Guest dredging up the past by David Middleton
As a geologist, I spend my work days dredging up the past, mostly from the Upper Miocene to the Lower Pleistocene. My earlier post today about Dr. Will Happer joining the Trump administration led me to dredging up a 2016 survey of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et al., 2016)… And that led me to dredging up this 2013 Tweet from thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama…
Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013
In light of CNN’s proclamation that Dr. Happer’s “public stance on climate change is in opposition to near universally accepted science,” as outlined in thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama’s Tweet, I decided to proverbially put 2 + 2 together and see if I get 97%.
“Climate change is real”
“Man-made”
“And dangerous”
“And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”
So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead.
–Thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015
Climate Change…
Reference
Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National
Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.
“More than one in three (37%) AMS members who participated in this survey consider themselves
‘expert’ ” in climate science.
Will those that are wrong resign their positions?
I have much more respect for those who are still questioning than for those who’ve made up their minds when not all the facts are known- as they are not now.
“Trust the man who is searching for truth. Beware the man who has found it.” Can’t remember who said that, and it’s probably not quite accurate. Anyone know?
W.C. Fields, I believe.
Of course, I believe a lot of things…
Sooner or later, you have to poop or get off the pot.
More than half (57%) don’t consider themselves to be an expert in climate science. 🙂 But they still gave an opinion and it counted in the study.
I’d trust the opinion of those who didn’t consider themselves experts above the opinions of those who did consider themselves experts.
97% of UFO experts agree… UFO’s are real, not of this Earth and dangerous.
Yup. Similar results, I’m sure, would be found among experts in parapsychology, cryptozoology, homeopathy and theology. Although, to be fair, surveys have found that only about 60-70% of Christian ministers, reverends and priests believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
I agree, and I’m not even an expert. But I did watch Ancient Alien Theorist on TV!
Ancient Astronaut Theorists agree.
So do the ancient astronauts.
I have some classic NY Giants NFL championship game programs from 1958-1961… Almost every ad was for cigarettes, beer and hard liquor. The USAF comic book hero Steve Canyon was the best…
Of course, nothing tops this…
“I’d trust the opinion of those who didn’t consider themselves experts above the opinions of those who did consider themselves experts.”
Especially true in the climate science field where “experts” are in the field because they want to save the world from disastrous climate change.
They’re also in the fake field because they couldn’t hack real science.
These “experts” also have a strong financial interest in supporting the CAGW dogma. This leads me to doubt their credibility.
Mark,
Is that why you went to the doctor to get a boil removed, and instead got a lobotomy?
Test questions:
1 – Considering that Ezrth’s climate has repeatedly changed over the past 4.5 billion years, LONG before humans existed, explain how it occurred?
2 – Do you, as a scientist, know the difference between climate and weather?
3 – Do you know how long modern humans have been in existence?
4 – Explain why computer models with no verifiable data or physical evidence are more important than field work with verifiable data and physical evidence.
5 – If CO2 levels have such a devastating effect on the planet, have you measured your own CO2 emissions? If so, are you modulating them in any way? If you are modulating your own CO2 emissions, what equipment are you using?
There is probably a higher percentage of AMS members gainfully employed in other than government funded jobs than the general population of scientists who consider themselves climate scientists. In other words, they aren’t as reliant on keeping the BS alive for their daily bread.
We will always need weather forecasters. WE DO NOT NEED CLIMATE FORECASTERS.
We do need short-term climate forecasters… ENSO and a few other teleconnections directly impact the weather over economically meaningful time scales.
ENSO isn’t on land, thus not actually climate… odd but true statement.
Weather forecasters have to answer for bad predictions.
Climate forecasters, not so much.
As I have bringly said several times before, the climate forecasters make predictions for 30-35 years ahead, it they’re in their later 30s/early 40s they’ll be well retired by the time of reckoning on their predictions, thus unaccountable!
Alan Tomalty
Are you kidding? Our weather forecasters are about 90% incorrect. Typically they cannot even get their observations right!
In my country you generally get a better idea of the coming day by looking out the window.
If our forecasters actually did that, they might actually get a bit closer, but in my opinion, these people need to be cast off by the government and sent out to get a real job where you are paid according to their meager abilities and results.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Listening to your local farmer will give you better forecast than your local weatherman.
Wildly incorrect.
I predict hurricanes by watching GOES eastern conus and I’ve been more accurate than NHC. The problem is once you start using a “global warming” inclusive modeling software your data goes to shit.
Don’t believe me? I called the precise heading of Irma a half hour before she turned to it. To the goddamned degree.
“Listening to your local farmer will give you better forecast than your local weatherman.”
Darrin – farmers and outdoorsmen are just funny. You could do what they do by just looking around and you could be just as funny as they are. It’s another sad example of Dunning Kruger.
Not sure why they should be so bad. In the UK they are pretty accurate up to 48 hours ahead. A lot depends on the prevailing conditions at the time forecasts are made though.
“Not sure why they should be so bad. In the UK they are pretty accurate up to 48 hours ahead.”
