The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[RollingThunder]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

LOLOLOL....good little denier cultist....parrot the lies...

Your article was written by a lawyer, James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlet. He is a famous liar.

Here is an analysis of his fraudulent article from the scientists who wrote the study that Taylor is deliberately misinterpreting.

Taylor distorts poll of meteorologists on climate change to reach opposite conclusion of study authors
Climate Science Watch
November 28, 2013
Authors of a new study of meteorologists' views of global warming set the record straight when Forbes op-ed writer James Taylor, consistent with his long history of denial and obfuscation on climate change, selectively reports the results of a poll of members of the American Meteorological Society. Taylor claims the study shows weak support for the human contribution to global warming. In fact, as authors of the study point out below, the survey found that more than 90 percent of those respondents who are more engaged in research and publishing on climate science acknowledge the human contribution to warming.

Neil Stenhouse, et al., "Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members" (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, preliminary accepted version) (article Abstract)

Statement by Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Paul Croft, Keith Seitter, and Anthony Leiserowitz:

James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change. Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery. Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we can’t stop them. Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor.

In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming. To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise – climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science – and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise.

We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring). Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.

 

[Iceweasel]

The actual scientists who study all of the different aspects of the climate and atmospheric physics are virtually unamamous in saying that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that the 43% increase that mankind has caused is heating the planet.

Bullshit.

What a brilliant rebuttal.....NOT....

How did you get sooooo retarded, shitweasel? Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby?

The American Geophysical Union, a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 62,000 members from 144 countries, issued a position statement on global warming in 2003, revised it in 2007, and revised and expanded it again in 2013. This statement affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued a position statement in 2012 that concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.​

I think you skipped a post.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[Iceweasel]

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring). Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.[/SIZE][/B]

Uh yeah, you don't like a potentially biased source so you use climatesciencewatch.org?

It's full of shit and any grade schooler could blow holes in it. What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you? And they say if a question was asked differently then of course most of them would have answered in a way to support a consensus of man made warming. That sounds like science to you? You'll believe anything, no wonder you are so defensive.

 

[Crick]

What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you?

It sounds like something your point of view has never enjoyed and never will.

 

[Iceweasel]

What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you?

It sounds like something your point of view has never enjoyed and never will.

I don't believe in any religions although they do enjoy high levels of expert consensus as well.

 

[Crick]

No religion enjoys consensus support from scientists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No religion enjoys consensus support from scientists.

Except AGW.

I mean 75/77 support it.

 

[Crick]

Tens of thousands support it. Try to keep up. Just cause your fossil fuel funded sources don't tell you all the truth doesn't mean you can't go look for yourself.

 

[daveman]

My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.

As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all. He's an economist. He is not a government official. He holds no elected office. No one is taking direction from him. Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy. And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything. So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant. I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems. I don't even think it would be helpful. And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism. He spoke about redistributing wealth. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage. Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy. That doesn't make anyone socialist.

Global welfare. That sounds grand, doesn't it? And by the way -- it's socialism.

If you believe that fighting greed is akin to socialism, then call it what you will. I have to really ask you conservative nitwits, though - what would your Jesus do? Do you believe he would approve of the current level of greed in the world?

It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.

Proper governance requires the minimum amount of government interference in people's lives conducive with civilized society. Ensure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed or fail. When government meddles and starts picking winners, it does far more harm than good -- unless you think Obama flushing half a billion dollars down the Solyndra toilet was a rousing success. Wouldn't put it past you.

Erm, when fat cat CEOs are making 2,000+ times what their employees make, what opportunities to succeed to you really believe those workers have? When 1% of the world's population possesses 90% of the world's wealth, what chance to you believe the 99% actually has to succeed?

The government has already selected the winners. The winners are those with the deepest pockets, and they have already bought the government. Speaking of wasting money, what is your opinion of the 5 billion dollars that the Bush Administration shipped to Iraq that simply vanished, and is STILL unaccounted for?

Here's a little tip for you, Skippy: The only person keeping you down is YOU. It's not "the Man", it's not the GOP, it's not KKKorporations. It's you, the choices you've made, and the opportunities you've squandered.

Learn to take responsibility for yourself, accept the consequences of your actions, quit blaming others, and you can be a happy, productive member of society.

Or just keep whining like a little bitch on the internet because people won't give you free stuff the way you think you deserve.

Your call. But I expect you've already made your decision.

