Why we should listen to the 97%

[Wry Catcher]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Rational people will watch the video linked above. Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.

 

[daveman]

Are you forgetting that I posted the links to those surveys? You didn't refute anything. And since none of the three surveys surveyed climate scientists, it's apples and oranges.

My mistake.

And yes, I did refute the silly "consensus" claim. Like all AGW "science", you have to resort to cherry-picked data to prove your conclusion -- which, against all scientific principle, you arrived at before you did the research.

You've refuted nothing.

The topic of this thread is why it is wiser to assume AGW is valid than to oppose it. Since even a survey conducted by one of the most subjective, anti-AGW groups on the planet, of non-climate-scientist categories of individuals known for low AGW acceptance rates, still finds a MAJORITY believe humans to be the primary cause of global warming - I think this can be put to bed.

A very strong majority of folks with the intellect and training to understand what's going on have been convinced by the evidence that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

You've got nothing to challenge that with because it's a fact.

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

 

[daveman]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Rational people will watch the video linked above. Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.

Apropos to you, too:

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Rational people will watch the video linked above. Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.

Apropos to you, too:

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

Did you watch the video? If you didn't I would not be surprised for I think you're a fool. If you did then you're an idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube

Muchas obligado.

Abraham

Rational people will watch the video linked above. Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.

I watched the video. So what. It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.

 

[Abraham3]

I watched the video. So what. It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.

So you do tell your doctor to FO when he tells you you're sick. Good to know.

You think that a failure of logic? Perhaps you missed the fact that Dessler addressed the entire issue in terms of probabilities.

 

[daveman]

Rational people will watch the video linked above. Fools and idiots will not.

Read this thread beginning with the OP and see who the fools and idiots are.

Apropos to you, too:

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

Did you watch the video? If you didn't I would not be surprised for I think you're a fool. If you did then you're an idiot.

What you think is immaterial. THAT you think has yet to be established.


Sorry, I just can't support wrecking the economies of the entire Western world just so you can feel better. Go buy a Prius and act smug. Leave me out of your twisted fantasies.

 

[daveman]

Ahhh, the ol' standby: "Smart people agree with me. Only DUMB people disagree with me."

How very childish. Really, this is how you folks view science?

No wonder you keep getting it wrong.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.

Stacking the deck may make you feel better about the dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

 

[bripat9643]

Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.

Stacking the deck may make you feel better about the dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

There's a reason global warming literature is referred to as "PAL reviewed" rather than peer reviewed. The committees that screen the papers on all these publications are a tight nit group of friends, and they have been caught discussing how they keep any attempt to dispute the accepted orthodoxy from getting published. Then suckers like Abraham go around gloating that skeptics don't have any published papers.

Another thing to consider is that academics who are writing papers on global warming are most likely getting funding from the government for their research. If they write a paper skeptical of global warming, no more research money. So it's highly unlikely that restricting your polling sample only to published researches is going to scare up many skeptics on the matter. the outcome is preordained.

That's what passes for "science" today among liberals.

 

[westwall]

I watched the video. So what. It is guilty of the same logic failures as all appeals to authority are.

So you do tell your doctor to FO when he tells you you're sick. Good to know.

You think that a failure of logic? Perhaps you missed the fact that Dessler addressed the entire issue in terms of probabilities.

You claim that 97% support the idea yet can present no lab experiment to support it. Can present no measurable metric to quantify the effect if there is one. Can present no prediction of effect. Can present no evidence of harm other than "well the world could end" even in the face of solid empirical evidence that a warmer world is a better world.

Basically you've got nothing but a bunch of scientists who have built their entire careers out of a very nice 20 year period where the Earth warmed as the CO2 levels increased so the correlation worked well for them. Now that the warming has stopped they're screwed. No correlation, no science is about as simple as it gets.

That's where they are.

Add to that the clear corruption of the peer review process, the falsification of the historic temperature records around the world, and the refusal to publish any papers that refuted their preconceived propaganda, and I wouldn't trust these clowns with a fucking nickel.

 

[daveman]

Not at all surprising that they only polled published researchers, since pro-AGW scientists have been controlling what gets published for years.

