Climategate Vindication

[Wild Bill]

Okay, if you say so. In the meantime it looks like some 98% or more of scientists maintain that out climate is changing in ways that are detrimental to us and the planet's biosphere and we're causing it.

That's more than enough for me to conclude and accept that action, probably drastic at this point, is required immediately.

Eyeball, it seems if we have unseasonably hot weather the alarmists say it's proof of global warming. However, if it's unseasonably cold that is also proof of global warming.

Now if there's any change at all that apparently also means proof of the same thing.

This has gotten ridiculous! Now some Russian scientists are predicting a 50 year cold spell. That also is considered proof!

What it boils down to is that some are demanding we accept their premises as fact, knowing that we'll all be dead before they are proven wrong in the light of what actually happens.

[eyeball]

Some 98% or more of scientists incessantly and utterly and constantly maintain that our climate is changing in ways that are detrimental to us and the planet's biosphere and we're causing it.

What in God's freakin' name am I supposed to do with that Bill? Just completely and totally disregard it as nonsense?

What really astounds me no end though is how some 2% or less of scientists who disagree have managed for so long now to prevent the world's politicians from listening to the other 98 and committing a disaster by following their advice. You deniers must regard this as being nothing short of a divine miracle.

You've got little to complain about really.

[blueblood]

Some 98% or more of scientists incessantly and utterly and constantly maintain that our climate is changing in ways that are detrimental to us and the planet's biosphere and we're causing it.

What in God's freakin' name am I supposed to do with that Bill? Just completely and totally disregard it as nonsense?

What really astounds me no end though is how some 2% or less of scientists who disagree have managed for so long now to prevent the world's politicians from listening to the other 98 and committing a disaster by following their advice. You deniers must regard this as being nothing short of a divine miracle.

You've got little to complain about really.

Except it isn't about if it's changing or not. It's been changing for 4-5 billion years. The debate is whether human activity is a major contributing factor or not. Krikey!

[bush_cheney2004]

...What really astounds me no end though is how some 2% or less of scientists who disagree have managed for so long now to prevent the world's politicians from listening to the other 98 and committing a disaster by following their advice. You deniers must regard this as being nothing short of a divine miracle.

Did you really expect the world's "politicians" to listen to such "scientists" and throw their economies out the window for global warming? If you are spending your time fighting deniers then you haven't engaged the real economic issue(s). Nobody really cares who wins the egghead pissing contest.....well maybe except for you.

[Michael Hardner]

Except it isn't about if it's changing or not. It's been changing for 4-5 billion years. The debate is whether human activity is a major contributing factor or not. Krikey!

As he said in the first sentence - 98% of scientists say it's changing and we're causing it.

[Pliny]

As he said in the first sentence - 98% of scientists say it's changing and we're causing it.

Where did that 98% number originate from? The 99% occupying Wall St.?

We should be celebrating now that we can cause weather! Soon we will be vacationing on the sandy, balmy beaches of Baffin Island.

[Michael Hardner]

Where did that 98% number originate from? The 99% occupying Wall St.?

Maybe eyeball can explain where he got the number. That number seems low to me, as I only know of a handful of climate scientists who still dispute AGW. Are you surprised at the number ? If so, you may be getting your impressions from the mainstream media which sometimes overstates the opposition to the AGW theory.

[TimG]

You need to read this part over and over again until you get it.

Please explain to me how the BEST data allows Muller to make the value judgement that the current rise is "it's happening alarmingly fast".

To make that value judgement he needs a reference from other eras (e.g. the MWP) to compare it to.

BEST provides no data that would allow such a comparison to be made.

Therefore his statement is meaningless propoganda.

[TimG]

Maybe eyeball can explain where he got the number.

The number is nonsense: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

The questions were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

All sceptical scientists agree with the two statements but the questions say nothing about whether immediate reductions in CO2 are a useful or even achievable policy option. People who insist on using that statistic to support specific policy goals are being incredibly dishonest. Edited November 1, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The number is nonsense: http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

I support that person's effort to reword the questions, however it's significant that he doesn't even think it's worth asking whether temperatures have increased.

How many times have we heard people say that temperature haven't increased, or that we're in a period of cooling, etc.

All sceptical scientists agree with the two statements but the questions say nothing about whether immediate reductions in CO2 are a useful or even achievable policy option. People who insist on using that statistic to support specific policy goals are being incredibly dishonest.

Why ask scientists if policy options are achievable ? It's like asking non-scientists (such as leftist economists) whether change is happening.

[blueblood]

As he said in the first sentence - 98% of scientists say it's changing and we're causing it.

And when Galileo came about 98% of people bought church doctrine as science. What's your point, things change.

[Smallc]

That isn't really comparable. We're talking about climate scientists here, not the pope.

[cybercoma]

And when Galileo came about 98% of people bought church doctrine as science. What's your point, things change.

There is so much wrong with your logic here that it's probably pointless to even bother explaining it to you if you can't see it.

[Shady]

The 98% number is just a percentage pulled out of their butt. Like the commercials stating 4 out of 5 dentists.

