Another Democrat Big Lie: The global warming consensus

[oggbashan]

If I were you, I would go to the original source.

I did before I wrote my post. The source has the errors I mention.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I refer you to pages 31-33 and figures 12 and 19.

It is statistically impossible to reach 97% based on the flaws of the examined reports.

"Consensus means agreement on a narrow range of views about something. A “97%”
consensus that relies on a range from 5% impact to 100% is virtually meaningless for
scientific or public policy purposes. The scope is too broad. However, such statements
have a powerful psychological impact on the public, who misinterpret these ‘consensus’
statements as meaning scientists are agreed that human impact on climate is
catastrophic in nature. As this paper will show, only a very small percent of scientists, in
very narrow fields of study, hold that view. Many scientists hold the view that human
industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have beneficial impacts on earth, and little impact
on climate. "

 

[miles]

The Big Lie is falling apart right before their very eyes. Nothing they say anymore stands up to scrutiny.

Their shit stinks.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did you see the one about Jerry Brown and the huge gas leak in California?



I guess the moonbeams don't call out their leader...

 

[miles]

Did you see the one about Jerry Brown and the huge gas leak in California?



I guess the moonbeams don't call out their leader...

Gov. Moonbeam IS a gas leak.

 

[oggbashan]

I refer you to pages 31-33 and figures 12 and 19.

It is statistically impossible to reach 97% based on the flaws of the examined reports.

"Consensus means agreement on a narrow range of views about something. A “97%”
consensus that relies on a range from 5% impact to 100% is virtually meaningless for
scientific or public policy purposes. The scope is too broad. However, such statements
have a powerful psychological impact on the public, who misinterpret these ‘consensus’
statements as meaning scientists are agreed that human impact on climate is
catastrophic in nature. As this paper will show, only a very small percent of scientists, in
very narrow fields of study, hold that view. Many scientists hold the view that human
industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have beneficial impacts on earth, and little impact
on climate. "

97% can be and probably is wrong, but as I said, it was a political, not scientific statement. Whether right or wrong depends on how you present data that has significant caveats.

But the study could also be politically biased bullshit. As I said, it is possible to produce the figures quoted by asking biased questions. 1-3% of respondents depends on the size of the sample and WHO was asked WHAT.

The public debate is not about scientific truth but about political matters. The headline statements by both sides of the debate tend to be ridiculous over-estimates of the evidence.

 

[miles]

97% can be and probably is wrong, but as I said, it was a political, not scientific statement. Whether right or wrong depends on how you present data that has significant caveats.

But the study could also be politically biased bullshit. As I said, it is possible to produce the figures quoted by asking biased questions. 1-3% of respondents depends on the size of the sample and WHO was asked WHAT.

The public debate is not about scientific truth but about political matters. The headline statements by both sides of the debate tend to be ridiculous over-estimates of the evidence.

Democrats have a consistent and successful history of lying through their teeth and distorting the truth for political gain. Man made global warming is another shining example, and their constituency fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Once they have their minds made up nothing can change it. We could have sub-freezing temperatures every summer for 20 years and they would call it an anomaly. Liberals are the most narrow minded people on earth.

 

[Ishmael]

97% can be and probably is wrong, but as I said, it was a political, not scientific statement. Whether right or wrong depends on how you present data that has significant caveats.

But the study could also be politically biased bullshit. As I said, it is possible to produce the figures quoted by asking biased questions. 1-3% of respondents depends on the size of the sample and WHO was asked WHAT.

The public debate is not about scientific truth but about political matters. The headline statements by both sides of the debate tend to be ridiculous over-estimates of the evidence.

Actually Ogg, there is a debate raging within the scientific community as well. To what extent, if any, human activity has had on the warming we have seen over the past century? (We're in an inter glacial an during inter-glacials the Earth warms.) To what extent CO2 plays a role and how much. (Paleo-Earth had CO2 concentrations as high as 25%. The paleo-climatologists are still arguing over a range from 10-25%. Current CO2 levels are a meager 400 parts per million. Why wasn't runaway greenhouse warming experienced at those much high levels?) And why have the models been wrong, year after year after year?

