School officials’ original estimates found the turbine would save it $44,000 in electricity annually, far more than the $8,500 they actually generated. Under the original optimistic scenario, the turbines would have to last for 22.5 years just to recoup the costs, not accounting for inflation. If viewed as an investment, the turbines had a return of negative 99.14 percent. }

So what do they plan to do now??

{ Lake Land plans to replace the two failed turbines with a solar power system paid for by a government grant. “[T]he photovoltaic panels are expected to save the college between $50,000 and $60,000 this year,”Allee told the DCNF. }

Another taxpayer funded grant towards solar this time!!

To put the federal government's hypocrisy regarding eagles in perpspective, federal land agencies routinely close down areas to protect nesting eagles. So you can't walk within so many feet of a nest, but you can build a wind turbine that chops them into pieces. And it's not just eagles; there are other bird species getting blended.

It's the equivalent of another administration telling mining companies they were exempt from punishment for dumping tailings into a watershed, expect there is no outrage from activists.

Wind tubines kill far, far fewer birds than skyscrapers, pesticides and cats. We are talking about 30,000 birds per year to wind turbines. Pesticides kill 72,000,000. Cars kill 60,000,000. Collisions kill more than 1,000,000,000 per year. Somehow, I don't think that anybody giving that scrutiny to wind tubines would do the same for cars, glass and cats. Oil certainly kills more than turbines each year, and even if we multiplied turbine numbers by 100 their death toll would be lower than oil. This is such a stupid argument against turbines and it reeks of ignorance and desperation.

Domestic cats that people let roam outside kill over 3,000,000,000 (that's three billion) birds and over 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) small mammals every year. They are the number one reason wildlife goes extinct or substantially declines in urban areas. Coal, oil, and wind don't even come close to kitty cats.

Pesticides and cars, while likely to effect smaller and much more common bird species, are not a significant factor in EAGLE deaths. Wind turbines are the most significant factor in EAGLE deaths because they intrude in habitats and air space where large raptors fly, not house sparrows.

ffs.

Regardless, the second article which you ignored is more of an actual argument against wind energy. The two turbines generated $8500 annually. They cost MILLIONS to install and repair before falling into ruins and being abandoned in favor of a new solar project which will also fail. "Green" energy is anything but, and alarmists refuse to consider natural gas because it's only a midpoint between fossil fuels and totally green energy.

Yes, eagle habitat shares the same characteristics as ideal wind farm sites, but it remains an enormous red herring. Wind farms are not nearly as much of a threat to eagles as is, say, oil and gas drilling, fox poison, habitat loss or climate change. Somehow, it seems like the eagle argument is more intended to stick it to the clean energy crowd than it is to protect wildlife. Funny how nobody crying "but what about the eagles" in the context of energy policy seems to be similarly concerned about any other species out there.

>Gas is green enegy

By what metric? It's terrible for groundwater and geology, it releases the same greenhouse gas emmissions and the 'midpoint' argument is dubious at the very best.

Wind farms are more of a threat to eagles, as the only one of those factors which directly impacts them. :| Conservationists openly acknowledge this known fact which has been studied extensively.

The penalty doesn't discourage it either, so this rule expansion is only one more way for the government to squeeze some money out of everywhere possible. Wind Co pays $2.5 million penalty for illegal eagle killings 38 golden eagles alone from one single population in one single area thanks to one single wind farm. Wildlife management.

{ Funny how nobody crying “but what about the eagles” in the context of energy policy seems to be similarly concerned about any other species out there. }

There are 40,000 Golden Eagles in the USA.
There are hundreds of billions of songbirds.
Apply some context.

{ it releases the same greenhouse gas emmissions }

50% less CO2, if they really cared about emissions you'd think they'd want the switch. But if they actually make the switch, that's 50% less fees the government can collect from CO2 emissions. Come on, it aint rocket science.

{ It’s terrible for groundwater and geology }

Alarmist propaganda not substantiated by actual research. Yale study peer-reviews and replicates finding of EPA analysis – fracking does not contaminate water sources.

{ After analyzing 64 samples of groundwater collected from private residences in northeastern Pennsylvania, researchers determined that groundwater contamination was more closely related to surface toxins seeping down into the water than from fracking operations seeping upwards. Their findings were recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. }

I guess at the very least we can agree that calling natural gas a midpoint is dubious, as natural gas is obviously far cleaner and more sustainable than our current green energy efforts have proven to be. Why are we calling it a midpoint?

Who the hell is calling it a mid point?

Nat Gas is considered pretty bad no matter where on that supposed line between 0-100% is, to many many environmentalists, and environmental NGOs.

No matter how you want to frame it, the entire AGW debate seems less and less about actual science and attempts at a cleaner better tomorrow, and more and more to do with specific industries, technologies, and countries (cough cough Deutchland cough cough) with clear economic agendas. Everything from giving impetus to implement massive industry regulations, to forcing a market demand to purchase green energy, to maintaining an economic competative advantage over tiger-nations who's economies are shedding their post-WW2 revolutions, counter revolutions, closed, and highly regulated economies to the globe.

There are far greater economic and political machinations controlling the debate (on both sides) for it to be conclusive…especially conclusive enough where you're dedicating billions, if not trillions dollars of resources towards something that isn't real.

And while we continually pour so much of collective energies into debating and trying to manage AGW, less and less concern is given to actual ecological problems.

Virtually all of the poorest nations, many of them in Africa and Asia are on the lowest tier in the Environmental Performance Index, (the EPI). They've been in that position despite billions "invested" by wealthier, Western nations, to clean themselves up. Why is it? The fact is, cleaner technology is expensive, and wealthier nations can afford it. You want to really focus on cleaning up the world's environmental and ecological problems? Encourage trade, encourage growth, and encourage these nations to attain greater wealth. And the most practical methods have always been liberalizing their markets, supporting political regimes that give greater emphasis on trade, and liberalizing their markets. Allow them to invest into nat-Gas, and nuclear energy, let them invest in cheaper alternatives.

Lisa, regarding that article about the golden eagles, i think i found a small problem: it says that a number (38 eagles + 336 other species), but later

In addition to the golden eagles, hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows had perished in one of the 237 large wind turbines at the two Wyoming facilities between 2009 and 2014 the DOJ said.

It makes me think, "wait, this number refers to the total over the years?", it depends on how you present the info, it becomes "harsher". I have the doubt, because the article doesn't explicitly say that "yes, the deaths have been over multiple years". One of the related articles to that piece of news is this, which mentions "14 eagles and 149 other birds, including hawks, blackbirds, wrens and sparrows, between 2009 and 2013". The numbers seem pretty low so i consider that they (the birds themselves) could easily make up for them by, you know, reproducing. Anyway, they are getting fined, but if that is or isn't the appropiate amount for a fine, that's another topic.

But regardless of that, i consider that you're trying to compare things with leagues of difference, but still trying to look down to the one that (in raw numbers) makes the least harm. If trying to bring the topic of animal deaths, why should we care for the one that causes 30k victims per year when other causes 72m victims? That'd be a huge mismanagement of priorities. And you're also ignoring all the deaths they are trying to prevent (via replacement of fossil fuels).

