New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

There are reasons why the number of Scientists who are climate deniers is roughly the same as the number who think the earth is flat.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

I agree that there are some issues in relation to "some" of the climate science. This is the nature of any movement when it gets political.

I heard Gore today claiming (promoting his new movie) that over 20% of coral reefs were killed off in 2016 (one year). I have trouble believing this is true. This does not change the fact that the coral reefs are being wiped out at a rapid rate (not sure what the exact rate is but, 5% a year would be crazy). This is not a joke ... some fictitious bad science. This is really happening.

The straight goods is that CO2 emissions are fourth on my list of environmental issues. At numerous conferences talking to people who have some semblance of a clue what they are talking about and about science - no one has ever disagreed with my ranking.

1) Pollution of the Oceans - which includes CO2 but this is only one component. Persistent organic pollutants (POP), heavy metals and fertilizer are having a serious impact. If we wanted we could pretty much shut off the CO2 tap in short order. Filtering the Ocean ?? Good luck with that.

The oceans are responsible for something like 60% of our oxygen a whole lot of food and maintaining equilibrium (such as the CO2 equilibrium as shown in link). I we fk up the Oceans it will not be pretty.

2/3) Industrialization of current population and population growth. If we did not have so many people we would not produce so much pollution (which includes CO2).

Currently there is roughly 1.4 Billion people on the planet industrialized- 6 Billion are not. I read a study about a decade ago that put first world nations at (36) in terms of utilization of resources. Someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Nigeria is at one (1). The average in China was (11).

The study said that if the average soul in China was to reach our level of consumption .. world resource production would have to double... and that is just China (roughly 1.3 Billion people). Fortunately the other 6 Billion people on the planet are not industrializing but, half of them are.

Obviously 2 and 3 also have a direct impact on CO2 emissions - and other greenhouse gasses such as methane. Cows produce more greenhouse gas than cars. Increasing meat consumption of these other 6 billion people will have consequences. That said.. perhaps methane would not be too bad as it does not acidify the oceans. The increased temp would probably enable the environment to consume more CO2 thus fixing that problem.

There is no realistic way to "fix" the pollution of the Ocean problem ... yet, we almost never hear folks talking about 1,2 and 3 - even though 2 and 3 are the root cause of 4 - CO2 emissions/global warming.

 

What things do they keep out of science journals? Give me a specific example.

Here's my take on this particular "study". The graphs they show amount to a difference of 0.1C of warming. When the total warming is over 1.0C over the last 100 years that's hardly a bombshell. They also use the number of 100 degree days as a proxy for the global mean temperature. This is probably the worst possible proxy you can use. This is data "manipulation" at it's core. That's the thing skeptics get bent out of shape over. I personally don't have a problem using proxies, but at least use something that half-way captures the mean temperature like the daily high and low together. Finally, their argument is basically "it's adjusted so it must be wrong" but they don't actually talk about the adjustment, what specifically they think is wrong with it, and what the fix is. Instead, they criticize the result without even talking about the method. That's just not how academic publication read. Academic quality publication spend pages talking about the method and then finish with a single paragraph or even a single sentence talking about the implications if they even take a position at all. Plus, this study contradicts itself right out of the gate when they say the datasets have to be adjusted to remove the urban heat island effect and then spend the rest of paper talking about how bad adjusting data is.

 

If you do not know, to even do not care why the temperature readings published are as they are,... than the joke is on you.

The joke is already is on the report that doesn't mention it.
Hence it's crap.

 

Science my backside.....this is why they do it.

 

Yup! But Times they are a changing!

Trump administration lining up climate change 'red team' .

The Trump administration is in the beginning stages of forming an adversarial "red team" to play devil's advocate in a plan to debate the facts behind global warming and take on what skeptics call climate alarmism.

The White House and the Environmental Protection Agency are recruiting scientists for challenging other scientists on climate change.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change vs the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

"This effort is long overdue," he said. "The climate scientists who have dominated the deliberations and the products of the IPCC have gone almost wholly without challenge. That is a violation of the scientific method and the public's trust."

Critically examine what has become alarmist dogma rather than a sober evaluation of climate science.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt "believes that we will be able to recruit the best in the fields which study climate and will organize a specific process in which these individuals ... provide back-and-forth critique of specific new reports on climate science," a senior administration official told the news service Climatewire late last month.

"We are, in fact, very excited about this initiative. Climate science, like other fields of science, is constantly changing. A new, fresh, and transparent evaluation is something everyone should support doing," the official said.

The irony behind the Trump administration taking up the approach is that it was suggested by a former Obama administration official, Steve Koonin, who suggested a red team-blue team approach to clear out the politics and address the science. Koonin teaches at New York University.

He suggested the idea in an April op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The exercise would include a red team, representing climate skeptics, squaring off against a blue team.

The team approach was created by the military during the Cold War era to test assumptions about the Soviet Union's military capabilities. For climate change, it would offer an adversarial approach to challenge assumptions and form different conclusions.

