97% Climate Change Consensus Debunked

No Tol said at best, in other words giving Cook any benefit of the doubt with the lowest possible error rate, its 91%. However Tol says that.

"Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third."

 

My evidence is my own involvement in the climate. I live in Chicago and this past winter was as cold as the winter in 1983 here. So thirty one years after record breaking cold in 1983, 2014 had record breaking cold. So, I don't need to see models of hypothesis, nor do the folks who live in all areas where the effect of global warming is not there. It is amazing to me the statements made on this board concerning the word global and not local, but individuals don't live global, they live local and when one's local weather hasn't changed over the course of 30 plus years, it is tough to step in and say that global warmiing exists, especially when science has doctored the data as Michael Mann did. Nope, sorry, I live in it and it ain't any warmer today then 31 years ago. So good luck selling the global warming especially when there is more ice in the Antarctic when every nut job out there said it would be gone. Or the Arctic for that matter. Still Icy there. hmm.. the models they be wrong. Even the IPCC stated so.

 

In other words, anecdotal.

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is not uniform, Obviously, it does not follow that every individual can project his isolated localized experience upon the planet. That would be silly.

A comprehensive study is demanded, and the world's climatologists' research confirms common sense: Spewing millions of tonnes of industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere does affect the atmosphere. You cannot befoul your nest with impunity, no matter how fervently you'd like to do so.

 

“Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.” ― George Gordon Byron

 

Right.

Don't care about what job he may or may not have. I care about the science. AND even the denialists "pet" legitmate critic of climate science hyperbole, Dr. Richard Tol, has concluded that 91% of scientists are in agreement. And since he made some mistakes and since the entire study is available at skepticalscience there isn't anything to dispute.

What I find laughable is that with all the research going on, with the tremendous advances in technology to assist such research, with such an overwhelming consensus of scientists, with actual observable evidence of change, there doesn't seem to be many SCIENTISTS that disagree, but there are a lot of paid for politicians,"institutes", industry spokespeople, and political partisans who apprently know far better.

Its a shame that these vested interests have figured out how to exploit the conspiracy theorists.

 

Wow, you have really bought into the hype. SKS is not a legitimate science repository but a CAGW advocates blog. You would be better off actually reading what there is out there that is not biased so badly as SKS.

There is so much wrong with "there doesn't seem to be many SCIENTISTS that disagree", with what? AGW? CAGW? Uncertainty? The Unknowns?

So far the observations have not lined up with the predictions, temperature, hurricanes, tornadoes, even sea level rise so I don't know how you can say there is any evidence backing up the CAGW advocates like Cook and SKS.

 

I can only deduce that if you think that there is no evidence of climate change nor of our contribution to its acceleration, that you are incapable of even recognizing the mountain ranges of evidence so far accumulated exists, let alone evaluate it and consider its implications.

In other words, uniformed, unintelligent opinion and ridiculous conspiracy theories are the bulk of denialist reponses.

 

then he didn't do a thorough analysis and was relying on spot checks? Do you have the details of this spot check analysis he did?

Anyway, it still remains a tangential argument.

Why don't you identify all those skeptical scientists and their papers that contradict the accepted science?

Its easy to find one or two that publish without peer review, but according to you, there must be hundreds if not thousands of scientists that have published conclusions that do not accept that we are accelerating climate change.

If and when you can offer up such "competing" evidence as this study of consensus, it be happy to study it, but until then all you really have is the power of uninformed denial.

 

Well, I don't know why you cant predict how a rising sea level will effect our civilization, but I sure can.

the people of Kiribati have no trouble at all in predicting what will happen to their home.

 

It happens I wonder how was it possible that millions of years ago climate dared to change, without that scientists gave their "consensus" [since human beings were still to come].

May be it's a cultural limitation of mine.

A part this paradoxical comment, the main trouble about climate change is that it's a very slow process [also in a world without technological mankind: think to the climate changes between a glacial age and an other].

So, the real question is the measure of human influence on these changes in the last centuries, no more than this. And since unfortunately we have got statistical data [reliable, in a certain measure] for a century, we haven't got all that base for deep studies.

I'm environmentalist and for sure I know that industrial pollution is not healthy for the environment. Furthermore, I know that the production of some greenhouse gases [overall Co2, methane and water vapor, the last two usually forgotten, I don't know why] can affect the climatic trend.

But in which measure? This is all a different matter ...