Learn about the weather in the UK and why it was the birthplace of forecasting. And why what was learned there didn’t apply to many other places in the world.
I use a weather rock.
That’s a little harsh, I’d say. Up until the 1960’s, the best weather forecast was that tomorrow would be like today. Now you can see radar maps of storm systems moving through. If the weatherman tell you there is a 100% chance of rain, it’s going to rain.
Okay, okay, okay!!!!
I’m going to forecast an early start to winter, because I saw a huge flight of Canada geese yesterday, flying from northeast to southwest, at an elevation higher than training flights, and moving along while riding a good tailwind. This is well ahead of goose and duck hunting season.
It is not cold here, but the temperature has dropped from mid-80s overnight to mid-60s yesterday, because that rotten beast Gordon (a very bad date when I knew him, too) is sending a rain column this way out of Texas.
I already went to the grocery store and will go again next week, because there are more storms to come. And besides, ice cream is one of the major food groups. No, really!
I know I’ll see more goose flights, too. Probably sandhill cranes. They always head toward the Mississippie flyway, anyway.
Roger, more than a few times my life was put in extreme danger because we had to go to sea to do research based on weather forecasts that turned out to be completely wrong. Ever see the movie the “Perfect Storm?” While I never went to the Flemish Cap, but I did have a couple of near “Perfect Storm” trips. I knew the boat owner, captain and crew of the F/V Andrea Gail.
A colder world is a stormier world.
You want extreme WX, return to glacial conditions, when Flemish Cap was an island, thanks to lower sea level, surrounded by permanent sea ice. During the Last Glacial Maximum, the North Atlantic froze over in winter, like the Arctic Ocean does now.
Ditto for aviation weather forecasts. I don’t think they even looked out the window, just at their computer forecast outputs. I lost my first plane, when I lost power and had to land it in a forest under an overcast at night. It was a tough plane, and it managed to take out quite a few trees, before it came to rest on the ground. (Always try to hit the softest part of the trees to lose momentum/slow down (the tops)). Another time they put me into some serious advancing thunderstorms, that were not supposed to be there in Utah. I could usually do better by looking at the satellite pictures myself.
Roger.
It’s been noted that if you take the premise “tomorrow will be just like today”, you’ll be correct 60% of the time. Which is a higher rate of correctness than the weather forecasters (which I believe is around 50%).
A 50% chance of rain means one of the two weather persons thinks it’s going to rain. Nothing more.
You have to wonder how much “virtue signaling” is involved in these numbers.
Probably a lot.
About 97% of them
It’s worth remembering that even in the original 97% consensus paper, not all three of these assertions were claimed. This quote from Obama was a deliberate distortion of the original (flawed) paper, and therefore is best described as a LIE.
In this case, I don’t think he was lying. I think Obama, and the vast majority of Gorebots, believe that the so-called 97% consensus is that climate change is nearly entirely anthropogenic, an existential threat to the planet and could easily be fixed if we turned over control of our economy to a handful of government masterminds (AKA brain-dead bureaucrats).
well of course they believe it. They are politicians. Does anyone think they spend countless hours as we do, rifling through dry historical records and attempting to decipher between adjustments vs raw data, seriously considering the dark elements of communism/socialism/fascism that are attempting to wrestle final control over the individual? They don’t care. They just care about pretending they are important.
But also, of course they are lying! They are politicians. sheesh.
Well, do you know the old joke about what a politician and a used-car salesman have in common? I’ll give you a hint: it has to do with their lips.
David, I think you are being too kind, but just in case you’re right that Obama didn’t deliberately lie, then somebody lied to him. There is simply no way to find any evidence or scientific paper that definitively demonstrates all three assertions.
He probably heard it on the news and didn’t bother to ask his scientific adviser… Oh wait. His science adviser was John Holdren, who himself fully believed everything in Obama’s quote.
Obama believed Holdren, a hard-core Leftist, to whom science cranks would point as an example of a science crank. He also believed in Energy Secretary Chu, an otherwise smart man who, according to Obama, assured him that they would soon develop a battery that would give a car 75 miles per gallon – or something like that, and it doesn’t really matter that I can’t remember the exact number. Obama did equate a battery with miles per gallon. So I think he was just spouting what he thought other people had said, whether they actually said it or not.
Mein Kampf, written by some German fella in the 1930s, he said, “the mass of the people are more likely to believe a big lie, than a small one!”
My money is on deliberate liar.
He is after all, a politician!
David, I’m sure Obama believed it just as much as he believed people could keep their Doctors. In short, he well knew what he was saying had no basis in fact but said it anyway. typical politician.
Climate changes … Who knew ?
So if humans stopped use of fossil fuels would the climate stop changing ?
Just ask those Wholly Mammoths and the former residents of Pompeii .
The scary global warming industry is all about money . You have it and they want it .
Pompeii ??? Realy ?Are you realy trying to connect a volcanic eruption to goreble warming?
Mt Vesuvius’s eruption changed the climate in Pompeii and very rapidly indeed. If you want to be literal about it though, I don’t think the mammoths would answer back either.
