Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[waldo]

As per usual, your latest study has nothing to do with this thread which is about consensus. NOTHING!!!!! But yet you still try to derail this thread with that gem. Honestly....you need to rethink your approach as your current one fails you time and time again!!!

no - both references that you continue to claim are thread derails... are not. Again, the survey reference to peer-review papers and the NAS/Royal Society document are both qualifications of the consensus. If you're concerned about a thread derail attempt, perhaps you should look at your post #87 within this thread.

per norm, you avoid the request put to you over your references to the lower-end figures within the number range graphic you posted. Again, you never spoke to what those numbers relate to within their respective survey/studies; I've highlighted that fact and requested you do so - you refuse. Accordingly, I'll simply ask you to answer the following as initially directed to member 'Keepitsimple'... it appears neither of you actually know what the consensus is; what you presume to repeatedly register concern over:

do you even know what the consensus is about... is stated as... is in relation to? Perhaps you should actually define the consensus... exactly define it.

[waldo]

As for your idea of conflation....just because I mentioned the word scientist does not mean I conflated anything.

yes you did - per your post #112 within this thread... which you were immediately called on.

[waldo]

Trying to talk like your buddies in produce again, hey?

this is a personalization, one you've repeatedly made, with variations, through an assortment of past threads, repeatedly presuming to 'insult' with a suggestion I have a job in retail produce. Although I don't, that job is certainly a legitimate and required job... it's one most people value when they visit their local retail outlet. I'm not clear why you would continue to presume to attempt to denigrate it.

your post has been reported to board moderation

[Michael Hardner]

AN, try to stick to the argument not the person please. Waldo - you can just report a post, you don't have to announce that it's reported.

[Accountability Now]

no - both references that you continue to claim are thread derails... are not. Again, the survey reference to peer-review papers and the NAS/Royal Society document are both qualifications of the consensus. If you're concerned about a thread derail attempt, perhaps you should look at your post #87 within this thread.

per norm, you avoid the request put to you over your references to the lower-end figures within the number range graphic you posted. Again, you never spoke to what those numbers relate to within their respective survey/studies; I've highlighted that fact and requested you do so - you refuse. Accordingly, I'll simply ask you to answer the following as initially directed to member 'Keepitsimple'... it appears neither of you actually know what the consensus is; what you presume to repeatedly register concern over:

I've repeatedly told you that once you actually respond to the questions posted to you then and only then will I even consider your questions which are clearly poor attempts on your part to derail yet another thread

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo's still on ignore (now mostly due to clutter) - but I've opened some of his posts. Waldo can put some clarity to his position by answering the topic's question. Does he believe in the "97% consensus" and to be clear - in a concise manner, identify what scientists or group of scientists (all scientists, all scientists who have published on climate issues, climatologists, etc.) form the consensus - and what the consensus actually is (ie: most of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans?).

If Waldo can let us know where he actually stands on the thread question, perhaps the sniping can be a bit more focused.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Accountability Now]

yes you did - per your post #112 within this thread... which you were immediately called on.

Lol...you mean the very first post where I was actually asking you a question based on the poor study that you offered up? The entire thread was discussing scientists and you offered up this ridiculous attempt at a counter. Now that you realize your absolute mess you are trying to again deflect!

[Accountability Now]

this is a personalization, one you've repeatedly made, with variations, through an assortment of past threads, repeatedly presuming to 'insult' with a suggestion I have a job in retail produce. Although I don't, that job is certainly a legitimate and required job... it's one most people value when they visit their local retail outlet. I'm not clear why you would continue to presume to attempt to denigrate it.

your post has been reported to board moderation

So you agree that the job is legitimate but consider it an insult at the same time. Does your hypocrisy have no ends. I made an assessment about your situation based on past posts you've made. In my assessment I clearly stated is that it was my opinion and that I really have no idea of who you are.

On that note....report away waldo. As always it's my hope that the moderators of this thread will see your consistent conflicts with MLW members and hopefully get rid of you for good. I would love to see one conversation where you don't have your condescending, snarky BS at the forefront. Just one! You are the complete opposite of the honest conversation this board needs.

[Accountability Now]

[quote name="Keepitsimple" post="949107" timestamp="1393779354"

If Waldo can let us know where he actually stands on the thread question, perhaps the sniping can be a bit more focused.

