Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[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 - 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. It should not be any surprise that I don't believe there has been any wide-ranging, non-biased survey that covers a broad swath of scientists, numbering in the thousands

those questions are the very essence of your 2 threads (now merged as 1) on the consensus. They clearly have a purpose, one intended to have you state your own interpretation of the consensus. You absolutely refuse to answer the simple, basic questions asking you to state, to define, the basis of all your raised concern. What could be any more telling than you can't, you won't, answer the questions?

more pointedly, this is simply an ongoing pattern with you. Your refusal to answer questions put to you... as follows, the most recent prior exchange where you raised your continued nothingness only to go mute once you were challenged on your "cyclical natural factors" prattle:

...And, of course, you revert to your nothingness... your standard fall-back "cyclical natural factors".

what natural factors? Name them... name those natural factors? Specifically name them... and provide the forcing factor they contribute to warming. Climate change does not "just happen". Internal variability does not cause climate change... but natural forcings do. Again, come out from behind your cop-out "natural factors". Specifically name what natural factors you attribute the relatively recent warming to. Name them. Name your alternative to CO2 as the principal causal tie to warming. Just name it/them. Don't just cop-out with your "natural factors". Name them... and be prepared to state exactly how they have warmed the earth in the relatively recent period of warming. Don't cop-out, Simple.

.

[eyeball]

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.

Yeah us fishermen are even responsible for over-fishing plankton.

By the way, over-fishing = mismanagement, of the exact same sort that is at the foundation of the government's inaction towards CO2 emissions, and AGW.

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

They're amongst the stupidest people on the planet. I don't know why you waste so much time on them.

.

[TimG]

Yeah us fishermen are even responsible for over-fishing plankton.

Does not change the point that trying to blame everything on CO2 is an extremely idiotic position to take given the complexity of the system.

They're amongst the stupidest people on the planet.

Skeptics generally know more about the science than alarmists because they take the time to learn. Alarmists outsource their thinking to whoever tells them the stories they want to hear. Edited March 2, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Does not change the point that trying to blame everything on CO2 is an extremely idiotic position to take given the complexity of the system.

your attempt to deny ocean acidification is noted (once again)! The only, as you say, "idiotic position" referenced here has been the one claiming ocean acidification is nothing more than... what did you call it..... oh, right, "seasonal variation in average pH"

Skeptics generally know more about the science than alarmists because they take the time to learn. Alarmists outsource their thinking to whoever tells them the stories they want to hear.

genuine skeptics are at the heart of science... all legitimate scientists are skeptical by nature/design. Your favoured brand of fake-skeptics are anything but genuine, anything but legitimate.

[waldo]

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.

oh my! This would be you... presuming to call-out/chastise a NOAA PhD, one with this kind of CV:

[Accountability Now]

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...

.

Sure...it is legitimate....just like any other job that a person chooses to do. I used that example as it is often an easier job to get and is often filled by teenagers working their way up or people in transitional phases of their lives. I made the assessment that you are currently working there after your job at some government research facility got eliminated due to reduced funding from the Harper government. It certainly would explain your condescending and hate filed comments toward anything Harper or Harper related which apparently includes oil. As I stated....this was just my opinion based on your previous posts. What is a guy to do but make some assumptions as you won't clearly answer such questions such as 'what political party you support' or 'do you believe the consensus of scientists is at 97%'?

[Accountability Now]

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

.

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

[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.

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...

Sure...it is legitimate....just like any other job that a person chooses to do. I used that example as it is often an easier job to get and is often filled by teenagers working their way up or people in transitional phases of their lives. I made the assessment that you are currently working there

why the back-pedal? Be proud of your ongoing insult attempts... be loud and proud! As below, a little refresher sample for you. Of course, it doesn't yet rise to the level of the other grouping I put together and played back for you, right? That other one has about a dozen insult attempts following other intellectual themes of yours that you're (also) fixated on... like me 'living in my mother's basement' type comments! Should I add that one in as well?

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

I'm guessing your buds in produce must love that one.

