Texas getting a tragic lesson in Climate Change science

[bripat9643]

More evidence that "global warming" is a religion. Republican "deniers" brought the wrath of nature upon themselves. Let that be a lesson. Climate change evangelists make guys like Jimmy Swaggert look like amateurs.

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that's why you disregard the word of 97% of scientist and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide and believe that the 3% who happen to agree with your politicians are right.

I'm not a conservative and I'm convinced at this point that there is little we have caused or can impact based on the science.
The politicization of the issue, however, suggests otherwise which makes the idea of AGW even more suspect.

No.
The reason you disregard 97 % of folks far smarter than you are is because you are willingly stuck on stupid.
No use trying to sugar coat it.

Anyone who regurgitates the bogus 97% figure is a fraud and a propagandist. I marvel at the way the AGW cult takes claims that have been thoroughly discredited and uses them over and over and over again. They count on the ignorance of their audience. They are a lot like television evangelists.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that's why you disregard the word of 97% of scientist and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide and believe that the 3% who happen to agree with your politicians are right.

I'm not a conservative and I'm convinced at this point that there is little we have caused or can impact based on the science.
The politicization of the issue, however, suggests otherwise which makes the idea of AGW even more suspect.

No.
The reason you disregard 97 % of folks far smarter than you are is because you are willingly stuck on stupid.
No use trying to sugar coat it.

Why do lefties always go rude when they can't rebut?
I already explained how that 97% figure is exploited and twisted. It's used as propaganda and you've fallen for it. What's more, the idea that propaganda must be utilized to promote an issue undermines the veracity of the AGW claim.

Reality is like that. If it is too harsh a concept for you, I suggest you get a helmet.
There is no more a debate on climate change than there is about the boiling point of water- though I figure you'd find a way to whine about that if it didn't fit your narrative as well.

Hearing conservatives whimper about 'rudeness' is merely a sign of being on target.

When people say "there is no more debate" it means they don't want to debate because their claims don't stand up to careful scrutiny. You can repeat your mantra ad nuaseum, but the debate will continue until the AGW cult is thoroughly routed, if it isn't already.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you think that those who lost homes, or someone else, didn't rebuild in the same areas that were flooded? I'll bet it now is not much different then it was before the storms. It is what people do. But using a natural disaster as a political tool was made popular by the left after Katrina when in fact it was left wing policy that lead to most of the deaths. Quite fantastic the left's denial.

Left wing policy did not lead to most of the Katrina deaths shit for brains. That's the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Of course it did. Who was the mayor of New Orleans at the time?

 

[hipeter924]

More evidence that "global warming" is a religion. Republican "deniers" brought the wrath of nature upon themselves. Let that be a lesson. Climate change evangelists make guys like Jimmy Swaggert look like amateurs.

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

Never said CO2 in that post, then getting angry out of thin air is your specialty, maybe you are the no1 cause of climate change - as when you walk into a room you heat it up.

 

[Mertex]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

 

[Mertex]

Yeah, that's why you disregard the word of 97% of scientist and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide and believe that the 3% who happen to agree with your politicians are right.

I'm not a conservative and I'm convinced at this point that there is little we have caused or can impact based on the science.
The politicization of the issue, however, suggests otherwise which makes the idea of AGW even more suspect.

Yeah sure, you just happen to side with conservatives on almost every issue. It doesn't really matter what you think, I believe that 97% of scientist are more accurate sources than you and the rest of the uninformed conservatives who keep denying what the experts say.

keep spouting that 97% all it does is make you look like an ignorant fool.

You and the rest of the deniers are the ones that look like fools. Relegating the visual effects that everyone in the world has witnessed make the whole bunch of you look like stubborn, obstinate fools.

 

[Mertex]

How are we supposed to stop mother nature? Global warming cult have some magic powers they are not telling us?