Regarding the fracking one, the top commenter points out that the report makes absolutely no mention of methane, which is the biggest concern about contamination in fracking, and

After analyzing 64 samples of groundwater collected from private residences in northeastern Pennsylvania, researchers determined that groundwater contamination was more closely related to surface toxins seeping down into the water than from fracking operations seeping upwards. Their findings were recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
"We're not trying to say whether it's a bad or good thing," Desiree Plata, an assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering at Yale University, told News Three in a Skype interview. "We saw there was a correlation between the concentration and the nearest gas well that has had an environmental health and safety violation in the past."

A direct contradiction to the title.

{ In addition to the golden eagles, hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows had perished in one of the 237 large wind turbines at the two Wyoming facilities between 2009 and 2014 the DOJ said. }

The lawsuit for this company did cover five years, but those numbers are only the bodies they found during their investigation, not how many were actually killed.

{ Among the dead were 38 golden eagles, and the carcasses --besides the eagles, there were 336 other protected birds-- were stashed at the company’s Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills wind projects, the justice department said. }

Somebody tried to hide all of the federally protected eagle bodies falling out of the sky. :|

{ If trying to bring the topic of animal deaths, why should we care for the one that causes 30k victims per year when other causes 72m victims? }

I wasn't bringing the topic of animal deaths, I was bringing the topic of EAGLE deaths. This is what I mean by logical conservation and wildlife management. You're comparing a species with 40k individuals IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY which is directly impacted by wind farms whose individuals produce only one or two offspring, to species which are so plentiful they can and are slaughtered by the billions every year (by kitty cats!) yet rebound completely in time for the next breeding season. Their populations aren't being negatively impacted because of the rate at which they mature and breed, there's no reason for concern. Eagles and other large raptors can't sustain their populations, which only recently recovered from the brink of extinction, in the same way thus are far more of a concern to conservationists.

{ And you’re also ignoring all the deaths they are trying to prevent (via replacement of fossil fuels). }

How are they replacing fossil fuels? What energy was used to produce the turbines? And the batteries used to store the energy harvested from the wind? The electrical grid to transport it? This is only one reason why green energy can not work at this time. We need to innovate the technology before we spend billions of taxpayers dollars establishing wind and solar farms which are doomed to fail. In order to use green energy you ALWAYS need a far more abundant supply of energy generated via fossil fuels. At this point in time.

{ “We saw there was a correlation between the concentration and the nearest gas well that has had an environmental health and safety violation in the past.” }

Human error isn't a consequence of using nat gas as an energy source, it's a consequence of poor management. As we see in Flint, mismanagement can cause dire problems in even our most common and regulated utility systems (aka the old lead/etc pipes that this whole country's aquatic infrastructure is built from). With proper management the risk is significantly diminished or eliminated.

How are they replacing fossil fuels? What energy was used to produce the turbines? And the batteries used to store the energy harvested from the wind? The electrical grid to transport it? This is only one reason why green energy can not work at this time. We need to innovate the technology before we spend billions of taxpayers dollars establishing wind and solar farms which are doomed to fail. In order to use green energy you ALWAYS need a far more abundant supply of energy generated via fossil fuels. At this point in time.

Strenght by numbers. But that's only talking about wind energy. Counting for all renewable resources, they generate 15% of all energy in Europe, percentage varying by country, some way over 15%, and others lower than 15%.

Actually, i just considered something new, maybe you put emphasis on "but what when the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't shine, the seas are calm [etc]?", well i argue "but what when it does blow/shine/rage". A big part of the appeal of fossils are that they can store energy, but when used you can't use it again (you literally burned it). But if i replace fossils (not even anywhere near a magical 100% of the total), couldn't i save it for later use? Let's suppose an scenario where coal gives use 100% of all energy, then i replace 5% with some other resource, and then back to coal again, i just saved a bit of coal. btw, the "electrical grid" part is irrelevant considering that you'll need to install/expand one regardless of the energy source.

You missed the point of that whole paragraph.

Let's create a scale and say 0 is total neutrality. At 100 you're producing more sustainable energy than you can consume. At -100 you're consuming more energy than you can produce in a sustainable fashion.

I'm the island state of Lombardoland. I want to set up a wind farm. I start at something like -10. I commission millions of dollars in parts that I need to construct my windmills and all of the parts that make wind farms work. Those parts are produced by fossil fuels. How many emissions and resources did I waste trying to construct my green energy? Now I'm at -100 because I have to make up for the unsustainable processes I used to construct my sustainable wind farm before I can start counting my energy "profit". This is like buying a goat for milk, I can't say it gave me $100 worth of milk without subtracting whatever the goat initially cost me first. Then you have to factor in the upkeep. I'll need parts to keep up and maintain that wind farm, but the parts aren't produced using wind energy. They're produced using more fossil fuels. Also consider that our batteries/etc can't transfer wind energy efficiently, so I can't even take advantage of all the energy my turbines produce and will have to supplement it with standard fossil fuel energy.

It is currently impossible to produce green energy systems without requiring access to a huge number of unsustainable processes that we're trying to move away from. It's impossible to reach the positive numbers.

Do you get it now?

Well, i'll apologize for misunderstanding your post.

I gotta say, you've caught me. I did find some sources declaring renewable energy as cheaper by measuring $/kW generated, but not about the initial setup costs, and the sources are region-specific (Europe and Australia). But personally i do think that prices will get lower, as they already did (compare today with 10 years ago).

yeah, it's just one of those things that most people don't consider. That's why we have to innovate the technology. The batteries. The big industrial processes. Once those are efficient, fossil fuels can be used to produce the initial equipment which would then take over harvesting green energy to build more of themselves and there you have the green energy ideal. It's just not there yet.

I have way more hope for solar than wind. You can find a decently consistent sunny spot pretty much everywhere in the world. Solar is already pretty great for personal use, you can buy emergency systems (or use them to power your tiny/eco house) that will support refrigerators and computers and lights for about two thousand dollars.

Wind is only ever going to be super efficient in a few places. Coastal areas are great for wind energy, and we don't take advantage of the ocean/water's kinetic energy nearly as well as we could (watermills powered the old world!) with the improvements in water wheel technology. & it's great for those places, I think coastal areas should specialize in wind harvesting and deserts should specialize in solar. You'd think this is common sense but it's just not how the world works right now. We grow the most thirsty vegetables in the middle of Peru, which global leaders ordered to stimulate Peru's developing economy. The largest producing region of asparagus is literally a desert. We don't do things according to common sense at all.

But yes I agree that it will eventually become efficient, if we support the right industries and people who can innovate the technology we need instead of dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into these projects which fail over and over and over.

Not technically a climate change post, but a wildlife management update that I feel fits here as wildlife management is something we have to consider as we adapt to climate change:

As expected post-Cecil, with big game hunters shut out by airlines (they now refuse to transport trophies) and ethic condemnation by the first world, Zimbabwe is now selling spare animals off of its reserves to private game rangers (for-profit big game hunting industry) and local farmers because they don't have the money to support them, namely they can't afford to feed and water them. It takes the tens of thousands of dollars that big game hunters pay in fees to support wildlife there because the ecology is so harsh. The savannas go through seasonal droughts that are exasperated during El Ninos, so reserves which normally have to import food and water to supplement their herds now require even more of it.