I guess they don't teach you any of that stuff down at Overwaitea.

I know that this is your only place to converse with people...I get that....I suggest you ask your 18 year old shift supervisor.

Your don't let the boys in produce know that you messed that one up

Of course your contribution might not be that much as Overwaitea isn't paying as much lately.

.

[waldo]

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

if you'd like to contest the fact that warming is impacting the life-cycle of the mountain pine beetle... and not resulting in the widespread destruction of commercial lodgepole pine (and now also moving into the boreal forest jack pine) trees in western Canadian provinces and U.S. states..... please, proceed Governor!

[waldo]

More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

as always, I am encouraged when anyone affirms the authority of the IPCC... good on ya! Of course, I equally relish the opportunity to ask deniers why they're somewhat selective... why they don't accept the IPCC authority as reflects upon their own denial. Your choice if you'd like to answer that.

in any case, you keep dropping these little nuggets, but as I point out, you never actually link/quote actual IPCC statements. As I did the last time you played on this, I suggested you resurrect a relevant extreme weather related thread (there are a few, as you know), and put forward an actual post with cited quotes. Somehow, this never happened. Since you appear to have this real ongoing want to express yourself... but you can't quite get over some hurdle, perhaps a bit of encouragement from me might help you..... please, proceed Governor!

[The_Squid]

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/MPB/carroll_2004_effects.pdf

[Keepitsimple]

those questions are the very essence of your 2 threads (now merged as 1) on the consensus. They clearly have a purpose, one intended to have you state your own interpretation of the consensus. You absolutely refuse to answer the simple, basic questions asking you to state, to define, the basis of all your raised concern. What could be any more telling than you can't, you won't, answer the questions?

more pointedly, this is simply an ongoing pattern with you. Your refusal to answer questions put to you... as follows, the most recent prior exchange where you raised your continued nothingness only to go mute once you were challenged on your "cyclical natural factors" prattle:

.

Waldo - I think I've made myself crystal clear - I do not believe that there IS a valid consensus that represents the alarmist positions taken by eco-activists. Tell me how I can be clearer than that. Your own Skeptical Science website indicates that their consensus was drawn from an analysis of papers - not from asking a broad swath of scientists concise and pointed questions along the lines that I have suggested. Ironically - or tellingly - the Skeptical Science website is run by the same John Cook who co-authored the "strudy" that was highlighted in the Solomon and Forbes critique. This is what John Cook calls the consensus - the 97% consensus.

Waldo - I'll ask one more time. What is your position? Do you believe these studies accurately reflect the fact that 97% of scientists who work in climate-related fields are of the opinion that human activities are the driving force behind Climate Change warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

[Accountability Now]

why the back-pedal? Be proud of your ongoing insult attempts... be loud and proud! As below, a little refresher sample for you. Of course, it doesn't yet rise to the level of the other grouping I put together and played back for you, right? That other one has about a dozen insult attempts following other intellectual themes of yours that you're (also) fixated on... like me 'living in my mother's basement' type comments! Should I add that one in as well?

.

Back-pedal??? I completely laid out my assessment of you who are. Where is the back-pedal? Like I said, your consistant snarky and condescending comments and overall disgruntled attitude certainly suggest that you have some sort of vendetta to play out. You seem to direct that vendetta at the research funding, global warming, and Harper which suggests that something to affect you personally. If you want to talk about you living in your parents basement then go for it. This is your chance to let it all out man! He can't hurt you anymore!!!

[waldo]

Waldo - I think I've made myself crystal clear - I do not believe that there IS a valid consensus that represents the alarmist positions taken by eco-activists. Tell me how I can be clearer than that.

eco-activists??? All I recall being put forward in this thread were surveys and studies originated (mostly) from scientists... are these are "eco-activists"?

clearer than that? Have a go... have another go..... since you keep avoiding providing your own interpretation of what you maintain the consensus to be? Just state it, define it... explicitly!