 

[daveman]

Chiefio reports that

Chiefo reports a wacky conspiracy theory. We know it's a wacky conspiracy theory because those "dropped" stations showed, on the average, _more_ warming than the stations that are still operating.

It's amusing, how badly most deniers misunderstand the science here. They actually think removing stations from cooler locations would make the trend look warmer. I could explain to them why that's not the case, but I'd rather watch them flail about and create various other conspiracy theories first.

Gosh, you're stupid. Let's do a little math. Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.

Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:

17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11

We have a low data point of 0 and a high data point of 25, with an average of 18.8.

Now let's do like climate "scientists" do and throw out the inconvenient data, choosing the warmest station to represent the entire area: The average suddenly becomes 25.

All of a sudden, the average temperature became over 6 degrees warmer. Note that the area itself didn't get any warmer -- but they sure do want you to think it did, don't they?

You're being lied to. And you LIKE it. Moron.

 

[daveman]

We need to exterminate global warming deniers like we did back in Salem to the crazy witches.

Oh, bring it, you little bitch.

Progressives are fucked in the head. There can be no doubt. Their only solution to dissent is bloodshed.

 

[daveman]

What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year? Will it happen suddenly, or gradually over many years? And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do? It took decades to reach the point we are at today. It will take many more decades to reverse the damage. To my mind, doing nothing is not an option.

What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year?

When will that number be even slightly reduced?
How many trillions does the US have to spend to make up for next years increase from China and India?

And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do?

It is not worth it to our children and grandchildren if we ruin our economy and go ever deeper into debt for an unmeasureable decrease in future temperatures.

If we don't go green, the only solution for the planet is the either full out or near extinction of man. This planet will turn back into paradise if there are only a few million humans still alive all across the globe.

Think about the bears, cougars, deer, bison, wolves, fish, birds, etc. This planet will turn back into paradise when the masses are all gone. I wish I had a big underground fortress so I could survive it and live in it. A bunch of distilled water and canned goods. I would loot homes for their can goods. I'd fish. I'd hunt with all the guns my fellow Americans left behind. I am grateful for them because I don't know how to make a gun, forge steel, make a telephone. Hell I probably couldn't even make a fire without human flint rocks or magnifying glass or a lighter.

I can't wait to see Planet of the Apes. I bet it was nice after they got rid of humans. I root for the apes. Did you see the preview? Their advantage is they don't need electricity, fire, shelter, light, guns.

You'd die whimpering and starving in the cold and dark. Guaranteed. The people with the guns who have made preparations would survive. You would not.

 

[daveman]

I posted the opinion of a meteorologist that explained it better than I could. Since you weren't able to process the info, he said said CO2s were insignificant in warming the atmosphere. Sorry.

You posted the opinion of Jeff Haby, a conservative broadcast meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Next.

Well known charlatans like Jean Dixon have superior predictive rates than your "climatologists". Next.

Hell, the models can't even predict PAST climate!

 

[daveman]

How long do you think people can survive in deserts without water and food?

Ask the Bedouin, they've been doing it for centuries.....hell, millennia.

No sir, they have not been living without food and water for centuries, much less for millenia, you friggin moron. That said, the fact that you apparently believe that kind of lifestyle to be the ultimate goal of modern civilization tells me everything I need to know about your level of intelligence (don't worry, we can all go live as camel herders in Utah if we have to). Congratulations.

Isn't that the goal of the green movement? Have the few remaining humans living close to nature? No artificial power sources?

You can live in a tent burning buffalo shit for heat if you want to. But don't be surprised if I laugh at you when you tell me I have to do the same.

 

[daveman]

What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year? Will it happen suddenly, or gradually over many years? And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do? It took decades to reach the point we are at today. It will take many more decades to reverse the damage. To my mind, doing nothing is not an option.

What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year?

When will that number be even slightly reduced?
How many trillions does the US have to spend to make up for next years increase from China and India?

And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do?

It is not worth it to our children and grandchildren if we ruin our economy and go ever deeper into debt for an unmeasureable decrease in future temperatures.

Since you are the one who is arguing that we will or have to ruin our economy in order to reduce emissions, perhaps you and westwall could consult Jean Dixon and maybe she could give us some inkling from her tea leaves exactly how that will happen.

$540 trillion: The global cost of climate change | Communities Digital News

In the heat of the 2013 elections, Australian Topher Field did a remarkable thing. He became the first person in the world to calculate the global cost of climate change.

