What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

If the relevance of the 67% is not part of the criticism you are making here, then why did you mention it?

Where did I make that part of my arguments here other than as a simple fact describing the study? Why are you raising this as an issue now when I have not done so?

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

No, that was explicit in the Cook paper. Everything in the “implicit” category (which comprised 75% of the papers considered) was included in the “Endorse AGW” category, just as if they had been originally in the “explicit with quantification” category (all of 1.6%).

 

[nfinke]

I don’t doubt that humans are contributing to a change in climate, but it’s very hard to believe that it is as serious as they all say. Seeing as every few years they have been coming out with something saying “WE HAVE ONLY A FEW YEARS TO STOP CATASTROPHIC CHANGE” and the apocalypse deadline comes and goes and they just pretend like they didn’t just say the world was gonna end in like 1998, and then 2002 etc, etc, but I’m somehow a science denier if I don’t believe them now when they say we have twelve years left before unchangeable damage or whatever they say now.

I don’t make a note of all these things, but I’m 99% sure that according to al gore the ice caps should be gone and polar bears extinct for like a decade already, and I know hes not really a scientist but the guy won a Nobel peace prize for that.

There’s a great book I want to point these guys to called “the boy who cried wolf”. Even if they are right about the seriousness this time, from my point of view the climate science community has done nothing but crap on their credibility nonstop since the 80s.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If the relevance of the 67% is not part of the criticism you are making here, then why did you mention it?

Where did I make that part of my arguments here other than as a simple fact describing the study?

That’s the trouble with arguments made by implication by posting a chart or table or some other data without an explicit argument to go with it. There is no actual argument. But it is clear from the presentation of that pie chart that the author thought the “no opinion” papers were relevant, since they are included in the denominator of all the percentages. And by posting the chart, I assume you were doing so because you agree with the author of the chart. It is argumentatively insincere to post something like this, ostensibly to make a point, and then refuse to either back up that point, or to disavow the point the author implies. I will at least do the same for you if I post something that implies some degree of human-caused global warming. If you call me on an implication of my posting, I will either argue that the posting does not imply that thing, or that the posting does imply that thing and it is right, or that the posting does imply that thing, and I disavow that particular implication. You should do the same with this “no opinion” paper stuff, since you bring it up almost every time the Cook survey comes up. I am less interested in defending the Cook survey than I am in defending the proper use of statistics.

 

[Theo520]

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.

No, you showed that high publishing equals high agreement.

But they are being paid to publish and are logically expected to be supportive of their cash flow. Your links showed a significant minority were not in concurrence.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But they are being paid to publish and are logically expected to be supportive of their cash flow.

It is unjustified to assume that their payment is dependent on reaching any specific conclusion. Researchers are paid according to how well they support their work. Assumptions to the contrary would be to accuse the institutions that employ them of having no academic integrity. I know that is a popular conspiracy theory, but such an accusation needs solid support. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the institutions that employ researchers value their reputation on academic integrity above all else. So their own self-interest would argue against such an accusation.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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!

And what do all of us have to lose if global warming is taken seriously as a threat?

Answer: plenty!

Europe Is Losing 1,000 Farms Per Day & Climate Change Regulations May Lead To Starvation | Armstrong Economics

Regulations that will essentially cripple the capability of farmers and others to keep up with demand resulting in millions of dead.

Now there is a catastrophe worth thinking about before we blindly walk into the socialist nightmare of centralized control.

Clearly, as the history of the past 100 years has shown, ideological leftists have no qualms about killing hundreds of millions of human beings as part of their most recent Green New Leap Forward.

Given that they have already convinced great swaths of the urban population that we only have until 2030 to turn this catastrophe around, they ought to have no problems convincing those same swaths that breaking a few hundred million eggs is necessary to prepare this new green eggs and ham(less) omelette.

 

[HarryStotle]

HumbleIOughtToBe:
At least you included the most ghoulish of the fossil ghouls!

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/visualizing-worlds-20-most-profitable-companies

The one most ignored by the enlightened climate alarmists, although the one raking in by far the most profit.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

But they are being paid to publish and are logically expected to be supportive of their cash flow.

It is unjustified to assume that their payment is dependent on reaching any specific conclusion. Researchers are paid according to how well they support their work. Assumptions to the contrary would be to accuse the institutions that employ them of having no academic integrity. I know that is a popular conspiracy theory, but such an accusation needs solid support. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the institutions that employ researchers value their reputation on academic integrity above all else. So their own self-interest would argue against such an accusation.

Do the names Peter Ridd or Susan Crockford ring a bell? Or Nickolas Drapela from OSU where climate change research is now a $90 million per year enterprise?

Academic integrity be damned, apparently. It is now “embarrassing” for a university if anyone on the staff so much as glances in the direction that CO2 might be somewhat beneficial.

Bonus…

Here is the way dissenting views are handled at institutions of higher learning such as WSU these days.

