Nobel Prize winning Scientist ridicules Obamas take on Climate Change.

[Lone Clone]

Which is exactly the problem with everything you guys post. You should fix that.

Tar, you don't even know the context in which I mentioned the predictions.

Frankly, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with religious fanatics -- seriously. Talking to an AGW apostle is exactly like talking to a birther or an "LBJ killed JFK" guy or a "911 was an inside job" guy.

This was a classic example. Joe isn't willing to even entertain the possibility that any theory he worships could have been wrong about ANYTHING.....unless it changes, then it's like the original Absolute Truth never existed.

So the scientists who made this prediction were wrong. So what? That doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. It doesn't mean they're wrong about the overall picture. It just means they were wrong in this one respect. But that is something a true believer simply cannot accept. And this closed-minded attitude casts doubt on everything else they believe.

 

[Joes Place]

Tar, you don't even know the context in which I mentioned the predictions.

Ok, then. Here's my recollection of 'the context' then:

Someone regurgitated the same old myth about 'global cooling in the 1970's'. As that was being debunked by others, YOU chimed in with the same crap, that "scientists predicted an ice free Arctic by 2012", or 2015, or 2016 (you kept changing the year when telling me to 'just Google it'). I found a source, which you verified by saying "See- I was right!", but then I proceeded to dig into the actual report that source came from, which clearly showed the actual prediction was "2016±3 years", AND I proceeded to point out that the definitions for 'Ice free Arctic' were fairly specific to summer ice nadir points, and 'ice free' meant <15% coverage in any area.

So, YOU made the ridiculous generalization that 'the scientists have no idea what they are talking about', and when I put the context out there, your entire argument pretty much vanished.

So, if you WANT to have that same beatdown again, re-link your source.

I find it rather tedious that you cannot remember what you'd posted (a la "we 'discriminate against' chocolate ice cream when we eat vanilla") and someone like myself needs to repeat the process less than a month later.

You are the human equivalent of 'Dory' the fish in Finding Nemo....

 

[Lone Clone]

Ok, then. Here's my recollection of 'the context' then:

Someone regurgitated the same old myth about 'global cooling in the 1970's'. As that was being debunked by others, YOU chimed in with the same crap, that "scientists predicted an ice free Arctic by 2012", or 2015, or 2016 (you kept changing the year when telling me to 'just Google it'). I found a source, which you verified by saying "See- I was right!", but then I proceeded to dig into the actual report that source came from, which clearly showed the actual prediction was "2016±3 years", AND I proceeded to point out that the definitions for 'Ice free Arctic' were fairly specific to summer ice nadir points, and 'ice free' meant <15% coverage in any area.

So, YOU made the ridiculous generalization that 'the scientists have no idea what they are talking about', and when I put the context out there, your entire argument pretty much vanished.

So, if you WANT to have that same beatdown again, re-link your source.

I find it rather tedious that you cannot remember what you'd posted (a la "we 'discriminate against' chocolate ice cream when we eat vanilla") and someone like myself needs to repeat the process less than a month later.

You are the human equivalent of 'Dory' the fish in Finding Nemo....

View embedded media

No, Joe, you're wrong about the context, about what I posted, and about your response. And you continue to embarrass yourself about "discrimination." Are you now claiming I said I didn't remember what I posted about the definition of that word? Good heavenly days.

 

[Joes Place]

No, Joe, you're wrong about the context, about what I posted, and about your response. And you continue to embarrass yourself about "discrimination." Are you now claiming I said I didn't remember what I posted about the definition of that word? Good heavenly days.

I absolutely remember. We were referring to same-sex marriage as an example of a group being discriminated against, relative to 'traditional' marriage.
You ran off on a tangent and said, "Let's identify what the word 'discriminate' means" and went on to state that 'When someone eats chocolate ice cream, they are discriminating against vanilla; when someone roots for the Hawkeyes, they are discriminating against the Cyclones".

I almost thought you might have been suffering from a stroke when I first read it, but you were (apparently) coherent and serious.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So the scientists who made this prediction were wrong. So what? That doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. It doesn't mean they're wrong about the overall picture. It just means they were wrong in this one respect. But that is something a true believer simply cannot accept. And this closed-minded attitude casts doubt on everything else they believe.