Simple... have a go:

it's certainly your... and member Simple's... prerogative to put forward countering studies/surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of related/relevant experts... studies/surveys that speak to a level of consensus you believe, you interpret, as being more accurate/representative.

ah yes... you repeat your references to your "critiques"... those from prolific deniers, "journalist" Lawrence Solomon and "lawyer/Heartland Institute mouthpiece" James Taylor. Neither has any credibility, in anything.

you keep referring to Skeptical Science as "my own website"... I called you out on this once. Why do you repeat this? Have I quoted/linked from SkS in the past? Yes... but not frequently, not regularly, by any measure.

.

[Accountability Now]

if you'd like to contest the fact that warming is impacting the life-cycle of the mountain pine beetle... and not resulting in the widespread destruction of commercial lodgepole pine (and now also moving into the boreal forest jack pine) trees in western Canadian provinces and U.S. states..... please, proceed Governor!

I asked you for a link and a reference to back up your claim. I trust the moderators of this forum thread will acknowledge your dishonest conversation style.

[waldo]

Back-pedal???

I quoted a string of that flavour of your insult attempts. I've done the same with another grouping (about a dozen in that one). Like I said, be loud & proud over your insult attempts. There's no need for you to attempt to back-pedal from them... attempt to rationalize them! I appreciate that you are so fixated with me personally. However, I suggest you raise your bar and actually attempt to contribute to threads... your ongoing personalization is not positive and does not contribute to thread discussion.

[Accountability Now]

as always, I am encouraged when anyone affirms the authority of the IPCC... good on ya! Of course, I equally relish the opportunity to ask deniers why they're somewhat selective... why they don't accept the IPCC authority as reflects upon their own denial. Your choice if you'd like to answer that.

The IPCC is not an all knowing group...that is why.....even though you alarmists seem to think so. As such, you can do one of two things with the IPCC tidbits that I gave you. Choose to accept them because you follow the IPCC to a tee.....or admit that you actually disagree with them. I await your move court jester.

in any case, you keep dropping these little nuggets, but as I point out, you never actually link/quote actual IPCC statements. As I did the last time you played on this, I suggested you resurrect a relevant extreme weather related thread (there are a few, as you know), and put forward an actual post with cited quotes. Somehow, this never happened. Since you appear to have this real ongoing want to express yourself... but you can't quite get over some hurdle, perhaps a bit of encouragement from me might help you..... please, proceed Governor!

It is a little nugget. One that you ran from before and one that you are running from now. In the previous attempt to ask you to answer it I provided you with the SREX report outlining this so as per usual your cliams on not putting forward an actual post with cited quotes is COMPETE BS.

Somehow you feel that a thread on the consensus is not the right place to discuss the IPCC's view on extreme weather however you have no problems throwing down the pine beetle. Again....does your hypocrisy have no end. Your move court jester.

[waldo]

I asked you for a link and a reference to back up your claim. I trust the moderators of this forum thread will acknowledge your dishonest conversation style.

where is your, as you say, "link and reference" to back up your "theoretical" claim? Like I said, if you'd like to dispute the impact of warming on the mountain pine beetle life-cycle... of the resulting damage/destruction to lodgepole/jack pine... please exercise your "theoretical" claim.

[Accountability Now]

I quoted a string of that flavour of your insult attempts. I've done the same with another grouping (about a dozen in that one). Like I said, be loud & proud over your insult attempts. There's no need for you to attempt to back-pedal from them... attempt to rationalize them! I appreciate that you are so fixated with me personally. However, I suggest you raise your bar and actually attempt to contribute to threads... your ongoing personalization is not positive and does not contribute to thread discussion.

Yes...I see that you keep a binder to keep track of everyone's posts. You do with with Simple and other MLW member. Personally I find it creepy but hey...whatever floats your boat.

[Accountability Now]

where is your, as you say, "link and reference" to back up your "theoretical" claim? Like I said, if you'd like to dispute the impact of warming on the mountain pine beetle life-cycle... of the resulting damage/destruction to lodgepole/jack pine... please exercise your "theoretical" claim.

