Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[Catoni]

4 hours ago, honu said:

Climate scientists believe that carbon dioxide moderates climate, particularly global temperatures, and that carefully observed trends in both rising are tightly linked. 

 

But barstool philosophers don't necessarily accept that, based on their own intuition.  I'm not so worried about guys who are drunk at lunch time spouting deep wisdom, framed with catchy intros like "and let me tell you one more thing buddy...," but when national leaders get in on using intuition and poor reason to make national policy decisions there's a problem.  About half of all Americans don't believe climate change will affect them, per polling this year:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17173166/climate-change-perception-gallup-poll-politics-psychology

 

More people than ever before had their homes destroyed by hurricanes related to climate change, or in wildfires related to droughts related to climate change.  It's well summarized in this quote from that article, tied to reference sources cited there:

 

Extreme weather events — like wildfires and hurricanes — are also becoming more extreme. These changes are consistent with a warming world, scientists say. That sort of makes sense: though the Gallup poll found that while only 64 percent of Americans think that global warming is caused by human activities, 97 percent of climate scientists believe that.

  Wrong.  Global Accumated Cyclone Energy has been dropping since about 1994.  

 

 

How does one determine that an individual Hurricane or Typhoon is a result of climate change?  

 

      What caused all the hurricanes during the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's, 1800's that wiped out fleets of Spanish Armadas and destroyed Spanish cities in the Carribean ? ?  

 

    The 1900 Galveston hurricane was the deadliest hurricane in the history of the United States.  What caused that ? ? 

 

   The only thing becoming more extreme are Hollywood disaster movies and propaganda flicks by leftist alarmist activists with a politico-economic agenda to push. 

 

  And as far as national leaders go..I'd rather have them making policy decisions than Internationalists and U.N busybodies making policy decisions for me.  At least citizens can vote national leaders out in a democratic country.  

Internationalists and U.N bueaucrats were not elected by anyone that I know of. I never voted for 'em. 

[MRToMRT]

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

 

 

  And as far as national leaders go..I'd rather have them making policy decisions than Internationalists and U.N busybodies making policy decisions for me.  At least citizens can vote national leaders out in a democratic country.  

Internationalists and U.N bueaucrats were not elected by anyone that I know of. I never voted for 'em. 

 

You do realize (?) that the "experts" on the panel are not UN peops they are from the member states and specialist organizations such as universities and research orgs. 

I have no issues about UN bashing but I strongly believe that if my car has problems I am going to take it to someone who knows about cars, not a butcher, baker or council man. And they seem to have done that.

[attrayant]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If carbon dioxide were a poison like Arsenic, for example, then an increase from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million, which represents an increase of 0.012% of the total volume of the atmosphere, would not be trivial or insignificant, regarding human health.  However, CO2 is the opposite of a poison. It's essential for all life. Using Vitamin C as an analogy might be more relevant.

 

Here's a demonstration showing what an increase from 280 to 390 and then 560 ppm CO₂ would look like if we could see it like thermal IR can.

 

As for vitamin C being the "opposite of a poison", try your analogy with vitamin D3 (which is also essential) and let me know what happens.  CO₂, while beneficial in some respects, can certainly be detrimental in others.  The term "poison" is unhelpful in this example.

 

 

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, a minimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is essential for plant survival, but adding more than the minimum amount allows plants, and therefore animal life, to flourish.

 

What good is plants flourishing if a third of the world's coastal population and property has drowned, and farm lands have become either so parched or water-logged that nothing will grow?  I hear that Greenland is projected to become balmy in a hundred years or so, but nobody lives there so what good does it do us?

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Here's a demonstration showing what an increase from 280 to 390 and then 560 ppm CO₂ would look like if we could see it like thermal IR can.

 

As for vitamin C being the "opposite of a poison", try your analogy with vitamin D3 (which is also essential) and let me know what happens.  CO₂, while beneficial in some respects, can certainly be detrimental in others.  The term "poison" is unhelpful in this example.

