Another fun climate change thread

Well, so you know, Cyclones, Hurricanes, Typhoons ....all the same thing, just named differently in different parts of the world

Tai fung in chinese means big wind

 

A cyclone is land based and related to wind not sea water. Maybe they talk different in your country. In the USA it's not the same thing.

If all you have is semantics I think you have nothing. You are unable to answer my question. What logic is there to lie? You just shoot the messenger.

 

There has not been an increase in tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, or droughts. If all you have is denial, then you have nothing.

 

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

There are a few sites like this. The popular things sceptics say and the refute. All I know is that the refutes are more convincing to me than the sceptics. Without checking out all the source studies and papers, which I don't think many people do, you can't really have an opinion. (unless you trust scientific consensus, which I generally do)

If it's all a lie, there must be a motive for lying. What is a possible motive?

The motives for pretending it isn't happening are obvious.

 

According to your link, there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming.

And to that point:


True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
___________________________________________________

And to that point:

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . . It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."
__________________________________________________

Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Nope... it is not an accurate representation . . . "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn't even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW."
____________________________________________________

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
___________________________________________________

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."
___________________________________________________

So, you'll have to forgive me if I look at your source with a jaundiced eye.

 

Okay, but the concept of climate change is everywhere, so they're lying; what do you think a possible motive could be?

 

Yeah, climate changes all the time.

Your argument seems to be that if a lot of people hold a concept, then that concept becomes reality, and that anything contrary to the concept is a lie. But that's not how it works. You also seem to believe that if a motive for something can't be determined, then that something cannot have happened. That's a failing argument from the start.

So let's start with what you believe is a lie. Do you believe that the authors of the papers that Cook used to determine a 97% consensus are lying when they say that they were misrepresented?

 

Not just a lot of random people. But the majority of people with a scientific background in these fields. An overwhelming majority.
And being critical and skeptic isn't an issue. But people are wondering why skeptics like you and VG put more trust in the tiny minority of people in science or industry that go against it.

 

Is this the story of the majority of scientists that you are referring to?

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I assume that you are one of the people who believe that tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and droughts are increasing and getting more severe.
Pay particular attention to the bolded section.

 

So you think there is a conspiracy but you're not sure of the motive, is what you're saying

 

Could have sworn I posted this for the purpose of getting a straight answer:

"So let's start with what you believe is a lie. Do you believe that the authors of the papers that Cook used to determine a 97% consensus are lying when they say that they were misrepresented?"

 

Why are you avoiding the question. I agree with drift that the most important factor in any conspiracy is a motive. What do you think the motive is?

 

I am not going to check out that that is true any more than I am going to research every paper and article for the truth on climate change. So I'm saying I neither believe it nor disbelieve it.

Everyone can see you answering a question with a question and trying to make a big issue.

The question is: what possible motive is there for the idea of man made climate change?

Not saying there isn't one, but I can't think of it.

 

This is a classic attempt at a turnaround. Motive is not the issue here. If it were, I would be asking you what your motive is for ignoring this:

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Motive IS the issue here. Because I made the issue. You responded to something I said.

I said, okay, then it's all a big scary lie.. Why would anyone do that?

No one is turning it round except you. You're still arguing about why it's not real. For the purpose of this conversation I'm saying, okay it's not real.

Then why would anyone say it is?

 

Ok. Well, since I see no reason to conspire on such a large scale to convince the world of anthropological climate change and every reason to convince the world anthropological climate change isnt happening, I think i'll continue to trust the voluminous research which indicates anthropological climate change is real and is happening.

 

I have pointed out the inaccurate and deceptive position of the IPCC. And you come to me with your insistence that if I can't tell you why they were deceptive and inaccurate, then they weren't deceptive. Do you see how silly that is?

 

No.

And just because you say the motive is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

 

I didn't say that if you couldn't tell me why, then they weren't.

I was just wondering if you had any ideas.

Why would David Attenborough lie to me? : (

 

And here is something else for you to not believe because you don't want to:

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the --- full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report -- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate -were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism withwhich many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

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."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, in your own words, what the bolded part say? And what does it say to you that those statement were removed from the Report?