"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Dr Brown

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.

Also over the decades climate change scientists have claimed that doomsday is just around the corner yet it never happens.

If we believed what they said 20 years ago we should all be under water by now.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

Dohnjoe

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

xckjoo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

97% consensus!

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

They being from the "Earth Sciences" department.

Yeah, the experts

I'm sure the humanities department actively acknowledges the god theory etc.

What's 'the god theory'

Does the university itself not publish an official climate change position statement that we can evaluate?

The Science department represents the university in matters of science and scientific research.

WesternZulu

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

I can't believe people still believe in the whole climategate conspiracy.

Climategate was a mishmash of snippets of e-mails that had been taken out of context.
EIGHT different thorough investigations later proved that no misconduct had occurred.

Akrasia

Dr Brown wrote: »

I can't believe people still believe in the climate change scam after the top climate scientists who were peddling the scam were caught lying a few years ago.

If man made climate change was real then so called "scientists" wouldn't need to lie about it.

Also over the decades climate change scientists have claimed that doomsday is just around the corner yet it never happens.

If we believed what they said 20 years ago we should all be under water by now.



https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

2009 called, they want their climate change denial talking points back.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

And the projections for climate change from 20 years ago are in the IPCC reports, none of them say we would all be under water by now

The 2nd assessment report was released in 1995
Here is just a sample of what they said about potential sea level rises back then

A number of studies have evaluated sensitivity to a 1-m sea-level
rise. This increase is at the top of the range of IPCC Working Group
I estimates for 2100; it should be noted, however, that sea level is
actually projected to continue to rise beyond 2100.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf

In other words, they projected a 1 metre sea level rise by 2100 as possible under a business as usual scenario, but on the high end of likely outcomes.
In the latest AR5 report, the projections are basically still the same.

For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1

These projections are robust with the assumption that ice shelves don't undergo any major instability over the next 80 years. (There is a risk that this might happen, but we cant quantify that risk sufficiently, so the IPCC left it out of their last report. This might change by AR6 in 2022)

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The Science department represents the university in matters of science and scientific research.

And it's the tail on the dog.


What you're trying to avoid saying is that you cant find the University's official published policy position which endorses the AGW theory.

xckjoo

I don't see their stance on the existence of gravity or the flatness of the Earth either. "UCD"? More like "Illuminati Mouth Piece" if you ask me

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

And it's the tail on the dog.


What you're trying to avoid saying is that you cant find the University's official published policy position which endorses the AGW theory.

I haven't looked tbh, because I asked you to find me a single university science department or scientific institute that agrees with your views on climate change. If you think UCD support your view, then post up your evidence for this.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not a "few" scientists, nor is it a "scam". There is a broad scientific consensus.

This previous post of yours:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107696313&postcount=286



demonstrated your inability to comprehend the statistics you had been fed, so I'm unsure why you're determined to keep advertising your difficulties?


I was going to ask you for a link to back up your claim, but it's ok, you wouldn't really understand what you're proferring.



And anyway, Akrasia says it silly to ask a warmist to explain things they've made up.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108438344&postcount=754

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

This previous post of yours:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107696313&postcount=286



demonstrated your inability to comprehend the statistics you had been fed, so I'm unsure why you're determined to keep advertising your difficulties?

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that post.

I was going to ask you for a link to back up your claim, but it's ok, you wouldn't really understand what you're proferring.



And anyway, Akrasia says it silly to ask a warmist to explain things they've made up.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108438344&postcount=754

Is this your new tactic Dense, to ignore posts when they're first posted, and can be read in their full context, and then refer back to them later in isolation, out of context, blatantly misrepresenting their meaning when the conversation has moved and people won't be bothered looking up what they're referring to?

You wanted a link to the exact number of scientists in the world. That is not a request for information. It's a transparent attempt to move the burden of proof. You were asked for a single piece of evidence to support your claim, and retaliate by demanding something that not only doesn't exist, but cannot possibly exist.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I haven't looked tbh, because I asked you to find me a single university science department or scientific institute that agrees with your views on climate change. If you think UCD support your view, then post up your evidence for this.

