Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

I only checked a couple of his examples. They were online opt in polls. Worthless.

 

The media isn't referencing this study when using the 97% figure, so lets talk about whether you are part of the 91% figure. You said that we are less than 50% of the cause of climate change. That already makes me doubt you are going to make it into the 91% group. The paper also says, "90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming." It doesn't sound like you agree with them at all.

But that was only part B. Part A was what fraction of global warming is coming from our greenhouse gasses. I'd like to hear what your guesstimate is.

Here is what the scientists thought. Only about 7% thought human contributions was less than 25% and only about 12% though it was less than 50%.

 

Once they do that, they are using selective scientists for their answers. If you are going to use a poll, you have to use everyone in the poll, not just the ones that give the answers they want.

When I went through it many years ago, there was a way to score my responses to show where I fit in. I was part of their 91%.

 

Works for me.

 

Yes, Mussolini was a leftist before he turned into a hard-right fascist.

You delcare that means fascism is left wing.

Normal people would say that your conclusion does not follow in any way from yoru premise, and that therefore your conclusion is very, very stupid.

Says the guy who basis his authoritarian political philosophy on a claim that individuals can't change their politics.

Before we go on, you'll need to demonstrate that you understand why your argument there was fallacious. Do you now understand your error, or do I need to explain it again in smaller words? As third-grader could understand it, I'm thinking that maybe you can grasp it, but I'm not certain.

Historical revisionism at that level is only works on the same logic-deficient crowd that gets suckered by right-wing authoritarian propaganda. Normal people see right through it.

We leave the wildly dishonest propaganda to your side. You need to understand that we're not like you. We won't lie for TheParty.

 

No. Normal earthlings don't use Gish Gallops, because normal Earthlings aren't that craven. Only your side is like that.

You're the one making a crazy claim, so you have to demonstrate it's correct. That's done by expalining it in your own words to show you understand it. You didn't do that. You dumped a load of links from conspiracy sites on us and declared "Debunk all of that or I win!". Nobody is every obligated to respond to such sleaze. We only need to point out the kind of sleaze that it is.

If you disagree, I can post some links and say "Refute this or I win." And by your standards, I will be correct, and posting the links will show I have won.

Let's start with the first. It ripped "hide the decline" out of context. That's lying. It lied outright in the title. Are you okay with that?

As my point is your reliance on a cherrypicking fallacy, I thank you for proving that point so conclusively. After all, you just declared that all other data is invalid groupthink.

No, I've rejected it because it has a past record of being very unreliable, having been wildly revised several times due to some glaring errors.

Your error there was assuming that the honest people are like you. You auto-reject any data that disagrees with your religion, so you assume everyone else must be equally dishonest. That's not the case. We are not like you.

Your quote there only exists in denier propaganda pieces. It comes from im Ball paraphrasing a story he heard from McIntyre, who himself was telling a tall tale about what he supposedly heard. Both of those men have very dubious reputations when it comes to the truth.

So, you pushed a faked quote there. Do you have any regrets over doing so? And if you don't, then shouldn't we assume that everything you say is just as fraudulent? After all, if you have no regrets over pushing fraud, it means you will keep pushing fraud.

Which disagrees with every other data set.

So your conclusion from your favorite data set standing alone is that all the other data is a conspiracy of groupthink. And then you claim you're not cherrypicking. And then you expect not to be laughed at for cherrypicking and lying about it.

Real science can be falsified. AGW theory can be falsified in many ways. Your conspiracy can't be falsified, because you say any data that falsifies it is part of a conspiracy. That puts your beliefs firmly in the category of pseudoscience or religion.

Because the USA _isn't_ leading the world in controlling emissions. That's just some loopy propaganda that you made up. Why did you think you wouldn't get called out on it? This isn't you cult, so you can't just make up dumb stories and expect them to be believed.

Anyways, be sure to tell us why you faked that quote. Was your dishonesty deliberate, or were you just brainlessly repeating what you were told? You'll need to address that before we can go further, because if you can't be trusted, there's no point in talking to you.

 

The denier argument here is that since we can't prove with 100.0000% certainty that some natural process which we don't know about is causing the warming, we have to assume that it is.

However, if you won't specifically name the natural process, then you're just invoking fairy magic.

So, the denier argument is that if you can't absolutely disprove that their unknown fairy magic is the cause of the warming, then you have to assume that fairy magic is the cause of the warming.

 

Show where I, specifically, did any of this.

 

Evidently you missed this:

1. As for the Angeregg study. Sigh, you copied my text before I'd finished editing it. Look at it again, and notice the part that says I've listed the total sample (including non-publishing climatologists) part that is ignored by climate alarmists. That is where the 66% came from.​

So it's 66%.

