Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes

[Nomad64]

If the argument was to conserve resources, or even clean the polluted rivers and streams around the world... I'd give it a thumbs up, but frankly the 'scientific' approach and the selected flawed data used to perpetuate the argument for manmade global warming is rather insulting.

I do take exception to "There are always going to be people (whether scientists, those with vested interests or just those who take a perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow) who refuse to accept mainstream views" though. When this all first started being mentioned as a concept, I looked at both sides of the argument without a view one way or the other. More recently I've read through hundreds of papers, looked at the way data is collected and analysed and listened to respected scientists from both sides.

The 'debate' has been framed as 'believers' and 'deniers', so immediately it is no longer scientific. The inference is that if you don't believe this 'mainstream' view based on the evidence presented, you're a 'denier' much in the same way as those who claim the holocaust didn't happen. It sets one side against the other, allowing one side to call the other side idiots without considering their argument.

Notice in my initial post, I didn't say whether I believed one argument or another... I just broke down the survey logically and arrived at a different conclusion to the IPCC. So far I haven't said the Earth isn't warming, nor have I said that environmental issues aren't a concern... but almost immediately I'm 'picking a fight'.... 'is the OP a climate scientist'... and the only constructive response has been anecdotal or citing an entertainer who is paid to have controversial views and wind people up.

Pretty pointless listing any evidence, mentioning Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever (or the many other qualified voices who no longer publish papers due to the bullying and bs) or showing the obvious bias in data release (or non-data release) that happens time and time again... after all, I'm no climate scientist, I'm a 'denier' (automatically presumed may I add simply for broaching a debate) and the latest... I either have a vested interest or take perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow.

Meanwhile those who haven't bothered to take more than a cursory glance at the evidence, choose strawman arguments and anecdotes... they carry on with this 'universally acknowledged' line without accepting that every survey conducted with scientists in the field completely ignore those who disagree with the prescribed 'truth' and take on the views of the minority, whilst reporting the opposite to the worlds media. All of a sudden, politicians who would usually be judged as liars before they even opened their mouths are held up as some sort of freedom fighters, hoisted onto a pedestal... again, ignoring the fact that global warming is now a business.

Science? Yeah right... science by its very nature is debating and not ignoring evidence or data. There is no debate and evidence & data is routinely ignored, so you're right... it is an assault on civil liberties, its a joke. An expensive joke, but a joke all the same. I do wish people would stop calling it climate change though. Climate change is nature itself, it has nothing to do with this pseudo-science or the fraudsters who have hijacked real science.

As for 'picking a fight'... I've better things to do with my time frankly. I revert to my last post... I shall be rather more blunt in my future approach.

This whole thread is founded on the premiss that the IPCC has somehow used a survey with dubious methodology to somehow hoodwink the governments of the world into believing that global warming is a manmade phenomenon and that urgent, expensive and unpopular measures are required to remedy it and that well funded vested interests like the coal, gas and oils industries somehow missed a trick and let them get away with it.

The opening post clearly and repeatedly states that it was the IPCC that commissioned and carried out the survey and published the report suggesting that 97% of climate change scientists support their views. They may well have done but I couldn't find any reference to it in the list (link below) of rather more heavyweight publications listed on the IPCC website. I apologise if I have missed it (I certainly don't have the advantage of having read "hundreds of papers" on the subject) and (to ensure that we are "not ignoring evidence or data") if the OP could point us all in the right direction, we can have a look at it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

However as RonW has pointed out, it may be that rather than IPCC being behind this survey, it was simply some research carried out by a Margaret Zimmerman as part of a masters thesis titled "The Consensus on the Consensus" published by the University of Chicago which has been hijacked by tabloid journalists.

"The major objective of this study is to collect and assess information about the opinions and attitudes of professionals within the field of geosciences (earth sciences) regarding global climate change, and the climate "consensus" debate, as well as to understand the rationale the participants use when forming their opinions by directly surveying a large number of earth scientists. In particular, this study endeavors improve on past survey attempts and provide a more rigorous dataset from which to draw conclusions on the global climate change debate.
Once survey data had been collected, the responses of various participant groups were analyzed and compared with other participant groups, as well as similar responses from the general U.S. public. This master’s thesis presents the results of the survey in an effort to advance the understanding of the global climate debate among scientists."

http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/paperback/product-4281091.html

As others have suggested, it looks like Ms Zimmerman's work (and that of her mentor Prof Doran) is the basis of the 97% claim (see link below). With respect to the OP, there is a world of difference between tabloid journalists using some sloppy research which may or may not suggest that 97% of north American climate change scientists agree with the IPCC's views and suggesting that the IPCC has based its case on climate change on a simple straw poll of scientists.

http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/

It would be surprising if there were not scientists who dispute all or part of the IPCC's case on climate change. I'm sure there would be plenty of funding available from those with a vested interest in keeping things as they are which ensures that IPCC reports are rigorously scrutinised and where appropriate challenged but trying to discredit the consensus that climate change is a problem caused by man on the basis set out in the opening post on thread is misconceived.