They might be wrong...but until you post something that leads to the science behind the prediction you're just reposting pure speculation. But you didn't say anything about the science...did you?

 

[Joes Place]

No, Joe, you're wrong about the context, about what I posted, and about your response. And you continue to embarrass yourself about "discrimination." Are you now claiming I said I didn't remember what I posted about the definition of that word? Good heavenly days.

Here is YOUR verbatim quote, in its entirety:

First, let's get this "discriminate" thing out of the way. When you order vanilla ice cream, you are discriminating against chocolate. When you choose to support the Hawkeyes, you are discriminating against the Cyclones. That's what the word means.​

 

[Lone Clone]

I absolutely remember. We were referring to same-sex marriage as an example of a group being discriminated against, relative to 'traditional' marriage.
You ran off on a tangent and said, "Let's identify what the word 'discriminate' means" and went on to state that 'When someone eats chocolate ice cream, they are discriminating against vanilla; when someone roots for the Hawkeyes, they are discriminating against the Cyclones".

I almost thought you might have been suffering from a stroke when I first read it, but you were (apparently) coherent and serious.

Yes, Joe. And that is what the word means. I continued on, saying it can have good or bad connotations. Obviously, it wasn't a tangent, since you clearly didn't understand the definition of the word you were using. And apparently still don't.

You really don't actually read anything to which you respond, do you? That's an example. But an even better one is the exchange we're having now. My reference was to this statement you just made:

I find it rather tedious that you cannot remember what you'd posted (a la "we 'discriminate against' chocolate ice cream when we eat vanilla")

I replied by asking you if you were claiming I had denied or forgotten defining "discrimination" for you. And instead, you came back with this post. Obviously, I neither forgot nor denied it. Unfortunately, you still don't understand it.

 

[Lone Clone]

They might be wrong...but until you post something that leads to the science behind the prediction you're just reposting pure speculation. But you didn't say anything about the science...did you?

Are you really that dense? No, you aren't. Joe may be, but you aren't. Please try to get your hands around the subject here. Of course it was speculation. That it was speculation is the point.

I didn't say anything about the science. So it doesn't matter what the science is. I made a very simple, very clear, very straightforward observation about what others had said. Whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant to my participation; all that matters is whether they said it, and unquestionably, they did.

Here's an analogy that will drive Joe up the wall trying to understand: If I report that an ice cream manufacturer said his company would be selling more chocolate than vanilla by 2015, the only thing relevant to my statement is whether he said it.....NOT why he said it, and definitely not the difference in the chemical composition of chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

 

[icu81222]

It's amusing that those loudest about GW being a myth are usually the ones that think Obama, ISIS, gay marriage, etc were going to destroy the world. What a nutbag world we live in.

Yet ISIS is destroying everything in its path and Obama has been the biggest disaster since Jimmy Carter. Our foreign policy/relations are in shambles. The world is pretty much on fire. Mostly due to Obama's weakness. The bad guys will always fill in the void when weakness prevails. Horrible for America and the world. Thanks Obama

 

[WORTHYWISH]

This disappearing Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age

 

[WORTHYWISH]

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, Joe. And that is what the word means. I continued on, saying it can have good or bad connotations. Obviously, it wasn't a tangent, since you clearly didn't understand the definition of the word you were using. And apparently still don't.

You really don't actually read anything to which you respond, do you? That's an example. But an even better one is the exchange we're having now. My reference was to this statement you just made:

I find it rather tedious that you cannot remember what you'd posted (a la "we 'discriminate against' chocolate ice cream when we eat vanilla")

I replied by asking you if you were claiming I had denied or forgotten defining "discrimination" for you. And instead, you came back with this post. Obviously, I neither forgot nor denied it. Unfortunately, you still don't understand it.

Oh...I see then.

'Discrimination' against Same Sex couples, denying them the rights that opposite sex couples is fine, because the word 'discriminate' can have "positive" meanings, too!!!

(That WAS the context in that thread)

 

[Joes Place]

This disappearing Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age

Anyone can Google pretty pictures. Can you Google Scholar up some of the more recent references which CORRECT the misinformation you are trying to post here?