You mean instead of his constant deflection?? Good luck with that!!!

Edited March 2, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Moonlight Graham]

Which environmental consequences are you talking about? The actual ones observed or the theoretical ones being discussed?

Both.

[Accountability Now]

Both.

You realize that even the IPCC attributes low confidence that the actual events like hurricanes and tornadoes are changing. Even with droughts they say medium confidence that some areas are increasing but then go on to say other areas are decreasing.

At this point it's mostly theoretical.

[eyeball]

Here's a theoretical one that we're now observing on the coast.

Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions are curbed dramatically.

The theory that these consequences can/will have a direct economic impact can also be observed here.

The deteriorating health of B.C.'s oceans is impacting not only the province's marine life, but also its economy.

[TimG]

Here's a theoretical one that we're now observing on the coast.

I call BS. The changes in average pH are smaller than the normal seasonal variations. There is no way this minor change can be the cause of any issues in the marine environment today. People claiming otherwise are deliberating ignoring other more plausible causes for changes to ocean habitat starting with over fishing.

[waldo]

what's with the strawman, "Runaway Global Warming"? Where does the term "Accelerated Climate Change" derive... and where does it fit within any formal construct?

do you even know what the consensus is about... is stated as... is in relation to? You started this thread (twice now, since the latest has been merged into your original). Perhaps you should actually define the consensus... exactly define it. It's quite clear that you don't even have a grasp of what you've now initiated discussion on... by starting 2 distinct threads on the subject. Define it, Simple.

Waldo's still on ignore (now mostly due to clutter) - but I've opened some of his posts. Waldo can put some clarity to his position by answering the topic's question. Does he believe in the "97% consensus" and to be clear - in a concise manner, identify what scientists or group of scientists (all scientists, all scientists who have published on climate issues, climatologists, etc.) form the consensus - and what the consensus actually is (ie: most of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans?).

nice! Rather than ask me those questions... those I asked you, those you never answered, why not just answer them? This thread (as now merged), represents both threads you've originated on this same topic; in fact, your second thread OP was simply a recycle of your first thread opening post. Throughout both threads, now covering a span of 3 years, you have yet to actually state/define what you're so hyperventilating about!

it's clear both you (and the other guy) aren't even aware what the consensus is... but you both are certainly motoring on about it. Again, please step forward, you (and the other guy) and state it/define it.

.

[waldo]

Lol...you mean the very first post where I was actually asking you a question based on the poor study that you offered up? The entire thread was discussing scientists and you offered up this ridiculous attempt at a counter. Now that you realize your absolute mess you are trying to again deflect!

no - again, that survey/study concerning peer-reviewed papers is, again, a qualification of the consensus. Your assessment makes no sense, particularly as that survey/study has become the latest principal denialsphere target to use to deny the consensus. Again, a qualification of the consensus... not a thread derail, not a deflection.

[waldo]

this is a personalization, one you've repeatedly made, with variations, through an assortment of past threads, repeatedly presuming to 'insult' with a suggestion I have a job in retail produce. Although I don't, that job is certainly a legitimate and required job... it's one most people value when they visit their local retail outlet. I'm not clear why you would continue to presume to attempt to denigrate it.

So you agree that the job is legitimate but consider it an insult at the same time. Does your hypocrisy have no ends. I made an assessment about your situation based on past posts you've made. In my assessment I clearly stated is that it was my opinion and that I really have no idea of who you are.

I consider that particular job legitimate, meaningful and valued (by many). You most certainly don't as clearly evident by your repeated history of many, many posts where you draw reference to it in attempts to insult...

.

[waldo]

Here's a theoretical one that we're now observing on the coast. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem

The theory that these consequences can/will have a direct economic impact can also be observed here.

I call BS. The changes in average pH are smaller than the normal seasonal variations. There is no way this minor change can be the cause of any issues in the marine environment today. People claiming otherwise are deliberating ignoring other more plausible causes for changes to ocean habitat starting with over fishing.

no - I call BS on your called BS!

Yawn. The seasonal variation in average pH is at least 0.3.

IOW - we are talking about changes which are less than the seasonal variations!

