31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax

What ways might that be that encompasses all the nations of the world save friggin Syria

 

Sorry...but there is a difference between 97% of all peer reviewed papers supporting AGW and an online anonymous petition that anyone can sign and claim to be anything they want

 

Autoimmune disorders aren't generally communicable.

 

In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.”
[**snip**]
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
[**snip**]
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
[**snip**]
In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the “climate cult,” publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”
Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”
The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.”
Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Many experts now predict the ongoing expansion of Arctic ice to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.

Source:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

______
Above are some of the false predictions that the Progressive 'Global Warmists' have been spewing for years only to find that their predictions have been wrong. In the real world, however, the scientific evidence continues to demolish the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. Will they now begin to tell us that Global Cooling is the next Great Fear? Oh, Yeah it's already changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. It's still a big scam on the population of the world.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for sensible and reasonable conservation and good processes.

 

I'm surprised that you even show your face on this thread after the sham that your bullshit OP was shown to be

Well...not really considering the rest of your threads

 

With 31,000 saying GW is a hoax, it sure shoots all to hell the so called consensus the the GW ding bats said they had.

BTW consensus is NOT science.

 

Sure, they believe in climate change, but I still wouldn't use them as a source to explain the science behind climate change, my choice of source would be the scientists who study our climate. Similarly, if I wanted to explain the science of gravity, I would not use Di Caprio or Gore (even though they believe in gravity), I would again prefer to source the knowledge of scientists above everyone else

Whether or not we are seeing stronger hurricanes is not in question, over the past 20 years the Atlantic has seen 10 "category 5" hurricanes, the prior 20 years to that there were only 5. The same pattern exists in the Pacific, over the past 20 years there were 10 "category 5" hurricanes, the 20 years before that there were only 3.

Meaning that over the past 20 years, the number of category 5 hurricanes has more than doubled. We're seeing a similar pattern with wild fires, which I should note means more money spent on disaster relief expenses. It's actually climate change itself that is responsible for more wealth distributions, cutting greenhouse gas emissions would mean less wealth redistribution, not more. Also, getting other countries to agree to switch to alternative energy sources would be good for our economy, as one of the things the US is best at is developing more efficient solar panels at a more affordable cost. We have the potential to be the world's main distributor for alternative energies, we don't have that same potential for fossil fuels, we've already hit Hubbert's peak in our oil reserves, and countries like India are paying their coal miners 26 cents an hour, so their coal sells far cheaper on the international market than our coal.

As for the rising ocean levels, NASA has a page dedicated to explaining the science behind these changes, I suggest reading it
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/causes/overview

The seas of the Earth are rising, a direct result of a changing climate. Ocean temperatures are increasing, leading to ocean expansion. And as ice sheets and glaciers melt, they add more water. An armada of increasingly sophisticated instruments, deployed across the oceans, on polar ice and in orbit, reveals significant changes among globally interlocking factors that are driving sea levels higher.

Yet the globally averaged trend toward rising sea levels masks deeper complexities. Regional effects cause sea levels to increase on some parts of the planet, decrease on others, and even to remain relatively flat in a few places, including, in recent decades, on the California coast. Thermal expansion of seawater can be the product of regional phenomena, such as El Niño, the periodic warming of the eastern tropical Pacific. But some of these regional cycles so far show no direct link to long-term global climate change—despite, at times, independently exerting a powerful short-term influence on global climate.

And while Greenland, Antarctica and most of the world’s glaciers are melting, a distinction must be made between glacial discharge into the oceans, a more permanent type of ice loss, and changes in the precipitation and evaporation that is feeding those glaciers and ice sheets, which fluctuate on the scale of decades.

 

You are right, there is a difference.

That difference is that the 97% figure originated in a paper by Cook, published in Environmental Research Papers, and the paper was so flawed it became a complete joke. I read the Cook paper, went through the data, and found numerous errors including many non-AGW supporting papers in peer reviewed journals that Cook somehow "overlooked", and the review was all done in this forum.

Typical of warmists, you speak without knowing what you speak about.

The petition is not anonymous. You can view all the signatories, they are listed on the web site.

You cannot sign the petition online. To sign it, you must print the petition, sign it, provide your address, university degree and field of study, then mail it to the Petition Project where it will be reviewed and verified.

Not just any person can sign the petition. Signatories to the petition are required to have formal training in the analysis of information in physical science. When your signed petition is submitted, it is reviewed and accepted or rejected based upon the signers qualifications.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

 

Actually it shows their methodology to be fatally flawed and thus their results worthless.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.

Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.

 

Crikey, you got near 30,000 scientists over there then? 30,000?? It must be costing the US taxpayers a fortune.

