Why we should listen to the 97%

[Katzndogz]

Global warming is a hoax. The world will warm or cool as it always has. Human beings will react to perfectly normal occurrences as they always have, with insanity. People have torn out living hearts to make it rain, they can surely make themselves miserable and bankrupt to keep the sun from shining.

 

[Foxfyre]

Global warming is a hoax. The world will warm or cool as it always has. Human beings will react to perfectly normal occurrences as they always have, with insanity. People have torn out living hearts to make it rain, they can surely make themselves miserable and bankrupt to keep the sun from shining.

Global warming may be a hoax for sure. It sure looks and feels that way when we see so many supposedly prestigious scientific types intentionally and dishonestly skewing the information they want us to all believe. On the other hand, there are some who are sincere and genuine who believe it is happening and have not ruled out human activity as the cause.

So I keep an open mind and keep trying to learn as much as I can. So far, the most credible evidence seems weighted on the side of the skeptics, and as each year passes without any of the doomsday prophecies of the AGW proponents manifesting themselves, the evidence presented by the skeptics looks stronger.

One thing is for sure. If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods, I want a consensus from those who do not depend on AGW promoting grants and subsidies for their livelihood and/or who are not benefitting financially from government mandates and spending to combat it.

 

[Saigon]

If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods,

I have absolutely no idea why anyone would relinquish any liberty, choice or option because glaciers are melting and temperatures are getting warmer.

Also - who are these "gods"? Do they have names?

 

[westwall]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

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.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Problem is, your "RESPONDENTS" aren't climate scientists. Most of them aren't scientists of any flavor.

Who cares. You climate scientists have had their collective asses handed to them by a mere statistician. Not the kind of track record that inspires confidence!

 

[Abraham3]

And Roy Spencer has thrown down the guantlet challenging any smart cookie to refute his analysis here:
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

So far nobody has been able to do it.

Spencer posted a response the very next day of someone "doing it".: The Origin of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 – a Response from Ferdinand Engelbeen « Roy Spencer, PhD

No proof is posted there. Only a thoughtful engineer's opinion based on mathematical equations he poses as an argument. The engineer was taken seriously by Dr. Spencer because of his thoughtful contribution to the debate. Dr. Spencer's questions to the engineer are interspersed within the text of the argument. An argument is not proof nor can a winner of a very cordial and good debate be declared until Spencer's questions are addressed.

But the engineer didn't offer his post as proof but rather said he was 'pretty sure' because. . . .

THAT is the way debate should be conducted and not via a list of statements presented as fact that in fact have not yet been shown to be fact.

Of interest, the engineer qualified his opinion early in his argument with this:

I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all. But we disagree about the origin of the increase. I am pretty sure that the increase is man-made and have made a comprehensive page to show all the arguments to that at:

I did appreciate the engineer's argument however, and will file away his hypothesis among the many other opinions I've read over the years. The truth will be found only by having an open mind re ALL scholarly information presented. It won't be found by seeking out and considering only the sociopolitical opinions that we want to be true.

Are you under the impression that Spencer PROVED CO2 wasn't coming from humans? His work doesn't even suggest it.

If we want to be careful that we are considering only the opinions that we want to be true - or rejecting those we don't - you might want to have a much stronger case before rejecting the opinion of a very, very strong majority of the actual experts in the field.

Saigon had a good analogy. If 97 doctors gave you the same diagnosis and 3 opposed, how wise would it be to reject it and the treatment it required?

 

[bripat9643]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually it's precisely the opposite. European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it? Higher utility bills. So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy? There is no downside.

Everyone knows the US will have to move into better, cheaper, cleaner forms of energy at some point - but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.

They aren't better or cheaper. They are shittier and far more expensive. Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source. How could that possibly be cheaper? Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.

Add to that the failure of the US to prepare for the droughts, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures that everyone knows are coming.....it's costing billions.

Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century. What's the cost of mitigating that? $0. Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe. In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.

Does anyone remember 2012?!

Of course. What was the cost of global warming? $0

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before. Remember the 1930s? Was that drought caused by global warming? Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?

Nope.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

By doing what?

 

[Abraham3]

Global warming may be a hoax for sure. It sure looks and feels that way when we see so many supposedly prestigious scientific types intentionally and dishonestly skewing the information they want us to all believe. On the other hand, there are some who are sincere and genuine who believe it is happening and have not ruled out human activity as the cause.

