What do you think of climate change?

[Theo520]

That is simply untrue. Here’s a link to 6 scientific surveys of relevant studies that demonstrate that the 97% is accurate.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

You are either joking, or you don’t read your own links

Only the ones that filtered to the most active publishers could get 97%. So among researchers that constantly publish, you get a consensus at that level

When you look at people in the field, you get a majority not a 97% consensus.
66% - Gallup
53% - Bray and von Storch
etc.

 

[BT3241]

The subject is so polarized its hard to get the truth people are more interested in being right in their view. Just like politics today neither side can talk to each other they would rather fight

 

[HarryStotle]

Additionally, there are MANY oil and gas funded pundits who are trying to create a controversy re: climate change. Look into Breitbart, the Heartland Institute, or Alberta’s own The Friends of Science, for just a couple factions trying to create public confusion (much as the tobacco industry’s merchants of doubt cast doubt on the relationship between smoking and disease years ago).

There is no real controversy among scientists. Do you trust the scientific enterprise? Do you defer to scientific expertise regarding oncology, geology, microbiology, immunity, etc? I bet you do. The same error correction mechanisms are in place with climate science.

Not buying it. You assume the fossil fuel interests are the conspiracy while denying that groups like Soros funded Tides Foundation, The Club of Rome, the UN, etc., etc., are not conspiratorial, but are merely on the side of science.

Yet, ClimateGate and the ongoing litany of failed climate “science” predictions concerning catastrophic weather change which have not materialized at all argue against believing the next iteration of alarmism.

Citing “Alberta’s own” as if merely being from Alberta falsifies the claims of the Friends of Science does not make your case either.

The 500 scientists and experts who wrote the letter to the UN decrying alarmism were not from Alberta but from places like Germany and other parts of Europe which are fully on board with climate alarmism and have no real vested interest except in scientific truth.

I am beginning to seriously doubt the bona fides of posters in CAF who are so completely one-sided and dogmatic on the subject that the only permissible (for them) assumption is that catastrophic climate change is the only allowable view, and any facts to the contrary are merely dismissed without argument.

That would be a dangerous precedent relative to the reliability of science.

Take Matthew Ridley’s critique of alarmism, here…

He points out by using the IPCCs own data that the situation is nothing like dire, yet he was lambasted solely for pointing out that the crisis isn’t there to be had even in the IPCC’s report except in the wildest imaginations of the alarmists.

Let’s, at least, agree that alarmism isn’t warranted.

 

[HarryStotle]

judgment would be upon them unless they repented (for poor stewardship of creation)?!

…

[blah, blah, blah…]

Yeah, I get it.

Climate Change is your new religion and even questioning it is tantamount to heresy.

 

[HarryStotle]

The studies thus far on CC have concluded what some of us have mentioned previously, thus the NAS, NASA, “Scientific American”, “National Geographic”, and even our own DoD here in the States are convinced that it is indeed happening and for the reasons previously mentioned. There simply is no longer any doubt about it.

I suppose now you will need to convince the insurance companies and banks to alter their actuarial analyses to rule out 10+ year mortgages and insurance policies for those along the coastlines which will surely be submerged and summarily devalued by rising sea levels.

When you have succeeded in doing so, at that time I will begin to take somewhat seriously your claim that there “simply is no longer any doubt about it.”

Clearly, Obama and Gore have shown by their actions that they doubt, although their lips keep moving spouting nonsense to the contrary.

 

[Inquiry]

Hey, I get it. There are definitely some people for whom Climate Change approaches a religion, but not everyone concerned is at that level, and this isn’t helping the polarization.

 

[HarryStotle]

Hey, I get it. There are definitely some people for whom Climate Change approaches a religion, but not everyone concerned is at that level, and this isn’t helping the polarization.

I assume the polarization will continue, primarily because it is a bi-product of the consolidation of political power. The leftist-progressives know what is at stake – they certainly do not want to lose the momentum towards globalization and the centralization of power in the hands of fewer and fewer of the elites, in particular those who favour group-think and government dependency by the masses.

The polarization is because the masses are beginning to wake up to what is at stake, and the elites are fully aware that their hegemony is in jeopardy. The superficial issue of “polarization” as if everyone must think the same is a fiction.

Robust discussion and rigorous debate ought to be welcomed in order to get at the truth of things, and yet it is being stifled, as if it is a sin to disagree with the accepted view. Why?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You assume the fossil fuel interests are the conspiracy while denying that groups like Soros funded Tides Foundation, The Club of Rome, the UN, etc., etc., are not conspiratorial, but are merely on the side of science.

Yes, that should be the default assumption until evidence is presented to the contrary. However common sense shows that fossil fuel interests have more at stake than the above-mentioned groups. What do any of them gain if global warming is taken seriously? On the other hand, what do fossil fuel interests have to gain if global warming is disregarded? Answer: plenty!

The 500 scientists and experts who wrote the letter to the UN decrying alarmism were not from Alberta but from places like Germany and other parts of Europe which are fully on board with climate alarmism and have no real vested interest except in scientific truth.

I have yet to see how those 500 scientists were contacted and polled for their opinion and what they had to do to “sign” the letter. For all I know it was an on-line informal poll that kept all the “against” responses and threw away all the “for” responses, and the signatories were never verified. But I am open to seeing that data, if anyone wants to point it out. Until then, I think we can dismiss that so-called letter from having any scientific significance.