 

 

 

What good is plants flourishing if a third of the world's coastal population and property has drowned, and farm lands have become either so parched or water-logged that nothing will grow?  I hear that Greenland is projected to become balmy in a hundred years or so, but nobody lives there so what good does it do us?

We always see the results of the “studies”, but we never seem to see the methodology or the data.

 

I will concede that 97% of the Climatologists that get funding from the government agree, what surprises me is that there are 3% that do not.

 

I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

 

I think these are very basic questions that should be answered before the survey should be assumed credible.

 

Do you agree?

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

We always see the results of the “studies”, but we never seem to see the methodology or the data.

 

I will concede that 97% of the Climatologists that get funding from the government agree, what surprises me is that there are 3% that do not.

 

I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

 

I think these are very basic questions that should be answered before the survey should be assumed credible.

 

Do you agree?

 

Did you mean to quote me?  Because you don't seem to be responding to anything I've said.  And what survey?  I didn't say anything about a survey.

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Did you mean to quote me?  Because you don't seem to be responding to anything I've said.  And what survey?  I didn't say anything about a survey.

 

 

 

Sorry, I did not intend to quote you, but perhaps you know. I am concerned about the lack of data and methodology included in all the studies we see on these threads. My question now is in regard to the study claiming 97% of climatologists agree on the status of climate change.

 

I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

7. Specifically what questions were asked that they all seem to agree on.

 

I think these are very basic questions that should be answered before the survey can be assumed credible.

 

Do you agree, and if so, do you have any idea where this information is available? I hear the 97% quote all the time, but I have no idea where it comes from.

 

Thanks

 

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, MRToMRT said:

 

You do realize (?) that the "experts" on the panel are not UN peops they are from the member states and specialist organizations such as universities and research orgs. 

I have no issues about UN bashing but I strongly believe that if my car has problems I am going to take it to someone who knows about cars, not a butcher, baker or council man. And they seem to have done that.

Good luck with that. In my home country, (Canada) the CBC Fifth Estate did an in depth study of car dealerships and repair shops and found a lot of them ripping people off with unnecessary repairs to pad their botton line. 

     You also get to choose another car shop if you’re unhappy with the first one you go to.

      But we’re stuck with just one U.N.  packed full of unelected bureaucrats, many of them from tinpot dictatorships and they even appoint the greatest human rights abusers to the Human Rights Council to condemn Israel. 

    If I don’t like the U.N., I don’t get to go to another one like going to a different car repair shop. 

   Remember, the Global Warming U.N.  committee the I.P.C.C is a governmental organization, not a scientific organization. They are paid to find that a tiny bit of nice warming over the past 140 years following the L.I.A. is a disaster. 

      They are paid to find a problem. How would the I.P.C.C. and all their employees stay in business and keep enjoying all their perks and luxury champagne and caviar meetings at COP conferences in exotic world locations if they find there is no problem?  The reward of finding there really is no problem is to have your funding slashed, employees out of a job and your organization shut down

    What a joke ! ! 

[Catoni]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Sorry, I did not intend to quote you, but perhaps you know. I am concerned about the lack of data and methodology included in all the studies we see on these threads. My question now is in regard to the study claiming 97% of climatologists agree on the status of climate change.

 

I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

7. Specifically what questions were asked that they all seem to agree on.

 

I think these are very basic questions that should be answered before the survey can be assumed credible.

 

Do you agree, and if so, do you have any idea where this information is available? I hear the 97% quote all the time, but I have no idea where it comes from.

 

Thanks

 

I totally agree with you. Your questions are perfectly reasonable. And I bet all the answers are out there. Especially what exactly is it that these scientists agree on ???

   

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, Catoni said:

[W]hat exactly is it that these scientists agree on ???

   

 

If you don't know that, they you are arguing from ignorance.  Here is what they agree on:
 

1. CO₂ is one of the primary drivers of global warming.
2. There is evidence that CO₂ has driven global warming in the past.
3. There is evidence that CO₂ is driving global warming in the present.