Field uses universally accepted data sources. He assumes the IPCC’s conclusions are all correct. He scales up Australia’s carbon tax solution to apply it to the whole planet. Australia models its carbon tax plan on the United Nation’s proposed solution.

Topher Field calls his analysis the “50 to 1 Project” because he concludes in it that it costs 50 times more to prevent global warming than to adapt to its effects.

Field summarizes his findings in this highly entertaining, easy to understand and quite astounding 9-minute video:


Most astonishing is that Field’s calculations show that it would cost $540 trillion dollars to prevent a mere +0.17°C temperature rise by 2020. That is a mind-boggling 80 percent of global GDP.

Field points out that, according the 2006 Stern report on climate change economics, a +3°C global temperature rise would cost 0 to 3 percent of GDP in climate damage. Field assumes the Stern GDP mid-point increase, 1.5 percent, and concludes that it costs more than 50 times more to stop global warming than to adapt to it.​

What's your share gonna be? Or do you expect me to pay your share?

The argument that we can't reduce our emissions because of something China and India are or may do is specious at best, and is a great example of poor leadership. If Thomas Jefferson had opposed the revolutionary war because, well the King of Sweden never recommended it, where would we be today?

USA meets Kyoto protocol goal ? without ever embracing it | Watts Up With That?

New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​

I guess you can give Obama credit for that, since he fucked up the economy.

 

[mamooth]

Gosh, you're stupid. Let's do a little math. Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.

Thanks Dave. I was hoping you'd do exactly what you just did, which is display how your ignorance of the science makes you such easy pickings for the scammers.

Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:

17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11

We have a low data point of 0 and a high data point of 25, with an average of 18.8.

Now let's do like climate "scientists" do and throw out the inconvenient data, choosing the warmest station to represent the entire area: The average suddenly becomes 25.

All of a sudden, the average temperature became over 6 degrees warmer. Note that the area itself didn't get any warmer -- but they sure do want you to think it did, don't they?

And thus Dave does his face plant into a cow patty.

Dave, notice how when average temperatures are calculated, they don't use an absolute temperature? For example, they might say May 2014 is +0.33C. That's the temperature anomaly.

And why do they use temperature anomaly instead of absolute temperature? Precisely so they _don't_ get the situation you just described.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. And that's why the dropping out of those old stations had no effect on the temperature average. The anomaly average only changes if stations that were added or removed had a different trend. But since UHI is compensated for in the averages, the stations all trend together very closely.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. Since you didn't know it, it indicates you're not qualified to be sitting at the grownups' table. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you do more 'larnin.

 

[daveman]

Gosh, you're stupid. Let's do a little math. Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.

Thanks Dave. I was hoping you'd do exactly what you just did, which is display how your ignorance of the science makes you such easy pickings for the scammers.

Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:

17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11

We have a low data point of 0 and a high data point of 25, with an average of 18.8.

Now let's do like climate "scientists" do and throw out the inconvenient data, choosing the warmest station to represent the entire area: The average suddenly becomes 25.

All of a sudden, the average temperature became over 6 degrees warmer. Note that the area itself didn't get any warmer -- but they sure do want you to think it did, don't they?

And thus Dave does his face plant into a cow patty.

Dave, notice how when average temperatures are calculated, they don't use an absolute temperature? For example, they might say May 2014 is +0.33C. That's the temperature anomaly.

And why do they use temperature anomaly instead of absolute temperature? Precisely so they _don't_ get the situation you just described.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. And that's why the dropping out of those old stations had no effect on the temperature average. The anomaly average only changes if stations that were added or removed had a different trend. But since UHI is compensated for in the averages, the stations all trend together very closely.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. Since you didn't know it, it indicates you're not qualified to be sitting at the grownups' table. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you do more 'larnin.

Learning is precisely the LAST thing you want me to do. No, you want me to join you in your immediate, unquestioning, and unthinking acceptance of your cult's dogma.

Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring). Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.[/SIZE][/B]

Uh yeah, you don't like a potentially biased source so you use climatesciencewatch.org?

They just report on the science. In this case they are publishing the response of the authors of the study that the denier stooge Taylor was fraudulently distorting. Of course you can't stand to have your deceitful misinformation and denier cult propaganda so completely debunked by the original authors of that study, so you're now trying to attack the website that exposed Taylor's lies. You are such a retarded troll!

 

[mamooth]

I think Sealybobo might be trolling. Or he's 14 years old.

In any case, I suggest everyone ignore him.

 

[Crick]

12.