Try the BEST study, which was one of the more comprehensive efforts, completely independent of the IPCC work, was funded by the Koch brothers, oil interests and many honest skeptics, to ascertain if there truly WAS a 'groupthink' and 'bias' by the mainstream climate community.

What did they find? They identified the problem was WORSE than what mainstream climatologists were reporting, and fully endorsed the 97%+ of the climatological community's claims. This is a position shared by the National Academies' of Science of over 25 nations. So, if you want to claim a giant conspiracy (including China), you have to understand MOST of the major countries around the world share the same position as the 97% of climatologists.

Maybe you cannot come to grips with that, but it is the reality here.

 

[Lone Clone]

Oh...I see then.

'Discrimination' against Same Sex couples, denying them the rights that opposite sex couples is fine, because the word 'discriminate' can have "positive" meanings, too!!!

(That WAS the context in that thread)

No, that wasn't the implication of my statement, or anything close to it, and every time you bring it up, all you do is confirm your lack of understanding. If you want to keep doing that, I'm OK with it. Maybe you can just hang a sign around your neck that says "moron" and save yourself some keystrokes.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Anyone can Google pretty pictures. Can you Google Scholar up some of the more recent references which CORRECT the misinformation you are trying to post here?

Try the BEST study, which was one of the more comprehensive efforts, completely independent of the IPCC work, was funded by the Koch brothers, oil interests and many honest skeptics, to ascertain if there truly WAS a 'groupthink' and 'bias' by the mainstream climate community.

What did they find? They identified the problem was WORSE than what mainstream climatologists were reporting, and fully endorsed the 97%+ of the climatological community's claims. This is a position shared by the National Academies' of Science of over 25 nations. So, if you want to claim a giant conspiracy (including China), you have to understand MOST of the major countries around the world share the same position as the 97% of climatologists.

Maybe you cannot come to grips with that, but it is the reality here.

 

[strummingram]

I'm just glad politicians have yet another issue they can toss back and forth so they can appear to be viable, necessary, and give the illusion that they are opposed to each other. Religion and Politics will be on the coroner's report for the human race as "Cause of death."

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Anyone can Google pretty pictures. Can you Google Scholar up some of the more recent references which CORRECT the misinformation you are trying to post here?

Try the BEST study, which was one of the more comprehensive efforts, completely independent of the IPCC work, was funded by the Koch brothers, oil interests and many honest skeptics, to ascertain if there truly WAS a 'groupthink' and 'bias' by the mainstream climate community.

What did they find? They identified the problem was WORSE than what mainstream climatologists were reporting, and fully endorsed the 97%+ of the climatological community's claims. This is a position shared by the National Academies' of Science of over 25 nations. So, if you want to claim a giant conspiracy (including China), you have to understand MOST of the major countries around the world share the same position as the 97% of climatologists.

Maybe you cannot come to grips with that, but it is the reality here.

97% is bullshit.

Please provide proof that 97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming. Before you attempt, look up the definition of "proof."

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Are you really that dense? No, you aren't. Joe may be, but you aren't. Please try to get your hands around the subject here. Of course it was speculation. That it was speculation is the point.

I didn't say anything about the science. So it doesn't matter what the science is. I made a very simple, very clear, very straightforward observation about what others had said. Whether they were right or wrong is irrelevant to my participation; all that matters is whether they said it, and unquestionably, they did.

Here's an analogy that will drive Joe up the wall trying to understand: If I report that an ice cream manufacturer said his company would be selling more chocolate than vanilla by 2015, the only thing relevant to my statement is whether he said it.....NOT why he said it, and definitely not the difference in the chemical composition of chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

People speculate about all kinds of things. It's pretty much why this board exists. OiT is a master speculator and almost always dead wrong. Show me the SCIENCE that predicts an end to NP ice. That it's going to be gone soon is incontrovertible. That it's disappearing faster than the IPCC's scientifically based predictions is, likewise, incontrovertible. There's your error, btw. They appear to have UNDERESTIMATED the timeline - it might be gone sooner than they thought.

So understand that you're hanging your hat not on the idea that NP ice is stable and the scientists are dead wrong but that some scientists may have casually speculated on the timeline incorrectly. So what? It doesn't mean anything.