The notion that ocean life is so fragile that such a small change will destroy it is absurd scaremongering. Life adapts. That is why it exists.

nonsense! Your average seasonal variation summation is simplistic, and self-serving to your agenda, to say the least! Those existing pH variations are associated with local, regional and seasonal variations... however, typically observed pH variability is associated with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. Organisms resident in these related ecosystems have adapted to exist within natural ranges of exposure with tolerance limitations... your applying a broad brush average variation summation figure is meaningless to particular organisms already approaching tolerance levels. Your "life adapts" fits your perpetual jingoistic Adapt-R-Us mentality... "life adapts"... until it can't!

yes, eyeball... fake-skeptics/deniers have a most peculiar interpretation of "theoretical".

.

[waldo]

eyeball! A bit more of that "theoretical", as mentioned by another poster... mountain pine-beetle damage, anyone?

The current mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreak started in British Columbia in the early 1990s. The insect has since killed about 50% of the total volume of commercial lodgepole pine in the province. While isolated records of MPB had been noted in Alberta before, it was the massive migration of beetles into that province from outbreaks in British Columbia during 2006 that fuelled the spread eastward.

Today the MPB occurs well beyond its historic range, extending into northern British Columbia and eastward in the boreal forest of north-central Alberta. Not just limiting itself to lodgepole pine any longer, the beetle is also reproducing in jack pine, the dominant pine species of the boreal forest.

.

[Keepitsimple]

it's clear both you (and the other guy) aren't even aware what the consensus is... but you both are certainly motoring on about it. Again, please step forward, you (and the other guy) and state it/define it.

.

Waldo - this thread was started with a question - a pretty simple one - which you have refused to answer....except for your painfully irrelevant deflections. There have been several "surveys" - this thread has provided two - one even brought forward by you. Each one has been criticized for its methodology. I realize that a narcissist does not like to expose themselves to anything that could bring direct and valid criticism but I'll ask again:

Do you believe in the "97% consensus" and to be clear - in a concise manner, what scientists or group of scientists (all scientists, all scientists who have published on climate issues, climatologists, etc.) form this consensus - and what is the consensus that you speak of? (ie: most of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans?).

Should be a pretty simple, concise answer for you.

[waldo]

do you even know what the consensus is about... is stated as... is in relation to? You started this thread (twice now, since the latest has been merged into your original). Perhaps you should actually define the consensus... exactly define it. It's quite clear that you don't even have a grasp of what you've now initiated discussion on... by starting 2 distinct threads on the subject. Define it, Simple.

nice! Rather than ask me those questions... those I asked you, those you never answered, why not just answer them? This thread (as now merged), represents both threads you've originated on this same topic; in fact, your second thread OP was simply a recycle of your first thread opening post. Throughout both threads, now covering a span of 3 years, you have yet to actually state/define what you're so hyperventilating about!

it's clear both you (and the other guy) aren't even aware what the consensus is... but you both are certainly motoring on about it. Again, please step forward, you (and the other guy) and state it/define it.

Waldo - this thread was started with a question - a pretty simple one - which you have refused to answer....except for your painfully irrelevant deflections. Should be a pretty simple, concise answer for you.

Simple, this is the only question asked within this latest start of your 2nd iteration of the same discussion point (now merged into a single thread that includes your earlier foray): "Ask yourself how and why the 97% number can STILL be used with a straight face?" As I said, all you did is recycle your original thread topic, including the same linked article from the prolific denier "journalist" Lawrence Solomon.

clearly you have a very strong aversion to actually stating/defining what you continue to be so concerned about. Is there a problem in why you can't/won't answer the same questions repeatedly asked of you?

I note you once again pull out your tried & true reference to "narcissist" - well done, once again!

just answer the questions, Simple... just answer them!

.

[WestCoastRunner]

I call BS. The changes in average pH are smaller than the normal seasonal variations. There is no way this minor change can be the cause of any issues in the marine environment today. People claiming otherwise are deliberating ignoring other more plausible causes for changes to ocean habitat starting with over fishing.

You obviously didn't read the links that were provided for you. I will help you out here with other stats:

Mr. Perreault routinely monitors the ocean for food abundance, temperature and salinity – but thinks he should test the pH level too, to keep track of how acidic the water is.

The Vancouver Aquarium has been doing just that – and its records show the pH level in Vancouver’s harbour steadily declining, from 8.1 (1954-74) to a low of 7.3 by 2001.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has noted a direct correlation between rising levels of C02 in the atmosphere and levels in the ocean. As more C02 accumulates in the Pacific, the pH decreases and the acidic level rises.