 

This evidence is laid out in great detail in research papers conducted by institutions (both governmental and non).  If you disagree with the evidence, simply:
 

1. Point out where it's wrong and why.
2. Come up with a better hypothesis that has supporting evidence at least as good as what we have now. 
3. Submit your research and grin proudly as a planet full of geologists, physicists, oceanographers, dendrochronologists and all the other branches of science that comprise the foundations of climate change are dumbfounded and unable to shoot holes in your work.

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

If you don't know that, they you are arguing from ignorance.  Here is what they agree on:
 

1. CO₂ is one of the primary drivers of global warming.
2. There is evidence that CO₂ has driven global warming in the past.
3. There is evidence that CO₂ is driving global warming in the present.

 

This evidence is laid out in great detail in research papers conducted by institutions (both governmental and non).  If you disagree with the evidence, simply:
 

1. Point out where it's wrong and why.
2. Come up with a better hypothesis that has supporting evidence at least as good as what we have now. 
3. Submit your research and grin proudly as a planet full of geologists, physicists, oceanographers, dendrochronologists and all the other branches of science that comprise the foundations of climate change are dumbfounded and unable to shoot holes in your work.

I am arguing from ignorance, that's why I am trying to educate myself. Do you have a link to the actual survey questions or answers to any of the other questions I asked? I would rather not just blindly accept the results of a survey without the general information required to substantiate it.

 

Again, I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

7. Specifically what questions were asked that they all seem to agree on.

 

Do you have any idea where I can find the survey and answers to the corresponding questions?

 

Thanks again.

 

[lungbing]

They all agree that their cosy jobs depends on them shouting "climate change, climate change"  loudly and often.

[attrayant]

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

My question now is in regard to the study claiming 97% of climatologists agree on the status of climate change.

 

You didn't provide a link to the study in question, so I will have to assume you mean this one: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (2013). From the abstract:

 

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

[snip]

 

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

 

What do scientists do when they want to know how sound a study was?  They try to reproduce it.  There has been a follow-up study to determine if the findings of the 2013 study were accurate: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016). Abstract:

 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.

 

[snip]

 

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 

The only objection I could find was from non-experts (some of who were scientists, but had no relevent expertise in any of the fields that underlie climate science).

 

I'll respond to your list in another post.

 

[fanjita]

I'm constantly sweating from all this global warming.  It needs to stop.  I've told my wife that toast and Marmite isn't necessary now as we're burning fossil fuels for a simple breakfast.  

 

Anyway, our flights don't count as we need to come on holiday.  

[mogandave]

 
You didn't provide a link to the study in question, so I will have to assume you mean this one: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (2013). From the abstract:
 

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

[snip]

 

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

 
What do scientists do when they want to know how sound a study was?  They try to reproduce it.  There has been a follow-up study to determine if the findings of the 2013 study were accurate: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016). Abstract:
 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.

 

[snip]

 

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 
The only objection I could find was from non-experts (some of who were scientists, but had no relevent expertise in any of the fields that underlie climate science).
 
I'll respond to your list in another post.
 

Thanks, I’ll watch for it.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

I still have not seen anywhere:

1. Credentials required to be considered a Climatologist.

 

Climate research teams are usually composed of scientific expertise from many fields such as geophysics, oceanography, ice core geology, dendrochronology, computer science (for modeling) and so on.  A mathematician is also usually included if statistical analysis is to be part of the study.  A university research department would probably consider a masters or PhD professor in any of these fields to have sufficient credentials to participate in the study of climate science.  If I were funding a climate study, I would want the team to be composed of as many of these experts as I could afford to fund.  

 

I don't think you'll see job openings for "climate scientist", rather there will be postings for the specialized fields I've listed above or a statement like "Ph.D. degree related to climate change research".  And, as expected, a search for "climate scientists" returns results that are all over the place.  Click on any of them and you'll see the skills the employer expects you to have, listed on the right side.