Institutions of lower impulses, more like.

Funny I have no trouble believing that such academics could very well be manipulated to believe almost anything and believe it viscerally.

I little whispering of “your lives are being threatened” or “only ten years left” would surely be sufficient to convince these darlings of anything.

 

[Ender]

That’s the trouble with arguments made by implication by posting a chart or table or some other data without an explicit argument to go with it. There is no actual argument.

I made one argument, and it wasn’t this one. How about dealing with the one I made instead of the one I didn’t?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s the trouble with arguments made by implication by posting a chart or table or some other data without an explicit argument to go with it. There is no actual argument.

I made one argument, and it wasn’t this one. How about dealing with the one I made instead of the one I didn’t?

You have made this argument in the past, and your posting a chart that makes it again calls for either support or repudiation. Which is it? (I would not have mentioned if you hadn’t brought it up again by relying on it.)

 

[Ender]

You have made this argument in the past…

You are clearly avoiding the argument I’ve made here by focusing on the one I haven’t made. Apparently you consider this one a more serious objection.

…it again calls for either support or repudiation.

No, it doesn’t. I have no need to defend a statement I haven’t made here. If you don’t want to respond to the one I have made, don’t, but also don’t justify your non-response to a comment I have made on my non-response to a comment I haven’t.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have made this argument in the past…

You are clearly avoiding the argument I’ve made here by focusing on the one I haven’t made. Apparently you consider this one a more serious objection.

…it again calls for either support or repudiation.

No, it doesn’t. I have no need to defend a statement I haven’t made here. If you don’t want to respond to the one I have made, don’t, but also don’t justify your non-response to a comment I have made on my non-response to a comment I haven’t.

I will take that as an abandonment of the supposed significance of the no opinion papers. And I really don’t have anything to say about your other argument. You might say that my silence on that issue implies something about my acquiescence to your point. But then you would be making the same mistake again, drawing a conclusion from a “no opinion.”

 

[Theo520]

It is unjustified to assume that their payment is dependent on reaching any specific conclusion. Researchers are paid according to how well they support their work. Assumptions to the contrary would be to accuse the institutions that employ them of having no academic integrity. I know that is a popular conspiracy theory, but such an accusation needs solid support. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the institutions that employ researchers value their reputation on academic integrity above all else. So their own self-interest would argue against such an accusation.

You seem to be deflecting from the point I made, so I’ll restate it.

It is unjustified to assume an expert in Climate Science who is not an avid publisher is somehow irrelevant and their opinion can be ignored, to only focus on the most prolific publishers. Only the opinion of the few high volume publishers attain a 97% consensus, not the greater body.

It should raise your brain alarm bells when there is a marked difference of opinion between the few serial publishers and everyone else in the field who reads their papers.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is unjustified to assume that their payment is dependent on reaching any specific conclusion. Researchers are paid according to how well they support their work. Assumptions to the contrary would be to accuse the institutions that employ them of having no academic integrity. I know that is a popular conspiracy theory, but such an accusation needs solid support. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the institutions that employ researchers value their reputation on academic integrity above all else. So their own self-interest would argue against such an accusation.

You seem to be deflecting from the point I made, so I’ll restate it.

Before you do, please note that my response was a direct response to the portion of your post that I quoted, and was therefore not a deflection.

It is unjustified to assume an expert in Climate Science who is not an avid publisher is somehow irrelevant and their opinion can be ignored, to only focus on the most prolific publishers. Only the opinion of the few high volume publishers attain a 97% consensus, not the greater body.

Yes, it would be unjustified to do that - if anyone was actually doing that.

It should raise your brain alarm bells when there is a marked difference of opinion between the few serial publishers and everyone else in the field who reads their papers.

Yes, it would raise alarm bells if that were actually happening. It is not.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Academic integrity be damned, apparently.

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised. You would first have to show that the money in question comes with strings attached that require such a compromise.

 

[Ender]

Continuing the evaluation of Cook’s “97%” paper…

Here is what was claimed in the abstract:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

To start with, 75% of the abstracts in the “expressing a position” pile didn’t actually express a position at all. Their “position” was implied, and divined by the evaluators (category 3).

Then there were the category 2 papers, the “explicit endorsement without categorization” group. Here is the example of a comment that would put a paper in this category:

‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

The thing is, virtually everyone recognizes that CO2 contributes something to global warming; the real question is whether that something is a lot or a little, but this characterization lumps everyone into the same group: endorses AGW (over 50% of warming is due to man).

This lumpy group covers about 23.5% of the 25% of the papers not in the implicit pile, leaving, as I pointed out before, only 1.5% of the papers actually meeting the criteria attributed to the 97%.

So, what does this paper show? 75% of the papers “expressing a position” expressed no position at all, and 23.4% of the papers “endorsing AGW” (50% man made) made no such endorsement. I will concede that 1.6% (probably) said what they claimed.