{ Jerry Gotora, a conservationist and former chairman of the parks department, told AFP, “All our national parks are in the driest regions and the biggest question as we experience this drought is ‘who is going to feed the wildlife and who is going to give them water?’” }

The irony here is that most of the animals will be bought by for-profit private game ranges who are now the most feasible option for those who want to quietly continue big game hunting. The reserves which used to make tens of thousands of dollars off these people literally became the middle man for their own former money pool. The for-profit ranges charge for access on top of the government permits/etc you need to hunt big game in the first place, so they're easily making more than the reserves were in the first place.

Congrats first world internet slacktivists. The genuine result of your efforts.

I had spare time at school so I decided to read an article by Dr. William Briggs "statistician to the stars" on Cook's 97% consensus titled Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder
to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change . Man, what a joke. I'll post some snippets of the article I found interesting, but first let's meet Lisa's A-team; the group of misfits that seem to always be working together to produce articles (including this one) against AGW:

First up is Willie Soon : Astrophysicist, checks out. However, just last year there has been a controversy regarding Willie's disclosure and conflict of interest from receiving funding from the energy industry and a conservative foundation. In addition, the same document also mentions that his articles also led to scientific issues that caused some editors to resign. Interesting.

Next is Christopher Monckton of Brenchley : According to wikipedia his education and skills include: journalism, entrepreneurship, and being a political advisor (so he's clearly qualified to publish articles on climate change and pick out mathematical errors in the works of others not).

Let's give him some credit, he did create a mathematical puzzle , which was solved by two mathematicians the following year easy by not following any of Monckton's 6 clues.

What was that quote by Monckton that Lisa gave us? "It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written." I'll use that to its fullest extent. According to Wikipedia Monckton's solutions to AIDS epidemics is "That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life." Since, Monckton has no authority in climate science, only his reasoning is valued. Then I guess we can scientifically fuken dismiss anything that has his name on it.

The third author is David Legates : A senior scientist that works for an institute that receives funding from ExxonMobil and also according to Wikipedia has declared:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems -- created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence -- are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Invoking Monckton's wisdom: his expertise is fuken dismissed.

Lastly is Dr. William Briggs : Don't know much about this "statistician to the stars", but he seems to be fond of the previous three authors and has co-authored at least two more articles with them. Here is one of their articles. Take a look at the notes:

"The authors, whose affiliations are for identification only, have no conflict of interest. The Heartland Institute kindly agreed to meet the open-access fees for this paper and for the authors’ previous paper [6]."

A leading conservative supporter of climate change denial is paying for their papers, isn't that nice? By now you will have probably noticed that despite Lisa's polished formatting, grammar and earnest tone, these little things are absent when you take a closer look. And we all know that Lisa isn't above bringing political sides into play when it comes to social issues, so something's odd here?

Let's actually go into the article now. The paper quotes Bedford and Cook (2013) because they call out the authors of this paper. Pay attention to the bold parts.

Bedford and Cook (2013)

Legates et al.’s (2013, p. 9) statement that ‘ The science is indeed uncertain owing to incomplete and
complicated observational evidence’ is therefore too imprecise to be helpful. To which aspects of the
science of human-induced climate change are they referring? Are they proposing that it is unclear
whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Or that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has increased since direct measurements began in 1958? Or that global average temperatures
in 2012 are greater than they were in 1900? If so, it would be intriguing to discover the
basis for these claims of uncertainty.

This paper replies (Legates et.al (2015))

The issues have always
been whether and to what extent changes in the climate are caused by changes in greenhouse
gas concentrations and whether there is a causal, not simply correlative, link. For mere
correlation (to the extent that it exists) does not necessarily entail causation. Thus, Legates
et al.’s (2013) assertion that the science [of climate change] is indeed uncertain owing to
incomplete and complicated observational evidence is true.

The paper goes on later bitching about how Cook et al's algorithm fails and says:

The inventory of abstracts surveyed by
Cook et al. (2013) cited only three papers by DR Legates and only two by W Soon. Yet
these two authors have written many more papers in the more than 20 years (January 1991
to May 2012) covered by Cook et al. (2013). All five selected papers, save one, are labeled
as ‘taking no position’ or ‘being uncertain.’

They just finished defending themselves on their claim of uncertainty from previous papers and they complain that Cook's algorithm reported their papers as "being uncertain" (I bet the Heartland Institute didn't like that!)

Next they complain about another study.

Legates et al. For example, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) sent a
2-min online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists at universities and government research
agencies. Of the 3,146 respondents (a 31 % return rate), only 5 % identified themselves as
climate scientists and only a mere 79 (2.5 %) listed ‘climate science’ as their area of
expertise, having published more than half their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate
change. Of these 79 respondents, 98 % believed human activity was a significant contributing
factor in changing mean global temperatures.

A study of actual surveys that agrees with Cook's results and Lisa hasn't demolished this study WHAT THE ACTUAL FLOCK?

Legates et al's defense was along the lines of "But, but you didn't ask them how serious it was, but you didn't ask them if it was worth changing polices, but you don't ask what type of anthropogenic events caused it." Pathetic.

Finally I will get into the most important part of the article; this statistician dismantling Cook's analysis. Despite the self-appointed title, there is no statistics at play here. Instead, Legates et al uses two weasel-like attempts to discredit Cook's work. First Legates et al. criticizes Cook et al. over interchanging two criteria (which doesn't really matter because both contribute towards the 97% anyway).

The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’ (p. 1),
The standard definition : As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing
most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’ (p. 2),

Given that Cook's study was intended to give a a perspective to the general public. It is completely unnecessary to differentiate between the two, but Legates et al. persisted and their second criticism was that they read the articles and found only 41 articles that explicitly supported AGW as opposed to Cook et al's data which found 64. An imperfect algorithm that searched 11,944 algorithm was found to make 23 mistakes. Congratulations on that achievement "statistician to the stars".

Finally the mistake that Lisa loves bringing up "The consensus is not 97%!!!! its 0.3-0.5%!!!!"
Shortly after pointing that mistake Legates et al. Pretend to re-crunch the numbers and spit out 0.3% "after their adjustment" ONLY after including all 11944 papers, of which more than half were removed for being neutral to climate change. How fuken sly is that? Everyone should be reminded that science articles are not a medium that scientists use to express themselves, they are for presenting scientific studies to the world. Cook et al. are using these articles as a medium to identifying how many scientists agree without asking them and as such is it completely fair that neutral articles are invisible to this study. The same logic applies to wanting to know how many people take their first dates to a restaurant. It is completely useless to involve the input of people that have never been to a date when calculating your percentages as it is to include articles that say nothing about climate change endorsement when calculating a consensus.

drops mic

Are you really going to make me reply to all of this because you didn't bother to actually read the OP? :|

{ A leading conservative supporter of climate change denial is paying for their papers, isn’t that nice? }

They paid for two highly cited papers so everybody could read the full text verbatim. AWFUL. THE THUGS. THE BUFFOONS.