 

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

2. List of the Climatologists that participated in the survey.

 

Studies are listed in the link in the previous post (the 2013 study).  It's almost twelve thousand lines of data, so I'm not sure what you're going to do with that.

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

3. What organizations fund the individual Climatologists surveyed.

 

For what reason?  Scientists and researchers are supposed to declare any conflicts of interest in their reports.  Getting caught "on the take" could be disastrous for a scientist's career, so I don't see why they would take such a risk.  Are you suggesting that getting paid for doing your job is corruption?  Can we apply that standard to any job?

 

If we were talking about a handful of studies, that might be a concern.  That's why I always frown when somebody cites ONE study that makes some outrageous claim, with no others to back it up.  But we're talking about almost twelve thousand studies from all over the world, many funded by university research departments.  They are not exactly known for swimming in cash.

 

If you are suggesting that twelve thousand different research teams were all on the take and their results all ended up amazingly pointing to the same conclusions, and that happened all independently of each other, and at all different times throughout history, then you're verging into conspiracy theory land because the chances of that happening (and that nobody has come forward to spill the beans) are so small as to make no odds.

 

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

4. Specifically what each Climatologist is receiving funding to prove.

 

This sounds like a continuation of #3, but I'll address it separately.  Science is not done that way.  Scientists who start with an assumed conclusion and then work backwards looking for the evidence to support it are accused of going on "fishing expeditions" or "torturing the data".   Again, not good for your reputation to publish a paper like that.

 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

5. What organization complemented the survey of Climatologists, and how they are funded.

 

It sounds like you're asking where the PI worked when they did the study.  Check the links to the studies in my previous post; it's all there.  The first (2013) was University of Queensland.

 

 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

 

This funding angle really seems to be important to you.  Universities are often funded by their own research councils.  They don't tell scientists what to research, rather the PI makes a pitch to the research council about what she wants to study, and the council decides whether or not to fund it.

 

All of this is beside the point, anyway, because funding sources don't necessarily negate the findings of research.  Look at the data and evidence and see if you ("you" being another scientists or research team) can shoot holes in it.  If the findings are valid, they'll be valid no matter where the funding came from.  If they're flimsy and unsupported by the evidence, they'll be easily exposed by your rivals.

 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

6. How the survey of Climatologists was funded.

 

Again with the funding.  Isn't this the same as #5?

 

Come on - let's talk about the evidence.  If I tell you that my research shows that nitrogen and hydrogen can, given the right conditions, combine to form ammonia, and then later you find out that my research was funded by Big Chemical Inc., does that invalidate my findings?  Of course not!  You should get busy and try to duplicate my findings to see if I'm correct.  The value of scientific research is in its reproduceability.

 

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

7. Specifically what questions were asked that they all seem to agree on.

 

In the links above.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, lungbing said:

They all agree that their cosy jobs depends on them shouting "climate change, climate change"  loudly and often.

 

Not this again.  Let me ask you something.  Do you think a geologist would make more money working for a graduate research department or for Exxon-Mobil?  

 

I am acquainted with a soil scientist who has done some climate research, and asked her about her funding and where it goes.  She said the largest grant she had ever received was for $1.1M, and that was for her and her team of four other university researchers (four different universities collaborated on the effort).  That sounds like a lot of money, but divided five ways, they each got about $220,000.  The study spanned a four year period, which meant she had about $55K to spend each year.  Not exactly a king's riches now, is it?  Wait - it gets better.

 

Her university took a big chunk of her grant for something called "facilities and administration costs".  In other words, office space, printing supplies and other bills.  After that, she had $37K per year to spend.  With that money she paid a grad student $25K* plus $10K to cover the student's tuition and ended up with about $2000 left over at the end of each year.  In the first year of the study, she bought a laptop for her grad student with that money.  In the second year she paid for the student's travel to various research sites.  The balance was used in publishing the final paper.