What about the Wholly Mammoths?
realy realy !.
It’s a more valid connection than you think. Generally an ample supply of groundwater can delay an eruption or make it less violent than without.
100% of rational people agree: Consensus science isn’t science at all.
And surveys aren’t proof of anything but, people lie on surveys.
Exactly.
Surveys carry zero weight, scientifically or factually.
You can tell that simply by the use of language. Every time a wretched survey is carried out they say the same thing, X% of people believe whatever, rarely telling us what number of people were actually questioned, or just showing a random figure in a bottom corner of the tv screen!
The moment you introduce statistics you are no longer doing science.
Thereby dismissing the entirety of quantum physics.
“Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts” — Richard Feynman
Well this is good science then because the experts have demonstrated their ignorance.
Therefor it’s easy for us to “believe in the ignorance of experts”.
97% of ‘Agree-ers’ don’t understand science.
It is rather disappointing to see that 42% believe that mitigation may moderately advert additional climate change. It is these types of misconceptions that helps the thing keep going, and enriching the scammers.
Interesting tidbits. According to the survey, the survey was sent out to 7,682 people. Only 53.3% completed a portion of the survey, and only 51.4% completed the entire survey. Looks like almost half the people surveyed didn’t give a rat’s *ss.
Then… There’s a 71% “consensus” that climate change can be ignored.
Not quite 97%, but I think it’s significant and publishable. 🙂
If Cook’s 0.3-0.6% is 97%… Then 71% is like eleventy-gazillion %… LOL!
I think the percentage is meaningless, and is insignificant and pishposhable.
While we’re dredging up, let’s not forget these:
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-the-97-consensus-final-ab-ms-ap-04-2017.pdf
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
I’m going to do a survey now, where I CONSIDER asking every human on the planet what is their favorite color. So, the number of potential respondents is in the multiple billions. Alas, I only have enough money to mail out 30 surveys, and, since I cannot afford overseas postage, I have to limit where I mail them to the continental United States.
Crap! Only ten people of the 30, within the larger multiple billions, responded. So, I have ten people to work with. Based on these ten people, then, I will make all my T-shirts yellow, because seven out of ten respondents said that yellow was their favorite color. I anticipate a windfall of profits selling my yellow t-shirts, whose production run I shall start at 10,000 shirts — ALL yellow. How could I possibly fail?
Yellow *is* more popular than brown or red for T-shirts. Statistically if you also sell them as Green, Maize, yolk, tricky, invisible and safety then you should sell almost all of them.
Remember to flag all colors as “For Global Warming Awareness” and then print 90 of them with “The Mating Habits of the Western Red Squirrel” in large block Mustard on the back.
Do the second run in Lemon to “freshen up the image”
My survey of three carefully selected people (family members I trust) say blue. Red is #2, yellow not mentioned at all!
Reminded me of this read.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
One thing to note about this and other surveys conducted by Maibach, it’s an opinion poll. You aren’t asked “What does the data show?” or “What can you prove?” only “What do you feel?”. I would say a large portion of AMS membership has really not dug into the questions about climate change and human influence. They react the same way as the general public, by what they’ve read in the funny papers. So they fall back on what they ‘feel’ must be true because they saw it on a PBS documentary.
That’s a good point. Even if the 97% figure were true (which it is NOT), it would be a 97% OPINION, and opinions can be molded by far more effective information than actual supporting data.
There’s also the issue of data security and anonymity. How were the responses submitted (hardcopy or via Internet)? How were respondents assured their responses would remain secret in perpetuity? Why would anyone today trust 100% that their response to such a survey would never come back to be used against them, and possibly jeopardize their reputation and professional standing?
Note that even the 38% who believe the local impact in the next 50 years will be primarily or exclusively harmful may not agree that AGW is “dangerous”. There are lots of things that have negative impacts without being dangerous. For example, suppose that AGW increased sea level rise by an additional 1mm/year beyond the “natural” rate. This would be exclusively harmful, as there’s no real benefit (AFAIK) to sea level rise. But it wouldn’t remotely be “dangerous”, as it threatens life not at all and threatens property so slowly that it is practically painless to adapt to.
There is no consensus because scientist have never bee registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But such a consensus would be meaningless because science is not done that way. Science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process. This idea of consensus is not science but rather politics.
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change that we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
There is a “no consensus” review in the booklet via The Heartland Institute titled:
“Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” by Idso, Carter, & Singer. [2nd. Ed., 2016]
Pages 7 – 30, Chapter 1 – No Consensus.
Four often cited studies are mentioned:
1. Oreskes, 2004;
2. Doran and Zimmerman, 2009;
3. Anderegg et al., 2010;
4. Cook et al., 2013
There is more about the issue in the chapter and other author’s material is included.
The four items listed above seem to be where the majority of the 97% stuff comes from.
“The world is governed by opinion. “
John Hobbes
Once again, all I can say is this.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Guess who the real deniers of science are?