From the political side, why are the powers that be so intent on taking control of our energy resources when there are so many important questions left unanswered?

Ishmael

 

[oggbashan]

Democrats have a consistent and successful history of lying through their teeth and distorting the truth for political gain. Man made global warming is another shining example, and their constituency fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Once they have their minds made up nothing can change it. We could have sub-freezing temperatures every summer for 20 years and they would call it an anomaly. Liberals are the most narrow minded people on earth.

You could rewrite like this, and still be as valid:

Republicans have a consistent and successful history of lying through their teeth and distorting the truth for political gain. Denying Man made global warming is another shining example, and their constituency fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Once they have their minds made up nothing can change it. We could have tropical temperatures every summer for 20 years and they would call it an anomaly. Conservatives are the most narrow minded people on earth.[/QUOTE]

That's politics. If one side has an extreme position on an issue, the other side has to go to the other extreme. The reality is lost in the abuse.

 

[Disgustipated]

Poor, poor miles. Lost the topic of his own thread and blames his life's failures on others (Dems/Libs).

 

[oggbashan]

Actually Ogg, there is a debate raging within the scientific community as well. To what extent, if any, human activity has had on the warming we have seen over the past century? (We're in an inter glacial an during inter-glacials the Earth warms.) To what extent CO2 plays a role and how much. (Paleo-Earth had CO2 concentrations as high as 25%. The paleo-climatologists are still arguing over a range from 10-25%. Current CO2 levels are a meager 400 parts per million. Why wasn't runaway greenhouse warming experienced at those much high levels?) And why have the models been wrong, year after year after year?

From the political side, why are the powers that be so intent on taking control of our energy resources when there are so many important questions left unanswered?

Ishmael

I am well aware of the scientific debate. My posts are not on the science but on the dubiousness of the headline statistics quoted.

I prefer the attitude of some scientists:

We may be wrong. If we are right and global climate change is being affected by human activity, and we do nothing we might face disaster. If we do something that reduces or stabilises the impact of human activity on the climate, we could mitigate the effects. Even if we are wrong, reducing emissions is not a bad idea because of known short-term effects such as air pollution.

But if we are right, or partly right, and do nothing, future generations could curse us for our incompetence.

To summarise: Doing nothing could have bad consequences. Doing something could be unnecessary but could help anyway.

But the decisions are made by politicians, not scientists.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

97% can be and probably is wrong, but as I said, it was a political, not scientific statement. Whether right or wrong depends on how you present data that has significant caveats.

But the study could also be politically biased bullshit. As I said, it is possible to produce the figures quoted by asking biased questions. 1-3% of respondents depends on the size of the sample and WHO was asked WHAT.

The public debate is not about scientific truth but about political matters. The headline statements by both sides of the debate tend to be ridiculous over-estimates of the evidence.

No, actually one side of the debate is an absolute. The other is made up of various schools of thought who realize that in a chaotic system, one cannot point to CO2, or any other singular cause and try to use that as the strange attractor for climate modeling.

The absolute side is thoroughly politicized while the other is based upon Science, reason and the history of movements which proclaim that they know absolute truth and that everyone else is a heretic (radical/denier/etc.).

My part in the argument is that there may be a temporary warming, but because of the warming and other natural cycles, there will then be a cooling. None of the warning projections have been proven to be true (keep in mind my last comments to you on the mathematics of economy and the futility of trying to turn it into a statistical analysis) and in the wake of these failures, we do not see a reexamination of the facts by the mythological 97%, but rather an entrenchment of position with a myriad of excuses and explanations confident that as long as they maintain the preferred political orthodoxy, that funds will continue to flow to them.