 

Repeat after me: scientists are not in their job for the money, because there isn't any.  Almost any scientist can make more money working in a different field.

 

*Yes, grad students often work for a pittance.  Many even work for free, just for  the experience and exposure.  If you think scientists and grad students are getting rich from research grants, you have obviously never been within spitting distance of a university research department.

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, lungbing said:

They all agree that their cosy jobs depends on them shouting "climate change, climate change"  loudly and often.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

Appeared in the Financial Post

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted.” Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the socalled experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the “97%” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … Find the deniers near you - and call them out today.” How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagogy to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, lungbing said:

They all agree that their cosy jobs depends on them shouting "climate change, climate change"  loudly and often.

   Yes.... and the fact is.... climate always changes on this planet... Sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. 

     If alarmists here really believe what they are saying, and don't like it warmer....  Then they can prove it.  They'll pack their bags and fly out of Thailand and Cambodia and move to Canada, Alaska, Norway and Sweden, north Siberia, or the islands of the Arctic. 

      I'm not going to hold my breath on that happening anytime soon. Life prefers it nice and warm.  Compare the biodiversity in the tropics to the biodiversity on Ellesmere Island and Baffin Island. 

  Where do you find the most life ? 

[Catoni]

5 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Not this again.  Let me ask you something.  Do you think a geologist would make more money working for a graduate research department or for Exxon-Mobil?  

 

I am acquainted with a soil scientist who has done some climate research, and asked her about her funding and where it goes.  She said the largest grant she had ever received was for $1.1M, and that was for her and her team of four other university researchers (four different universities collaborated on the effort).  That sounds like a lot of money, but divided five ways, they each got about $220,000.  The study spanned a four year period, which meant she had about $55K to spend each year.  Not exactly a king's riches now, is it?  Wait - it gets better.

 

Her university took a big chunk of her grant for something called "facilities and administration costs".  In other words, office space, printing supplies and other bills.  After that, she had $37K per year to spend.  With that money she paid a grad student $25K* plus $10K to cover the student's tuition and ended up with about $2000 left over at the end of each year.  In the first year of the study, she bought a laptop for her grad student with that money.  In the second year she paid for the student's travel to various research sites.  The balance was used in publishing the final paper.

 

Repeat after me: scientists are not in their job for the money, because there isn't any.  Almost any scientist can make more money working in a different field.

 

*Yes, grad students often work for a pittance.  Many even work for free, just for  the experience and exposure.  If you think scientists and grad students are getting rich from research grants, you have obviously never been within spitting distance of a university research department.

 

  Cite ? ? 

[plachon]

Good to see some cities are taking the climate change crisis and the imperative to act seriously by reducing greenhouse gas levels and putting climate change at the core of local decision making. Bristol in UK has just announced that it plans to become carbon neutral by 2030. An ambitious goal to be sure, but it will set a high bar for other cities to follow and aspire too, in making the necessary transitions:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/14/bristol-plans-to-become-carbon-neutral-by-2030

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Not this again.  Let me ask you something.  Do you think a geologist would make more money working for a graduate research department or for Exxon-Mobil?  

 

I am acquainted with a soil scientist who has done some climate research, and asked her about her funding and where it goes.  She said the largest grant she had ever received was for $1.1M, and that was for her and her team of four other university researchers (four different universities collaborated on the effort).  That sounds like a lot of money, but divided five ways, they each got about $220,000.  The study spanned a four year period, which meant she had about $55K to spend each year.  Not exactly a king's riches now, is it?  Wait - it gets better.

 

Her university took a big chunk of her grant for something called "facilities and administration costs".  In other words, office space, printing supplies and other bills.  After that, she had $37K per year to spend.  With that money she paid a grad student $25K* plus $10K to cover the student's tuition and ended up with about $2000 left over at the end of each year.  In the first year of the study, she bought a laptop for her grad student with that money.  In the second year she paid for the student's travel to various research sites.  The balance was used in publishing the final paper.