I am beginning to seriously doubt the bona fides of posters in CAF who are so completely one-sided and dogmatic on the subject that…

I can end this sentence in two ways. One is the way Harry ended it. The other, well, use your imagination. (Think “symmetry”)

Robust discussion and rigorous debate ought to be welcomed in order to get at the truth of things…

If you read the scientific literature you will see that said healthy debate has been going on forever. But when misinformation is masquerading as facts, as in most of the anti-climate change interests, that is not healthy debate.

 

[Metis1]

When someone laughs in another person’s face, such as this: , is it in any way ethical? It is actions like that which is on of the reasons why I left CAF for as long as I did and also the reason why I no longer engage them directly.

I’ll tell ya what, maybe that person should go up to a priest after the priest says something and then laugh in his face, and then ask the priest if that’s in any way ethical behavior for a Catholic.

 

[Metis1]

BTW, insurance companies, which tend to reflect more short-time fluctuations with their pricing, are not in the same league as climate scientists that on this issue are more concerned about long-term effects.

So, instead of this: , maybe it’s actually better for one to spend a bit of time checking out the websites of those publications or/and agencies that I mentioned.

 

[stavros388]

Of the 500 “scientists” that mailed the UN about climate change, a paltry 10 claimed to be climate scientists. Many were engineers. Some were veterinarians. It is nothing but an attempt to sow doubt where there really isn’t any, and perpetuate a controversy where there really isn’t any.

" Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low’.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading."

Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science – Climate Feedback

Sorry, but I suspect that the science isn’t convincing to deniers like you because you’ve attached yourself to and become invested in a conspiracy narrative that has made you and other deniers prone to confirmation bias.

 

[Inquiry]

Hey! Engineer here. Don’t discount us as in the dark. We are usually pretty good at reading papers and at least in my case parts of the issue are in my wheelhouse. I get what you are trying to say but be careful how many babies you throw out with the bath water.

 

[stavros388]

Hey! I certainly don’t mean to discount the expertise and insights of engineers. I think, though, that many deniers, without looking into it, believe that these 500 scientists were primarily climate experts, but actually only 1/50 claimed to be.

Also, as I indicated above (with links to relevant scientific studies), the higher the climate expertise, the higher the consensus that climate change is largely anthropogenic.

 

[Inquiry]

That’s okay, I didn’t find the signatures convincing either, because number of backers doesn’t mean much scientifically. I’d rather hear in depth arguments than a list of names on a piece of paper.

Side note: I would say to be careful about putting too much emphasis on the heights of expertise. Issues like climate change can cross a lot of fields and some surprising people can have a lot to say about them. As a historical example, mining engineers were allegedly designing for the effects of continental drift decades before it was ever accepted in the scientific community.

 

[stavros388]

I’d rather hear in depth arguments than a list of names on a piece of paper.

Same here.

Side note: I would say to be careful about putting too much emphasis on the heights of expertise. Issues like climate change can cross a lot of fields and some surprising people can have a lot to say about them.

I’ll try to keep that in mind. Thanks.

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I made Halloween scary again | Oli Frost

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
More
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Metis1]

Again, not only is peer review important, but since most of us are not experts in this area we need to rely at least somewhat on those that are. I’m a retired anthropologist, thus a scientist, but I’m not qualified to judge the records on climate change even though I’ve been following this for several decades now, mostly through “Scientific American”, so I have to rely on those that are far better education in that area than I.

This is why the NAS, NASA, etc. are so important to pay attention to.

 

[Ender]

if you don’t care that 67% of the papers in the first automatic sieve expressed no opinion, then why do you mention it every time you criticize the Cook survey?

I was looking up “logical fallacies” the other day (always applicable in these discussions) and came across one called “Shotgun Argumentation” which consists of throwing out large numbers of arguments to make up for a lack of quality with sheer quantity. My approach is kind of the opposite. I make one claim and stick with it. I think the 67% argument is a valid criticism; it’s just not the particular criticism I’m making here.

This seems to be a valid paper to include in the “implicit” category.

Along with “implying” that climate change is a problem, and that it is primarily caused by CO2, is the assumption that this also “implies” the authors believe man is responsible for over 50% of the warming. That such a paper receives as much weight as one that explicitly states these things (of which there were only 64) shows just how much finagling went on in this survey to justify the result Cook went looking for.

So if there is a criticism of the Cook survey, it would be in the way it was summarized, especially for popular consumption.

It was all for popular consumption. That was the entire purpose.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

if you don’t care that 67% of the papers in the first automatic sieve expressed no opinion, then why do you mention it every time you criticize the Cook survey?

… I make one claim and stick with it. I think the 67% argument is a valid criticism; it’s just not the particular criticism I’m making here.

1. The 67% of papers have no relevance to the survey at all. Would you like to support that somehow they are relevant?
2. If the relevance of the 67% is not part of the criticism you are making here, then why did you mention it?

This seems to be a valid paper to include in the “implicit” category.

Along with “implying” that climate change is a problem, and that it is primarily caused by CO2, is the assumption that this also “implies” the authors believe man is responsible for over 50% of the warming.

That may have been the implication drawn by the media summaries, but the Cook paper is clear on what category means what.

 

[JasonF]

What I find weird is how the propaganda is pushed towards western people, who globally, have the least amount of children and do the least polluting .

It is very sad that I know some women who wont have even a single child so no family to be with them when they are elderly, have given up a lot of the favourite food and dont travel anywhere. Meanwhile the pollution level and amount of kids per mother in china/africa/india is through the roof.

I would be more willing if they weren’t trying to convince my loved ones to die alone ( which wont change anything)