On the other hand, if the 97% consensus figure comes from the IPCC itself rather than Ms Zimmerman, doubtless we'll be hearing from the OP in characteristically "blunt" tones!

 

[dewi]

On the other hand, if the 97% consensus figure comes from the IPCC itself rather than Ms Zimmerman, doubtless we'll be hearing from the OP in characteristically "blunt" tones!

Nope. The 'poster' above is wrong. I doubt the 'poster' above is a climate scientist. The 'poster' above should do some checking, its not hard.

Has the 'poster' above asked NASA?

 

[Willcurrie]

A couple of links that may provide further insight into the 97% claims.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=D06FA0C07E6A2DEA42E60913996E4ED8.ip-10-40-2-108

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

[dewi]

A couple of links that may provide further insight into the 97% claims.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=D06FA0C07E6A2DEA42E60913996E4ED8.ip-10-40-2-108

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Oh look, John Cook who I mentioned earlier in this thread... remember, using Cook as a rebutal bit? Wondered when he'd pop up.

So now we have another source for the 97% claim (you might want to look into the John Cook claim before you start shouting about it.... involves refusal to release notes, hacking... its a riveting read) so if we now have two different sources for the same claim, doesn't that seem odd?

Could it be there are multiple sources?

Bizarrely though in all 3 cases, there is something they have in common... I can't quite put my finger on what that is just at the minute because I'm checking with NASA... but answers on a postcard to the usual address.

What could be the common factor?

 

[Willcurrie]

Sorry did I miss some shouting. I just found that the articles gave some insight into the approach used to analyse the information and create the statistics. Actually I came across one of them that linked to the other whilst looking up the flat earth society.

 

[Nomad64]

Nope. The 'poster' above is wrong. I doubt the 'poster' above is a climate scientist. The 'poster' above should do some checking, its not hard.

Has the 'poster' above asked NASA?

I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong and to do some checking but despite the very clear statements in the opening posts that it was the IPCC that were behind this survey, nothing I can find on the IPCC website supports the OP's statement that;

"It all begins with the survey that the 97% is quoted from. The IPCC decided to do a keyword search across the published scientific papers published for the 'global warming' and/or 'global climate change' to ascertain who to send a survey to, or more accurately, who should be involved in the debate. Immediately this falls into the category of selection bias, as it omits anyone in the scientific community that hasn't published a paper in a given time period with those keywords, but for the sake of moving this along, selection bias ignored. The IPCC found 6550 international international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) and asked them to respond to a survey."

By posting a link to the relevant section the OP should be able to clear things up.

Unless the OP does choose to back up his claim that it was the IPCC who came up with this "97% of scientists agree" claim it looks suspiciously like this is just a catchy statistic from half-baked masters thesis has been used at a "tabloid" level to support what has become the orthodox view on the causes for climate change. It might be the kind of statistic bandied about in semi-informed arguments in pubs or on an online forums but does anyone seriously think that it had bearing on the "grown-up" scientific debate which despite the obstacles stacked against it seems to have convinced the governments of the world that global warming is real, man made and that urgent action is required.

FWIW, I've never claimed to be a climate scientist (but I do have a sister who is ) and not quite sure what I'm supposed to be asking NASA about but anyway they've stopped replying to my emails since I asked them how the man in the John Lewis Xmas advert got to the moon!

 

[British Red]

<snip> objectively since the industrial revolution and the rapid increase in human population and consumption of the earth's resources, we have been busy fouling our own nests and while we might resent someone playing the responsible adult making us to sort our lives/world out, it needs to be done.

Indeed - so what did the conference of world leaders agree to do about

the rapid increase in human population

?

Oh yes - they didn't even discuss it.

My view says that sinceno-one will discuss that problem, attempting to change per capita emissions in a complete exercise in futility. Unless and until we are prepared to tackle population growth, we have not even begun to tackle the root problems of climate change

 

[dewi]

Sorry did I miss some shouting. I just found that the articles gave some insight into the approach used to analyse the information and create the statistics. Actually I came across one of them that linked to the other whilst looking up the flat earth society.

It's also been debunked because John Cook manipulated the data rather a lot.

Flat Earth Society is superb... now they know how to get away with an untruth. I once asked a question there about satellites and they argued quite admirably that they don't exist. Thoroughly enjoyable evening.