Sophia Johannessen, a research scientist with the federal Institute of Ocean Sciences in Nanaimo, said it is clear oceans are becoming more acidic.

Guy Dean, vice-president and chief sustainability officer at Albion Fisheries Ltd., one of BC’s biggest suppliers of fresh seafood, said the scallop die-off has rung alarm bells. There is still a supply of B.C. oysters, but local scallops are a rarity now.

“It’s definitely a sign. It’s like the canary in the coal mine,” he said. “That is the early indicator of climate change and how it is going to affect the availability of various products.”

:

Read the full article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mystery-surrounds-massive-die-off-of-oysters-and-scallops-off-bc-coast/article17156108/

Certainly much more research needs to be done in this area to conclude that PH levels are the root cause of the decline of oysters and scallops off the BC coast but to assume that "changes in average pH are smaller than the normal seasonal variations" is absurd.

[TimG]

The Vancouver Aquarium has been doing just that – and its records show the pH level in Vancouver’s harbour steadily declining, from 8.1 (1954-74) to a low of 7.3 by 2001.

Sorry, stats from a body of water heavily impacted by human development mean nothing. How do you know the change was not a result of the closing the numerous factories/paper mills that ringed the harbour in the 60s?

You article makes it clear that linking changes the changes to CO2 levels are speculative at best. Local factors are more plausible.

[WestCoastRunner]

Sorry, stats from a body of water heavily impacted by human development mean nothing. How do you know the change was not a result of the closing the numerous factories/paper mills that ringed the harbour in the 60s?

You article makes it clear that linking changes the changes to CO2 levels are speculative at best. Local factors are more plausible.

More research was done by Seattle scientists over 15 years. The team first measured acidity along the 2,800-mile sweep of ocean between Oahu and Kodiak in 1991. They returned in 2006 aboard the University of Washington research vessel Thomas G. Thompson, working around the clock in shifts to collect and analyze nearly 1,500 water samples over two months.

"The fact that we saw this very significant change over the last 15 years is a reminder of how mankind is affecting the oceans at an ever-increasing rate," Feely said.

"The result can be an environment where shells dissolve, destroying plankton, marine snails and other small creatures that sustain the rest of the marine food web. Acidified water also can kill fish eggs and larvae."

What does it matter why ph levels have changed (ie factories, human impact). The fact is that they are changing drastically and may be affecting the environment for shell fish and other species to thrive.

[Keepitsimple]

just answer the questions, Simple... just answer them!

.

Waldo - I haven't answered your questions because as with most of your bluster, they have no purpose other than to allow you to blather on. I actually believe that there is a broad consensus out there that humans are a factor in the changing climate - but I see no evidence that there has been an honest attempt to quantify the human contribution. A wide-ranging, non-biased survey that covers a broad swath of scientists, numbering in the thousands that asks questions like these would help:

1) Since 1850, what percentage of any warming can be attributed to human activities - as opposed to natural factors.

2) In your opinion, what portion of "human activities", expressed as a percentage, relates to the emission of GHG's such as CO2 - and what portion can be attributed to other factors such as land-change use, urbanization, etc.

I think these type of questions might give us some insight into what type of consensus - if any - exists in the broader scientific community.

Now - how about answering my questions - the one that this topic is based on:

Do you believe in the "97% consensus" and to be clear - in a concise manner, what scientists or group of scientists (all scientists, all scientists who have published on climate issues, climatologists, etc.) form this consensus - and what is the consensus that you speak of? (ie: most of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans?).

Should be a pretty simple, concise answer for you.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

"The fact that we saw this very significant change over the last 15 years is a reminder of how mankind is affecting the oceans at an ever-increasing rate," Feely said.

The statement is complete nonsense since you cannot determine if the change is accelerating from two data points (1991 and 2006). The fact that someone would be so clueless or dishonest as to make such a wrong statement makes their research highly suspect.

I also noticed you did not say how much pH levels changed between 1991 and 2006.

What does it matter why ph levels have changed (ie factories, human impact). The fact is that they are changing drastically and may be affecting the environment for shell fish and other species to thrive.

It matters because it makes no sense to pay regulations that do nothing about the identified problem. Edited March 2, 2014 by TimG