Sorry, but I cried wolf on climate change

I'm not worried. AOC has a plan and it's super awesome. Even more super awesome than the unicorn dust that powers it.

 

Show me a survey where they actually polled scientists and they got a 97% consensus.

By the way, where is this survey of every respected scientist in the word who is not bought by big oil?

 

Try watching a real news channel or reading real newspapers and stop being totally misinformed for crying out loud.
QZ.com › the-3-of-scientific-pa...
Web results
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz
Sep 5, 2017 · But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the ...



NASA (.gov) › climate › scienti...
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Multiple studies published in peer- reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate ...

NASA (.gov) › climate › faq › do-s...
Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that

 

Aren't the key words to the "consensus" of scientists that they are "actively publishing"? What if the scientists who show different results can't get published by the system? Shutting people up with cancel culture is a reality today. You will believe what they want you to believe, and they are not going to allow any possible discussion or debate. Since when does science shut out open debate?

 

Have you noticed what all of these have in common? They have not actually asked a large sample of scientists about their beliefs. They got their conclusions through analysis of scientific papers.. Do you know why they did it without actually asking scientists a direct question? Because they would not have gotten the answer they wanted.

There was a survey of AMS members. You can read the whole report, but this part is significant.

" A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of
the changes in the climate over the past 50 years. Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or
entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human
activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity
and natural events; and 7% think the change is caused mostly by natural events. Conversely, 5%
think the change is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know, and 1%
think climate change isn’t happening. "
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ological_Society_Members_about_Climate_Change

Let me see you get 97% out of that. Yes man affects the weather. You would have to be extremely stupid to believe otherwise. The question is how much, what can be done about it and our ability to forecast it.

 

Too bad you have no evidence for this cancel culture, just the old GOP brainwash. The problem with shutting people up is no problem when they are just babbling ridiculous phony scandals conspiracy theories and misinformation.

 

There should always be room in science for counter arguments.

 

Cogent argument...

 

Garbage. Challenging politically correct accepted wisdom gets you unpublished, especially in politically tainted fields like economics, anthropology, psychology and climatology.

In the fields identified above, and others, it would guarantee him professional obscurity and failure.

Again, you just made that up. My statement was specifically about climate science, and anyone familiar with the field knows that virtually every paper must genuflect to CO2 AGW theory or be rejected.

 

Huh, had no idea that AOC was a climate denier....

 

During the Dinosaurs CO2 levels were 1400ppm this is why C4 plants grow so well under 1400ppm a genetic legacy.

But during the dinosaurs the sun was cooler, it's getting hotter over time and expanding.

In a billion years from now the earth will be inside the Corona of the sun, planet will have suffered carbon death long before that.

But that's proper global warming lol.

The world isn't going to end and 3-5000 years after we stop pumping out CO2 levels will drop to pre industrial levels as the CO2 is locked into the rocks.

The sea is a temporary store at best but the acidfication of the oceans due to CO2 is unlikely to be a major issue because it wasn't in the past.

The worse extinction event this planet has seen that we conclusively can prove was the great oxygenation event, oxygen the poison at the time almost wiped everything out but without it complex life could never have formed.

 

There are three basic problems with using published articles as a basis for a study.

1) There is no reason to believe the published articles are a representation of the group. As mentioned before, those who have doubts may not be represented because they are not allowed to publish.

2) Their articles may or may not be included in the sample. It is not an automatic process. Someone is screening the articles and decided which ones to include.

3) The person writing the article is judging whether the person who wrote the article is pro or anti AGW. There have been cases where the author disagreed with their judgement.

If you want to know which scientists are pro or anti AGW, you should simply ask them.

 

Critical theory has replaced critical thinking in STEM subjects, and that is a dangerous erosion of our ability to find the truth. There is no better current example than Climate Change.

With critical thinking, all possible theories and studies see the light of day and are open for review and discussion.

With critical theory, the point is just criticism of any view which disagrees with the priority of political manipulators. Dissenters are criticized, constantly, into silence.

 

Many published and recognized climate scientists have spoken out against the climatology cancel culture, including Judith Curry, Craig Idsoe, etc. But few who have seen it in action are courageous enough to take a public stand against it because they know their careers and livelihoods are on the line.

And you get to decide which ones those are, right?

 

Wonderful. You make a foolish statement about AGW, so you try to hide it by shifting the conversation to economics, anthropology,... Another tactic you will invariably see in science denial. The next one is when you throw your hands up in the air in desperation and say "the heck with it!" and start attacking science and the scientific method itself. As I said before, in over 20 years of debating this, I have seen them all.

Look. Your conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You live in a fantasy world. If you lived in reality you would know that there are about 10 thousand peer-reviewed publications in the world. The large majority of them publish in many fields. All of them have an editor who, in most cases, is not a climatologist and has not interest in political correctness. The one and only thing in their mind is not undermining their publication. Why would a physicist (for example) who is editor of one of these publications risk losing credibility, the prestige of their publication and, more than likely, their job.... out of "political correctness"?

On the other hand, all of them would love to be the editors of the publication that "poked a hole" in the AGW consensus. The physicist in our example has not "skin in the game" as to whether or not AGW is real. He does have skin in the game as to whether or not his publication makes money.

At the barest of all bare minimums, one of them would have produced a "scandal". Of, for example, a study that was refused publication, but nobody could point to any specific methodological errors or errors in the data. And BTW this, of course, is where you start attacking the data.... save it!

Pseudoscience ALWAYS requires a wild conspiracy theory. "NASA is trying to hide the fact that we didn't go to the moon" or "UFOs are real but the government hides it" or "psychic powers are real but the military keeps it secret so they can use them as a weapon"... Your conspiracy theory is no different.

 

Yes, climate indisputably changes, so any scientific paper that denies that is going to be flawed.

... scientists agree that climate changes. Or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Or that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. Or that human CO2 emissions have had a warming effect. What they do NOT agree on is the CO2 AGW hypothesis: that MOST of the warming observed in the 20th century was caused by increased CO2, and that additional increases in CO2 in the 21st century will cause additional warming similar to -- or even exceeding -- that observed in the 20th century.

As above.

 

I agree, completely, that the issue needs to be depoliticized. It's crazy that ALL issues, it seems, become polarizing between Dems and Reps in the US. How can it be possible that a scientific issue be supported by one and completely dismissed by the other? What does climate have to do with politics?

 

Why should we believe anything you say, when you keep exaggerating?

 

Excellent post.

Sadly, this is exacly the kind of material newspapers and periodicals used to thrive on. It was what made them interesting, distinctive, and made their reputations, their money, their prestige, and won them awards.

 

Everything these days. Politics trumps real scientific argument.

 

Those are the strangest comments I've ever read in a science-oriented forum: Abandon universally accepted practice and get yourself on a list.

That's just bizarre.

 

Not in my house it doesn't.

 

The tremendous extent in which AGWers have gone to refute simple facts and hide in a fog of often unintelligible hoo-de-hoo obviously belies the scam they are promoting.

 

Just show me where I am wrong. The theatrics add nothing.

 

Is that like "can you find where did I hid my comic book?"

I don't care. You are wrong. Period.

Theatrics? LOL. That's a new one.