& you bolded all of the insignificant parts to try to push your narrative, you're so obnoxious.

{ To which aspects of the science of human-induced climate change are they referring? Are they proposing that it is unclear whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Or that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since direct measurements began in 1958? Or that global average temperatures in 2012 are greater than they were in 1900? If so, it would be intriguing to discover the basis for these claims of uncertainty. }

I've literally addressed every single one of these questions in the OP. These are the questions the AGW debate surrounds. We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know it has increased, we know the temperature is hotter now than in 1900, we DON'T KNOW that CO2 is the CAUSATION of that last claim. I already posted the graph which illustrates this.

CO2 doesn't even correlate to the temperature increase anymore. It only did for a brief period of time, from the 80s to the early 00s. You can see that on the graph that was a 25 year warming period following an observational wave pattern of rising and falling temperatures.

As the reply says:

{ The issues have always been whether and to what extent changes in the climate are caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and whether there is a causal, not simply correlative, link. For mere correlation (to the extent that it exists) does not necessarily entail causation. Thus, Legates et al.’s (2013) assertion that the science [of climate change] is indeed uncertain owing to
incomplete and complicated observational evidence is true. }

{ They just finished defending themselves on their claim of uncertainty from previous papers and they complain that Cook’s algorithm reported their papers as “being uncertain” (I bet the Heartland Institute didn’t like that!) }

For Christ's sake it's almost like you're reading everything out of context on purpose. We are uncertain about the actual anthropogenic effect on climate change. The individual papers by Legates and Swoon, which were rated "uncertain" by Cook, took a very clear stance that they are opposed to a majority-anthropogenic cause. Yet they were listed as "uncertain" so as to not effect Cook's numbers. That's the scam he consistently pulls.

How you even came to the conclusion that this sad excuse of a "study" agrees with Cook is beyond me.

{ Legates et al. For example, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) sent a
2-min online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists at universities and government research
agencies. Of the 3,146 respondents (a 31 % return rate), only 5 % identified themselves as
climate scientists and only a mere 79 (2.5 %) listed ‘climate science’ as their area of
expertise, having published more than half their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate
change. Of these 79 respondents, 98 % believed human activity was a significant contributing
factor in changing mean global temperatures. }

So of 79 public/government climate scientists who answered a 2 minute online survey, 98% of them said humans are a significant factor in climate change.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED EVERYONE, WINDY GOT IT ALL SORTED OUT FOR US!!

& then you criticize the person who points out that this two minute online survey is not a legitimate way of measuring scientific consensual about a nuanced and intricate climate issue, like that's the most absolute ridiculous thing anybody could say about a two minute online survey. Are you serious rn?

{ The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’ (p. 1),
The standard definition : As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing
most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’ (p. 2), }

Those are two completely different definitions and you're DEFENDING the guy who tried to pull a bait and switch with them.

You are truly a gem.

{ and found only 41 articles that explicitly supported AGW as opposed to Cook et al’s data which found 64. }

64 is the actual number of studies that explicitly endorse AGW that Cook originally found. It represents .3% of the total number of papers he started with. In order to reach the 97% consensus, he took those .3% of papers and added them to the few hundred papers that less explicitly states that humans are probably more of the reason for climate change than not. He then SUBTRACTED nearly 8,000 papers (from the original pool of ~12k) which explicitly took NO stance. aka "we don't know enough to call it one way or the other", which I showed in the OP was actually the scientific consensus regarding AGW.

Legates went further through the 64 papers Cook designated "explicitly endorses AGW" and found only 41 actually did, further reducing the .3% stat of scientists who actually explicitly endorse AGW.

Now all of you look closely at my bolded text.

{ Shortly after pointing that mistake Legates et al. Pretend to re-crunch the numbers and spit out 0.3% “after their adjustment” ONLY after including all 11944 papers, of which more than half were removed for being neutral to climate change. How fuken sly is that? }

no nigga that's what Cook did. He started with a pool of 11944 papers. He grouped them into 7 levels of endorsement, with 4 being neutral. These are John Cook's own results (edit to include John Cook's own descriptions of each Level):

Level 1 = 64 → Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
Level 2 = 922 → Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
Level 3 = 2910 → Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
Level 4 = 7970 → Does not address or mention the cause of global warming, expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
Level 5 = 54 → Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming
Level 6 = 15 → Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
Level 7 = 9 → Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming

He discarded Level 4, the neutral/no stance. He combined Levels 1+2+3, compared that to the combination of 5+6+7, and said LOOK 97% OF SCIENTISTS ARE IN A CONSENSUS THAT AGW IS REAL!! Level 3's description admits that those 3000 papers DON'T ACTUALLY STATE HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE, yet he INCLUDED THEM IN THE POOL OF PAPERS THAT EXPLICITLY STATE HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE. The actual scientific consensus is Level 4, humans role on recent warming is UNDEFINED/UNCERTAIN. Yet NASA, the IPCC, every government agency pushes this crooked ass John Cook 97% consensus propaganda because people like you buy into despite having the evidence right in front of your face.

Would you like any further reading comprehension assistance or are we good here?

You woke me up from my Saturday afternoon nap for this bullshit.

Lisa:

They paid for two highly cited papers so everybody could read the full text verbatim. AWFUL. THE THUGS. THE BUFFOONS.

Springer says it was cited once and that one citation was themselves lmfao

Their other version of the paper was cited by 6 people including themselves, of course, according to google scholar

Oh and just to make things even worse, one of the articles that cited that article is open access and cites that paper just to criticize it lmfao

Way to make yourself look like a fool at the beginning of your post. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest.

EDIT: I lied I'm going to call you out on your BS one more time on something that caught my eye because you just make it so easy.

The individual papers by Legates and Swoon, which were rated “uncertain” by Cook, took a very clear stance that they are opposed to a majority-anthropogenic cause. Yet they were listed as “uncertain” so as to not effect Cook’s numbers. That’s the scam he consistently pulls.

Whether they were rated as uncertain or opposed makes no difference whatsoever. Cook's analysis of 97% consensus compares agreement of AGW to deny AND uncertainty. One of the categories used to calculate the 97% consensus is "Expression of uncertainty" so regardless, their paper was used in the calculation. Of course I know you read the paper I was talking about so you can add the numbers yourself in table 1 and calculate the 0.9706 consensus.

You might want to read the rest of the post lmfao, you'll find you're the only ignorant one in this convo.

{ Cook’s analysis of 97% consensus compares agreement of AGW to deny AND uncertainty. }

Right yah that's why he discarded all of the studies which stated they're uncertain. What he did is like having a jury of 10, 8 say they don't have enough evidence to decide guilty or not guilty, 1 says not guilty, 2 say guilty. We throw out the 8 who don't have enough evidence, so it's 2-1 and you're guilty. That's bullshit and I'm sure you know that but are too embarrassed to have been defending such obvious propaganda and now all you can do is pretend you don't want to participate in this conversation anymore.

and Google doesn't track citations/responses in subscription journals, aka actual peer-reviewed publications which have REJECTED JOHN COOK'S WORK. Most recently, Cook was rejected by Earth System Dynamics.

{ Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. While I think as an ESDD publication at least a discussion was had and the existence of the R routines has been brought to the attention of the various interested communities, the manuscript itself is not a good fit for this journal and would need substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal. }

He is NOT a legitimate scientist, he is a propaganda producing spin master in the most polite terms.

That’s bullshit and I’m sure you know that but are too embarrassed to have been defending such obvious propaganda and now all you can do is pretend you don’t want to participate in this conversation anymore.

Don't tell me you were expecting me to reply to your previous shitty cop-out post?

Right yah that’s why he discarded all of the studies which stated they’re uncertain.

You know you're desperate when I can cite your own misfits that I consider crooks against you.
Legates et al. (2015) same article as in my last post.

The results are given in Table 1. Of
the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 (32.6 %) were marked as explicitly or implicitly endorsing at
least the unquantified definition that humans cause some warming. It was only by
arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty
abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 %
endorsed ‘consensus’.

What's the matter Lisa you can't read the article can you? I remember a certain punk with a subscription to Nature complaining about not being able to talk real science with people because of the paywalls.

and Google doesn’t track citations/responses in subscription journals, aka actual peer-reviewed publications

Oh really? Search the phrase "CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes" on Google Scholar and click "cited by 561" (FYI that's a highly cited paper)
within the first 5 pages I see: Nature, American Chemical Society, American Society for Microbiology, and many more scientific databases. Wtf are you talking about?

He is NOT a legitimate scientist, he is a propaganda producing spin master in the most polite terms.

At this point I've lost my patience and respect for you. Are you stupid or what? Whoever wrote that quote is clearly saying that John Cook's work is commendable, but it does not contribute to the journal's goal so it was rejected. That's because that journal is a physical science journal and John Cook's meta-analysis style article is not what that journal is about. Dammit Lisa, just google the journal that accepted his first and second article.

"Environmental Research Letters is a quarterly, open-access, electronic-only, peer-reviewed, scientific journal covering research in all aspects of environmental science."

"Approaches from a range of physical and natural sciences, economics, and political, sociological and legal studies are also present."

The authors that you have cited have their dam article that I posted published in an education journal for crying out loud. Like dam its not rocket science.

BTW I'm done posting here unless someone new posts.

{ Whoever wrote that quote is clearly saying that John Cook’s work is commendable, but it does not contribute to the journals goal so it was rejected. }

The editor of the journal was giving his reasons for rejecting the paper, which is because "his goal is laudable but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD". You can read the outraged debate it sparked in the discussion center, which is why the editor personally chose to explain why it was rejected.

From his full statement:

{ First, I do not think the structure of the paper works. Indeed, as currently structured there is no paper in this paper, i.e. there is no actual science (hypothesis, testing of a hypothesis) in the main
body.

Second, much of the discussion in the appendix is written in an inflammatory and
insufficiently supported fashion.

Third, while much is made that so-and-so made mistakes, much of that characterization relies solely on the authors’ stated opinion. While I agree that demonstrating how results may differ based on various choices with the R routines is useful, it generally (except in the case of coding errors) does not reveal mistakes. Instead it reveals how different choices lead to different results. It is really up to individuals and communities to determine that something is a mistake (or something that otherwise contributes to continued ignorance). Let me emphasize this point since it goes to the heart of this paper. I see very little in this paper that actually demonstrates real flaws in prior work. }

You're using your own misunderstanding of the topic to defend someone the entire scientific community regards as a fraud.

{ It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 %
endorsed ‘consensus’. }

Oh okay, that's why he discarded all of the abstracts except 40* wew that really helps me ignore the other 7890 he arbitrarily ignored and the dozens of authors who were interviewed and blatantly stated their papers were misrepresented based on Cook's classification. You obviously know better than the authors of the papers themselves, just like John Cook does.

{ within the first 5 pages I see: Nature, American Chemical Society, American Society for Microbiology, and a many more scientific databases. Wtf are you talking about? }

Click on them you half-wit. They're previews, you can't see the full work and you can't see the thousands of pages worth of discussion and debate between legitimate scientists citing the paper, like ESDD made available only because Cook's terrible excuse for a paper caused so much fuss among actual scientists. Plus if the full bib isn't displayed in the preview, which is the case for some journals, then Google can't track it.

You don't have to stop posting, peaches, but that's 100% up to you

In an attempt to make the alarmist >1.4 degree change over 166 years look even scarier (which is not even the actual change in temps, it's ~.84 degrees C), Ed Hawkins has created an absolutely bizarre spiral graph gif that shows average global temp change which has since gone viral across Twitter (the 1.5 mark is the arbitrarily designated 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial temps).

He did not consider that this also showed warming was taking place well before the 1960+ atmospheric CO2 spike… and also doesn't show the exponential temperature increase in response to exponentially increasing CO2 emissions, which have done nothing but rapidly rise since the 60s.

Yet the media is going bananas over its beauty and how it has "revolutionized how we look at climate change with one gif!!"

From Vox:

{ At the Paris climate conference last year, the world's nations pledged to hold overall global warming below this mark. But short of an immediate and drastic plunge in carbon-dioxide emissions (along with an unprecedented effort to suck CO2 back out of the atmosphere), we're almost certain to spiral past 1.5°C. And without major changes in energy use, we'll likely push past 2°C -- a threshold policymakers have often considered "dangerous" -- sometime in the 21st century as well. }

One more time, actual weather balloon and satellite observations of temperature vs alarmist model predictions… this one includes 73 CMIP5 models, the latest climate model standard used by the IPCC and every other climate change institute. It assumes a causal relationship between CO2 and temps, it will never show any results that don't begin with that assumption.

Based on ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS OF TEMPS, does it look like we'll be "dangerously spiraling" past 2 degrees within the next 80 years to anybody?! Anybody at all?! Some of those models say we'll hit 2 degrees over the 1979 average by 2020 ffs!!

Vox also included this nice little scare:

{ What happens at 2°C? The short answer: we barrel into the unknown. For most of the time human civilization has existed -- the past 13,000 years or so -- global average temperatures have never really soared that high. }

Because we were in an ice age!! They don't want you to make that connection, though, you might realize the gentle temperature increase since then has non-anthropogenic causes and that would ruin everything.

Has anyone seen the Norwegian political thriller Occupied (Okkupert)? It is on netflix.
The premise is that in the near future due to a devastating hurricane that hit Norway the Norwegians elected a Green Party PM who forces the Norwegian oil industry to shut down and replaces it with Thorium based energy. This causes an energy crisis in the EU which essentially sells Norway out to Russia, who, stage a velvet occupation of Norway to "restart" it's fossil fuel industry.

It's really intense. And super well done. Although fiction it is grounded in a lot of realities.

Click on them you half-wit. They’re previews, you can’t see the full work and you can’t see the thousands of pages worth of discussion and debate between legitimate scientists citing the paper, like ESDD made available only because Cook’s terrible excuse for a paper caused so much fuss among actual scientists. Plus if the full bib isn’t displayed in the preview, which is the case for some journals, then Google can’t track it.