If you would listen and not deny it, maybe your leaders would then listen to those who can come up with a plan to lessen the effects that are causing it. Denying it just allows the cause to continue.....conservatives are so worried about the debt, claim they don't want to leave it for their children and grandchildren, but they don't mind going against the fact that if we don't do something to get our environment under control, there won't be a "world" for their children and grandchildren. Think about that.

So we need to throw some virgins into the volcano?

When have so-called climate scientists ever even demonstrated the ability to predict the climate, let alone alter it?

The last thing we need to do is hand over control over our economy to a circus full of quacks, con artists and witch doctors.

NO, we should turn it over to the likes of George W. Bush, who nearly destroyed our country and was responsible for the loss of so many Americans.......yeah, that's so much better than actually accepting facts.

 

[Mertex]

More evidence that "global warming" is a religion. Republican "deniers" brought the wrath of nature upon themselves. Let that be a lesson. Climate change evangelists make guys like Jimmy Swaggert look like amateurs.

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

Never said CO2 in that post, then getting angry out of thin air is your specialty, maybe you are the no1 cause of climate change - as when you walk into a room you heat it up.

They are angry because they see the effects of Climate Change with their own eyes, but they can't ago against their own Puppet Masters........

 

[Wyatt earp]

More evidence that "global warming" is a religion. Republican "deniers" brought the wrath of nature upon themselves. Let that be a lesson. Climate change evangelists make guys like Jimmy Swaggert look like amateurs.

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

Never said CO2 in that post, then getting angry out of thin air is your specialty, maybe you are the no1 cause of climate change - as when you walk into a room you heat it up.

They are angry because they see the effects of Climate Change with their own eyes, but they can't ago against their own Puppet Masters........

I have been on this planet for 50 year's child, no matter how much you scream and color your words kiddie, you again are just posting like a spoiled brat. Way to funny.... Seek professional help please... Before it gets to late

 

[Mertex]

More evidence that "global warming" is a religion. Republican "deniers" brought the wrath of nature upon themselves. Let that be a lesson. Climate change evangelists make guys like Jimmy Swaggert look like amateurs.

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

Never said CO2 in that post, then getting angry out of thin air is your specialty, maybe you are the no1 cause of climate change - as when you walk into a room you heat it up.

They are angry because they see the effects of Climate Change with their own eyes, but they can't ago against their own Puppet Masters........

I have been on this planet for 50 year's child, no matter how much you scream and color your words kiddie, you again are just posting like a spoiled brat. Way to funny.... Seek professional help please... Before it gets to late

Well, you haven't learned much in those 50 years.

And, you're beyond professional help.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

btw cry baby, why didn't they ask the scientist, instead of interpertating papers?

The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

Clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

• Yes: Mostly human
• Yes: Equally human and natural
• Yes: Mostly natural
• Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
• Yes: Don’t know cause
• Don’t know if global warming is happening
• Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):


Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience).

 

[Wyatt earp]

At some point in the early 2000s it turned from 'climate change' into 'global warming', and ever since it has been sensationalized to the point that the science behind changes in climate are a political issue.

People have lost touch of the fact that the point of caring for the environment shouldn't be built on fear of punishment or world apocalypse - but on genuinely caring about human health and nature.

Even if the doomsday scenarios come true, what then. It being a question of survival, wouldn't change the current benefits of not having an overly polluted atmosphere and landscape.

CO2 isn't a pollutant, numskull.

Never said CO2 in that post, then getting angry out of thin air is your specialty, maybe you are the no1 cause of climate change - as when you walk into a room you heat it up.

They are angry because they see the effects of Climate Change with their own eyes, but they can't ago against their own Puppet Masters........

I have been on this planet for 50 year's child, no matter how much you scream and color your words kiddie, you again are just posting like a spoiled brat. Way to funny.... Seek professional help please... Before it gets to late

Well, you haven't learned much in those 50 years.

And, you're beyond professional help.