Why???
I don't claim that ANY university agrees with me.

I can say they ALL disagree with me, if that makes you feel better this morning?



But if you think the official UCD climate change position is one which endorses the AGW theory and shares your hysterical climate alarmism, how about you go find it and post it up here?

3DataModem

Is man impacting the climate?
Yes.

Will that impact have a major impact on sea levels, affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide?
Yes.

Will that impact have a major impact on other life on the planet?
Yes, however while a lot of species will become extinct, studies have shown that warmer temperatures actually encourage biodiversity. We will most likely see new ecosystems and new species. Possibly more diversity than exists currently.

Is climate change 'bad' for the planet?
No. The planet's biosphere has been through a lot more than humanity could throw at it, and thrived.

Why do people not like climate change?
Because it materially affects human civilisation as we currently know it. People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that post.


Is this your new tactic Dense, to ignore posts when they're first posted, and can be read in their full context, and then refer back to them later in isolation, out of context, blatantly misrepresenting their meaning when the conversation has moved and people won't be bothered looking up what they're referring to?

You wanted a link to the exact number of scientists in the world. That is not a request for information. It's a transparent attempt to move the burden of proof. You were asked for a single piece of evidence to support your claim, and retaliate by demanding something that not only doesn't exist, but cannot possibly exist.

No, I asked for the exact number of scientists thwy were talkimg about from which a 98% had been garnered.


You'll find that I've previously quoted the UN work survey which states that there is approximately 8 million scientists in the world.


No one seems to know how many "climate scientists" there are, much less their views on "climate change".


But by all means, continue firing out stupid percentages and saying it's silly to question fake claims if it makes the global warming religion feel less fake.

Dohnjoe

3DataModem wrote: »

People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

Not just our coastal cities

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Why???
I don't claim that ANY university agrees with me.

I can say they ALL disagree with me, if that makes you feel better this morning?

You say there is no consensus. If every reputable scientific organisation in the world agrees with each other on any topic, that is a pretty comprehensive scientific consensus.

But if you think the official UCD climate change position is one which endorses the AGW theory and shares your hysterical climate alarmism, how about you go find it and post it up here?

I already have. You just refuse to accept it. I wonder what other areas of your life are you completely blind to facts and evidence and constantly demand to be shown things that have already been demonstrated?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, I asked for the exact number of scientists thwy were talkimg about from which a 98% had been garnered.

This is what you said "To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed"

Apart from the garbled syntax, you appear to be asking for the exact number of climate scientists in the world, to which there is no answer because there are grey areas between people who work on the fringes of the field, people doing PHDs or masters who might not yet be fully qualified but are still capable of publishing, people who are retired but still teach occasionally or give lectures, or review papers sometimes etc etc. How many climate scientists are there? How many twigs are there on a tree? (that's actually a stick, not a twig, no wait, it's snapped in half, it's two twigs)

You'll find that I've previously quoted the UN work survey which states that there is approximately 8 million scientists in the world.


No one seems to know how many "climate scientists" there are, much less their views on "climate change".


But by all means, continue firing out stupid percentages and saying it's silly to question fake claims if it makes the global warming religion feel less fake.

You're so full of sh1t dense. You don't have to know exactly how many 'climate scientists there are' if you're sampling. If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.

You can get a good idea of the percentage of opinion by taking a representative sample of a given population and asking them. It's how polling works. Is the answer 100% accurate? No, but if you get a finding of 97% agreeing on something, it's a pretty safe bet that there is a very stong general consensus on that subject amongst that group of people. (in this case, actively publishing researchers in fields specifically relevant to climate science)


In order to get a percentage of anything, you need to know what you're measuring. All of the studies that talk about the consensus explain their methodology clearly and explain what the percentages relate to. It's either respondents to a survey (using a sample of scientists, not every single scientist as you seem to demand) or it's analysis of the published literature (not all the literature, just the papers that meet certain minimum criteria for inclusion in the sample)

Anyway. You've already admitted that 100% of all reputable scientific bodies in the world think you're wrong. So whatever we can say about the climate change consensus. Everyone who knows anything about this topic knows you're full of sh1t.