First of all I can see the full work because of my university server credentials. Second of all I also have access to webofknowledge.com and saw the same number of citations.

You called them "highly cited" to give the impression that their work has a bigger impact than the no impact it has at all.

They paid for two highly cited papers so everybody could read the full text verbatim. AWFUL. THE THUGS. THE BUFFOONS.

and now you are covering your tracks with more crap by calling them highly cited but now also saying google can't track down the "some" journals that are subscription based without references in the preview. Not to mentioned that "highly cited papers" don't just magically stay confined to subscription based journals and if they were truly highly cited they would be found in free access journals, reviews and other forms of media. Now you've lied twice.

They're highly cited and have a great impact in the scientific community which is skeptical of AGW, which you still deny exists at all, so I don't know why you want to continue this much more petty argument over what technically qualifies as highly cited. Especially when I've repeatedly shown you that the most widely cited climate consensus stat in the world is a complete and utter lie, which you continue to advocate. Willful ignorance.

Q: The number of citations to one of my articles is too low. I know of several articles citing it that are not included in the list of citations. What I can do to help fix this?

A: Your "Cited by" counts come from the Google Scholar index. You can change the articles in your profile, but citations to them are computed and updated automatically as we update Google Scholar.

To change the "Cited by" counts in your profile, you would need to have them updated in Google Scholar. Google Scholar generally reflects the state of the web as it is currently visible to our search robots and to the majority of users. If some of the citations to your article are not included, chances are that the citing articles are not accessible to our search robots or are formatted in ways that make it difficult for our indexing algorithms to identify their bibliographic data or references.

It's literally an answer on their FAQ, you could have just looked it up instead of dragging this back up.

How do you all feel about environmental groups getting involved in school curriculum?

Backed by environmentalist groups, Portland school board bans textbooks and material that aren't definitive about anthropogenic climate change.

{ The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.”

Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher and current editor of ReThinking Schools, a magazine devoted to education issues, worked with 350PDX and other environmental groups to present the resolution.

In board testimony, Bigelow said PPS’ science textbooks are littered with words like might, may and could when talking about climate change.

“ ‘Carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, power plants and other sources, may contribute to global warming,’ ” he quotes Physical Science published by Pearson as saying. “This is a section that could be written by the Exxon public relations group and it’s being taught in Portland schools.”

Bigelow is also the co-author of a textbook on environmental education, A People’s Curriculum for the Earth. Asked if this resolution will cause the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, Bigelow said ReThinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker.

“What we’re asking for is not: Buy new stuff,” he said. “What we’re looking for is a whole different model of curriculum development and distribution.” }

'cause the science is settled, and your kids will know it~

They’re highly cited

>Google scholar shows <5 citations.
>Google scholar is wrong because it doesn't track down some journals properly
>Therefore they are highly cited because they are highly cited

Climate change is one of the biggest controversies in the past few years, but these guys' shitty articles are highly popular only in these invisible journals of which you haven't given one example of and it must be a miracle or the stars have aligned that google scholar, webofknowledge and springer.com give all give 2-5 citations. Can't argue with that logic.

climate consensus stat in the world is a complete and utter lie

Yup, thanks to contribution of Christopher Monckton of Brenchley who thinks the solution to AIDS is “That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life.” has outsmarted NASA which has the reputation of sending rovers to mars. Clearly.

I keep bringing this up because your authorities claim the science is "uncertain" hence we must listen to intelligent people tell us what our actions will be. If that is the case then you and your unqualified or deceptive "authorities" are none to be taken seriously. If you need a refresher on the people that you reference read my first post on this page again.

What your all encompassing list of like five people? I've brought up more sources than you listed, feel free to go through this thread and extensively search every author I've cited.

The 97% consensus has been debunked by multiple peer reviewed sources that I've already linked. I posted exactly how the stat was achieved and what the real consensus stands at currently. You've ignored all of that, as always when we meet, to rave on about people and websites which have been called out for doing exactly what you accuse my sources of doing.

Why don't you go legitimately read what I posted on this very page about John Cook's consensus levels, how he threw out over half of his original sample because it didn't make his numbers look good, and what the majority of scientists actually have to say, and then get back to me.

Cook’s analysis was directly refuted by Anthony Watts in the journal Earth System Dynamics (which went on to reject another of Cook’s unrelated papers because it lacked scientific basis).

Give me the title of the paper or the DOI. I'm not interested in blogs. But judging by your misunderstanding of "lacking of scientific basis" as "he's not a scientist" its probably a waste of time.

Popular Tech contacted many of the authors whose papers were cited by John Cook as supporting anthropgenic global warming and obtained statements from them directly.

Cool story. Irrelevant to studying consensus based on paper abstracts. But cool story. Tell them to write their own article on consensus based on contacting authors and we wouldn't need Cooks work.

David Friedman also provided an explanation of how they came to the 97% figure by excluding over 50% of their original sample because they expressed a neutral stance.

And I've already addressed this so it shouldn't count as me ignoring it. If I want to know which breed of dog is the most suggested for new owners on forums. I guess I need to include in my total sum any factual post that uses the word "dog breed" just because right?

The National Review debunks John Cook and a few copycat analysis (and features an old video of Ted Cruz questioning an AGW alarmist about the observational pause in warming data, who himself paused an awfully long time before spitting out the “97% of scientists agree!!!” statistic).

"National Review | Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, & Policy"

Lol. All I get from that is "but, but you didn't read my source which brands itself based on its political views."

I already linked you to the editor's reasoning for rejecting his paper, which includes inflammatory nonsense and no actual science in the paper, and I already linked you to the paper's discussion forum where his peers argued the same points the editor listed. Another dead giveaway you're just looking at words instead of reading the post.

here, I will repost the entire post which you ignored:

From the editor's full statement:

{ First, I do not think the structure of the paper works. Indeed, as currently structured there is no paper in this paper, i.e. there is no actual science (hypothesis, testing of a hypothesis) in the main
body.

Second, much of the discussion in the appendix is written in an inflammatory and
insufficiently supported fashion.

Third, while much is made that so-and-so made mistakes, much of that characterization relies solely on the authors’ stated opinion. While I agree that demonstrating how results may differ based on various choices with the R routines is useful, it generally (except in the case of coding errors) does not reveal mistakes. Instead it reveals how different choices lead to different results. It is really up to individuals and communities to determine that something is a mistake (or something that otherwise contributes to continued ignorance). Let me emphasize this point since it goes to the heart of this paper. I see very little in this paper that actually demonstrates real flaws in prior work. }

lmao I don't know why I bother responding to you. He had a sample of 12k papers. The purpose of his study was to group the papers by consensus and count them. He grouped them into three categories of consensus, then threw out the largest category and declared the next largest is the real majority consensus. There's nothing logical or truthful about that, regardless of your bad dog analogies.

And on top of that you disregard the actual authors, who provided statements saying their work was wholly misrepresented. The stat only works if you're looking at less than half of the total data avaliable and you misrepresent what's left. There is no way to defend this.