I thought you said you'd wait for evidence before pronouncing judgement. Examine the cases of those who claim bad intent. Mann and Jones have been cleared by multiple reviews. Do you really think it reasonable to insist that ALL those reviews were rigged? And there are thousands of climate scientists out there whose work supports AGW. They have no influence with the major journals. And no one is getting rich from research grants. There is no more struggle for research money here than there is in any other field. If the world's climate scientists were all in a grand conspiracy (and that's what it would take) a dozen other branches would have discovered the benefits of crime long ago. Are you willing to distrust all of science?

So I keep an open mind and keep trying to learn as much as I can.

That is not what it looks like.

So far, the most credible evidence seems weighted on the side of the skeptics

How is it, were that the case, that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree? Do they lack your qualifications to examine and judge the evidence?

and as each year passes without any of the doomsday prophecies of the AGW proponents manifesting themselves

What doomsday prophecy has failed to manifest itself?

the evidence presented by the skeptics looks stronger.

I'm sorry but it most certainly does not.

One thing is for sure. If I am going to willingly relinquish my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW gods, I want a consensus from those who do not depend on AGW promoting grants and subsidies for their livelihood and/or who are not benefitting financially from government mandates and spending to combat it.

If you want to hold to that, you should reject ALL science.

I'll catch you out in the woods. I know which sticks are best to rub together. Though friction is just more science...

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

Your research confirms that the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW.

I'm sorry you couldn't bring yourself to admit that.

Why should I admit something that's not true?

Next time - read the material before you post it!!

I did. Obviously, you didn't.

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.”​

36% believe in AGW.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”​

24% do NOT believe in AGW.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”​

17% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's little or no risk.

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”​

10% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe the real cause is unknown and there's little or no risk.

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”​

5% believe man may have a part in climate change, but believe there's only a moderate risk.


So...it looks like there are only 36% that firmly believe man's activites are causing the climate to change. The others believe it's a mixture of man and nature, but don't believe there will be any catastrophic impacts. Further, they don't believe the debate is settled, and some don't believe the IPCC's modeling is accurate.

From the study, the remaining 8% "did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized."

So, your claim that "the great majority of scientists and engineers confirm AGW" is utterly false. You should stop making that claim, because it's nowhere near accurate.

But that's how AGW believers do science, isn't it?

Problem is, your "RESPONDENTS" aren't climate scientists. Most of them aren't scientists of any flavor.

You're wrong, and therefore dismissed.

Buh-bye now!

On edit...of course, you have no basis for claiming that most respondents are not scientists.

And this from the study has you pegged:

Several assumptions have stymied advancements in understanding claims of expertise in contested issue fields. A first stymying assumption within institutional work and professions literatures is that professionals are a homogenous group, sharing cultural-cognitive conceptions of what problems require solving (Knorr-Cetina, 1999), and collaborating on solutions to maintain their authoritative monopoly over a scope of practice (Abbott, 1988) against outside forces (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000; Thornton, 2002). Even climate change research has assumed a cohesive ‘expert’ versus public or media discourse (Boykoff, 2008; Carvalho, 2007; Olausson, 2009; Weingart et al., 2000).

Scientists are individuals, same as everyone else in every other profession is. Some people have trouble grasping that fact.


There is no consensus. Period. End of story. You can stop telling that lie now.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.

 

[FA_Q2]

How is it, were that the case, that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree? Do they lack your qualifications to examine and judge the evidence?

Except that you have proven in this very thread that is not the case. The ‘vast’ majority are not predicting cataclysmic changes or changes that are going to cost us ‘billions’ and ruin our economy.

The MINORITY claim that. The majority seem to be claiming that the effects are going to be moderate.

MODERATE.

That is the problem when you go on to say things like ‘irreversible’ and other doom and gloom prophesies about AGW. The single most caustic thing about climate science is the insistence that there is a majority or consensus in it. You have found a SINGLE ’consensus’ in the belief that man is taking some part in warming the earth and then extrapolated it to an ENTIRE series of predictions of the results. THAT is the core problem and that is something that has not been addressed.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.

In other words, you can't explain it. How does a country prepare for drought? Can you give an example of anyone actually doing something about it?

 

[Old Rocks]

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.

In other words, you can't explain it. How does a country prepare for drought? Can you give an example of anyone actually doing something about it?

Yes, I do realize you are this stupid. What is a dam? Why do you think we have dams and reservoirs? Perhaps a bit of food in reserve, you know, like in the story of Joseph in Egypt? Or even avoiding drawing down our aquifers in good times so that we have them for bad times.

Ever consider using that thing sitting on your neck for something other than a hatrack?

 

[Old Rocks]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually it's precisely the opposite. European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it? Higher utility bills. So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy? There is no downside.