 

Forbes set out to debunk the 97% claim and this is what they ended up with

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

 

Evidently, the google images don't understand the difference between a box and a packet.

 

Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name.

 

So, greenhouse gasses are already trapped. The point you seem unwilling to take on is the difference in the observable temps that having our atmospheric blanket produces. As in, observable data doesn't demonstrate significant effect. When we discuss the "global temp" standard, the increases are being expressed in hundredths of a degree. So, the observation data discounts your angsty response. Lower atmospheric temperatures are supposed to be rebounding subsequent to a previous temporary glacial period. So, the appropriate response here is: who cares.

Effects we are seeing today? Laughable. What you're referring to are observations that frankly have no comparative historic counterparts. Saying that hurricanes are more powerful is disingenuous at best as N Atlantic hurricanes are both less frequent than historical observation, and comparatively they haven't eclipsed the historic recorded values of previous landfalling hurricanes. The problem with the 80% that wasn't evidently adequately addressed is that your assertion is that they are somehow more damaging, or more extreme which frankly is a subjective unmeasurable standard and not a scientific one, so why bother addressing these baseless assertions at all? About the only reasonable thing you actually wrote was your admission that "estimation may differ". Yup. Bingo. I remember seeing folks suggest that the UK would never see snow again in anyone's lifetime. This assertion was an "estimate" that turned out to be laughable wrong, huh? So, how do you suppose that given the growing number of these now observation driven debunks of previous hysterical prognostication that the reality will overcome the breathless hyperventilation we see, like "worse, more extreme, blah blah blah.. in describing the future concerns of the effects of climate change?

More though, we simply have better tools that allow us to view the natural world around us in more detail. That detailed look, however, doesn't imply that our now better information means that somehow past events were never this disastrous for example. The fact that we've seen super typhoons in the Pacific and have now measured or estimated measurement of exceptionally low barometric pressures and wind speed wasn't available 50 years ago. So, just because we have "new" data, doesn't mean that it is unique data, does it?

 

Killing the coal industry, making coal-fired power plants go bankrupt, regulating CO2 emissions of every business and person, instituting unrealizable CAFE standards on automobile manufacturers (54MPG fleet average in 8 years), etc.were Obama's objectives to combat global warming and to help his objective to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." The basic actions of his transformation was redistribution of wealth in the United States to make everyone more equal in outcome, and to bring America down a few pegs toward other countries to make amends for our "ill-gotten" successes. Our sending $100 to $300 billion a year out of our economy to satisfy our Paris commitments is certain not to help our economy.

 

If you will actually check the data:

year major total
2010 5 12
2011 4 7
2012 2 10
2013 0 2
2014 2 6
2015 2 4
2016 4 7

This is *far* less than we had in the 90's and the 2000's. We *are* at a minimum for hurricanes even though the AGW religionists say every year that global warming is going to cause a worse hurricane season. It's kind of like the guy on the corner with the sign saying "THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW! REPENT!". Pretty soon no one even notices him.

You are repeating AGW religionists talking point lies. From the National Interagency Fire Center data for wildfires.

year number acres
2016 67,743 5,509,995
2015 68,151 10,125,149
2014 63,312 3,5995,613
2013 47,579 4,319,546
2012 67,774 9,326,238
2011 74,126 8,711,367
2010 71,971 3,422,724
2009 78,792 5,921,766
2008 78,979 5.292,468
2007 85,705 9.328,045
2006 96,385 9,873,745
2005 66,753 8,869.389
2004 64,461 8,097,880
2003 63,629 3.960,842
2002 73,457 7,164,712
2001 84,079 3,570.911
2000 92,250 7,393,493
1999 92,487 5,526,093
1998 81,043 1,329,704

Once again, we are at a low for the number of wildfires compared to the late 90's and 2000's.

Alternative energy sources will not represent more than about 25% of baseline energy load for a *long* time. Even Germany has found that out and are now building new coal-fired plants to replace the baseline load they abandoned from the nuclear facilities. Recoverable oil reserves for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar, and Venezuela have gone UP since 2000. The oil reserves for no major country has gone down since 2000. So I'm not buying that we've already hit our peak in oil reserves. And Hubbert's Peak has to do with *production* and not reserves. While production is somewhat dependent on reserves that is not the only factor affecting production. And since reserves *have gone up the Hubbert Peak probably needs to be revised. In fact US oil production has climbed since about 2005 in direct conflict with the Hubbert Peak.

This article is out of date. I also underlined a significant statement in what you quoted. El Nino and El Nina cycles don't last for decades and yet sea rise on the west coast has remained relatively flat. California is an area that doesn't depend on deep water wells to provide water for the growing population. It depends on rain and snowmelt. I've seen explanations from the AGW religionists such as "the west wind in the Pacific sucks water away from California". You must be kidding me!