"It's a great opportunity for this country to have a conversation about the climate and get the politics out of it and bring the scientists together," is how Energy Secretary Rick Perry floated it in June before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the fiscal 2018 budget.

"As a matter of fact, the undersecretary of energy for President Obama, Steven Koonin, has said, who is a theoretical physicist and was over at the department and knows this issue rather well, and he says it's probably time for us to have a conversation with all the politics out of room."

Perry was the first administration official to suggest the idea in public.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is setting the plan in motion.

"It's my understanding that Scott Pruitt is trying to hire Koonin to be in charge of the whole thing," said Myron Ebell, Trump's former EPA transition chief, who is environment director at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Neither the EPA nor Koonin returned calls to confirm his being tapped for the post of red team leader.

But Ebell points out the logic in having him participate. "He's an honest broker, right?" Ebell said. "He served in the Obama administration but he thinks we haven't had a sufficient debate. He would have a lot of credibility, I think, running the whole process.

Ebell says he would rather "trust, then verify," using former President Ronald Reagan's old adage when dealing with the Soviet Union. "I'm not saying the scientists are Soviets. I just think that's a good approach to take, particularly when the policies being advocated are going to cost trillions of dollars over the next several decades."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...ng-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124

 

This "study" was debunked. It is not peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal. Most of the data is misinterpreted and faulty.

http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

There is a reason this is only being reported by far right blogs, and easily debunked by all else. Please do not spread misinformation.

The 90-99% consensus and it's results remain, and have yet to be challenged with a real study.

 

Great news!

 

It won't work. The weight of over 90% of the climate science community with actual facts and valid studies is too heavy, and has begun changing perceptions among American citizens.

As they say, you can't stop progress. At most they can slow it down a little bit for this term.

“I think this is fundamentally a dumb idea,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, said in an email. “It’s like a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.”

 

That 90% number is a bigger pile of bull **** than the "Hillary Landslide":

Why the Greens Lost, and Trump Won.

The believers at times seem more concerned in demonstrating their faith than in passing laws, winning elections or demonstrating results. So with Republicans controlling the federal government, greens are cheering Democratic state attorney generals’ long-shot legal cases against oil companies. The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has talked about dismissing the disorder of democracy as not suited to meeting the environmental challenges we face, and replacing it with rulers like the “reasonably enlightened group of people” who run the Chinese dictatorship.

After Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, China was praised, bizarrely, as the great green hope. The Middle Kingdom, though, is the world’s biggest and fastest grower emitter, generating coal energy at record levels. It won’t, under Paris, need to cut its emissions till 2030. Largely ignored is the fact that America, due largely to natural gas replacing coal, has been leading the world in GHG reductions.

Among many greens, and their supports, performance seems to mean less than proper genuflecting; the Paris accords, so beloved by the green establishment, will make little impact on the actual climate, as both rational skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg and true believers like NASA’s James Hanson agree. In this context, support for Paris represents the ultimate in “virtue signaling.” Ave Maria, Gaia.

They get the virtue, we get the tab.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. -2016"

The current consensus is a solid and clear 90-100%.

If you suggest otherwise, please refute with data older than April 2016. Must be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. Thank you.

 

Fake scientists of a fake science.

Would you be so kind to provide the public with the definition of climate?

Would you be so kind to tell the public to what science the definition belongs definition of climate to?

In other words would you be so kind to tell the public what is climate?

 

1) They interviewed every scientist in the world?
2) Asked them all what questions exactly? And if they did that, why are you guess that it's 90-100%?

The answer to the first question is no. They used "sampling" that same thing that gave us Hillary's "sure landslide!"

And you'll never answer the second question.

And peer-review is bull ****.

The Trouble With 'Scientific' Research Today: A Lot That's Published Is Junk .

There is one standard in science that is of value and only one, accurate predictions that can be replicated. That's it. All this polling is nothing more than hand waving. If you would have taken a show of hands after Einstein published his STR, the vast majority would have said it was wrong and untrustworthy, it has replaced Newtonian theories because its predictions were accurate and have been verified and are easily replicated.

Here are a few:

Does coffee causes cancer, or prevent it?
Where should we set the LDL threshold for taking statins to prevent cardiovascular disease?
Does the radiation from cell phones cause brain tumors?
Should you avoid fats for weight loss, or carbohydrates?
Should you avoid salt or use it to taste?
Should you use iodized salt, or is that unnecessary or even bad for you?

Scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about the unreliability – that is, the lack of reproducibility -- of many experimental or observational results.

Catch that? Unreliability = lack of reproducibililty.

Here is another: Type A” personality does not cause heart attacks.
The oft-stated claim, taken as truth for a generation, could not be replicated in two well-conducted follow up trials.

In fact, of about 50 different "truth" claims found or suggested from observational studies, none replicated when tested in randomized clinical trials.

Researchers tinker with their experimental design until they get the result they want and then rush to publish without replicating their own work. Investigations have found systematic deficiencies of methodology in certain entire sectors of lab research. One such area is experiments in animals; randomization and blinding are not a part of researchers’ culture, whereas the arbitrary dropping of animals out of the results of a study is. In a stunning recent article in the journal Science, one investigator related what often happens: "You look at your data, there are no rules…People exclude animals at their whim, they just do it and they don't report it." The result of such practices is that interventions that appear to cure or benefit animals often fail to replicate in humans.