The NR and PopTech are two of many sites that have written about the consensus lie, including two different Forbes pieces. Don't tell me Forbes is too partisan for you…

& don't lecture me about my sources when you link to Skeptical Science and John Cook! SS is a blog.

i.e. there is no actual science (hypothesis, testing of a hypothesis) in the main

body.

You fool. "There is no science" doesn't mean its debunked or that he's a fraud. It means there is no science. Articles don't have to have "science". Look up what a god dam systematic review is . There is no science in reviewing literature yet your MD PhD doctors are publishing them in journals

Hey everybody all your research doctors that publish systematic reviews are not scientists because there is no science in systematic reviews.

much of the discussion in the appendix is written in an inflammatory and
insufficiently supported fashion.

Do know what an appendix is?

Third, while much is made that so-and-so made mistakes, much of that characterization relies solely on the authors’ stated opinion.

This says nothing about his work only his discussion topic. Either give us the article so we can see exactly what this refers to or stop bringing up out of context quotes. The author literally said its up to individuals to tell if what he is saying is true or not.

There’s nothing logical or truthful about that

There is, but you just keep demonstrating your lack of understanding in logic and counting. You want to talk logic?

"The purpose of his study was to group the papers by consensus and count them. He grouped them into three categories of consensus"

Let P represent articles that present a consensus on AGW
Let Q represent articles that are on the subject of climate change

P → Q

Q
---------
P

"If if an article is on the subject of climate change then it presents a consensus on AGW"

This is affirming the consequent and it is an invalid argument. You'll have to explain to us what your unique logic is because it is not the norm.

& don’t lecture me about my sources when you link to Skeptical Science and John Cook! SS is a blog.

Bullshit I have not once linked to a website that wasn't a journal, wikipedia, or .gov or .edu site.

lmao I don’t know why I bother responding to you.

You can laugh your ass off somewhere else, you aren't obligated to reply, but I'm still waiting on that article I asked for at the top of my previous post.

{ but I’m still waiting on that article I asked for at the top of my previous post. }

For Christ's sake THE TITLE OF THE PAPER IS IN THE TITLE OF THE EDITOR'S RESPONSE! Click on the links instead of just reading the small summary paragraphs I post with the assumption that you will actually read and get the full context! I linked you to a page literally titled: "Interactive comment on “Agnotology: learning from mistakes” by R. E. Benestad et al." Pop that into Google and the first link is the ESDD discussion forum featuring the paper and ensuing debate (which I also already linked you to in an above post!). Authors: R. E. Benestad, H. O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, and D. Nuccitelli.

Read the editor's full statement! It's two pages explaining exactly what's wrong with this attempt at science and why exactly it is a failure. In a later paragraph he calls out this group's attempt to vilify the work of scientists who believe climate models are fundamentally flawed. That's what he means by "it generally does not reveal mistakes. Instead it reveals how different choices lead to different results". Skeptics who don't rely on the IPCC standard climate models are not WRONG, they are not making MISTAKES, as John Cook et al try to assert, it means they are making different decisions which lead to different results (that match up to our observations a hell of a lot more accurately than the IPCC models, but they will HAVE to address that within the next 20 years and then we'll see this whole AGW scam break down).

{ Articles don’t have to have “science”. Look up what a god dam systematic review is. }

The paper is not presented as a systematic review. You're literally arguing against the editor of the Earth Systems Dynamic journal to try to save face now. This is pathetic. You are wrong. John Cook is a widely acknowledged farce. You fell for it. Just accept it, learn from it, and move on.

{ Let P represent articles that present a consensus on AGW
Let Q represent articles that are on the subject of climate change }

All of the articles present a consensus, that's literally the entire point of the conversation we've been having for the last two weeks, you utter imbecile. I linked you to author statements (which include links to their papers' abstracts) who confirm or reject the consensus assigned to their paper by John Cook and his team. His categorizations are loose and wrong because he defines them by subjective terms, like "implies". He does not get to assign categories based on what he feels the authors were trying to imply based off their ABSTRACTS. He didn't even read the studies themselves! This whole stat is based on his interpretation of abstracts which the authors of the papers themselves have disagreed with on public record. It's a shaaaaaaam. & it's such an obvious sham, yet here you are.

Now let's look at your attempt at logic again. We want a consensus on the most popular breed of dog.

Let A represent the 20 people who like chihuahuas.
Let B represent the 10 people who like labradors.
Let C represent the 1000 people who like some other breed.

Discard C since they don't "take a stance" on chihuahuas or labradors and that's what we're trying to limit our options to, much like "deny" or "accept" AGW even though those aren't our only two options in the debate. According to our new sample, there's a clear consensus among people across the globe that chihuahuas are the most popular breed of dog. According to your logic, this is totally accurate~! The fact that 1000 people like some other breed, or the fact that 1000 people don't feel there's enough evidence for or against the theory of AGW, is simply swept under the rug so as to not ruin the pretty false picture we've just painted.

{ Bullshit I have not once linked to a website that wasn’t a journal, wikipedia, or .gov or .edu site. }

Liar liar pants on fire~ You linked to HuffPo in an attempt to denounce Richard Lindzen, and their supporting "evidence" came from Skeptical Science, John Cook's blog. You then told me you had no idea who John Cook was until I mentioned him, which tells me you only Googled for a headline that seemed to support your stance instead of reading the article to make sure it was accurate itself. You are now continuing to attempt to defend the reputation of someone you had no idea existed, which does not lend much support to your efforts.

{ you aren’t obligated to reply }

Says the person who was "done replying until someone new posts here".
What changed your mind, peaches?

>How do you all feel about environmental groups getting involved in school curriculum?

I am all for accurate and updated textbooks.

Anyways, putting the other nonsense in this thread aside, I know a few who contributed to this study linking global warming to increases in Kidney disease, one of the first studies linking climate change to a specific public health consequence.

I bet you'd be the first one to speak up if an anti-trans group got a school district to remove all textbooks and material that say transgender isn't a mental disorder and replace them with a curriculum they conveniently authored, but hey, it's a liberal environmentalist with absolutely no scientific credentials to his name, so we consider it accurate and updated~

Your study doesn't really relate to this thread. That the rate of heat-induced kidney disease will increase as the temperature rises doesn't depend on whether or not the cause is anthropogenic.

Just as this study which examined over 74 million deaths in 13 countries and finds that cold weather kills 20x more people than hot weather does not depend on whether or not the cause is anthropogenic.

Why is it nonsense?
Some of the names like W. Briggs and J. Cook are people with degrees that debate each other over the same topics through the articles they post. How can it be nonsense when everyone has been complaining since always about untrustworthy politicians and when it comes to science the experts are the ones to be trusted. How can it be nonsense to argue whether the experts are to be trusted or not because if not who else will be there to turn to? Besides, the title of this thread is anthropogenic global warming. Its not a global warming general thread.

Anyway if it makes everybody else happy, I'll stop. Its sad that gamergate threads and college protest among other low importance controversies stay up on the front page consistently, but when a topic goes too deep into a critical world issue its called "nonsense". Its also ironic actually, that people constantly complain about the former topics, but seldom participate in the latter discussions.