When you only depend on articles from sources pushing AGW you suffer from what is called confirmation bias. You need to expand what you read.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

In any project of this size some errors will slip through the cracks. So there is, what, only 31,102 valid signatures? The warmists response is the same as always: personally attack and demean the other guys like the way Judith Curry and Lindzen are treated.

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Outstanding post. Facts and data frustrate warmists because they can't throw ad hominems at them.

 

Standard response: throw a few ad hominems against the wall and see if any stick.

 

As with any faith based process, the facts simply confound, but because the belief is faith based and not empirical faith soothes over the incongruities facts induce into the conversations.

 

My youngest son is about to get his PhD in Immunology this fall. Guess what they told him as an undergraduate and as an graduate student? "You don't need any math, you can always find a math student or grad student to do the math for you!"

Well, guess what? I told him that was a pile of hooey! And he took engineering calculus and physics and at least two courses in statistics. Now he understands how to collect statistically valid data and how to understand what it is telling him.

I'm pretty sure those getting degrees in climate science are told the same thing: "You can always find a math major and programming major to design your models for you". The problem is most math majors and programming majors simply don't know much about thermodynamics. So you wind up with a lot of assumptions that don't match the real world and errors compounding on errors.

How many *true* scientists that understand physics and thermodynamics would push a 0.1degC difference in one year as being the hottest on record when the margin of error of many of the measurement devices is +/- 1degC (or worse) and the resolution of some of them is only 0.5degC? No *reputable* scientist or engineer would accept such garbage from someone working for them. Yet we see so-called climate scientists pushing this as proof of AGW all the friggen time!

Climate is thermodynamics and physics applied to a LARGE system. Something most engineers in reputable degree courses study in detail. For instance, I was in Electrical Engineering. What use did I have for thermodynamics? That's what I thought when I took the course! And yet, when I actually started building things I found out quickly that thermodynamics was an integral part of *everything*. Even the smallest transistor generates heat, enough heat to cause an oscillator to drift. So you had to handle the thermodynamics of the circuit properly, providing isolation or cooling as needed.

I.e. the earth in minature!

How do you program a simulation of a circuit if you don't account for the thermodynamics of the circuit? Your model will *NOT* match up with the real world results. How do you program a simulation of something with a varying rate of change if you don't understand calculus? In many systems you can't just depend on feedback based on the average rate of change, i.e. the average first derivative. You also have to account for the second derivative or you wind up with lots of overshoot and undershoot. I learned that when designing a robot to navigate a maze, e.g. when turning your acceleration toward a wall can change drastically.

 

Exactly right. The nice folks at CERN are attempting to actually do this today vis a vis atmospheric dynamics. Let us hope they are able to provide better insight going forward so we don' have to constantly hear the drone of the AGW church folk.

 

You fail again.

You did not provide any link or reference to your claim, so I did my own checking. You know, google something like "global warming petition debunked", then read the articles. Something you should try.

Yes, warmists did engage in a subterfuge (lying) and added characters of MASH and Spice Girls - but since the smear attempt was revealed the petition organizers have been more careful and filtered out the MASH etc names, and are more careful about adding names.

Isn't that typical of warmists and "progressives" - instead of letting the data stand for itself, when data appears that contradicts the AGW agenda the warmists have to engage in dishonesty to get the data back on the AGW religion track. Whether its temperature data or simulation results or petitions, warmists resort to dishonesty.

The main argument from warmists now is that not all the people on the public petition web site can be traced - the web site does not provide every signers name and address and occupation. But I can understand that since warmists have already shown they will readily resort to dishonesty, violence is just a step away from that so I would be cautious about making myself a target of the environmental terrorists.

 

______
So you deny that 'Global Warmists' like Al Gore and a crowd of so called scientists and non-scientists have previously predicted that by 2015 coastal cities would be under water and there would be no ice left at the poles icecaps.

Is global warming a fallacy? 'Ice caps are actually ...
www.express.co.uk/news/science/610261/Global-warming-FAKE-Ice-caps...
Global warming 'is FAKE': Volume of ice caps ... Volume of ice caps is INCREASING, claims top geologist ... Opposing scientists claim global warming has melted the ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent ...
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/g...-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
Dec 16, 2013 · It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps ... polar ice cap, ... climate scientists who have been ...

 

Al Gore did, in fact, claim that by 2013 the Arctic would be ice free. It was a stupid self serving claim that wasn't even close to the consensus of the academic community. Even the researcher who Gore cherry picked from to make that claim was mortified and said his work was taken out of context. The mean consensus on the first ice free summer in the Arctic polar region is about 2050. That was the consensus when Gore made the claim and is still the consensus today. It really hasn't changed much.