Open thread May 14, 2014 Dan Crawford | May 14, 2014 10:02 am Tags: open thread Comments (15) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Observations yet NO solutions.
LAUNCH DRYICE TO THE MOON, sequester CO2 securely for the long term, use a CARBON TAX to pay for it.
Biocarbon sequestration is a good plan too IF everyone did it.
Since you guys brought the subject up????
“Of course there are liberal equivalents (climate deniers). For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:
1) natural climate change denial
2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,
3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,
4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,
5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,
6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,
7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.
I’m sure I could think of more, but I don’t like to waste any more time than necessary answering such silly claims. ”
I especially liked the unicorn farts comment, but re-read your article selections to see how many of these apply.
EM, your referenced article made this strawman argument: “These numbers—97 and 3—were based on a now-world famous study of published climate science papers, showing that 97 percent of studies that took a stand on whether humans are warming the planet said the answer is “yes.””
Why a strawman? Because that is the claim of the subject study, but not the claim of the study’s press release. The study said: “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” A very bland statement that almost everyone ?97+%? endorses
The press release however emphasized a very small subsection of the studies reviewed, Their Category 1 — (34.8% (10 OF 188) studies: “(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'”
Note the “…humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” , or Category 1 studies with explicit AGW reference (188 studies) was only 10 or 5.3% of the total 188 which cited AGW at all. 94.7% of those few 188 studies citing AGW DID NOT CLAIM: “humans are the primary cause of global warming”
The 97% number is never caveated with the actual study results. 10 of the 11 944 papers studied, or 0.08% of the total actually cited man as the primary cause of global warming.
Was that represented in your debate reference?
No one ever seem to mention the climate effects of 900+ above ground nuclear test 50 years ago.
If we fix/address climate change by neutering the Koch bros we get a clean environment for our grandkidsto have to move to higher ground. Do a Type I error.
If we don’t hurt the Kockes our grandkids choke in a sqalid environment. They still have to go to high ground. Do a Type II error.
Energy security is like national security, profit for too few, burden for too many.
Do you truly think you can make a point without any link to the truth of your claims? It’s like one of your manufactured graphs, or even better, the absolute fiction you put into interpreting Alley’s work.(Hint: Your graph was off by over 150 years).
I don’t believe a single thing you say.
EM, I do apologize. It was an oversight on my part. The reference is of course to the actual latest paper citing the 97% consensus of climate scientists: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article The one referenced in your own cite, although it went to Cooks BLOG, the key author and not the actual report.
Or if you want other analyses of the actual paper just Google Cook 97% consensus. You will find a treasure trove of explanations. Mine was just an extraction of his own numbers from the report and from your own cite.
EM, saying: ” I don’t believe a single thing you say.” is just denial. BTW, you are correct re: the Alley graphs, but we discussed that the overall current temps were reconstructed using the very same cores and dust content in those later jumbled layers.
We have also discussed the error of appending the temperature record to the ice core data, but you may have forgotten that discussion.
Your interpretation of the rating system used shows an incredible ability to change the meaning of the entire process.
Somehow you have convinced yourself it clearly does not state what it clearly states.
Hey, why not have some fun and see if you can break down the deniers into the categories and come up with absolutely no papers that deny AGW?
EM, when you are so deeply in denial it is hard to accept something that is different than your perceptions, but my “…interpretation of the rating system used shows an incredible ability to change the meaning of the entire process.” was bracketed in quotes. Those quotes came from the actual PAPER.
You take the “quotes” from the actual paper, but not the right “quotes”.
Here is the right quote(strangely enough it is in your post):
” “97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
Then you go into the study and pull out Category 1 and come up with your bs.
Just another mangled, made up graph from you. And it is beyond dishonest.
You have been channeling Monckton.
EM, go back and read what I said. Almost no one disputes the consensus position, man causes some global warming, especially in local environments. But, you reference made this statement: ” showing that 97 percent of studies that took a stand on whether humans are warming the planet said the answer is “yes.””
My point was/is: “The 97% number is never caveated with the actual study results. 10 of the 11 944 papers studied, or 0.08% of the total actually cited man as the primary cause of global warming.” The paper actually makes it clear: ” We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”
I know math is hard, but looking at the numbers from the paper which is larger, “10 of the 11 944″ papers or ” 0.7% rejected AGW”?
For the math challenged that is ~0.08% versus ~84 papers (0.7% of 11994) explicitly cite man as the major cause. Is 10 larger than 84? The paper said only “32.6% endorsed AGW” that’s Categories 1-3, and calculates to ~3,900 of the papers even mentions AGW.
So how do we get to that 97 to 3 ratio of scientists?
I will repeat, 97% or even more accept that mankind causes local climate change. But, that’s not what this report said, and worse the press release said 97% of all climate scientists, something much different than the report.