Cheers
Roger
My basic refutation of RGHE theory is that the 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR power flux is only a theoretical calculation, 289 K, 16 C, inserted in the S-B equation with an ideal BB emissivity of 1.0. (TFK_bams09)
This 396 W/m^2 power flux has no physical reality because: 1) it requires thermodynamic violations, i.e. 333 W/m^2 created out of thin air, a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop, cold to hot energy flow w/o added work and 2) the non-radiative heat transfer processes, e.g. conduction, convection, advection, latent evaporation & condensation, of the contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, limit the surface’s LWIR emissivity to 0.16, 63/396.
In the spirit of R. W. Wood’s 1909 experiment that disputed CO2’s atmospheric role, I have actually demonstrated point 2 in a lab situation.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552
No 396 W/m^2 upwelling means no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop invalidating RGHE theory, CO2 warming and man caused climate changing.
Seems to me that over RGHE’s decades of decades my refutation would have been addressed long ago and a defense, an explanation of how & why I’m wrong, lying close at hand.
Guess not.
That’s a shame.
Regards,
Nick S.
Yes, there is now a video!!
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6443501424587395072
Might as well go all the way and ask when the next recession starts. I’m sure there is a result for that too.
Upper Miocene to the Lower Pleistocene
As in clay, lignite, sand and gravel?
Quite often, gumbo (shale) and sand (sandstone)… The “rocks” in the Plio-Pleistocene are not always lithified enough to call them rocks… 😉
My old geology prof (UT-Austin) was a shoreline geologist. He used to joke that the best was to date the formations was the vintage of the Pepsi bottle caps found embedded…
My old igneous & metamorphic petrology professor lived in the mountains, commuted to my school (on the VA coastal plain) weekly, and thought that the coastal plain was nothing but boot-sucking ooze. Sometimes I had to agree with him.
Consensus is an “Eat Horse Manure – a Billion Flies can’t all be Wrong” argument.
“But what if it turns out the flies are right – horse manure is good for us? Can we afford to be wrong?”
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.
Global warming bleedin’ well is dangerous, and I got proof!!!
—————————————————–
Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
A detailed analysis of global warming, in the different regions of the Earth.
– The Arctic region
– the Antarctic region
– the Land
– the Oceans
This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.
Can we save the Earth, and the human race?
Have the 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits, become irrelevant?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail
Sheldon Walker wrote (about his own article, on his own web site), “This is one of the most important articles ever written about global warming.”
Maybe not.
Dave,
Isn’t it important to know, that we are NOT going to be able to limit global warming to the 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits?
Isn’t it important to know, that many parts of the Earth are already above the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Isn’t it important to know, that many parts of the Earth are already above the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Isn’t it important to know, that the world didn’t end, when the temperature went above the temperature limits that were set by the IPCC.
Isn’t it important to know, that Alarmists and Warmists have based all of their beliefs about global warming, on these temperature limits. And that my article proves that they were wrong.
That is 5 important things, Dave.
Isn’t that important?
The so-called warming limits are for the planet as a whole… But, it’s an interesting analysis.
Hi David,
thank you for your comment.
My article is very long. You may have missed where I analysed the planet as a whole. I reported that:
• 19.7% of the earth (nearly 1/5), has already increased by more than +1.5 degrees Celsius, since 1880. [Note that this percentage also includes the parts that have increased by more than +2.0 degrees Celsius, since 1880.]
• And that 9.6% of the earth (nearly 1/10), has already increased by more than +2.0 degrees Celsius, since 1880.
There are bar graphs for the Arctic region, the Antarctic region, the Land, and the Oceans. Underneath those 4 bar graphs, there is another bar graph, for the whole planet.
I am trying to come up with a better way to show these results. I will try to write another article soon.
Regards,
Sheldon Walker
Sheldon,
Breaking down the planet into regions isn’t analyzing it as a whole. 20% of the planet already having warmed by more than 1.5 C has little bearing on the planet as a whole.
Central Greenland has routinely warmed and cooled by more than 1.5 C on a centennial scale throughout the Holocene…
The basis of the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit is the notion that if the overall average surface temperature of the Earth rises beyond that limit a climatic catastrophe will ensue. Even though there is no scientific basis for this speculative idea, the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit applies to the average surface temperature of the Earth.
Your map indicates that 80% of Earth surface either hasn’t warmed or has warmed less than by 1.5 C and that the vast majority of the >1.5 C warming has occurred in Earth’s coldest air masses (which is consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect).
It’s an interesting analysis; but it doesn’t really tell us whether or not the 1.5 or 2.0 C limit is achievable.
The average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by 0.8-0.9 C since 1880 and is on track to a total warming of 1-2 C by the end of this century… without any significant mitigation measures, indicating that the 1.5-2.0 C limit might be achievable by ignoring climate change.
David,
are you affected by the average temperature of the Earth, or by your local temperature?
You can call me selfish, but I am more concerned about what global warming will do to ME, rather than what it will do to the planet as a whole. The 2 things are connected, but I am my number 1 priority.