That's not what past bosses said about me, I am the cream of the crop, or either is head hunters that so love me., see I go against the grain with logic, common sense and knowledge, you just run with a preposterous 97% claim. A fucking sheep, a well indoctrinated child

*Shrugs*

What ever

 

[Mertex]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

btw cry baby, why didn't they ask the scientist, instead of interpertating papers?

The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

Clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

• Yes: Mostly human
• Yes: Equally human and natural
• Yes: Mostly natural
• Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
• Yes: Don’t know cause
• Don’t know if global warming is happening
• Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):


Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience).

You're behind the times....you need to catch up to speed and get with the program (the rest of the deniers) so you don't look so abysmally ignorant.



There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesn’t deny climate change — it’s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.
Climate-change deniers are in retreat - The Washington Post


Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Climate change deniers Climate change basics Climate change Science policy Climate change basics Issues

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

btw cry baby, why didn't they ask the scientist, instead of interpertating papers?

The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

Clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

• Yes: Mostly human
• Yes: Equally human and natural
• Yes: Mostly natural
• Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
• Yes: Don’t know cause
• Don’t know if global warming is happening
• Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):


Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience).

You're behind the times....you need to catch up to speed and get with the program (the rest of the deniers) so you don't look so abysmally ignorant.



There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesn’t deny climate change — it’s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.
Climate-change deniers are in retreat - The Washington Post


Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Climate change deniers Climate change basics Climate change Science policy Climate change basics Issues

Not me, so you think big ethanol, big wind and big solar are not in this game?

Btw.... The more you scream and post in color just shows how ignorant you are and very childish.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Real scientist wants the facts, dumb fucks like you, just want to scream....

Here is an Idea...... Go outside and play.


Report back to us if you see a difference.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

btw cry baby, why didn't they ask the scientist, instead of interpertating papers?

The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

Clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

• Yes: Mostly human
• Yes: Equally human and natural
• Yes: Mostly natural
• Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
• Yes: Don’t know cause
• Don’t know if global warming is happening
• Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):


Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience).

You're behind the times....you need to catch up to speed and get with the program (the rest of the deniers) so you don't look so abysmally ignorant.



There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesn’t deny climate change — it’s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.
Climate-change deniers are in retreat - The Washington Post


Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Climate change deniers Climate change basics Climate change Science policy Climate change basics Issues

Also like to point out Dr. Curry is a real scientist, she is not some fictitional ones that you hide behind in your 97% debate and don't give us names
Judith Curry - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yeah, that's why you disregard the word of 97% of scientist and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide and believe that the 3% who happen to agree with your politicians are right.

I'm not a conservative and I'm convinced at this point that there is little we have caused or can impact based on the science.
The politicization of the issue, however, suggests otherwise which makes the idea of AGW even more suspect.

Yeah sure, you just happen to side with conservatives on almost every issue. It doesn't really matter what you think, I believe that 97% of scientist are more accurate sources than you and the rest of the uninformed conservatives who keep denying what the experts say.

Disagreeing with almost every democrat agenda doesn't mean I agree with conservatives.
You need to expand your research and stop relying on left wing propaganda. Especially where atmospheric science is concerned. There are plenty of scientists who dispute the AGW theory and many on your 97% list who disagree with the extreme measures being undertaken in response.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Yeah, that's why you disregard the word of 97% of scientist and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide and believe that the 3% who happen to agree with your politicians are right.

I'm not a conservative and I'm convinced at this point that there is little we have caused or can impact based on the science.
The politicization of the issue, however, suggests otherwise which makes the idea of AGW even more suspect.

Yeah sure, you just happen to side with conservatives on almost every issue. It doesn't really matter what you think, I believe that 97% of scientist are more accurate sources than you and the rest of the uninformed conservatives who keep denying what the experts say.

keep spouting that 97% all it does is make you look like an ignorant fool.