[Michael Hardner]

The 98% number is just a percentage pulled out of their butt. Like the commercials stating 4 out of 5 dentists.

Actually, Tim's link provided an answer - and that number was 97%

[blueblood]

That isn't really comparable. We're talking about climate scientists here, not the pope.

Oh but it is comparable. In those days, the church was what was the authority on astronomy science much like climate scientists are the authority on climate science. Hell we have recently had a scientist shoot the "nothing is faster than the speed of light" theory full of holes by finding that some subatomic particles could possibly move faster than the speed of light. Science is always changing and that's a good thing.

[Bonam]

Hell we have recently had a scientist shoot the "nothing is faster than the speed of light" theory full of holes by finding that some subatomic particles could possibly move faster than the speed of light.

That measurement was very carefully and extensively reviewed and found to be an experimental error.

[Shady]

Actually, Tim's link provided an answer - and that number was 97%

That number is as irrelevant as the first one.

[Wild Bill]

That measurement was very carefully and extensively reviewed and found to be an experimental error.

Yeah, and that ain't the most important factor!

The people who made the claim never said that they had proof! They subjected their own data to the best scrutiny they could accomplish and then published it for the rest of the world to examine! If they had missed something, they WANTED the scientific community to find it!

They were only interested in discovering a new truth. They had no ego problems with someone proving them wrong. They were not interested in founding a new "religion", as we've seen in the climate debates.

They are deserving of their community's respect, for acting according to it's most basic values!

[Michael Hardner]

That number is as irrelevant as the first one.

Why is it irrelevant ?

[Keepitsimple]

Some 98% or more of scientists incessantly and utterly and constantly maintain that our climate is changing in ways that are detrimental to us and the planet's biosphere and we're causing it.

What in God's freakin' name am I supposed to do with that Bill? Just completely and totally disregard it as nonsense?

What really astounds me no end though is how some 2% or less of scientists who disagree have managed for so long now to prevent the world's politicians from listening to the other 98 and committing a disaster by following their advice. You deniers must regard this as being nothing short of a divine miracle.

I think what you have to do is develop a bit of Scepticism and a better perspective. It would also help if you could stop exaggerating claims that are already exaggerated. Take a look at what your 98% really means - basically nothing. Those scientists didn't make any statements. They simply answered two questions. The authors of the survey chose to interpret the results as they saw fit - and by your comments, they accomplished their objectives. Go ahead, look at the two questions and decide for yourself. Can you start to understand what the term "Alarmist" means?

In the survey to which Huntsman alluded, scientists were invited to participate in a two-question online survey. Despite what Huntsman said, not even 100 climate scientists chose to participate. The two questions were simple: 1. Have global temperatures risen during the past 200 years? and 2. Are humans a significant contributing factor to this?

Forgetting for the moment that only shameless activists or the most statistically and scientifically ignorant of persons would claim that a survey sample of only 77 scientists volunteering to participate in a survey is indicative of what the entire climate science community believes, the questions and answers themselves tell us nothing.

..................................

Regarding the second question, is human activity a significant contributing factor? Notice how the question did not say sole factor, majority factor, or even primary contributing factor. Rather, the term is merely significant contributing factor. More precisely, if human activity is not a significant contributing factor then it must be an insignificant contributing factor. What is the threshold between significant and insignificant? Five percent? Ten Percent? The threshold of insignificance is certainly no higher than that.

So, are humans responsible for at least 10 percent or so of recent global warming? In other words, are humans responsible for roughly and merely 0.06 degrees Celsius of warming during the past century? Most global warming skeptics certainly believe that!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing/

Link:

Edited November 1, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

How many times have we heard people say that temperature haven't increased, or that we're in a period of cooling, etc.

The questions: "have temperatures risen over the last 100 years" and "have temperatures stopped rising over the last 10 years" are distinct and have to be answered seperately. The correct answer to both is yes. The problem are alarmists who think that because the answer to the first one is yes the answer to the second one must be no. It is political propaganda with no connection to science.

Why ask scientists if policy options are achievable ? It's like asking non-scientists (such as leftist economists) whether change is happening.

I have been asking the same question over and over. At the end of the day the opinion of scientists is quite irrelevant since any policy choices must take into account economics, politics and feasibility. e.g. if we don't have alternatives to emitting CO2 then it makes no difference if scientists say we should reduce it. Edited November 1, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

As he said in the first sentence - 98% of scientists say it's changing and we're causing it.

well that debate has ended...the only noise we're hearing is from the denier world where few holdouts are cashing on book deals and lecture circuit feeding the conspiracy crowd what they want to hear, "it's a massive world conspiracy of socialists and millions of scientists led by margret thacher and her lover al gore to steal our money"...

[eyeball]

The debate is whether human activity is a major contributing factor or not. Krikey!

Not amongst a humongously vast majority of scientists.

[dre]

Eyeball, it seems if we have unseasonably hot weather the alarmists say it's proof of global warming. However, if it's unseasonably cold that is also proof of global warming.

Neither hot or cold years are evidence that there is warming or not. You need to look at trends over a much longer timeframe. Even if the earth was in a general cooling trend you could still have the hottest year on record or vice versa.