I have a theory, that Alarmists start squealing, when you warm them to 40 degrees Celsius.
I decided to do an experiment. Don’t worry about the ethical issues. I got a “science experiment” license, from Peter Gleick.
I am not silly. I checked it carefully to make sure that it was real. When I checked it, it turned out to be a “Dog” license, but the word “Dog” had been crossed out with a crayon, and the words “Science experiment”, had been written in.
I went back to see Peter Gleick, to find out what the story was. He told me that their printer had run out of ink, so they had to use a crayon instead. That sounded reasonable to me, so I started my experiment.
I took 100 Alarmists, and warmed them all to 40 degrees Celsius. 97% of them started squealing.
Then I took another 100 Alarmists, and warmed 50 of them to 38 degrees Celsius, and warmed the other 50, to 40 degrees Celsius.
None of the Alarmists who were warmed to 38 degrees Celsius started sqealing, but exactly 97% of the 50 Alarmists who were warmed to 40 degrees Celsius, started squealing.
Because 97% of 50 Alarmists, is 48.5 Alarmists, you might wonder why I said EXACTLY 97%. One of the Alarmists was very short, so we only counted him as a half.
In that last experiment, the average temperature that we warmed Alarmists to, was 39 degrees Celsius. This is below the squeal temperature for Alarmists. So why did 48.5 Alarmists begin squealing?
The same thing applies to your “planet as a whole” situation.
There is an important lesson to be learned, from my experiment.
Make sure that you get some ear-plugs, before global warming gets to 40 degrees Celsius.
Otherwise, you won’t be able to get any sleep.
Your sense of humor is Python-worthy… 🍻
Now you are claiming a right to your own facts.
“Isn’t it important to know, that we are NOT going to be able to limit global warming to the 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits?”
— Absolutely. I agree with that 100%. The important question is what should we do based on what we know. Whatever mankind’s impact on the climate, we are not going to reduce it, except for maybe a little. Even if we completely eliminated our own impact, we still have the natural warming trend which will still “take us over the limit.”
This tells us that building windmills, carbon taxes, and wealth transfers are all wasteful, futile gestures. If everything the alarmists say about CAGW is true, then we should immediately stop all subsidies on alternative energies and save our resources for when we need to adapt to the changes in the climate.
Isn’t it important to know, that we are NOT going to be able to limit global warming to the 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limits?
Isn’t it important to know, that many parts of the Earth are already above the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Isn’t it important to know, that many parts of the Earth are already above the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.
Are those pre- or post- adjustments degrees Celsius?
None of your 5 important things come even close to being true.
I don’t know, seeing as we are all here, I think we can take it as read that the world didn’t end. 😉
Can we save the Earth, and the human race?
We’re off to outer space
Protecting mother Earth
To save, the human race
Our Star Blazers
We have the DVD series… so bad, it’s good… 😎
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. “
The settled science canard/oxymoron.
And what if the 3% happen to be right?
Sometimes science advances by people thinking outside of the box.
Go back to 1970.
No movement of Continents.
Neutrinos travelled at the speed of light.
and Quantum Physics.
The only answer to those questions entirely consistent with the current state of knowledge in climate science is “don’t know” to every single one of them.
Even for the first question, “Regardless of cause, do you think climate change is happening?“, a ‘yes’ answer is just an inductive inference.
‘Did Climate Change happen?’ – fairly easy question to answer
‘Is Climate Change happening?’ – harder question
‘Will Climate Change happen?’ Now there’s a REALLY hard question
Of course, those who can answer the first question are convinced they know the other two answers, but count me as a skeptic.
None of those are hard questions. Yes to all. The question is, are the changes caused primarily by humans.
And… is that dangerous. If not, who cares.
Taylor, none of those questions are hard. Climate changes. It always has it always will. SO:
‘Did Climate Change happen?’ yes, the climate has been changing ever since it first existed on this little mudball
‘Is Climate Change happening?’ yes, the climate is always changing, it has ever since it first existed on this little mudball
‘Will Climate Change happen?’ yes, the climate will continue to change, it has ever since it first existed on this little mudball.
The harder question is what amount does man’s activities contribute to the changing of the climate (no ones knows, and anyone that claims they do is lying) and is that amount a net harm or a net benefit (indications appear to be the later, despite what the doomsayers claim)?
Polls are closely related to click-bait quizzes on FaceBook. You get a poorly written question with multiple choice answers that composed in an equally poor manner. It would be more difficult to tabulate, but the answers would probably be much more useful if you gave an essay question and let the respondent answer what they thought, not try to shoe horn their answer into the given molds.
Scientifically the survey is a Nothing-Burger. An Opinion is never a Scientific Proof, even if it is done among scientists. PERIOD.
A lot of people have expressed that view, but just because a survey isn’t science, and doesn’t offer scientific proof, doesn’t mean that such surveys don’t have tremendous value.
The survey doesn’t support science in the scientific realm where we try to establish facts, but rather it supports decision-making in the political realm where we try to develop plans of action. Knowing the views of scientists regarding climate change is very relevant to those decisions.