After a series of failed attempts to extend basic research findings from academic labs, two large drug companies, Bayer and Amgen, carefully reviewed their own experience and found that only 25 and 11 percent, respectively, of the claims in the scientific literature could be replicated ... Astonishingly, even when they asked the original researchers to replicate their own work, for the most part they could not. This explains why scientists’ ability to translate cancer research in the laboratory to clinical success has been shockingly poor.

Empiricism:
A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate. This is scandalous, and the problem is only likely to become worse with the proliferation of “predatory publishers” of many open-access journals. According to an expose of these practices by Gina Kolata in the New York Times, the journals published by some of the worst offenders are nothing more than cash-generating machines that eagerly, uncritically accept essentially any submitted paper.

There are incentives for researchers to publish splashy, original findings even if they are subsequently found not to be reproducible; for a time, at least, the publication of such articles can provide them with notoriety, research funding, and even academic tenure.

So enough with the bull ****, you are fooling no one. The American Electorate sees right through you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrym...a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/2/#6e3c6e8f1a38

 

This is not a fact based rebuttal, and in no way logically refutes what I linked. I also saw no links to a peer reviewed study debunking the 2016 analysis.

The data I linked answers your questions.

Please put in an attempt next time. You must refute the data presented with properly sourced studies. In other words, what is incorrectly stated in this: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf.

Feel free to quote the portions of the study that are factually incorrect, and offer citation to the counter data at the end of each quote box.

 

The fact is you cannot answer even the most simple questions:

Would you be so kind to provide the public with the definition of climate?

Would you be so kind to tell the public to what science the definition belongs definition of climate to?

In other words would you be so kind to tell the public what is climate?

Thus the thesis "Fake scientists of a fake climate science" stands unchallenged.

 

Please present properly sourced evidence to show specific claims in "http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf" that are falsified for your thesis.

Thank you.

 

The fact is that you cannot answer even most simple questions:

Would you be so kind to provide the public with the definition of climate?

Would you be so kind to tell the public to what science the definition belongs definition of climate to?

In other words would you be so kind to tell the public what is climate?

Thus the thesis "Fake scientists of a fake climate science" stands unchallenged.

Fake science takes no questions.

Thank you for another proof that climate scientists are fake scientists.

You are most than welcome to use your link to answer the questions.

What is climate, Cliff?

In what science it was defined and has been used?

 

These are all questions which can easily be answered by using google. Neither of those questions have anything to do with the discussion we were having:

Please do not attempt to change the subject.

Red-herrings and straw-men do not work on me.

 

The fact is that you cannot answer even most simple questions:

Would you be so kind to provide the public with the definition of climate?

Would you be so kind to tell the public to what science the definition belongs definition of climate to?

In other words would you be so kind to tell the public what is climate?

Thus the thesis "Fake scientists of a fake climate science" stands unchallenged.

Fake science takes no questions.

Thank you for another proof that climate scientists are fake scientists.

You are most than welcome to use your link to answer the questions.

You are most than welcome to use google.

What is climate, Cliff?

In what science it was defined and has been used?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

There you go. I'm not sure what's going on, frankly I'm confused as to what you're posts are aiming at. Are you lost?

Now can you offer data which shows the 90-100% figure is incorrect? Circa Spring 2016. As far as I knew it was completely unchallenged. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this information and having an actual debate, rather than answering silly rhetorical questions.

 

The fact is that you cannot answer even most simple questions:

Would you be so kind to provide the public with the definition of climate?

Would you be so kind to tell the public to what science the definition belongs definition of climate to?

In other words would you be so kind to tell the public what is climate?

Thus the thesis "Fake scientists of a fake climate science" stands unchallenged.

Fake science takes no questions.

Thank you for another proof that climate scientists are fake scientists.

You are most than welcome to use your link to answer the questions.

You are most than welcome to use google.

You are most than welcome to use the wiki article.

What is climate, Cliff?

In what science it was defined and has been used?

 

Now can you please refute the study I linked with data past Spring 2016? Or are you constantly going to keep going down an off-topic rabbit hole?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

Is this type of absolute nonsense normal for this forum?

 

It is once Inquisitor finds the thread. According to Inquisitor debating AGW or climate change isn't even a real thing. You can't debate what's not real. It's not a matter of AGW being right or wrong. It's neither because...well, hell I don't really know. But, that's his point.

 

You need to check the latest polls, climate change is WAY WAY down the ladder of importance.

 

The public concern wasn't what I was discussing. We were debating on the scientific consensus (90-100%) and public's acceptance (68%).

But that being said, you aren't completely wrong or right in the new subject you brought up. While it is not peoples main and pressing concern at the very moment, it is still at it's peak: http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US

 

Just because an organization that does no climate science puts out a statement in support of the current dogma does not make it come true.