 

[strummingram]

97% is bullshit.

Please provide proof that 97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming. Before you attempt, look up the definition of "proof."

View embedded media

I've always enjoyed nearly all of Stefan Molyneaux's clips. His is one of the few YT channels I subscribe. I don't watch as often now as I used to.

Regardless of who or what each person puts their trust in, regarding Global Warming, Molyneaux encapsulates the most important factor, when the inclusion of getting government gets involved to reverse it. World governments are responsible for giving the world 50 trillion dollars of debt, so entrusting them with reversing Global Warming is futile. The 50 trillion of debt factor would be enough, you'd think, for people to realize that solutions through government (with more government) is not a solution at all.

 

[Lone Clone]

People speculate about all kinds of things. It's pretty much why this board exists. OiT is a master speculator and almost always dead wrong. Show me the SCIENCE that predicts an end to NP ice. That it's going to be gone soon is incontrovertible. That it's disappearing faster than the IPCC's scientifically based predictions is, likewise, incontrovertible. There's your error, btw. They appear to have UNDERESTIMATED the timeline - it might be gone sooner than they thought.

So understand that you're hanging your hat not on the idea that NP ice is stable and the scientists are dead wrong but that some scientists may have casually speculated on the timeline incorrectly. So what? It doesn't mean anything.

We aren't talking about "people." We're talking about scientists and/or organizations that we are supposed to trust on the subject of AGW. And it wasn't "casual" speculation.

You haven't even bothered to Google, have you? You're so absolutely certain of your prejudices that you don't see the reason?

However, unlike some posters, you have a firm grasp of the English language, firm enough to realize that "speculation" and "prediction" and "forecast" are virtually interchangeable in most applications.

My purpose in mentioning the projections for arctic ice was simple: It was to show that the people making the projections aren't perfect. And as we all know, this is not the first time that Mother Nature has pulled the rug out from under them. In fact, the absolute certainty with which AGW alarmists state things is one reason some of us are skeptical.

When these things don't pan out, it prompts one or more of three reactions from the true believers....and the scientific reaction isn't one of the three. They are:
(a) Deny the projection was made (Joe is using this one);
(b) Deny the reality didn't match the projection;
(c) Explain why the reality didn't match the projection, using data and/or assumptions different from the ones used to make the projection in the first place.

The one you do NOT see is:
(d) Question the basic theory on which the projection was made.

 

[Joes Place]

We aren't talking about "people." We're talking about scientists and/or organizations that we are supposed to trust on the subject of AGW. And it wasn't "casual" speculation.

...posted shortly AFTER this gem:

Please try to get your hands around the subject here. Of course it was speculation.That it was speculation is the point.​

You should probably have your primary care doc check you out for Alzheimer's or something. Because this is simply awesome for the rest of us....

 

[Joes Place]

When these things don't pan out, it prompts one or more of three reactions from the true believers....and the scientific reaction isn't one of the three. They are:
(a) Deny the projection was made (Joe is using this one);

Nope. Never denied it. I found the primary source and pointed out to you that your generalization of the claim was WRONG.

(b) Deny the reality didn't match the projection;

Again, considering the claim was 2016±3 years, you cannot assert the claim is wrong yet. Not sure how you keep wanting to argue this, because it makes you look like a 2 year old.

(c) Explain why the reality didn't match the projection, using data and/or assumptions different from the ones used to make the projection in the first place.

No, again. You refused to acknowledge that the oversimplified/overgeneralized soundbite did NOT match the actual prediction/claim being made. Despite being linked to the original information.

The one you do NOT see is:
(d) Question the basic theory on which the projection was made.

You absolutely implied that 'scientists cannot even get polar ice predictions correct' and that they were being 'alarmist' due to one out-of-context prediction. You haven't even once engaged in constructive debate and acknowledgement of the links and science I've provided you. So, no, you CLEARLY are attempting to undermine the basic theory and science here.

 

[Lone Clone]

...posted shortly AFTER this gem:

Please try to get your hands around the subject here. Of course it was speculation.That it was speculation is the point.​

You should probably have your primary care doc check you out for Alzheimer's or something. Because this is simply awesome for the rest of us....