 

[phaster]

Yeah, I get it.

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

there is an expression “the truth hurts…”

but as I see things, it is better than the alternative which is being comforted with a lie AND having problems compound

if it makes you happy to think that climate change is a new religion, then there is nothing I can do to change your mind, other than point out areas which show ya might lack an understanding of the applicable basic science

so WRT the idea that,…

Good stewardship of the earth might entail increasing CO2 for the benefit of plants and to increase the global food supply.

which is eerily similar to the idea (talking point?!) I have heard before

Ender:

In the meantime, here is the actual effect of increased CO2, and so far it’s been quite beneficial.

Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing – Watts Up With That?

anyway might I suggest reading up about soil nutrients and thinking about the math/bio/chem concept of “limiting factors”

Amazon carbon sink could be ‘much less’ due to lack of soil nutrients

…Nitrogen is essential for plant growth as it is a core building block in essential components including proteins and chlorophyl, the pigment responsible for photosynthesis.

If there is not enough nitrogen for plants to grow, they will remove less carbon from the atmosphere, even as CO2 concentrations rise.

…scientists have known for decades that in tropical forests, it is not nitrogen levels that tend to constrain plant growth, but phosphorus. In plants, phosphorus supports regular growth as well as vital functions including photosynthesis.

Along with other minerals such as magnesium and calcium, phosphorus enters the soil via the weathering of rocks, in processes that have not taken place in much of the Amazon for millions of years. By contrast, the glaciers that covered Europe 10,000 years ago led to new soil formation, meaning these nutrients are less of a limit on plant growth in the region.

Despite this knowledge, a lack of experimental data means modellers have tended to leave phosphorus and other nutrients out of their simulations.

Amazon carbon sink could be ‘much less’ due to lack of soil nutrients

…and FWIW heard of a guy (that ya might want to check out) that does seem to take the topic of religion and climate change pretty seriously

(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.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is what was claimed in the abstract:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

To start with, 75% of the abstracts in the “ expressing a position ” pile didn’t actually express a position at all. Their “position” was implied, and divined by the evaluators (category 3).

You seem to take issue with the use of the term “express a position” to include papers that implied a position. What exactly is the objection? I think most people would allow that implied positions are a form of expression. In any case, the symmetrical thing to look for is the number of papers that expressed a position against the AGW theory. How many of the papers in the survey were of that sort? I think it would be valid to use any standard of classification we want, provided we use the same standard on both the “pro” and the “anti” side of the debate. In that sense I would have to agree that the 97% figure is meaningless all by itself since it is not a comparison of like sums. What’s sorely missing is a comparable survey showing the mirror-image of the Cook Survey, only applied to the proposition that AGW is not valid.

‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

The thing is, virtually everyone recognizes that CO2 contributes something to global warming;

This is an interesting statement, given the fact that I have been following this debate on CAF for at least 8 years, and with some of the same participants. I do recall many postings that attempted to disavow completely the connection between CO2 and global warming. Of course that was not a random sample of the population, and when applied to the population in general, your statement is certainly true.

This lumpy group covers about 23.5% of the 25% of the papers not in the implicit pile, leaving, as I pointed out before, only 1.5% of the papers actually meeting the criteria attributed to the 97%.

If you want a concession that the 97% category is poorly understood and perhaps misapplied to means something more than what it does, you have it. You have said what you think the “real question is.” But I think “the real question” is the weaker one, but sufficiently strong for our purposes. And that is, do more experts agree with AGW theory using some reasonable moderate definition of AGW than disagree with it? The Cook Survey answers this question in the affirmative quite easily, as do all the other scientific surveys on the consensus.

 

[twoshoes]

Climate change has happened since the beginning of time. When politics becomes involved it becomes a mess. Someone wants to make money or to get power over others. I’ve lived on the water for 40 years and it hasn’t risen an inch.
I personally believe we should worry more about polution of our air, waters, and food. Go into a cancer center and you will understand the extent of the problem.

 

[Ender]

If you want a concession that the 97% category is poorly understood and perhaps misapplied to means something more than what it does, you have it.

Yes, and this is a fairly uncontroversial conclusion when one looks carefully at the studies (which I have not done for the others) to see what they actually contain rather than just read the media reports of what they supposedly contain.

I think “the real question” is the weaker one, but sufficiently strong for our purposes. And that is, do more experts agree with AGW theory using some reasonable moderate definition of AGW than disagree with it?

The AGW theory is that man is responsible for more than 50% of the warming, and the question of whether there are more scientists who ascribe to the theory than not is really not interesting to anyone. The assertion that “the majority agree with us” is simply not compelling. The 97% number is necessary to close off the debate, which is the objective. Despite assertions to the contrary there are in fact a lot of issues and open questions regarding AGW, questions the pro side simply doesn’t want raised.