97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

[Gadawg73]

Um...Not so fast, Skippy.

Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists

Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?

Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.

The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.​

Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?

UK Telegraph

The UK Telegraph, that bastion of unbiased journalism.
Just last year they published an article that claimed scientists had proof that "Greenhouse gases could have caused an ice age" and "Scientists have warned that filling the atmosphere with Greenhouse gases associated with global warming could push the planet into a new ice age".
When asked what scientist was the fool that made that statement no one could be found.
No retraction to date at UK Telegraph.
Imagine that.

 

[Coyote]

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE

Interesting link, one that also clearly has an agenda as it is coming from an energy policy viewpoint. It does make good points regarding the difficulty of transforming both economies and energy use but does it really dispute the science?

It claims:
Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved, national policymakers broadly support curbing carbon emissions via government regulation.

There are numerous articles that indicate a very strong correlation between human activity and climate change that makes it as close to 100% certainty as something that complex can be.

Just one example: IPCC - Working Group I

It also claims: that burning fossil fuels accounts for only 3.27% of atmospheric CO2 but, when I go to the site "withouthotair.com" I can't find how he derives that figure.

It doesn't actually dispute the science though - rather, it raises questions (but no answers) intending to discredit the science but are really more like red herrings (for example why are other planets warming) and goes into the economic impacts of climate-change related policies.

According to this source:

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

According to the source I previously used:

On time-scales of ~100 years, there are only two reservoirs that can naturally exchange large quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere: the oceans and the land biosphere (forests and soils). The mass of carbon (carbon is the “C” in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs.

Number of observations of carbon decreasing in the global oceans: zero.

Number of observations of carbon increasing in the global oceans: more than 20 published studies using 6 independent methods.

 

[Gadawg73]

Big business and big polluters have always tried to demonize anyone and everyone that reports the fact that man has contributed to global warming.
That slant that ONLY left wing liberals believe those facts is mainly an American phenomenon.
Just like pro wrasslin.

 

[Oddball]

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE

Interesting link, one that also clearly has an agenda as it is coming from an energy policy viewpoint. It does make good points regarding the difficulty of transforming both economies and energy use but does it really dispute the science?

It claims:
Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved, national policymakers broadly support curbing carbon emissions via government regulation.

There are numerous articles that indicate a very strong correlation between human activity and climate change that makes it as close to 100% certainty as something that complex can be.

Just one example: IPCC - Working Group I

yaddayaddayadda

Right...And the IPCC doesn't have an agenda.

Whatever.

 

[Gadawg73]

And Al Gore laughed himself all the way to the bank with the millions he made off the scam.

Oh yes.

I am no fan of Al Gore.
Hoever, he invested his life savings into green technologies. Only a liberal would be foolish enough to believe the venture capital that made him $ off of his investments was from ignorant people naive to the facts of proven science.
To date Al Gore has reinvested his earnings into other PRIVATE entities and donated millions to charities.
What the hell is wrong with any of that? As a business owner of 3 corporations that knows all about venture capital I know that what Gore has done is good for the economy, workers and the future.

 

[Rinata]

Why does the truth threaten you bagheads so much??? Oh, never mind. In this case it's because it involves Al Gore.

 

[Coyote]

ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE

Interesting link, one that also clearly has an agenda as it is coming from an energy policy viewpoint. It does make good points regarding the difficulty of transforming both economies and energy use but does it really dispute the science?

It claims:
Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved, national policymakers broadly support curbing carbon emissions via government regulation.

There are numerous articles that indicate a very strong correlation between human activity and climate change that makes it as close to 100% certainty as something that complex can be.

Just one example: IPCC - Working Group I

yaddayaddayadda

Right...And the IPCC doesn't have an agenda.

Whatever.

I didn't say that - but they are composed of a broad variety of scientists covering multiple disciplines and they are required to publish under a peer review process. Agenda or not - those are pretty stringent standards.

As you say..."whatever" - in the end, can you dispute the science directly (rather than by implication)? That's what matters isn't it?

 

[Oddball]

Interesting link, one that also clearly has an agenda as it is coming from an energy policy viewpoint. It does make good points regarding the difficulty of transforming both economies and energy use but does it really dispute the science?

It claims:
Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved, national policymakers broadly support curbing carbon emissions via government regulation.

There are numerous articles that indicate a very strong correlation between human activity and climate change that makes it as close to 100% certainty as something that complex can be.

Just one example: IPCC - Working Group I

yaddayaddayadda

Right...And the IPCC doesn't have an agenda.

Whatever.

I didn't say that - but they are composed of a broad variety of scientists covering multiple disciplines and they are required to publish under a peer review process. Agenda or not - those are pretty stringent standards.

Nonsense.

I think Meister has the link which shows that the IPCC has accepted less than 11% of the total scientific studies submitted to it.

Now, if you were a betting person, what do you think the conclusions of the papers they accepted came to?

 

[Coyote]

Right...And the IPCC doesn't have an agenda.

Whatever.

I didn't say that - but they are composed of a broad variety of scientists covering multiple disciplines and they are required to publish under a peer review process. Agenda or not - those are pretty stringent standards.