Stacking the deck may make you feel better about the dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review | Fred Pearce | Environment | The Guardian

There's a reason global warming literature is referred to as "PAL reviewed" rather than peer reviewed. The committees that screen the papers on all these publications are a tight nit group of friends, and they have been caught discussing how they keep any attempt to dispute the accepted orthodoxy from getting published. Then suckers like Abraham go around gloating that skeptics don't have any published papers.

Another thing to consider is that academics who are writing papers on global warming are most likely getting funding from the government for their research. If they write a paper skeptical of global warming, no more research money. So it's highly unlikely that restricting your polling sample only to published researches is going to scare up many skeptics on the matter. the outcome is preordained.

That's what passes for "science" today among liberals.

The AGW cult screeches "Follow the money!!" -- but never about their side.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.

The fact that you obviously did not know that the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies solar and wind have received rather proves this is the case.

Having spend 10 pages wailing about the evils of subsidies, you then change your mind and suggest that subsidies either don't exist as a concept, or they aren't actually a problem.

I don't think you are terribly smart - but you are smart enough to know that your position makes absolutely no sense at all.

You either believe government should subsidide energy companies, or you believe it should not.

I suggest you go away and do a bit of reading about subsidies, and then decide what it is you actually believe.

On the upside, I don't remember when I have last so enjoyed a discussion here!

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

This statement is false.

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis,

I have now asked you five times to correct it.

I have to ask - are you not able to understand material you posted, or simply unable to represent it honestly?

 

[Saigon]

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

We can only hope you are.

Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism?

Now that's a hoot!

I thought it was ironic, too....but just on this thread we see that Todd did not know that the coal and nuclear industries are heavily subsidised, and you didn't know that most subsidies paid into Renewables are by way of Feed-in Tariffs.

You have to ask yourself - if someone didn't know that coal receives subsidies - what business do they have whining about energy subsidies in the first place?

For homework from class - both of you need to decide if you are for or against government subsidising energy producers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.

The fact that you obviously did not know that the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies solar and wind have received rather proves this is the case.

Having spend 10 pages wailing about the evils of subsidies, you then change your mind and suggest that subsidies either don't exist as a concept, or they aren't actually a problem.

I don't think you are terribly smart - but you are smart enough to know that your position makes absolutely no sense at all.

You either believe government should subsidide energy companies, or you believe it should not.

I suggest you go away and do a bit of reading about subsidies, and then decide what it is you actually believe.

On the upside, I don't remember when I have last so enjoyed a discussion here!

the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies

If you call writing off a business expense a subsidy, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Show me the real subsidies you think coal and nuclear have received and we can discuss them.
Good luck!

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

The subsidies given to coal are very often of the same kind given to solar and wind. The same ones you spent 10 pages complaining about.

You are the one who doesn't understand the topic - you research it.

Come back to the topic when you you have something to say that actually makes logical sense.

 

[westwall]

Todd -

The subsidies given to coal are very often of the same kind given to solar and wind. The same ones you spent 10 pages complaining about.

You are the one who doesn't understand the topic - you research it.

Come back to the topic when you you have something to say that actually makes logical sense.

Yes, that is excellent advice. You have presented NOTHING of value to this, or any other conversation you sanctimonious twerp. Finished your remedial Finnish geography class yet?

 

[bripat9643]

What some posters are getting here is a lesson in capitalism.

We can only hope you are.

Saigon giving out lessons in capitalism?

Now that's a hoot!

I thought it was ironic, too....but just on this thread we see that Todd did not know that the coal and nuclear industries are heavily subsidised, and you didn't know that most subsidies paid into Renewables are by way of Feed-in Tariffs.

You have proven over and over that you don't know what capitalism is. Massive subsidies and punitive regulations to put competitors of favored industries out of business is not capitalism. That's fascism.

You have to ask yourself - if someone didn't know that coal receives subsidies - what business do they have whining about energy subsidies in the first place?

For homework from class - both of you need to decide if you are for or against government subsidising energy producers.

Nuclear is heavily subsidized. Coal and oil have received close to nothing in subsidies. Perhaps over the 30 years the sums may be roughly equivalent (although you are labeling something a subsidy that isn't a subsidy) the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.

 

[Abraham3]

the subsidies to so-called "green energy have vastly increased since Obama was elected.

And your point would be...?