Another fun climate change thread

I'd like to field that question. It's because the answer would diminish their alarmist position.

 

For everyone:

Anthropogenic by the way doesnt m.

ean caused by humans.

Anthro comes from the greek collective noun for humans, geneic refers to generational origins of.

So, not even origins of humans, species leading up to humans.

LeConte first used it when trying to work out the speed of sound underwater and everbody has misused it since.

So when you say anthropogenic climate change you are talking about climate change caused by the monkeys that came before humans

 

I dismissed your premise entirely by stating that science wasn't a consensus, which is something you've agreed to, but seem to be reiterating.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas

CO2 increase has a strong correlation with observed temperature increases. One that doesn't exist for 'increase solar activity.'

Rising Global Temperatures and CO2

The CO2 increases have humans fingerprints on them.

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

 

Rebuttal: Words change over time and etymology is irrelevant to climate change.

Probably. There may be a slim chance that every time a word is misused an old librarian stokes coals in hell.

 

You're right. Science is not a consensus. So this whole 97% "consensus" shit is . . . a bunch of shit. I've never endorsed the concept of scientific consensus. Everyone else here seems to endorse it, except for VG.

Anyway, show me which climate scientists endorse the catastrophe scenario, or, can we dismiss that bullshit?

Remember:

None of the seven “levels of endorsement” by which Cook et al. categorize their selected abstracts provides evidence that any of the 11,944 abstracts encompasses the catastrophist definition (3):

1. “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
2. “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
3. “Implicit endorsement”
4. “No opinion, or uncertain”
5. “Implicit rejection”
6. “Explicit rejection without quantification”
7. “Explicit rejection with quantification”

 

Are you leaving catastrophe subjective? Oversimplifying it, climate scientists would predict temperature rise which would have major impact on the ecosystem, but it would be ecologists who would examine wildlife effects from predicted temperature rises, agronomists who would look at how it would effect food distribution, economists would look into the prices.

Is a 10% species death a catastrophe? 1 foot sea level rise a catastrophe? 10 trillion dollars of damage from wildfires a catastrophe?

 

Well, if everyone could at least find a word that actually means caused by humans, that would help me a lot

 

There's a 95% probability that most of the temperature warming since the mid 20th century is man made

Most is admittedly a vague term, thats from NASA and they provide links on their website with more specific figures but i'm not combing through them just to make a point on a forum

But we can safely assume most means anywhere from 51% to 99%

 

A homo happening?

 

Would predict? Have they predicted? What's the prognosis? Are you ready to quantify?

Can you think of any reason why Cook would not ask these scientists, or extrapolate from their Papers, whether or not they believe that this warming is going to be catastrophic? I can.

 

Nasa also says the average temp increase from 1880 has been 0.8C.

Worlds biomass has been increasing at a natural growth rate since life began. Flora and Fauna. Despite gloom and doom about deforestation, total vegetation has also been increasing the last couple decades.

I believe there is a certain inevibility to it. Even if there was a disease that somehow wiped out all humans, there would still be a an increase in all other living things following a natural growth pattern that looks more exponential as time goes on.

To say 99% is because of humans, I find ridiculous, even 50% too high. But 50% means the other 50% isnt us, things we cant control anyway. Even if we control our 50% just means we will still arrive at the same place, just take twice as long to get there.

100 years, instead of 50 years....in the grand scheme of things, so what

The short version: But China! ......and plankton, and countries covered in fishfarms, and free range farms

 

. . . emails between scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public . . .

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Example: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."

Say, doesn't that ring a bell?

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Read more of them here:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

 

Why do YOU think people are pretending it's true? So they believe they can change something that is actually inevitable?

I would love it if you were right. You're projecting when you make out we are so emotionally attached to this idea that we'd believe it in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.
I know what seems more likely to me, and you and VG are a lot less convincing than all the evidence you dispute.. But I'm not alarmed. What will happen, will happen.

 

I guess I'm the kind of person who finds those emails I've just provided which expose the deception on the part of climate scientists, and then Cook's misrepresentation of the scientists whose Papers he used to come up with his 97% consensus bullshit, and these omissions from the IPCC Report:

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

. . . not only unconvincing, but enough to cause me to consider the dishonest bastards to be less than deserving of my trust. But to each his own . . .

 

You must have missed this:

That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97%
We’ve already found enough flaws, but Christopher Monckton analyzes John Cook’s 97% consensus paper and sharpens the scythe. He finds:

1. It should never have been done, it’s an unscientific method — “consensus”
2. The “consensus” was defined in three different ways. (Which hypothesis are they testing?) None of the three definitions is specific enough to be falsifiable.
3. The paper strangely omitted the key results. (Why make 7 classifications, if they were not going to disclose how many papers fell into each category?)
4. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong.
5. None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.
6. The consensus (such as there is, and it being irrelevant) appears to be declining.

That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% « JoNova

And this:

And these, which are examples of what was deleted from the IPCC's Report.

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

You want to overlook the outright deception involved in the omission of these statements from the report. I'm not willing to do that.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


And this:

. . . emails between scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public . . .

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Example: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."

And then there's Cook's misclassification of the position of scientists whose Papers he used to concoct his 97% consensus bullshit.

I mean, do you just turn away from this shit, and pretend it means nothing about anything?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

As to all of the links you posted, I tried five of them before one finally took me to a site. And at that site, the WHRC Senior Scientist Dr. Jennifer Francis testified on the connection between climate change and extreme weather events to the U.S. House of Representatives. Apparently she didn't do enough research to discover that there has been no increase in tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and droughts. Why do you think she was lying? And more importantly, why do you believe her?

Why don't you click on #39 on your list, and from that site post the segment that tells you about the catastrophes that are coming?

 

This Christopher Monckton?

 

Here is another critique of Cook's 97% consensus bullshit.

Summary:

Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al. Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be discerned from the text of the paper. An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus referred to is trivial: • that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas • that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper. The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.

More here: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am out for night of cards, but will be back this weekend to compare your graphs with those of the NCEI (National Centers for Environmental Information), and determine what the bottom line is when it comes to increased floods and droughts.