Nonsense.

I think Meister has the link which shows that the IPCC has accepted less than 11% of the total scientific studies submitted to it.

Now, if you were a betting person, what do you think the conclusions of the papers they accepted came to?

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

 

[Gadawg73]

I didn't say that - but they are composed of a broad variety of scientists covering multiple disciplines and they are required to publish under a peer review process. Agenda or not - those are pretty stringent standards.

Nonsense.

I think Meister has the link which shows that the IPCC has accepted less than 11% of the total scientific studies submitted to it.

Now, if you were a betting person, what do you think the conclusions of the papers they accepted came to?

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

Exactly.

 

[Oddball]

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

 

[FireFly]

Scientist are clueless: Absence of sunspots make scientists wonder if they're seeing a calm before a storm of energy or will we have another little ice age?

 

[saveliberty]

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

I can think of a baker's dozen or so that fit that description.

 

[Coyote]

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

JAMA doesn't....? Some might disagree there. IPCC has a higher acceptance rate then JAMA apparently too.

Sounds like you're tossing red-herrings.

Do you have any evidence to show that the material submitted was not accepted due to conclusions rather than faulty or sloppy methodology?

 

[FA_Q2]

I am getting nowhere in another thread so I will repost here:

I have some general problems with GW theory. Everyone here keeps throwing up numbers and temperatures and forgets to realize that they are skirting the larger issue. Over all the information that I have been able to look up covering GW, I have to say that I believe the earth IS warming. That seems quite verifiable through the evidence despite the personal attacks and some cooked data. The thing is that is where everyone rests the debate at and yet that is only HALF of the theory. There IS a general consensus that the earth is warming, there is ABSOLUTELY NO consensus on the actual cause and effect of that warming. That is what I am interested in and that is where the proponents on GW fail to convince me. When I first signed up on this board I did not believe that the earth was warming, hadn't seen any real evidence to prove it but I have to admit that there has been a very good case for a warming earth so I will give the people here the benefit of the doubt. Now, instead of screaming where are the numbers, show us how the increase in carbon has unequivocally caused the growth in warming the earth.

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into. What is the impact of warming? Truth be told, a warmer earth would be BETTER for life. Cold is not conducive to life in general and the many of the warmest places on earth are the most abundant in life. Granted, the Sahara is very warm and not exactly the garden of Eden but that is not due to the heat but the rainfall. A warmer earth would actually INCREASE rainfall and available water. The doom and gloom segment of GW has little evidence outside of conjecture and computer models that were built by scientist that need bad results to gain funds. I do not prescribe to a conspiracy and generally believe conspiracies are bullshit but there are very real instances where people WANT to believe that the world is in danger and we need to fix it. There are a TON of parallels with GW theory and the Ozone scare. The same case was presented, there WAS a hole in the Ozone - the earth is warming. CFC demonstrably depleted Ozone - Carbon IS a greenhouse gas. There was absolutely no theory on HOW CFC reached the ozone or if they were depleting it - I have yet to see any conclusive facts that tie carbon into the rise of temperatures OR predictable outcomes from GW. GW theory simply makes that jump all on its own just as the ozone alarmists did in yesteryear. There are MANY things that global temperatures are caused by with the LARGEST factor being the sun, by magnitudes.


The sad part about all this is that the grater debate is totally missed with those not being GW's written off because people are so stuck in their conclusions and GW's written off as alarmists for the same. If there is a real threat I damn well want to know it. From what I have seen in the data the only provable threat is the rise in PH levels in the ocean that could cause REAL damage. However, most estimates put that off for 75 years, hardly an emergency and there is still a lack of proof that carbon is the problem. We need REAL science and what we are getting is political infighting.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK...........so lets just say we conceed that 97% of scientists agree..........yada......yada...........


Nobody cares.....................


It still holds that there is not one single solitary stitch of proof that anything man does to "fight" global warming will have ANY effect anyway!!!!





Accordingly..............another thread of epic fail by another k00k...................

 

[rightwinger]

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.

Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid

 

[skookerasbil]

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.

Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid

This place would suck without them.....................

 

[Gadawg73]

What's the acceptance rate of other scientific bodies? (For example the AMJ accepts only 6-8% of all the material submitted to it and JAMA is 8%. ) That number is meaningless standing alone. You could argue that papers aren't accepted based on their conclusions but I suspect it has more to do with how those conclusions are reached.

AMJ and JAMA don't have political agendas...IPCC does.

Anyone who can still deny that just isn't living in reality.

Medical journals do not have political agendas?
Dude, respectfully, you need to think real hard on that one and get back to us.
American health care is the fastest growing part of the economy for the last 50 years and you claim they are not politically motivated.
Much more than the IPCC.

 

[skookerasbil]

A big part of the problem is that the atmosphere is NOT warming. From all the evidence I have seen it looks as though it is the OCEAN that is actually warming and that ties into the second problem that GW runs into.

Thats because it is harder for a gas to hold heat than a liquid

How awesome to have zero responsibilities in life except to blog????!!!!!!!!!