You truly are a moron. Seriously. I have given you the benefit of the doubt because you have access to a lot of nicely colored graphs and stuff, but truly, you are a few pickles short of a full barrel.

The fact that you cannot, or will not, discriminate between "speculation" and "casual speculation" says all anyone needs to know about your mental acuity, of lack of same. I even put "casual" in quotes to make sure that even an idiot could understand. I thought.

And you still haven't googled. You appear to be basing your comments on one article.

You DID get one thing right. I have not addressed the science. In every discussion on this subject over the years, I have made a point at the outset of saying I wouldn't address the science. I am not qualified to do so. I limit my comments to the words and actions of the proponents. You were very slow to grasp that "I won't discuss the science" means "I won't discuss the science," but you seem to be slowly seeing the dawn of wisdom on this point.

If you can't Google, maybe you can follow a link. Here's a column about you and your fellow deniers on just this subject:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...s-about-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2015-nevermind/

 

[Lone Clone]

Nope. Never denied it. I found the primary source and pointed out to you that your generalization of the claim was WRONG.



Again, considering the claim was 2016±3 years, you cannot assert the claim is wrong yet. Not sure how you keep wanting to argue this, because it makes you look like a 2 year old.


No, again. You refused to acknowledge that the oversimplified/overgeneralized soundbite did NOT match the actual prediction/claim being made. Despite being linked to the original information.


You absolutely implied that 'scientists cannot even get polar ice predictions correct' and that they were being 'alarmist' due to one out-of-context prediction. You haven't even once engaged in constructive debate and acknowledgement of the links and science I've provided you. So, no, you CLEARLY are attempting to undermine the basic theory and science here.

You pick out one source -- which actually confirms what I said -- claim it refutes what I said, and meanwhile you ignore other sources of similar or even more drastic predictions.

Also, you people play the same game about sources as always. A guy who became world famous and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change? We aren't supposed to pay attention to him, because so much of what he said turned out to be bullshit.

Here is the partial product of 5 minutes of investigation. These four don't even scratch the surface of the similar predictions that were made.
================================

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

==================

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," Wieslaw Maslowski, researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

======================

Because climate change in the Arctic region is occurring faster and to a greater extent than anywhere else, the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free for a short period of time as early as the summer of 2015, according to the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report completed by the eight Arctic Council Nations. – John Kerry [NOTE: I am not putting Kerry out as a reliable source. I'm citing the source he cited]

=========================

Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a Canadian research network, said the sea ice is melting faster than predicted by models created by international teams of scientists, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"The frightening models we didn't even dare to talk about before are now proving to be true," Fortier told CanWest News Service, referring to computer models that take into account the thinning of the sea ice and the warming from the albedo effect - the Earth is absorbing more energy as the sea ice melts. According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Still waiting on proof that 97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming......

 

[Joes Place]

You truly are a moron. Seriously. I have given you the benefit of the doubt because you have access to a lot of nicely colored graphs and stuff, but truly, you are a few pickles short of a full barrel.

The fact that you cannot, or will not, discriminate between "speculation" and "casual speculation" says all anyone needs to know about your mental acuity, of lack of same. I even put "casual" in quotes to make sure that even an idiot could understand. I thought.

Speculation is speculation. The meaning is entirely the same, whether or not you try to backtrack on it.

No different than the claims you are citing which state "may" be ice free "as soon as", or "could be".

But, that's different, of course....

 

[Lone Clone]

Speculation is speculation. The meaning is entirely the same, whether or not you try to backtrack on it.

No different than the claims you are citing which state "may" be ice free "as soon as", or "could be".

But, that's different, of course....

You are either not very smart or not very honest. Why don't you just concede that I was correct and drop the subject?

 

[Joes Place]

Still waiting on proof that 97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming......

You can find several peer-reviewed publications on this via Google. At least one source reviews and ranks over 1200 publications from actively publishing climatologists.

Here is Nasa's take:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
​

 

[Joes Place]

Still waiting on proof that 97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic global warming......

And here are most of the major scientific organizations and National Academies' positions (note that as of when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change)


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

This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.