It is not even a political debate, but a diktat from the intellectual-oligarchical governing complex (to borrow from Ike) that we will believe or we will be put to the rack. Fortunately, this is not the USSR and most of us do not have to fear the rack, so we are willing to say the Emperor has no clothes.

If Russian and GW scientists are to be believed, then we actually need to be burning more, not less fossil fuels in order to save ourselves from another mini ice age, since CO2 keeps increasing, thanks to the second and third worlds, and we are not in a runaway greenhouse meltdown; we have not, nor will we, become Venus. We're too far from the sun. Take Mars, for example...

 

[Ishmael]

You could rewrite like this, and still be as valid:

Republicans have a consistent and successful history of lying through their teeth and distorting the truth for political gain. Denying Man made global warming is another shining example, and their constituency fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Once they have their minds made up nothing can change it. We could have tropical temperatures every summer for 20 years and they would call it an anomaly. Conservatives are the most narrow minded people on earth.

That's politics. If one side has an extreme position on an issue, the other side has to go to the other extreme. The reality is lost in the abuse.[/QUOTE]

Change the "Republican's" to "Politician's" and we're in agreement. If it comes from the mouth of a politician, it must be questioned.

Unfortunately the 'Climate' crowd is giving the scientific community the same attributes by stating with such positivity that the debate is over when so much is still unknown and subject to rigorous study.

The "Pro" crowd, and their models, have been consistently wrong for well over a decade now. That doesn't mean the "Anti" crowd is right, merely that the "Pro" crowd has NOT made a convincing case no matter how loudly they proclaim they have.

Ishmael

 

[oggbashan]

We have a significant example of past global warming in the UK.

About 9,000 years ago, almost yesterday in geological terms, the English Channel was flooded by rising sea water levels after the retreat of the last ice sheet. That made mainland UK into an island.

450,000 years ago the combined waters of the Seine and other rivers flowing into what is now the North Sea created a massive freshwater lake which eventually overflowed the land bridge between England and France. That overflow cut a deep channel for the river estuary. It was the rising sea flooding of that estuary that made Britain an island 9,000 years ago.

An associated event, also about 9,000 years ago, was the flooding of the inhabited area of Doggerland, now under the North Sea.

Those were significant changes and in geological terms have only just happened. Detailed scientific data about climate change is a pinprick in the time scale.

 

[oggbashan]

Change the "Republican's" to "Politician's" and we're in agreement. If it comes from the mouth of a politician, it must be questioned.

Unfortunately the 'Climate' crowd is giving the scientific community the same attributes by stating with such positivity that the debate is over when so much is still unknown and subject to rigorous study.

The "Pro" crowd, and their models, have been consistently wrong for well over a decade now. That doesn't mean the "Anti" crowd is right, merely that the "Pro" crowd has NOT made a convincing case no matter how loudly they proclaim they have.

Ishmael

Unfortunately it is politicians who have to make the decisions. They are not being well-served by the abusive scientific debate.

Locally I sometimes despair about our political decision-making. The City Council is presented with biased paperwork prepared by the Council's Officers and has to decide on the facts presented to them. It is a rare politician who will say "This isn't true" or "You haven't given us the facts, just your opinions". The Officers never get blamed for the bad decisions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In short, what you are saying is that we have a political consensus, and not a Scientific consensus, while at the same time arguing that the report of the "deniers" cannot be believed because it is politically motivated; science has nothing to do with this debate.

Isn't that pretty much what I have been saying?

You have a high religion and...



we have "heretics."

 

[oggbashan]

In short, what you are saying is that we have a political consensus, and not a Scientific consensus, while at the same time arguing that the report of the "deniers" cannot be believed because it is politically motivated; science has nothing to do with this debate.

Isn't that pretty much what I have been saying?

You have a high religion and...



we have "heretics."

No.

What I am saying is that the specific report in the original post is flawed.

I have not said that either side is 'right' just that the particular report is probably bullshit (as is the 97%).

The report can be right that the 97% is untrue while the report itself produces statistics than can also be untrue. Two lies do not make a truth.