Akrasia

3DataModem wrote: »

Will that impact have a major impact on other life on the planet?
Yes, however while a lot of species will become extinct, studies have shown that warmer temperatures actually encourage biodiversity. We will most likely see new ecosystems and new species. Possibly more diversity than exists currently.

Where are these papers?

We have seen evidence of catastrophic collapses in invertebrate populations in some of our forests due in large part to temperature and rainfall changes. If the invertebrates can't survive, the food web gets shattered and we lose countless species.

There is a very real risk that rainforest eco systems could go into terminal decline and this is where the vast majority of terrestrial species are found. If the forests go, so do the species.

In the ocean, the vast majority of species live on or near coral reefs. We have already lost 50% of the great barrier reef since only 2016. There are risks that we could lose 90% of global coral reefs by 2050. Could these migrate to cooler water? Perhaps, but it will take a long time and many species will be lost.

Over millions of years the planet will adapt and new forms of life will emerge to take advantage of the new state the planet is in, but our mark on the world will be far from insignificant. We are on path to be a geological disaster akin to the event that wiped out the dinosaurs

Is climate change 'bad' for the planet?

No. The planet's biosphere has been through a lot more than humanity could throw at it, and thrived.

Why do people not like climate change?
Because it materially affects human civilisation as we currently know it. People who say 'save the planet' are really saying 'save our coastal cities'.

and our food supply, and the places that are likely to become deserts uninhabitable due to oppressive heat. The fact that the planet can recover millions of years after we're extinct is not a good reason to not destroy what we have now

Dr Brown

There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.

xckjoo

Dr Brown wrote: »

There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.

Why did you post a link to half a video? Did the content creator lose interest half way through his waffle? Didn't even let him finish his sentence

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

This is what you said "To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed"

Apart from the garbled syntax, you appear to be asking for the exact number of climate scientists in the world, to which there is no answer because there are grey areas between people who work on the fringes of the field, people doing PHDs or masters who might not yet be fully qualified but are still capable of publishing, people who are retired but still teach occasionally or give lectures, or review papers sometimes etc etc. How many climate scientists are there? How many twigs are there on a tree? (that's actually a stick, not a twig, no wait, it's snapped in half, it's two twigs)


You're so full of sh1t dense. You don't have to know exactly how many 'climate scientists there are' if you're sampling. If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.

You can get a good idea of the percentage of opinion by taking a representative sample of a given population and asking them. It's how polling works. Is the answer 100% accurate? No, but if you get a finding of 97% agreeing on something, it's a pretty safe bet that there is a very stong general consensus on that subject amongst that group of people. (in this case, actively publishing researchers in fields specifically relevant to climate science)


In order to get a percentage of anything, you need to know what you're measuring. All of the studies that talk about the consensus explain their methodology clearly and explain what the percentages relate to. It's either respondents to a survey (using a sample of scientists, not every single scientist as you seem to demand) or it's analysis of the published literature (not all the literature, just the papers that meet certain minimum criteria for inclusion in the sample)

Anyway. You've already admitted that 100% of all reputable scientific bodies in the world think you're wrong. So whatever we can say about the climate change consensus. Everyone who knows anything about this topic knows you're full of sh1t.

So now you're suggesting that climate science is so flaky that it's impossible to define either what a climate scientist actually, is or many chancers are out there masquerading as "climate scientists"

So, to turn to sampling.

12000 abstracts written by 30,000 authors.

How many abstracts endorsed AGW? 33% So far so good.

Of the 30,000 authors sampled, how many endorsed AGW? 1100 or 4%.


Can you explain to the readers why you want them to believe that that in any way relates to 97% of scientists, or indeed, 97% of climate scientists?