Concurring

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
  
  
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

• United States National Research Council

• Royal Society of New Zealand
  
  
• The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
  

International science academies

• African Academy of Sciences
  European Academy of Sciences and Arts
• European Science Foundation
• InterAcademy Council
• International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS)

• American Chemical Society
• American Institute of Physics
• American Physical Society
• Australian Institute of Physics
• European Physical Society

American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research

• American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
• American Institute of Biological Sciences.
• American Society for Microbiology
• Australian Coral Reef Society
• Institute of Biology (UK)
• Society of American Foresters
• The Wildlife Society (international)

• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Preventive Medicine
• American Medical Association
• American Public Health Association
• Australian Medical Association
• World Federation of Public Health Associations
• World Health Organization

• American Astronomical Society
• American Statistical Association
• The Institution of Engineers Australia
• International Association for Great Lakes Research
• Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
• The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)

Non-committal

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of Australia

Dissenting

NONE
​

Among ALL of these major scientific bodies, they represent tens of thousands of scientists. NOT ONE major science body rejects the science. Even the Petroleum instituted backed off in 2007. So, if you want to hedge over "is it 97%?", "is it 95%?", "is it 99%?" (a recent review of >60,000 articles indicates the number is 99.7%), go ahead, but that is immaterial to the fact that there is a very clear consensus.

 

[Lone Clone]

You can find several peer-reviewed publications on this via Google. At least one source reviews and ranks over 1200 publications from actively publishing climatologists.

Here is Nasa's take:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
​

I don't know about the rest of them, but the Oreskes piece has long been discredited. I would guess the rest of them are of the same ilk. The AGW fanatics portray the consensus as being on the more extreme predictions, when in fact, it's on the most general. That is, 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing and human activity has something to do with it.

A far, far cry from 97% of scientsts endorsing the doomsday scenario.

Moreover, just about every time you see the claim, it can be traced back to a one-page statement by Oreskes in Science magazine.

 

[Joes Place]

I don't know about the rest of them, but the Oreskes piece has long been discredited. I would guess the rest of them are of the same ilk. The AGW fanatics portray the consensus as being on the more extreme predictions, when in fact, it's on the most general. That is, 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing and human activity has something to do with it.

A far, far cry from 97% of scientsts endorsing the doomsday scenario.

Moreover, just about every time you see the claim, it can be traced back to a one-page statement by Oreskes in Science magazine.

I've never stated "97% endorse the doomsday scenario". No credible scientific journal supports that.
It is simply a Straw Man and Unachievable Expectations argument flaw that people like yourself use to justify inaction.

97% believe humans ARE the cause of current warming, because there is simply no other physical mechanism which can match the data. Hell, you just posted in the sunspots thread where there's a pic showing solar activity as fairly flat for the past 70 years - a time when global temperatures have been rapidly increasing. Do you understand the fallacies in your own head here?

 

[Joes Place]

I don't know about the rest of them, but the Oreskes piece has long been discredited. I would guess the rest of them are of the same ilk. The AGW fanatics portray the consensus as being on the more extreme predictions, when in fact, it's on the most general. That is, 97% of scientists believe the climate is changing and human activity has something to do with it.

A far, far cry from 97% of scientsts endorsing the doomsday scenario.

Moreover, just about every time you see the claim, it can be traced back to a one-page statement by Oreskes in Science magazine.

The 97 Percent Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Wrong—It’s Even Higher

That’s according to James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, who reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles on climate change published between 2013 and 2014.

Powell identified 69,406 authors named in the articles, four of which rejected climate change as being caused by human emissions.

That’s one in every 17,352 scientists. Oliver would need a much bigger studio to statistically represent that disparity.

“The 97 percent is wrong, period,” Powell said. “Look at it this way: If someone says that 97 percent of publishing climate scientists accept anthropogenic [human-caused] global warming, your natural inference is that 3 percent reject it. But I found only 0.006 percent who reject it. That is a difference of 500 times.”

“Publishing scientists are virtually unanimous: Anthropogenic global warming is true,” Powell said. The quicker we understand that, he said, the quicker we can agree on the importance of cutting carbon emissions, which influence global temperatures, sea-level rise, long-term health, and the world’s food supply.
​

http://news.yahoo.com/97-percent-scientific-consensus-climate-change-wrong-much-211621750.html

 

[WORTHYWISH]

And here are most of the major scientific organizations and National Academies' positions (note that as of when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change)


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

This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.