I do not have sufficient knowledge to say that either side is right. I do have sufficent knowledge to understand that some advocates on both sides are either making unscientific and statistically unlikely statements or the reports of their statements have been simplified to such an extent as to make them useless.

 

[phrodeau]

Actually Ogg, there is a debate raging within the scientific community as well. To what extent, if any, human activity has had on the warming we have seen over the past century? (We're in an inter glacial an during inter-glacials the Earth warms.) To what extent CO2 plays a role and how much. (Paleo-Earth had CO2 concentrations as high as 25%. The paleo-climatologists are still arguing over a range from 10-25%. Current CO2 levels are a meager 400 parts per million. Why wasn't runaway greenhouse warming experienced at those much high levels?) And why have the models been wrong, year after year after year?

From the political side, why are the powers that be so intent on taking control of our energy resources when there are so many important questions left unanswered?

Ishmael

Some basic scientific research will answer your questions. Quit pretending that the answers aren't out there.

 

[miles]

In short, what you are saying is that we have a political consensus, and not a Scientific consensus,

If they say so it must be true.

 

[Que]

Some basic scientific research will answer your questions. Quit pretending that the answers aren't out there.

Googling for comfirmation bias and posting random, anectdotal, statistically meaningless data points on localized, short term weather systems and graphing them in ridicululously scaled caricatures of mathematical concepts is not "basic scientific resesrch."

 

[phrodeau]

Googling for comfirmation bias and posting random, anectdotal, statistically meaningless data points on localized, short term weather systems and graphing them in ridicululously scaled characatures of mahematical concepts is not "basic scientific resesrch."

Did you lose your library card?

While you're there, you might look in a dictionary.

 

[Hypoxia]

Weather Underground sez:

Scary Warm: Welcome to the Halloween Heat Wave of 2016

Trick-or-treaters and adult partygoers will be doing their best to keep their cool over the next several days. It’s been seasonally chilly and even snowy across parts of the Northeast, but Phoenix saw its latest-in-any-year 100°F reading on Thursday. Over much of the central and eastern U.S., temperatures will soar to unusually warm heights as we roll through All Hallows’ Eve and into the first several days of November. Temperatures on Halloween (Monday, October 31) are projected to reach the 70s from South Dakota to West Virginia and the 80s from Kansas to the Carolinas. As a very strong Pacific jet continues to pump mild air into the nation, we could see a few all-time monthly records for November threatened later next week, especially across the U.S. South. Here’s a day-by-day guide from weather.com on the warmth next week could bring.

Even more noteworthy than the degree of warmth is the lack of widespread autumn chill. For example, Minneapolis has yet to dip below 36°F as of Friday, October 28. That doesn’t look likely to happen before at least next weekend (November 5 - 6). In records going back to 1873, the latest Minneapolis has ever gone before seeing its first 35°F of the autumn is November 1, way back in 1931. The city’s latest first freeze was on Nov. 7, 1900.

Oh, those damn Democrapsters, ruining Hallowe'en for us. Unless more girls-n-guys dress in skimpy, sexy costumes, hey? Yeah, more global warming, fewer clothes! ¡Mucha ropa! Take it off!

 

[Wrong Element]

Scary Warm: Welcome to the Halloween Heat Wave of 2016 Oh, those damn Democrapsters, ruining Hallowe'en for us. Unless more girls-n-guys dress in skimpy, sexy costumes, hey? Yeah, more global warming, fewer clothes! ¡Mucha ropa! Take it off!

It's not the weather on a particular day or even a full season, it's the accumulation of evidence.

We had our first hard freeze last year pretty much on schedule, but aside from that it was unusually warm all the way through to Christmas.

 

[Christobal]

I would post but I am dead. Hurricane Mathew killed me just like all the scientists said.

Edited to add. No I got that wrong I was killed by the ice age everyone was predicting in the 1970's. Man I wish the snow would melt.

 

[RoryN]

What happened to the thread starter?