Well now you have Angeregg's study too. What it says is that it's not the 90+% consensus that alarmists have been claiming. If it's 73%, 1 in 4 don't think even so mild a statement as humans are causing AGW is true. That's a lot of scientists, certainly enough that alarmists with a shred of honesty shouldn't be claiming that AGW is beyond debate.

Look, since Trump has been in office, the USA has lead the world in reducing CO2 emissions. That's not following IPCC guidelines and socialist dicta, it's capitalist economies working the way they should. That example should tell us not to believe the alarmist hysteria is genuine or that they have any valid answers to AGW, because if they have their way, a Democrat will be president, and all of the candidates promised to quit doing fracking, the very thing that is causing lower CO2 emissions in the USA.

 

I missed this post... Not sure about CO2 mitigating run-off - you need to justify that claim.

In any case - you are on the right track - kind of - It is not that I do not think CO2 is an issue - but it is lower on my list of biggest environmental threats.

The direction with respect to CO2 should be to continue reducing - but do so in a way that does not increase the other 3 threats that rank higher.

and that is what AOC does not understand - nor did Obama - and so policy was bad. We should be building more pipelines - and source our supply accordingly something like 40% of crude into US Refineries is imported from 70 different nations. If we don't get it from Canada, or Mexico, or produce it ourselves - that means we have to buy from places like "Nigeria" - who are big polluters - thus transporting our pollution problems to other nations. - and encouraging industrialization Which is #2 on the list.

#1 threat is Ocean Pollution - its not a garbage can. heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, fertilizer/nitrogen

We don't have to wait for the Oceans to rise in 30 years - We can measure the effects right now - and increasing CO2 further is not going to fix it.

 

I looked through the Anderegg study and couldn't find a trace of this result from non-publishing climatologists. Additionally, many non-publishing climatologists may not have the level of experience of those who are actively publishing.

As I found before, its actually 78% of climate experts who agree that humans are the primary cause of this warming. But as I pointed out before, not being the primary cause isn't necessarily a sigh of relief. Even if we are only 40% of the problem, and we keep doing this for a few hundred years, this is going to cause a lot of warming. Also, many of the other 22% refused to answer or said they don't know, like in all polls, so the number of those who rejected it is definitely lower. Additionally, there are other studies with higher numbers, with the average being about 85%.

I want to keep this discussion about the science, rather than the politics. We have enough disagreement about the basic facts.

 

I'm curious how they scored your answers to get you into the 91%. So I am going to post their exact survey questions and maybe you can explain to me how this happened with your answers.

Q1. What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century
can be attributed to human-induced increases in atmospheric GHG
concentrations?

Q1b. What confidence level would you ascribe to the
anthropogenic GHG contribution being more/less than 50%?

You also said they use selective scientists. I don't know what you mean. What about their polling process is flawed?

 

Even if that statement were true, it is not relevant to the issue. It is claimed that 97% of scientists believe in AGW. That number is not limited to those who publish.

 

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider

A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

I think it has something to do with the Dunning Kruger Effect.

 

According to which study?

 

The survey is considerably longer than just those questions.

You made some statement about 90% of publishing scientists believing in AGW. This poll is about all scientists not just publishing scientists.

 

The media and the AGW advocates have repeatedly said 97% of scientists.

 

I really don't care what the media or the democrat people say. I care what the scientists say and what the studies and evidence shows. Without a study this 97% number is coming from, it means nothing.

 

I'm curious what combination of answers you have that led to the erroneous result. And even if the 90% figure is calculated wrong, you can get a pretty good idea from just the first question: What percent of the warming is from human produced greenhouse gasses. And only 7% said its 25% or less, which would be the expected number from a skeptic.

 

I did the survey many years ago. I did the survey and based on the information available at the time, I fit into their 91% group.

There is more to it than "7% said 25% or less". There is also a confidence level in their answer I could put out a whole range of answers. For example, 90% contribution with 1% confidence, 50% contribution with 20% confidence, 25% contribution with 75% confidence, etc. When dealing with statistics and probabilities, you are not limited to a single answer. There can be a variety of answers depending on your confidence level. All of them correct.

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something caused the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. You can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again and nothing we can do will matter anyway.

 

Good one...unfortunately, these deniers will never reach the “slope of enlightenment.”
They’ll never get by the first step, “admitting they have a problem.”

 

Ha ha
Totally irrelevant. Man did not and could not share earth with dinosaurs by your own admission. Move on.

 

Exactly...
Because some people are willing to tell bold faced crapolla about anything, they’re always at an advantage, like Trump. There is only one truth but they always have a plethora of lies to choose from. They never run out of garbage.