Concurring

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
  
  
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

• United States National Research Council

• Royal Society of New Zealand
  
  
• The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

International science academies

• African Academy of Sciences
  European Academy of Sciences and Arts
• European Science Foundation
• InterAcademy Council
• International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS)

• American Chemical Society
• American Institute of Physics
• American Physical Society
• Australian Institute of Physics
• European Physical Society

American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research

• American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
• American Institute of Biological Sciences.
• American Society for Microbiology
• Australian Coral Reef Society
• Institute of Biology (UK)
• Society of American Foresters
• The Wildlife Society (international)

• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Preventive Medicine
• American Medical Association
• American Public Health Association
• Australian Medical Association
• World Federation of Public Health Associations
• World Health Organization

• American Astronomical Society
• American Statistical Association
• The Institution of Engineers Australia
• International Association for Great Lakes Research
• Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
• The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)

Non-committal

American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of Australia

Dissenting

NONE
​

Among ALL of these major scientific bodies, they represent tens of thousands of scientists. NOT ONE major science body rejects the science. Even the Petroleum instituted backed off in 2007. So, if you want to hedge over "is it 97%?", "is it 95%?", "is it 99%?" (a recent review of >60,000 articles indicates the number is 99.7%), go ahead, but that is immaterial to the fact that there is a very clear consensus.

So it's not 97% of climatologists, it's so-called 97% of institutions. Apparently, the anthropogenic global warming cult can't make up their minds. Tell me, did the Maunder Minimum occur or not? How about the medieval warm period?

 

[waterboy4582]

So it's not 97% of climatologists, it's so-called 97% of institutions. Apparently, the anthropogenic global warming cult can't make up their minds. Tell me, did the Maunder Minimum occur or not? How about the medieval warm period?

Why are you egging this guy on? He is a car salesman's dream.

 

[Joes Place]

So it's not 97% of climatologists, it's so-called 97% of institutions.

It's BOTH.

Tell me, did the Maunder Minimum occur or not? How about the medieval warm period?

What does this have to do with your "97%" argument? This is known as a Gish Gallop.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

 

[Joes Place]

Why are you egging this guy on? He is a car salesman's dream.

LOL....no...I am a car salesman's worst nightmare.

Which is how I got my red Mini Cooper JCW for about $5000 under book. (AND it had the extended bumper-to-bumper service warranty on it - 3 extra years of absolutely free service, which they were not aware came with the vehicle). How? I do my research better than they do....

 

[WORTHYWISH]

 

[waterboy4582]

LOL....no...I am a car salesman's worst nightmare.

Which is how I got my red Mini Cooper JCW for about $5000 under book. (AND it had the extended bumper-to-bumper service warranty on it - 3 extra years of absolutely free service, which they were not aware came with the vehicle). How? I do my research better than they do....

228 hp turbo engine? I would have figured you for an electric golf cart guy.

 

[rocketclone]

LOL....no...I am a car salesman's worst nightmare.

Which is how I got my red Mini Cooper JCW for about $5000 under book. (AND it had the extended bumper-to-bumper service warranty on it - 3 extra years of absolutely free service, which they were not aware came with the vehicle). How? I do my research better than they do....

You didn't break your arm, did you?

 

[Lone Clone]

I've never stated "97% endorse the doomsday scenario". No credible scientific journal supports that.
It is simply a Straw Man and Unachievable Expectations argument flaw that people like yourself use to justify inaction.

97% believe humans ARE the cause of current warming, because there is simply no other physical mechanism which can match the data. Hell, you just posted in the sunspots thread where there's a pic showing solar activity as fairly flat for the past 70 years - a time when global temperatures have been rapidly increasing. Do you understand the fallacies in your own head here?

Nice try.

When alarmists say 97% of scientists agree, they don't mean that the agreement is limited to the fact that the climate is changing and man may have something to do with it. They cite that bogus figure to bolster their doomsday agenda. There's no purpose otherwise. Hell, I think most of the skeptics would sign on to that. I certainly would.