As per my previous post

As always.....your post says NOTHING as to how this is related to AGW. NOTHING!!! You don't even provide a link either. Scared of something?

More notably....I see you didn't come close to touching my notes from the IPCC about the low confidence in extreme weather events. This one really bothers you especially after you blabbed on in a thread that you created called Increasing weather extremes. That one really hurt....didn't it!!

So not only did you derail this thread by talking NOTHING about AGW but you now won't provide the link. Yikes

[waldo]

The IPCC is not an all knowing group...that is why.....even though you alarmists seem to think so.

I've put forward many references from assorted authoritative groups; the IPCC is just one of those. Don't you recall how you wigged out, big time, over the WMO references provided - yes? Is there any authoritative body/organization you accept... other than right-wing stink-tanks? I will again note your most selective, self-serving usage of that IPCC authority. You affirm it in one regard, yet choose to ignore it when it pertains to your actual deep-seated denial. Why... that's self-serving, cherry-picking on your part - yes?

As such, you can do one of two things with the IPCC tidbits that I gave you. Choose to accept them because you follow the IPCC to a tee.....or admit that you actually disagree with them. I await your move court jester.

It is a little nugget. One that you ran from before and one that you are running from now. In the previous attempt to ask you to answer it I provided you with the SREX report outlining this so as per usual your cliams on not putting forward an actual post with cited quotes is COMPETE BS.

as I said, take it to an appropriate thread... please proceed, Governor!

in any case, you keep dropping these little nuggets, but as I point out, you never actually link/quote actual IPCC statements. As I did the last time you played on this, I suggested you resurrect a relevant extreme weather related thread (there are a few, as you know), and put forward an actual post with cited quotes. Somehow, this never happened. Since you appear to have this real ongoing want to express yourself... but you can't quite get over some hurdle, perhaps a bit of encouragement from me might help you..... please, proceed Governor!

Somehow you feel that a thread on the consensus is not the right place to discuss the IPCC's view on extreme weather however you have no problems throwing down the pine beetle. Again....does your hypocrisy have no end. Your move court jester.

you've now used the attempted insult reference "court jester" twice in this, your latest reply. Please harness your overt personalization and please attempt to contribute positively to this board - thanks in advance.

but hey now, you were the guy who repeatedly attempted to chastise for "derailing, deflecting" this thread..... and you want to turn it into a discussion on extreme weather/climate change? You're not very consistent, are you? As I said, take it to an appropriate thread... and come prepared.

[eyeball]

The IPCC is not an all knowing group...

Maybe not in and if itself but when it's been reflecting the consensus of the vast vast VAST majority of climate scientists and experts for years and years YEARS it's definitely who governments should be listening to.

[waldo]

Yes...I see that you keep a binder to keep track of everyone's posts. You do with with Simple and other MLW member. Personally I find it creepy but hey...whatever floats your boat.

I'm simply using a board search tool to catalogue a history of attempted insult.

[waldo]

As per my previous post

So not only did you derail this thread by talking NOTHING about AGW but you now won't provide the link. Yikes

you're adding nothing positive to the thread discussion here. You used the "theoretical" reference. Member 'eyeball' immediately called you out in regards ocean acidification... as did I with a reference to mountain pine beetle damage/destruction. Not quite so theoretical, hey? You started your claimed "derail" with your "theoretical" reference. You did that.

again, if you would like to dispute either of those counters to your "theoretical" reference, please do... preferably in an appropriate thread since you're so concerned about derailing this one!

[jbg]

why the back-pedal? Be proud of your ongoing insult attempts... be loud and proud! As below, a little refresher sample for you. Of course, it doesn't yet rise to the level of the other grouping I put together and played back for you, right? That other one has about a dozen insult attempts following other intellectual themes of yours that you're (also) fixated on... like me 'living in my mother's basement' type comments! Should I add that one in as well?

.

Waldo, you get what you give. You aren't much nicer to me even though I have never made personally demeaning remarks.