 

Repeat after me: scientists are not in their job for the money, because there isn't any.  Almost any scientist can make more money working in a different field.

 

*Yes, grad students often work for a pittance.  Many even work for free, just for  the experience and exposure.  If you think scientists and grad students are getting rich from research grants, you have obviously never been within spitting distance of a university research department.

This being only one example of the billions of dollars flowing from the climate hysteria machine. when you break it down you can make it appear a sad story. In reality however what happened there is the university got some free money (makes them happy) The scientist got to have a grad student do a study for her. The scientist got a paper published which boosts her career. (all three of these things makes the the university happy). And the greenies get another piece of paper bolstering their fear campaign and extortion. None of this would have happened if the scientist would have wanted to counter the claims of big green or if the scientist was pursing a study unrelated to warming, unless she found a different backer. Let's not forget she is merely a soil scientist who only happened to fit the role on a single occasion.

At the lower levels its not glamorous, but the machinery of fear knows how to keep rolling along. Higher up the food chain the money is more concentrated.

[BritManToo]

9 hours ago, attrayant said:

Let me ask you something.  Do you think a geologist would make more money working for a graduate research department or for Exxon-Mobil? 

She probably wasn't good enough to get a job with Exxon-Mobil.

Let's face it Climate Scientists aren't usually the cream of the scientific crop.

[HAKAPALITA]

Why do all these talking heads not Sail to their Global Meetings, that allway happen in Exotic Places with 5 star rating, no Tent n Vegan for them yappers. and they go in those nasty Jets that make the sky dirty. Never meet in a polluted China or Japan City. Trade Winds got many westerners to exotic places.

[connda]

And the global-warming scientists are caught cooking the book yet again.  (It was simply a mistake of course).
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-07/major-math-error-puts-widely-cited-global-warming-study-ice

[mauGR1]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/14/impact-crater-19-miles-wide-found-beneath-greenland-glacier#img-1

Here we got another reason why it's not really worth worrying about 1 or 2 degrees increase on temperature.

12.000 years ago, 'coincidentally' about the time of the beginning of human civilisation.

[attrayant]

8 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

  Cite ? ? 

 

She made a video last year stating these very points almost word-for-word.  I look forward to your reply telling me that she doesn't really exist.

 

 

 

[attrayant]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

the university got some free money

The scientist got to have a grad student do a study for her

The scientist got a paper published which boosts her career.

 

The same tired old shtick from you.  If you can't dispute the message, try your best to dispute the messenger.  That's really getting old, and making you look kind of silly.  I dare you to refute the actual evidence, and I don't care who pays you to do it.  

 

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

None of this would have happened if the scientist would have wanted to counter the claims of big green or if the scientist was pursing a study unrelated to warming, unless she found a different backer.

 

That's awfully presumptuous of you.  How do you know what the study was about?

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, connda said:

And the global-warming scientists are caught cooking the book yet again.  (It was simply a mistake of course).
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-07/major-math-error-puts-widely-cited-global-warming-study-ice

 

That's not cooking the books.  Scientists found, and corrected an error.  If they had not corrected this, then they'd be guilty of cooking the books.

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

She probably wasn't good enough to get a job with Exxon-Mobil.

 

Worthless speculation.

 

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Let's face it Climate Scientists aren't usually the cream of the scientific crop.

Based on what?  How many have you interviewed and assessed the credentials of.  

 

This is getting sickening - all of you.  You have absolutely nothing to say about the data and evidence, so you do your best to trash the people providing it.  Put your money where your big mouth is and show me why the evidence is wrong.  Put up or shut up.

[BritManToo]

35 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

That's not cooking the books.  Scientists found, and corrected an error.  If they had not corrected this, then they'd be guilty of cooking the books.

They didn't correct it themselves, they were entirely happy with the results.

A third party corrected it for them.

 

As I said previously, these guys are hardly the cream of the crop.

Second rate scientists, producing 3rd rate science.