 

[Trig]

You mean Global warming red?. Climate change is natural, Global warming is the population related one. Not trying to pick a fight etc, but this is where people get mixed up and think Global warming deniers deny climate change.
Climate change is unavoidable, Ice ages/ Warm periods etc. Global warming related climate change is the one that should be avoided. (If it even has as big an impact as they say, but im no scientist, just a skeptic)

The whole things a bit like discussing immigration or religion. It seems to be either you agree with it, believe in it fully or else your a Racist/idiot/devil worshipper/denier.... Whatever. Stops any real discussion when you can call someone a name and cover your ears. (Again,not pointed at anyone)

What ive always wondered and whats made me skeptical over time, is why they keep using these false figures, cherry picking data out of graphs to make it look worse etc when the science is so "obviously" settled and undeniable

And as has been stated, why do we accept the science from one side of the debate, but ignore all the other science from people equally qualified?

 

[dewi]

I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong and to do some checking but despite the very clear statements in the opening posts that it was the IPCC that were behind this survey, nothing I can find on the IPCC website supports the OP's statement that;

"It all begins with the survey that the 97% is quoted from. The IPCC decided to do a keyword search across the published scientific papers published for the 'global warming' and/or 'global climate change' to ascertain who to send a survey to, or more accurately, who should be involved in the debate. Immediately this falls into the category of selection bias, as it omits anyone in the scientific community that hasn't published a paper in a given time period with those keywords, but for the sake of moving this along, selection bias ignored. The IPCC found 6550 international international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) and asked them to respond to a survey."

By posting a link to the relevant section the OP should be able to clear things up.

Unless the OP does choose to back up his claim that it was the IPCC who came up with this "97% of scientists agree" claim it looks suspiciously like this is just a catchy statistic from half-baked masters thesis has been used at a "tabloid" level to support what has become the orthodox view on the causes for climate change. It might be the kind of statistic bandied about in semi-informed arguments in pubs or on an online forums but does anyone seriously think that it had bearing on the "grown-up" scientific debate which despite the obstacles stacked against it seems to have convinced the governments of the world that global warming is real, man made and that urgent action is required.

FWIW, I've never claimed to be a climate scientist (but I do have a sister who is ) and not quite sure what I'm supposed to be asking NASA about but anyway they've stopped replying to my emails since I asked them how the man in the John Lewis Xmas advert got to the moon!

How's about you backup your claim that I'm wrong? Its not my job to research your argument against what I've said, nor add anything to what I've claimed. You can draw observations from your own opinion, but nothing you've said reduces my claim in the original post one bit. In fact, I think you might just be increasing it slowly and surely

There are 3 separate sources, all 3 of which have been debunked as fabrications, and the data questionable... but you want to focus on the one from the journalist? Not a chance sunshine... you prove me wrong.

Now your last statement explains your earlier statement about siblings... you should have lead with your sister being the climate scientist. Have a lot of respect for the majority climate scientists, not their fault others misuse their data. What field does she work in?

And the NASA comment, if you'd read the thread, you'd understand I was taking the proverbial... but then why bother reading a thread when its so much more fun to comment on... thats what I always do!

 

[dewi]

What ive always wondered and whats made me skeptical over time, is why they keep using these false figures, cherry picking data out of graphs to make it look worse etc when the science is so "obviously" settled and undeniable

Obviously? In what way has it been obviously settled and undeniable? Please explain.

 

[Trig]

hold on... im on your side

The "Obviously" was sarcastic. Why the need to use all the false figures, misconstrue data etc if the proper data shows it so clearly

 

[dewi]

hold on... im on your side

The "Obviously" was sarcastic. Why the need to use all the false figures, misconstrue data etc if the proper data shows it so clearly

I was asking your opinion. Let me restate the question another way. Why do you think it is obviously settled and undeniable? What clear information has been given to the general public to support the argument?

Blimey its hard to have a conversation like this on the internet

Edit: I've just reread what I've just put... and even that doesn't sound right... okay, another way... What evidence has been provided that would make someone think it is obviously settled and undeniable? <that works I think

 

[Trig]

The whole 97% figure that is spread around, usually as if its 97% of scientists on earth (or it comes across that way when its mentioned). Its not untill you look into,as you have done, that you realise it is far from a mass agreement amongst scientists. But is it ever pointed out on media the breakdown of figures as you did in your original post?
No, because that then weakens that figure. Its like a damn shampoo advert.... 90% of people agree that it makes your hair feel silky soft!. But when you realise they only asked 10 people, it sorta lessens the impact that studie has had. (Im not a shampoo scientist either so i dont know how many people they ask...)
But they are quite happy too have the false information spread just the same.