How many scientists? 8 million

How many are climate scientists?


Who knows.

xckjoo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are either mistakenly or deliberately distorting info - the former is ignorance, the latter is intellectual dishonesty

e.g. if there are 1,000 scientific papers on a subject. And of those, 100 papers express a final conclusion (the other papers may have no remit to present conclusions). And of those 100 papers that present a conclusion, 90% are of conclusion X

The scientific consensus supports conclusion X

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It equates to 97% of all the papers that discussed the causes of climate change. 67% referenced climate change but didn’t talk about the reasons climate change was happening. Those papers were probably about the effects of climate change. The ones that did address the reasons for climate change were 97% in favour of human activity being the reason. Not only have I explained this before the link itself makes that clear.



Just did.



97% is the number of papers that, having an opinion on climate change, blamed human activity. Again spelt out in the link.



This is your misunderstanding of stats, and percentages again.

The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%.

The 4% is the number answering the emails. That’s itself a misreading number as of course there are more than one author to a paper so you don’t need multiple authors to answer.

But it’s irrelevant. The whole email bollocks is more typical goalpost moving, similar to the way children argue.

The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%. That’s all you need to know. That was your link, and nobody else brought it up.

You posted a link that clearly refuted your own position but couldn’t work out what the paper data even though it explained in fairly remedial fashio what the consensus was.

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following:

"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."

So the calculation is:

32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97%

It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.

Let’s say there are a lot of papers about crime. And some of those papers are about the reasons for criminality, the others are about the effects of crime.

67% of papers are about crime but not looking into causes. They just mention crime.

Let’s say that of the papers that do look for a reason for criminality 97% blame poverty or environmental issues, and 3% don’t.

We could accurately say then that criminologists overwhelmingly blame the environment/poverty for crime. At 97%.

The papers that didn’t reference the reasons don’t count. That’s not what they were about.

5th time explaining remedial percentages.

3s search. There might be simpler explanations but they all amount to the same. If anyone still doesn't understand the breakdown, please just say so. I don't think anyone here has a problem with someone still trying to understand something. Continuously and purposefully misrepresenting things on the other hand.....

Akrasia

Dr Brown wrote: »

There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.

And this proves???

The Carbon cycle partially involves CO2 getting absorbed by the oceans and sequestered under the sea floor or in the deep ocean. The atmospheric CO2 content is increasing because humans are emitting more extra carbon dioxide than natural processes can sequester

Humans don't produce the majority of Carbon dioxide emissions in nature. The difference we make is that before we started emitting CO2, the system was in balance. The rate of CO2 emission by natural sources was very closely balanced by the rate of CO2 sequestration by natural processes.

Then humans came along and started pouring the CO2 that took millions of years to be sequestered as fossil fuels into the air over period of decades. We knocked the system out of equilibrium, and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increased from 280ppm to now over 400ppm.

WesternZulu

I do often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and 97% of climate scientists said that climate change is not occurring would the very same people who deny climate change be as unconvinced.

The fact is that to many people climate change doesn't conform to their worldview so they will not accept the scientific rigor behind the research under any circumstances.

If 97% of doctors agreed that a certain activity was causing you to become sick I'm pretty sure you'd stop. In fact many of the big players in the fossil fuel industry have used the same agencies that the smoking companies employed back in the day to discredit the research proving smoking was bad for your health.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

3s search. There might be simpler explanations but they all amount to the same. If anyone still doesn't understand the breakdown, please just say so. I don't think anyone here has a problem with someone still trying to understand something. Continuously and purposefully misrepresenting things on the other hand.....

You might be good enough to link to what research or poll you're getting the above 97% from?

xckjoo

Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.

Without first knowing the size of the population your "sample" does not represent anything.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Ah nice one. Good to see it so roundly confirmed. I thought we had always been discussing the 2013 Cook et al. findings.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?

Yes quite a few.
Some of them had as few as 79 respondents.



Others asked scientists with no relevant expertise in the area for their opinion.