One other person finally posts in this thread and calls it nonsense and you want to drop it?
I'm fine with not repeating literally the same things over and over to you tho.

That's because I was never interested in your opinion. My purpose in this thread was to educate other people that may be following this thread by pointing out what's wrong with your posts especially common things I see on the web. Now that you started bringing up the same quotes again I feel I'm finished here.

final edit: I never said Cooks paper was a systematic review. I told you to read what a system review is as an example of a type of non-science scientific article that gets published. My mistake for thinking you were competent enough to make the connection without being explicitly told.

The common things you see on the web are the very things I'm disputing with very easy to understand posts that I broke down even further just for you, hence the circle we keep finding ourselves in because you wont actually read what I post.

Nobody who has actually read what I posted can possibly conclude the 97% stat is anything but a purposely concocted lie, and the fact that specifically government agencies and media mouthpieces keep repeating it despite all of the readily available sources which expose it should, at the very least, inspire some people to look a little more critically at those same government agencies' claims of 100% anthropogenic global warming.

They would be testifying contrary to the consensus of the medical community, so I wouldn't call that an apt analogy. Having worked with departments from atmospheric sciences, environmental studies, environmental planning, environmental engineering sustainability management, there are no relevant and credible circles denying anthropogenic climate change. At most issues of sensitivity, economics and effects are debated, but in no place is the scientific consensus denied besides social media and talk radio. Your study about the cold is irrelevant because if hot or cold weather kill more people has nothing to do with what the consequences of climate change will be (for example, a decline in deaths to cold weather could be offset by the introduction of malaria to new regions) or if climate change is happening at all (that coal dust kills more than radiation poisoning isn't a defense of deregulating nuclear waste, to drag out a tortured example).

>Why is it nonsense?

I'm not talking about your posts, Skeptical Science is a great resource regardless of Cook's credentials and all the talk about how terrible the Cook study might be is hilarious considering the fact that many more studies come to similar conclusions of 90% consensus or greater. That skeptical argument seems like a red herring to me. I say the debate is nonsense in the sense that you're refuting nonsense, which I absolutely appreciate. I didn't mean for you to take it that way, and I agree how trivial most of the "controversy" here on KYM is. We've gotten to the point of "vagina bones" and then the same users who complain about their games being censored (note Lisa is thankfully not among them) go onto climate-related posts and spew Al Gore jokes and whatever Top Mind™ most lately called climate change an 'SJW' conspiracy.

TL;DR I'm calling the "flaws in the Cook study invalidate claims of scientific consensus" argument itself nonsense. My bad Windy. (Also I used to try to use things like journal articles and tracking sites in the climate change debate but I stopped arguing those details after James Delingpole started backing Gamergate because the "debate" somehow got even more stupid since then, I admire your stamina ITT)

{ I’m not talking about your posts, Skeptical Science is a great resource regardless of Cook’s credentials and all the talk about how terrible the Cook study might be is hilarious considering the fact that many more studies come to similar conclusions of 90% consensus or greater. }

I have addressed all of them :) They all do the same exact thing, except they attempt to sort the categories more stringently. They still disregard the actual majority, ~8000 papers, which conclude that there isn't enough evidence to claim anthropogenic global warming is a significant factor in recent warming. Read any of them, they all openly admit it. This is how I know you guys aren't even bothering to read the studies you're claiming to source.

{ there are no relevant and credible circles denying anthropogenic climate change. }

But the John Cook study admits there are at least a couple thousand? Those are categories 4, 5, 6, and 7. Only papers in categories 1 and 2 directly state that anthropogenic causes are responsible for over 50% of recent warming, and papers in category 3 only imply it.

He added 5, 6, and 7 together to get the number of papers which disagree with AGW, added 1, 2 and 3 together to get the number which endorse AGW (including the abstracts he felt implied that they agreed with him even though they did not explicitly state so), and completely threw out category 4. That's what you're defending here.

So how exactly are you claiming there's no credible research which denies the impact of AGW, while simultaneously supporting research which counts exactly that???

Here, from Anthony Watts, is a quick n dirty summary of exactly what's wrong with climate research today, which is largely based on models.

{ Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling. Modeling can be a useful tool, a way of playing with hypotheses to explore their implications or test them against observations. That is how modeling is used in most sciences.

But in climate change science modeling appears to have become an end in itself. In fact it seems to have become virtually the sole point of the research. The modelers’ oft stated goal is to do climate forecasting, along the lines of weather forecasting, at local and regional scales.

Here the problem is that the scientific understanding of climate processes is far from adequate to support any kind of meaningful forecasting. Climate change research should be focused on improving our understanding, not modeling from ignorance. This is especially true when it comes to recent long term natural variability, the attribution problem, which the modelers generally ignore. It seems that the modeling cart has gotten far ahead of the scientific horse.

Climate modeling is not climate science. Moreover, the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models. In doing this it assumes that the models are basically correct, that the basic science is settled. This is far from true.

The models basically assume the hypothesis of human-caused climate change. Natural variability only comes in as a short term influence that is negligible in the long run. But there is abundant evidence that long term natural variability plays a major role climate change. We seem to recall that we have only very recently emerged from the latest Pleistocene glaciation, around 11,000 years ago.

Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process. In the meantime the central scientific question – the proper attribution of climate change to natural versus human factors – is largely being ignored. }

I'm sorry Lisa, but I had to stop reading for a while after you asked me to refer to Watts for climate change information. I have a degree in this field and Watts' tabloid blog is an insult to it. I don't even need to defend Cook, "Cook is biased, go check out Watts" is an absurd gambit. After skimming the rest though, too much of what you said is wrong. Long-term variability refers to periods of 20k to 100k years, given the 200 year scope of models, they are irrelevent and "long term" is a weasel word. Everything spewed by Watts can be dispelled by any legitimate climate scientist. Anyways I won't be checking this thread anymore, I can make my own without the pedantic environment.

& again, the only way you can respond is to say OH I'M NOT GOING TO READ THAT SORRY LOL~! I have an environmental degree too, peaches.

Why don't we limit the conversation solely to John Cook's consensus study? Would that be narrow enough for your focus? Explain the logic which allows him to disregard over half of his original sample? Neither of you even have done that, you've been dodging every actual argument in this thread.

PS: you know John Cook doesn't even have an environmental degree, right?
He has a BS in physics and is currently working on a psychology degree.
His own website admits this.

Anthony Watts is a working meteorologist who has written extensively on natural weather and climate cycles.

Regardless, it was only commentary hosted on Watts' blog. Here's the full piece, which was written by Patrick J. Michaels. I would love to hear your complaints about him. A preview:

{ We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this.

However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly 55% of the total.

In other words it looks like climate change science accounts for fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. This is a tremendous concentration, because climate change science is just a tiny fraction of the whole of science. In the U.S. Federal research budget climate science is just 4% of the whole and not all climate science is about climate change.

In short it looks like less than 4% of the science, the climate change part, is doing about 55% of the modeling done in the whole of science. Again, this is a tremendous concentration, unlike anything else in science. }