Im not stating they have undeniable evidence. The opposite actually. Why do they need to resort to spreading the false information to strengthen their claims, if their claim is so strong that they all agree on it in the first place. Why not just show us the data all these scientists are basing the claims on, and that should settle it, if it is so clear and undeniable (In their eyes) (Again, im no scientist, so i doubt id understand the actual data, but there are plenty of skeptical scientists out there also)

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Thats from the skepticalscience link on previous page (who are anything but) supposedly confirming the 97% as true. Hardly an unbiased scientific opinion is it.

I dont believe there is evidence provided to the public that makes it undeniable, but im pretty certain a large majority of the population believe its true, because the scientists say so.

I knew i shouldnt of responded in here, aint smart enough for the debating stuff
I feel i should also state, i am in no way against reducing emissions etc,every little helps, nor do i deny Climate Change. Nor truly do i deny Man made climate change, im just skeptical that we really have that big an impact. My opinion, im no scientist. I think Tyson furys a ****, but im no boxer either. Opinion.
Not even opinion, thats too strong. I just dont believe everything i read, thats all.
Last edit

 

[Laurentius]

I dunno, I should knowd better at my age to stay out of a thread like this, as I am not going win anything, but if you want my opinion the whole thing smacks of Dunning and Kruger, Trust me I'm a Doctor.

(incidentally you should be very wary of anybody whatever the qualification commenting about a field that is not one they have studied, I prefer to put my trust in the science that the experts in the field avow since all I can challenge is statistics, methodology and logic but not the foundations of the weather science so I am not going there because in this mild winter all I am wondering ou sont les neiges d'antan)

 

[Nomad64]

How's about you backup your claim that I'm wrong? Its not my job to research your argument against what I've said, nor add anything to what I've claimed. You can draw observations from your own opinion, but nothing you've said reduces my claim in the original post one bit. In fact, I think you might just be increasing it slowly and surely

There are 3 separate sources, all 3 of which have been debunked as fabrications, and the data questionable... but you want to focus on the one from the journalist? Not a chance sunshine... you prove me wrong.

The problem "sunshine", is that none of the sources of this "97%" figure are the one you said it was - i.e. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who are the "grown ups" in this field who publish long and detailed documents which are inevitably subject to close scrutiny by other scientists many of who are funded by organisations that would prefer that climate change was not being accelerated by human activity. So it appears that rather than the official intergovernmental body peddling some dubious research it turns out to be some random campaigners - not very convincing "mythsquashing!"

FWIW the way "grown up" debates are usually conducted is that the person putting forward a proposition such as the "IPCC decided to", the "IPCC found" etc. is expected to produce evidence to back it up rather than getting the other party to look for it. I've tried, can't find any and as Dewi can't or won't, I guess we have to put a red line through most of the opening post on this thread.

It would be a bit harsh to mark the post as a complete "fail" but a "must try harder" would be fair!

Now your last statement explains your earlier statement about siblings... you should have lead with your sister being the climate scientist. Have a lot of respect for the majority climate scientists, not their fault others misuse their data. What field does she work in?

I didn't think my post #19 was particularly cryptic and if you'd read it properly you'd have seen that she doesn't work in a "field" at all but is currently bobbing around in the middle of a large ocean measuring sea and air temperatures.

And the NASA comment, if you'd read the thread, you'd understand I was taking the proverbial... but then why bother reading a thread when its so much more fun to comment on... thats what I always do!

Thanks for the heads up! BTW I didn't really phone NASA to ask about the John Lewis "man on the moon"!

 

[dewi]

The whole 97% figure that is spread around, usually as if its 97% of scientists on earth (or it comes across that way when its mentioned). Its not untill you look into,as you have done, that you realise it is far from a mass agreement amongst scientists. But is it ever pointed out on media the breakdown of figures as you did in your original post?
No, because that then weakens that figure. Its like a damn shampoo advert.... 90% of people agree that it makes your hair feel silky soft!. But when you realise they only asked 10 people, it sorta lessens the impact that studie has had. (Im not a shampoo scientist either so i dont know how many people they ask...)
But they are quite happy too have the false information spread just the same.

Im not stating they have undeniable evidence. The opposite actually. Why do they need to resort to spreading the false information to strengthen their claims, if their claim is so strong that they all agree on it in the first place. Why not just show us the data all these scientists are basing the claims on, and that should settle it, if it is so clear and undeniable (In their eyes) (Again, im no scientist, so i doubt id understand the actual data, but there are plenty of skeptical scientists out there also)

"frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?"