They aren't better or cheaper. They are shittier and far more expensive. Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source. How could that possibly be cheaper? Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.



Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century. What's the cost of mitigating that? $0. Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe. In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.



Of course. What was the cost of global warming? $0

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before. Remember the 1930s? Was that drought caused by global warming? Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?

Nope.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

By doing what?

And utility bills have not been going up here?

 

[FA_Q2]

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.

In other words, you can't explain it. How does a country prepare for drought? Can you give an example of anyone actually doing something about it?

Don’t be silly. You prepare for a drought by building windmills. Didn’t you know that.

So simple, man you must be a dolt

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Everyone knows the US will have to move into better, cheaper, cleaner forms of energy at some point - but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.

Add to that the failure of the US to prepare for the droughts, rising sea levels and warmer temperatures that everyone knows are coming.....it's costing billions.

Does anyone remember 2012?!

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

No, you don't agree with me.
We've wasted billions on "green" energy. If you want CO2 free power, the only one that makes sense right now is nuclear.

but it will cost more to do so ten years from now than it would have ten years ago.

Think of all the money we saved by giving loan guarantees to Solyndra.
If you want to save money, let someone else develop cheap solar and buy it from them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try to imagine the amounts of money you have ALREADY cost this nation by delaying our response to this issue.

How much?

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually it's precisely the opposite. European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it? Higher utility bills. So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy? There is no downside.



They aren't better or cheaper. They are shittier and far more expensive. Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source. How could that possibly be cheaper? Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.



Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century. What's the cost of mitigating that? $0. Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe. In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.



Of course. What was the cost of global warming? $0

The drought has inflicted, and is expected to continue to inflict, catastrophic economic ramifications for the affected states. It has exceeded, in most measures, the 1988-1989 North American drought, the most recent comparable drought, and is on track to exceed that drought as the costliest natural disaster in US history.

Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before. Remember the 1930s? Was that drought caused by global warming? Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?

Nope.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

By doing what?

Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.

Shhhhhhh.........don't highlight their confusion about markets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For once I agree wiith Todd - regardless of how one feels about politics, the cost to the US in not transitioning into new forms of electricity production alone is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Actually it's precisely the opposite. European countries have been spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "green energy." What did they get for it? Higher utility bills. So where's the downside from not jumping into green energy? There is no downside.



They aren't better or cheaper. They are shittier and far more expensive. Every watt of wind and solar power requires 100% backup from a conventional power source. How could that possibly be cheaper? Also, it will be cheaper 10 years from now. You and the rest of the nutburgers keep telling us that, so what's the advantage of switching early? There is no advantage.



Even the IPCC says sea level is only going to rise 1 foot in the next century. What's the cost of mitigating that? $0. Warmer temperatures mean lower utility bills. And no one has any convincing proof that droughts will be any more severe. In fact, if history shows anything, it's that a warmer world is a wetter world.



Of course. What was the cost of global warming? $0



Oh yeah, we've never had droughts before. Remember the 1930s? Was that drought caused by global warming? Is there any conclusive proof that global warming causes droughts?

Nope.

2012?13 North American drought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The drought could not have been avoided - but a better government would have planned for it.

By doing what?

And utility bills have not been going up here?

Not mine.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

If you are willing to commit to actually reading and responding sensibly, then I'd be happy to explain the advantages of switching early. OK?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

If you are willing to commit to actually reading and responding sensibly, then I'd be happy to explain the advantages of switching early. OK?

Excellent! What advantage did we get from Solyndra?

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

If you genuinely, honestly cannot understand why or how countries prepare for drought, floods or rising sea levels - or the potential cost of not doing so - then you simply aren't bright enough to take part in this discussiob.

In other words, you can't explain it. How does a country prepare for drought? Can you give an example of anyone actually doing something about it?

Yes, I do realize you are this stupid. What is a dam? Why do you think we have dams and reservoirs? Perhaps a bit of food in reserve, you know, like in the story of Joseph in Egypt? Or even avoiding drawing down our aquifers in good times so that we have them for bad times.

Ever consider using that thing sitting on your neck for something other than a hatrack?

Of course, just about all the damns that are going to be built in this country have already been built. Eco-nutburgers like you have prevented any more from being built. How are you going to avoid drawing down the aquifers? Are you going to tell farmers to stop irrigating their fields? Of course, the USA already has an abundance of food in reserve. No western country has experienced famine since the advent of the industrial revolution. Apparently the best preparation for drought is laizzes faire capitalism, but I hardly imagine that commies like you are suggesting that.

As usual, the only thing your post proved is that you're a moron who doesn't understand the modern world. That's why you make such a beautiful liberal.