 

If you could predict it. Right now sea level rise has been slowing down but it should be noted that it has risen around 120 meters (~400 ft) since the end of the last glacial maximum. About 8000 years ago England was part of the continent. The land inbetween is called Doggerland now covered by the North Sea and has human artifacts. The remains of a drowned Mesolithic village was found on what is now the sea bed off the Isle of Wight on Britain’s South coast. The North Sea had a nasty little jump between 350 and 550AD, flooding the coasts of northern Europe with an extra 2 feet of water and sending its inhabitants, folk known as Angles and Saxons, fleeing. About 2000 years ago the sea level was around today's level and during the Byzantine era it was above today's level. During the Crusader era it was below today's level.

Sea level has fluctuated many times in the past and even flooded settlements so to think you can build on the sea and never have to worry about it is just ignorance.

 

No he didn't you are ignoring qualifiers of what Tol said. Tol said best case giving Cook every benefit of the doubt its 91% most likely case is much lower.

What technology? The biggest advancement in technology is the satellite temperature records which alarmist scientists consistently ignore. Instead they choose to use an ad hoc post hoc surface reconstruction using a disparate nonuniform network of thermometers read by hand sitting in wooden stevenson screens.



That is 19th century technology genius.

"It was designed by Thomas Stevenson (1818-1887), a British civil engineer and father of the author Robert Louis Stevenson."

Or are you referencing the computer models? Theses models are so old and so out of date they are still linear FORTRAN written over 30 years ago optimized to run on 5MHz main frames that were as large as houses. Word of note old FORTRAN code is written for speed not accuracy. If you wanted to accurately model the climate over 100 years with all its complexity the old 5MHz mainframe crunching the code of an accurate model, if it were even possible to write such a model, would finish sometime after the sun went supernova!!!

I think you have a total misconception of what the technology is in "climate science".

If there is such an overwhelming consensus why couldn't' the Geological Society of Australia get their membership to agree to support a statement on climate change?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...hange-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#

This is the first time a major scientific body has actually put the issue to a vote of its members and it failed miserably. All other such statements that warmmongers love love to circlejerk over while screaming "consensus" with are written by 6 to 10 person boards with no input form the general membership. Here we have the very first example of the issue put to a vote of the generla membership and failing.

You know what that means???

NO FRICKING CONSENSUS!!!!

The 2000 members of the GSA didn't agree so there seems to be a large disagreement amongst scientists. No wonder warmmongers hate democracy with a passion and cream themselves over the thought of a fascist state like China!

Lets analyze this statement you say "vested interests have figured out". Who are the vested interests? What have their figured out?

Then you say " how to exploit". Exploit how? What are they doing? How are they doing it? Who are they again????

You are putting forward a conspiracy theory.

Now you conclude your statement with " the conspiracy theorists".

So what your statement really says that 'their is a massive conspiracy to convince people that climate change is a conspiracy.'

Do you realize how inane this sounds?

 

Poptech has actually put together a very complete list.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And warmmongers love to attack the source which only proves the point. Why is John Cook's review any more credible than Poptechs? They are both just bloggers. A review isn't science. Its all in the eye of the reviewer.

 

Because Poptech's is not a review - and it is only "honest" for a given degree of honest. The site is replete with misleading statements. Which is actually a criticism unlike the attempts to smear the owner by posting photoshopped pictures

Which is the more academically valid - review of the material for veracity or smearing the owner?

 

Right, and your evidence that 120PPM increase of CO2 drives temperature is where? Not in your cartoonist site.

 

Ah, so you think it is like SKS.

 

What that there is no accounting for the fact that the temperature measurements are GLOBAL and that there are more than one type of thermometer used?

 

Hell no - I think it is a misleading dishonest pile of poo

But what I think is not an issue - it is the veracity of the site which should be addressed and I would like someone to show an equivalent intent to mislead at SKS

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it is - if you bother to look

It is also at Poptech's site if you look hard enough - only it is hidden there under a misleading title of list of papers

 

Naw, see I've looked, and nope not one piece of evidence. It's ok I know you have your lies you must hold onto. And the cartoonist who supplies the lies.

 

They are not global. The GISS uses one station in Barrow Alaska to get the temperature of most of the Arctic. That isn't global coverage that is simply bad extrapolation.

 

Link???

 

Thanks for proving my point. You accept Cook but discount poptech.

You just smeared poptech as a liar, who is also an active member of this forum FYI. You prove my point better than I ever could.

 

In other words, just like SKS.

 

You see that dark red square on the top of Alaska? That is one station in Barrow Alaska.

 

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disinformation.html