Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[ding]

Global warming is fully supported by science.

The science of interglacial periods, yes. The planet warms up for brief intervals before it returns to long periods of frigid temperatures. Been happening for at least 1 million years.

 

[Crick]

The science of interglacial periods, yes. The planet warms up for brief intervals before it returns to long periods of frigid temperatures. Been happening for at least 1 million years.

Wrong. See "The Physical Science Basis" at Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis and actually educate yourself, cause - right now - you're the stupidest piece of shite in three counties.

 

[ding]

Wrong. See "The Physical Science Basis" at Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis and actually educate yourself, cause - right now - you're the stupidest piece of shite in three counties.

Wow, you are really upset. My disagreeing with you shouldn't make you this angry.

And you didn't explain why you don't believe the planet experiences long periods of frigid temperatures and brief intervals of warmer temperatures. But I don't think you can cause that trend has been happening for at least the last million years.

 

[Crick]

Wow, you are really upset.

Not particularly.

My disagreeing with you shouldn't make you this angry.

Really? How angry should it make me?

And you didn't explain why you don't believe the planet experiences long periods of frigid temperatures and brief intervals of warmer temperatures.

Because I've never expressed any such opinion. So, how angry should I be at you lying about me?

But I don't think you can cause that trend has been happening for at least the last million years.

Your sentence here is syntactically flawed. Did you perhaps mean to say that I cannot cause that trend because it's been happening for at least the last million years?

If so, I never claimed that I or any other human could "cause" the glacial/interglacial cycle. This would then constitute another instance of you lying about me. How angry should I get now?

 

[ding]

Not particularly.

Really? How angry should it make me?

Because I've never expressed any such opinion. So, how angry should I be at you lying about me?

Your sentence here is syntactically flawed. Did you perhaps mean to say that I cannot cause that trend because it's been happening for at least the last million years?

If so, I never claimed that I or any other human could "cause" the glacial/interglacial cycle. This would then constitute another instance of you lying about me. How angry should I get now?

Of course you are. You don't call someone "the stupidest piece of shite in three counties" unless you are upset.

 

[Crick]

Of course you are. You don't call someone "the stupidest piece of shite in three counties" unless you are upset.

You don't have to be the least bit upset if they happen to BE the stupidest piece of shite in three counties and you clearly qualify for such a response.

 

[ding]

You don't have to be the least bit upset if they happen to BE the stupidest piece of shite in three counties and you clearly qualify for such a response.

Don't be silly. Of course you do. That's you lashing out out of frustration. And now you are trying to rationalize it.

 

[Crick]

Don't be silly. Of course you do. That's you lashing out out of frustration. And now you are trying to rationalize it.

Whatever. We have all seen that you have no compunction with lying about what I say or do, so... Do you have anything on-topic to say? Remember the issue of the consensus among climate scientists about AGW? Anything?

 

[ding]

Whatever. We have all seen that you have no compunction with lying about what I say or do, so... Do you have anything on-topic to say? Remember the issue of the consensus among climate scientists about AGW? Anything?

Says the guy who in one thread says he has death wish list for people who don't agree with him and in another thread bemoans the lack of open minded debate.

 

[Crick]

Says the guy who in one thread says he has death wish list for people who don't agree with him and in another thread bemoans the lack of open minded debate.

Your lying is why I stopped talking to you for some time and I see the situation has not gotten better. I have a list of quotes that I have repeatedly mentioned in this forum, from AGW deniers (YOUR side of this debate) making death wishes of their opponents (MY side of this debate). You ARE the stupidest piece of shite in (at LEAST) three counties and you make ad hominem attacks with demonstrable lies in almost every post you put up here. It took roughly 24 hours, but I've once again had more than enough of your SHITE.

Buh-bye.

 

[ding]

Your lying is why I stopped talking to you for some time and I see the situation has not gotten better. I have a list of quotes that I have repeatedly mentioned in this forum, from AGW deniers (YOUR side of this debate) making death wishes of their opponents (MY side of this debate). You ARE the stupidest piece of shite in (at LEAST) three counties and you make ad hominem attacks with demonstrable lies in almost every post you put up here. It took roughly 24 hours, but I've once again had more than enough of your SHITE.

Buh-bye.

I don't lie. I use empirical climate evidence to show how their conclusions of a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is wrong.