Thats from the skepticalscience link on previous page (who are anything but) supposedly confirming the 97% as true. Hardly an unbiased scientific opinion is it.

I dont believe there is evidence provided to the public that makes it undeniable, but im pretty certain a large majority of the population believe its true, because the scientists say so.

I knew i shouldnt of responded in here, aint smart enough for the debating stuff
I feel i should also state, i am in no way against reducing emissions etc,every little helps, nor do i deny Climate Change. Nor truly do i deny Man made climate change, im just skeptical that we really have that big an impact. My opinion, im no scientist. I think Tyson furys a ****, but im no boxer either. Opinion.
Not even opinion, thats too strong. I just dont believe everything i read, thats all.
Last edit

You highlighted the problem... they (meaning the IPCC) reframe the argument every two minutes, switching between climate change and global warming whenever it suits, that it is a hard one to debate... even harder on the internet.

I love the quote from the skepticalscience you've found... if every geological paper did not the Earth as a spherical body orbitting the sun, they'd be laughed at quite a bit by a few communities. Perhaps the skepticalscientists should stick to the global warming debate and leave the other sciences be.

As you say though, there is no evidence for them to put forward other than to repeat the 97% mantra, which has been proven to be wrong again and again. If they'll manipulate data to try and prove 97%, what else are they manipulating or withholding?

Actually I know what they are holding back on, or at the very least, not reporting... but thats for a later post.

It would all be amusing if we weren't all paying for this global warming stuff in our bills and taxes... but more disturbing is that the real environmental problems that used to be highlighted have gone down the tube. Things with simple solutions that need a little time and money to improve the environment for everyone.

Then there is the question... if this global warming phenomenon is so obvious to science, if there is such agreement that it is man's fault, where was the agreement in Paris? There wasn't one, nothing even close to an agreement because the majority of countries around the world do not believe the science is sound, so why agree to something that will hold them back?

Now if the Paris meeting had been about pollution, especially in the rivers, there would have been no grounds for denial and something could have been done. Instead, the environment suffers while we all chase rainbows and unicorns.

 

[British Red]

One thing that has always amused me about those who vehemently defend the "scientific method" is that they accept on face value the claims made by others.

They themselves have not read the paper, repeated the experiments or validated the data.

So clearly they cannot be bothered to actually use the scientific method they simply accept on face value that others have.

They then vehemently condemn those who accept, on face value, a different viewpoint.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[Trig]

So finally we agree....i think?

And red,i hope my previous post quoting you didnt come across as wrongly as i have to dewi, if so i apologize, i meant it innocently, not pointing fingers or whatnot.

 

[dewi]

The problem "sunshine", is that none of the sources of this "97%" figure are the one you said it was - i.e. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who are the "grown ups" in this field who publish long and detailed documents which are inevitably subject to close scrutiny by other scientists many of who are funded by organisations that would prefer that climate change was not being accelerated by human activity. So it appears that rather than the official intergovernmental body peddling some dubious research it turns out to be some random campaigners - not very convincing "mythsquashing!"

FWIW the way "grown up" debates are usually conducted is that the person putting forward a proposition such as the "IPCC decided to", the "IPCC found" etc. is expected to produce evidence to back it up rather than getting the other party to look for it. I've tried, can't find any and as Dewi can't or won't, I guess we have to put a red line through most of the opening post on this thread.

It would be a bit harsh to mark the post as a complete "fail" but a "must try harder" would be fair!

Nope, not good enough. The IPCC has been brought into question over the 97% from numerous sources... I took on one survey and proved the most it could be was just over 77% using their own numbers. Regularly the IPCC will say that 97% of science agrees... the survey says otherwise... so I've proved my point. Refute it at will.

You're not an authority, nor have you offered any evidence other than anecdotal to the contrary... so to mark anything as a 'fail' would be churlish at best.

Come on buttercup... give us some evidence that refutes my analysis of the survey. Tell us how the survey comes up with a 97% agreement from all scientists. Otherwise you're taking up valuable space... its at a premium now with all this climate change you know!

I didn't think my post #19 was particularly cryptic and if you'd read it properly you'd have seen that she doesn't work in a "field" at all but is currently bobbing around in the middle of a large ocean measuring sea and air temperatures.

Did I not make it clear before with my sarcastic post? I didn't read that post, at all. I responded as most 'believers' do... wash and repeat

Thanks for the heads up! BTW I didn't really phone NASA to ask about the John Lewis "man on the moon"!

Well yeah, but the heads up wouldn't really have been necessary if you'd read the thread eh Nevermind... you can make up for it with your analysis of the survey that shines through the consensus of opinion the IPCC says it does.