You and the rest of the deniers are the ones that look like fools. Relegating the visual effects that everyone in the world has witnessed make the whole bunch of you look like stubborn, obstinate fools.

What 'visual effects'?

 

[Mertex]

It's not propaganda.....it's what the majority of Scientists now support. Rush is not a scientist, he's just a stupid money-hungry blowhard that says what you stupid conservatives like to hear and has gotten rich by saying all the dumb things you all want to believe and playing up to your conservative ignorance.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”
Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge - Scientific American

Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

The 97%, is a myth and has been debunked so many times.
The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions

Snip

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)

Your "The 97% is a myth has been debunked so many times" is the myth. The very fact that we have actually witnessed the effects of it is what makes the denier's claim so absurd. But you, who claim to love America so much, are willing to deny the effects and allow the damage to continue....Bravo!

WSJ’s shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a myth
97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening, and a transparent Op-Ed fails to argue otherwise

Climate change is a tricky subject to talk about: It’s a large, complex scientific issue that’s both difficult to grasp in full and extremely important for the public to understand. In our shorthand for making sense of it, one statistic is often thrown about: 97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is happening. Yet a big, impressive-looking Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal asserts the number is a “myth.” WSJ’s claim is wrong, of course, but where its authors fail to debunk a popular meme, they also manage to make a much more insidious, and radical, argument.

First things first, we should be extremely skeptical of any argument this article is trying to make, even despite its appearance in the hallowed pages of the Journal. It’s bylined, after all, by two prominent climate deniers: The first, Joseph Bast, is identified as the president of the Koch-affiliated Heartland Institute, a veritable machine of climate denial, with the implicit mission statement of sowing confusion and dissent about accepted science. (For another standout example of Bast’s opinion writing, try this 1998 editorial asserting that smoking, in moderation, has “few, if any, adverse health effects.”) The Op-Ed’s other author is Roy Spencer, “a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite” and official Heartland expert. Spencer’s academic credentials, a rarity among climate deniers, lend weight to his arguments despite the fact that both his work and financial motivations have been repeatedly called into question. Bast and Spencer are motivated to debunk the 97 percent “myth” because they have a vested interest, via their affiliation with Heartland, in getting the public to believe that the scientists are a lot less certain about the reality of man-made climate change than they actually are.
(snip)
WSJ s shameful climate denial The scientific consensus is not a myth - Salon.com

And another one contradicting himself:

The editorial was written by Joseph Bast, president of the “PR pollution clearing” Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer. According to The Guardian in an opposing response published Wednesday, Spencer formerly testified to US Congress in support of human-responsibility claims as part of the 97 percent, despite his research falling in the 3 percent peer-reviewed fringe minority work claiming the exact opposite.
WSJ Digs In Climate-Change-Denial Heels Outside Online

btw cry baby, why didn't they ask the scientist, instead of interpertating papers?

The 97 consensus myth busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

Clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

• Yes: Mostly human
• Yes: Equally human and natural
• Yes: Mostly natural
• Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
• Yes: Don’t know cause
• Don’t know if global warming is happening
• Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):


Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience).

You're behind the times....you need to catch up to speed and get with the program (the rest of the deniers) so you don't look so abysmally ignorant.



There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesn’t deny climate change — it’s threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.
Climate-change deniers are in retreat - The Washington Post


Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.

Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connectionswith public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Climate change deniers Climate change basics Climate change Science policy Climate change basics Issues

Not me, so you think big ethanol, big wind and big solar are not in this game?

Btw.... The more you scream and post in color just shows how ignorant you are and very childish.

Don't be an idiot. The reason I post in color is to differentiate what I say from what I am quoting from an article. Screaming is when someone posts in all Caps, so, it appears that you are the ignorant and childish person, bringing attention to some innocuous choice of presenting information.

I'm sure in due time every ignoramus like you will no longer be able to deny the effects most of us are already comprehending, but perhaps it will be too late, as you float down the river in an unexpected downpour somewhere.