 

[ding]

Your lying is why I stopped talking to you for some time and I see the situation has not gotten better. I have a list of quotes that I have repeatedly mentioned in this forum, from AGW deniers (YOUR side of this debate) making death wishes of their opponents (MY side of this debate). You ARE the stupidest piece of shite in (at LEAST) three counties and you make ad hominem attacks with demonstrable lies in almost every post you put up here. It took roughly 24 hours, but I've once again had more than enough of your SHITE.

Buh-bye.

And you are clearly still upset with it because it is a winning argument and you don't like it because you have no good answers for it.

 

[Crick]

Scientific organizations of national standing that publicly concur with the conclusions of the IPCC re manmade global warming

General science​

American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

International science academies​

African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Science Foundation
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Physical and chemical sciences​

American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society

Earth sciences​

American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Meteorology and oceanography​

American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research

Biology and life sciences​

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
UK Insitute of Biology
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society

Human health​

American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associates
World Health Organization

Miscellaneous
American Astronomical Society[126]
American Statistical Association[127]
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers [128]
The Institution of Engineers Australia[129]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[130]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[131]
World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and "Doomsday clock"​

In 1945, Albert Einstein and other scientists who created atomic weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki founded the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and created the "Doomsday Clock". The goal of the clock is to convey threats to humanity and the planet, and to create public awareness that will lead to solutions. In the beginning, the Doomsday Clock focused on the dangers of nuclear war, but in the 21st century, it has begun to deal with other issues like climate change and disinformation on the internet.

On 23 January 2020 the organization moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, closer than ever. It explained that it did it because of three factors:

• Increasing danger of nuclear war,
• Increasing danger from climate change, and
• Increasing danger from disinformation in the internet regarding the issues in points 1 and 2 and other "disruptive technologies".

The organization praised the climate movement of young people and called to citizens and governments to act to take greater action on climate change.

Non-committal​

American Association of Petroleum Geologists​

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.

American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)​

The official position statement from AIPG on the Environment states that "combustion of fossil fuel include and the generation of GHGs [greenhouse gases] including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Emissions of GHGs are perceived by some to be one of the largest, global environmental concerns related to energy production due to potential effects on the global energy system and possibly global climate. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs since industrialization".

In March 2010, AIPG's Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG's news journal, The Professional Geologist.

Opposing​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Crick]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% and 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Consensus is a political tool, not a scientific argument.

 

[Crick]

Consensus is a political tool, not a scientific argument.

The consensus has measured the opinion of climate scientists from around the planet. You are suggesting that they are all scientifically dishonest and politically homogeneous because you are scientifically dishonest, politically biased and as stupid as a fucking rock.

 

[ding]

The consensus has measured the opinion of climate scientists from around the planet. You are suggesting that they are all scientifically dishonest and politically homogeneous because you are scientifically dishonest, politically biased and as stupid as a fucking rock.

No. It was forced by the IPCC for political purposes. This has become a political argument, not a scientific one.

 

[Crick]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

Your linked America Insider article is centered around an interview of Dr. Judith Curry. But it never identifies who interviewed her or provides a link to the full interview text. Why would that be?

I found an article in the New York Post (another prime science source) written by John Stossel in which he states that Curry said those things to him. A YouTube video is available of that interview at .
Can you believe that's John Stossel?

I have found other interviews she has given, primarily to hype her book sales, most recently for “Climate Change and Uncertainty: Rethinking our Response.”

Here is one conducted by Morley Stone and Ken Ford of Florida's Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) with a slightly more scientific basis. Unfortunately, it is also only seen on video though the link here will take you to a guide of the questions asked. IHMC STEM-Talk Episode 158

 

[Dagosa]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.

America Insider is under construction

The Pulse of America

www.americainsider.org

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.

Judith Curry…wow. How ignorant are you ? Science doesn’t doesn’t give a shit what one person’s opinion is.
it only cares what the tens of thousands of scientists at every climate research institute in the world agree with.

 

[Crick]

Judith Curry…wow. How ignorant are you ? Science doesn’t doesn’t give a shit what one person’s opinion is.
it only cares what the tens of thousands of scientists at every climate research institute in the world agree with.

I've got to push back a bit on that. Science can be deeply affected by a single person if they're science is good and says something different. The discovery of dark energy, dark matter and the accelerating expansion of the universe were each initially due to the work of a small number of individuals.

Unfortunately, neither Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr, Willie Soon, Will Happer, Sallie Bailunas nor anyone else rejecting the consensus position are such individuals.