The original conclusion of 97% comes from a paper published by Cook, et. al. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article You will note that they use the 97% figure as those who study issues concerning Climate Science and, who explicitly or implicitly address the thesis that at least some climate change is caused by human emissions. They looked at 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of Climate related papers were thrown out because those papers did not think it important enough that they should address even by implication or in passing that humans caused Global Warming. Also included were papers by non climate scientist such as psychological or economic studies. I would suggest that it is not too surprising, that a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists.
Tellingly, those papers they chose to address mentioned that some human emissions might have caused some global warming. Thus they set a rather low bar, that humans emissions probably had some unspecified effect. The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors – who did have that figure – choose not to publish it. By the researchers own methodology, the vast majority of skeptics would also be members of the 97%. Interestingly. Cook et. al.’s own graphs show that over time, the percent of articles published by scientists mentioning Anthropological Global Warming has fallen from its high in 1993 to something approach half of that in 2011 when the paper was published, while scientist have apparently deemed other aspects of the climate more important for their attention as articles focused non Anthropogenic problems have increased by approximately 50%.
Any scientist who agrees with Arrhenius, the first scientist to propose the Green House theory of CO2, would certainly be considered a denier by most ideologues. ” By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63) Arrhenius, S., Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. New York, Harper & Row, 1908 see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
This comment went bust in the middle of editing it. Please refer to the finished version. If the blog master would take this down, it would be helpful as I am not able to do so.
[It is not clear which comment should be removed. .mod]
Nope, the original “97% consensus” paper was not Cook 2013, it was actually just an article (apparently not peer-reviewed), by Dr. Peter Doran, in 2009. Here’s what he did.
Synopsis:
#1. Doran EXCLUDED (for being insufficiently specialized) 97% of the geoscientsts who responded to his poll, and
#2. He EXCLUDED scientists who worked in private industry (who tend to be more conservative than those in government & academia), and
#3. He EXCLUDED scientists who thought that “When compared with pre-1800s levels… mean global temperatures have generally… remained relatively constant.”
Note that Doran & his student did not ask any question to distinguish between climate alarmists like Mann & Hansen, and climate realists like of the most folks here. If they had asked such a question (like whether, in the succinct words of President Obama, “Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”) there would have been nothing resembling a “consensus.”
Very few scientists would disagree with the fact that it is generally warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, and human activity has probably contributed to that modest warming. But so what? That’s a pretty meaningless “consensus,” in the context of the climate debate. It does not help make a case for the sorts of public policy measures which climate activists advocate. After all, anyone sane would have to agree that the current climate is better than the “pre-industrial” Little Ice Age climate.
The best evidence is that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is real, but modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.
.
Expanded:
FIRST, Dr. Doran wrote just two “opinion” questions for his survey, both of which were “gimmies,” designed to elicit the answers he wanted. (There were also some demographic & background questions.)
The survey PRETENDED to be an attempt to learn about scientists’ opinions, but it wasn’t. Neither question was designed to actually learn anything about scientists’ opinions. Both of the questions were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other skeptics of climate alarmism (a/k/a “climate realists” or “lukewarmers”) would have given the answers he wanted.
SECOND, Doran had his graduate student send the survey to over 10,000 geophysical scientists, but ONLY to people working in academia or government — known bastions of left-of-center politics. Scientists working in private industry, who tend to be more conservative, were not surveyed. That biased the sample, because the climate debate is highly politicized: most conservatives “lean skeptical” and most liberals “lean alarmist” in the climate debate.
They got 3,146 responses.
THIRD, to calculate his supposed “consensus” Prof. Doran excluded all but the most biased respondents: the most specialized specialists in climate science.
That’s a massive, fundamental blunder. That’s like asking ONLY homeopaths about the efficacy of homeopathy, rather than the broader medical community. It’s like asking ONLY people working on cold fusion about whether cold fusion works, rather than asking all physicists. As Rick C PE & David Middleton noted, above, the most specialized specialists in every field will report a “consensus” agreeing with the presuppositions and the efficacy of the methods of that field — even for fields that are complete hokum. (In this case, the question at issue is whether the unverifiable CMIP “GCMs” [climate models] are trustworthy or GIGO.)
That process excluded over 97% of the geophysical scientists who answered the survey! Only 79 were left.
That’s right: he pruned 3,146 responses down to just 79.
But even that didn’t get his desired “consensus” figure up to 97%. So,
FOURTH, to calculate his final “97.4%” result, Doran EXCLUDED respondents who gave one of the “skeptical” answers to the first of his two questions.
I’m not kidding, he really did.
The first “gimme” question was:
(I would have said “risen.”)
Those who answered “remained relatively constant” were not asked the 2nd question, and THEY WERE NOT COUNTED when calculating his percentage of consensus.
That left him with just 77 out of 3,146 responses. He used only those 77 for the “97.4%” calculation.
The second question was:
Well, of course it is! That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer “yes” to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.
It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn’t ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) “Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”
Of course, the reason he didn’t ask “real” questions like those is that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was NOT to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point.
BTW, I bought his graduate student’s thesis project report, so if anyone here has any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my SeaLevel.info web site.
You can find much more information about the various surveys of scientific opinion on climate change, including source references for everything I’ve written here, on my web page, here:
http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct
Another “human factor” often added to man’s release of CO2 is forest/jungle clearing, rain forest burning, and agriculture/tree harvesting.
And, as you point out, the Urban Heat Island effect on local/micro-climate changes.
Thanks for that. I was not aware of that study. I looked at it and your critique seems to be a valid one, and it does predate Cook et.al. And, there is a 97% figure in there. But if you look at the literature this is not one which received much public awareness. In fact this paper refers to a previous one and seems to be the first commonly cited, that would be Oreskes 2004 paper. That consensus being that GHGs have resulted in rising temperatures. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
Forbes has an interesting and in depth article on the subject which discusses both Cook and Oreskes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#53a6adaa1157
You have to dig down deep for the 97%…
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
The “funny” thing is that only 96% of “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents” thought temperatures had risen… While 97% blamed people.
Anderegg et al., 2010 also pushed the 97% meme…
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
Dana Nuccitelli, one of Cook’s coauthors, was pushing the 97% based on Doran and Anderegg, years before they published their paper.
“#3. He EXCLUDED scientists who thought that “When compared with pre-1800s levels… mean global temperatures have generally… remained relatively constant.””
So basically, he found that of those scientists who believe the earth is warming, 97% believe that it is warming?
CMS,
The first survey of scientific opinion on the topic, AFAIK, was Doran and Zimmerman, 2009, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”:
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
Doran and Zimmerman invited 10,257 academic and government Earth scientists to participate in their poll. No private sector scientists allowed. They received 3146 responses to these two questions:
“1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
“2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Note that a third question, asking whether whatever man-made warming might have occurred be good, bad or indifferent, wasn’t included.
The authors managed to derive the canonical 97%, concocted by Oreskes’ bogus abstract review in 2004, by cherry-picking from the 3146 respondents, the 79 “most specialized and knowledgeable…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”.
“Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.” So the actual share of even this selective group was 94.9%, ie 74/79, affirmatively answering both questions.
The category with the lowest faith in the alleged consensus was those respondents whose area of expertise was economic geology. Of them, 47% (48 of 103) answered yes to question 2.
But of course the media reported the phony 97% figure, which in the popular imagination, as intended, became the share of opinion of “all scientists”, not of 75 individuals with a career stake in the supposed consensus.
{Huh. Looks like this comment didn’t post, when I first tried it.}
AMS has done a lot of surveys. I keep a collection of them, here:
http://sealevel.info/AMS/
If someone knows of one that I missed, please tell me.
The original conclusion of 97% comes from a paper published by Cook, et. al. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article You will note that they use the 97% figure as those who study issues concerning Climate Science and, who explicitly or implicitly address the thesis that at least some climate change is caused by human emissions. They looked at 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of Climate related papers were thrown out because those papers did not think it important enough that they should address even by implication or in passing that humans caused Global Warming. Also included were papers by non climate scientist such as psychological or economic studies. I would suggest that it is not too surprising, that a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists.
The original categorization of papers had three different grouping of pro AGW papers. One was those who believed that humans were the primary source of global warming, and two those who simply believed that humans contributed at least some small part to global warming and thirdly, those who implicitly assumed human effects of some kind. Thus they set a rather low bar, that humans emissions probably had some unspecified effect. The authors choose to collapse those three categories and report them as one. Thus by design, the 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that its effects are potentially devastating. While it is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. Cook, et. al. decided we did not need to have that figure. By the researchers own very broad methodology, the vast majority of skeptics would also be members of the 97%. Interestingly. Cook et. al.’s own graphs show that over time, the percent of articles published by scientists mentioning Anthropological Global Warming has fallen from its high in 1993 to something approach half of that in 2011 when the paper was published, while scientist have apparently deemed other aspects of the climate more important for their attention as articles focused non Anthropogenic problems have increased by approximately 50%.
Any scientist who agrees with Arrhenius, the first scientist to propose the Green House theory of CO2, would certainly be considered a denier by most ideologues. ” By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63) Arrhenius, S., Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. New York, Harper & Row, 1908 see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
CMS, that’s not the original 97%. You haven’t been paying attention.
But I have Jeff. And you are right other studies predate Cook. However, I suggest that when people refer to the 97% Cook is the one they refer to. Oreskes is second. For support for that conclusion, I would suggest that you might look at the Forbes article “Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change” https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#53a6adaa1157
The 97% meme predates both of those. I’d say Oreskes and Cook were attempts to support the original assertion.
When there is a mile [of] ice covering lower Manhattan then I will know the climate has changed.
🤙
Right on!
Meanwhile…our grids grow ever more unreliable:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/06/new-england-electricity-market-in-crisis/
I would like to bring to your knowledge a couple of comments of a reader (Gianluca) of the Italian skeptical blog http://www.climatemonitor.it -translation under my only responsibility- about the 97% consensus on AGW.
http://www.zafzaf.it/clima/97en.html
These comments give an ~30% consensus on AGW and less than 10% consensus among self-defined climate scientists.
All those graphs mean absolutely nothing.
How can you ”agree” that the climate is changing when our current definition of climate is a silly joke. All that can be agreed on is that the weather may have changed (shifted) a little lately. That’s it!
Climate to me is very long period of stable weather. Very long…like a thousands of years. It was still dry and hot in the summer in the Mediterranean 5,000 years ago. And it’s still dry and hot in the summer now, and it will still be dry and hot for the foreseeable future. No climate change that can be at all determined.
Polls are not science, no matter what the results
I’m so far behind, I’m still calling it “global warming”.
I want to see a list of these scientists’ names.
The basic “climate change is real”, is itself faulty. If global warming is referred to climate change, then the results may be different from climate change it entirity. For example I support climate change is real but I opposite global warming is real. Here 96% split in to two parts.
Secondly, Is climate change is man-made. Again here are also two options: global warming associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases and ecological changes. — urban-heat-island effect & rural-cold-island effect I support ecological changes but I oppose global warming . Here 67% split in to two parts.
Same is the case with the other two on danger —
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
If that sample is suggested as a random sample of ‘scientists’, then it is clear that the “alarmists’
people are worried about dont exist
It’s not “random” or even genuinely representative. It’s a survey of 7,682 members of the American Meteorological Society (half of whom didn’t respond), conducted by an asshat who wants RICO prosecutions for anyone who disagrees with him.
To be noted that the question asking if the climate change has been caused by humans, does not specify that that change is caused by our emissions of CO₂ . I think most reasonable people on both sides of the argument would agree that deforestation, irrigation and concreting over large areas of the globe will have an effect on climate.
That and a Gathering of too many Eco-Activists in one place will also have a negative effect on Climate
I would present this as “Six Times as Many Scientists Now Doubt the Consensus.”
“As new data and analysis come in, consensus is quickly disappearing with a huge increase moving to the skeptics camp. It was previously reported that only 3% of scientists doubted the consensus view on global warming, that warming is primarily caused by human activity. Today, 12% actively disagree and twice as many report that they don’t know.”
Let the alarmist side claim that there has not really been a shift because the original metric was spiked.
This is just one more proof that for woke Progressives truth and facts are malleable and plastic. Reality is inverted: the arc of facts is bent to justify the Progressive socialist agenda. Any contrary fact is ignored or discredited as H8.
Here in Australia a similar “study “was conducted
by a phsycologist academic -John Cook who
managed get his 97 percent by rejecting over 1000
Responses in the 1100 he surveyed so in reality
less than 10 percent when along with the so called
framed question on the Climate change meme.
Mike Reed
If he did it on public money that counts as fraud and mail-fraud.
If you’re referring to the John Cook of Skeptical Science, he’s not a psychologist, just a psycho who fancies himself an SS officer.
The 97% canard – Keeps getting repated ad nausuem by the activists and grossly misrepresented by the activists.
Gotta wonder how someone so mathematically deficient to be unable to understand what those surveys actually show, somehow possesses the superior intellectual capacity to understand the validity of climate science.
The whole 97% was BS from the start in reality even taken it at its extreme it was 97% of selected paper from a selected time period broadly agree with an slight defined idea.
That is as good as it got .
I looked at that 97% number as it is often used in marketing, reporting etc:
https://watchingthewatchersofdeniers.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/the-ubiquitous-97/
Who were the three percent that said the climate wasn’t changing or didn’t know? Early days when I saw the survey I looked at how the questions were asked. Almost everyone with any sense of history, especially with science, knows that Earth’s climate nature is to change. Yet seldom did any news media outlet point that out. Nope, they all claimed that 97% were saying that climate change was all about anthropogenic forcing and, more bizarrely, seemed to infer that climate had been in some wonderful equilibrium for some long period of time.
Of course, the climate changes, it has always done it and will always do it and there is nothing we can do about it. The stable climate is a myth …
It changes yes, but at the same time it is and has been very stable. Stable enough for life to happily continue to thrive over eons with perhaps the odd interruption. The often repeated ”climate always changes” is just as meaningless as ”the climate is changing”
Mike,
Obviously Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to survive and thrive, but it really hasn’t been all that stable.
During the worst Snowball Earth episodes, average global temperature has probably been around -50 degrees C. During the hottest hothouse intervals, it has gotten over 25 degrees C. Not to mention the oceans of molten lava on the surface before live developed here.
How do you explain living fossils like Gingko biloba. 270 million years and still going.
Elon Musk smokes marijuana while talking about how climate change poses a risk to humanity. Marijuana and climate delusion go together
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2018/09/07/elon-musk-smoked-marijuana-and-chatted-cybernetic-collectives-with-joe-rogan/#3747b8e82777
MJ could be a hyuuuge carbon sink.
Until smoked.