97% Consensus BS

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

http://patriotpost.us/posts/34330

Quote

“A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.” The study is even listed on the American Meteorological Society website.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

Maybe a couple of claims

Well, it didn't take long for that lie to be exposed:

According to right-wing media, the study represents a "death blow to global warming hysteria." The reasoning behind the claim, which originated in a Cato Institute blog post, is that climate models rely on aerosols to offset much of the projected greenhouse gas effect from carbon dioxide. So if aerosols offset less warming than commonly believed, Cato claims "the amount of greenhouse gas-induced warming must also be less" and "we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting." The Cato blog post was picked up by the Daily Caller, American Thinker, Alex Jones' Infowars, Investors' Business Daily, and Rush Limbaugh. Daily Caller even claimed that the recent study directly disputes the scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writing: "Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming -- the opposite of the Max Planck study's finding."

But the study does nothing to dispute the scientific consensus on global warming, according to the study's author himself. In response to media outlets using his study to make inference's about the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide, climate scientist Bjorn Stevens published a statement on the Max Planck Institute's website, debunking the notion that human-induced climate change is "called into question" by his study. He also wrote that his estimates of aerosol radiative forcing are "within the range" of the IPCC's previous findings (which he actually co-authored), and that "I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously." From Stevens' statement:

"Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences.


"[E]ven a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding.

"So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely."

Unsurprisingly, none of the right-wing outlets contacted Stevens before promoting his report as a "death blow" to climate science, which Stevens confirmed in an email to Media Matters. Instead, they relied on the dubious claims of climate-denying bloggers who distort science to fit their agenda, without bothering to understand the science itself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Actually
your post shows the desperation the alarmists are using to try and keep this lie alive

As, as shown is one of my links, he was contacted, he refused to respond, then he did respond to the claims and but did not speak to any of the claim but rather respond as you do, off on bull shit tangents

Thanks John

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

Actually
your post shows the desperation the alarmists are using to try and keep this lie alive

As, as shown is one of my links, he was contacted, he refused to respond, then he did respond to the claims and but did not speak to any of the claim but rather respond as you do, off on bull shit tangents

Thanks John

Deluding yourself again?

As the original author himself said about your secondary sources:

"Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***Actually
your post shows the desperation the alarmists are using to try and keep this lie alive

As, as shown is one of my links, he was contacted, he refused to respond, then he did respond to the claims and but did not speak to any of the claim but rather respond as you do, off on bull shit tangents

Thanks John

The original author has been proven to use bad science, if not outright fraud

Deluding yourself again?

As the original author himself said about your secondary sources:

"Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

******Actually
your post shows the desperation the alarmists are using to try and keep this lie alive

As, as shown is one of my links, he was contacted, he refused to respond, then he did respond to the claims and but did not speak to any of the claim but rather respond as you do, off on bull shit tangents

Thanks John

The original author has been proven to use bad science, if not outright fraud

Deluding yourself again?

As the original author himself said about your secondary sources:

"Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or inferences."

Ignoring your clear inability to use the quoting button correctly...

When the original article was (incorrectly) interpreted to support the denier position, the denier sites (and you) were trumpeting it loudly. Now the author tells them that they misinterpreted it, it suddenly becomes bad science.

You are having a hard time staying intellectually honest this morning.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

Actually
your post shows the desperation the alarmists are using to try and keep this lie alive

As, as shown is one of my links, he was contacted, he refused to respond, then he did respond to the claims and but did not speak to any of the claim but rather respond as you do, off on bull shit tangents

Thanks John

Face palm.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Of the scientists who list climate in their specialty, and have published papers on the topic, 96.2% answered yes to this: "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

billvon, that's not a yes/no question...

btw, I've yet to complete the list of references I agreed to read 6 months or so back. Just starting a new job that hopefully will allow some sane balance in my life.

To reiterate my perspective on this, what's being proposed by government isn't going to have any meaningful impact on this problem. Current govt solutions will only take more money out of our pockets, and give them more control over our lives. I absolutely "deny" their proposed solutions.

We are all engines of karma

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

The original author has been proven to use bad science, if not outright fraud

There is one of those idiotic one liners.

First this guy is your new hero, now when he doesn't agree with you, he is a fraud.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

The original author has been proven to use bad science, if not outright fraud

There is one of those idiotic one liners.

First this guy is your new hero, now when he doesn't agree with you, he is a fraud.

WHoosh

BTW
The more pissy you act toward me, the more accurate I know I am

In any case, you missed the point of the reply

IE, kallend was wrong AGAIN

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

What's the weather like over there in Looking Glass Land?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

What's the weather like over there in Looking Glass Land?

I have O2 over here
Unlike where you live

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

Now there are seven studies confirming the science (or, as you refer to it, the "BS") behind climate change. Some interesting comments:

Deniers claim that the consensus doesn't exist by "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."

The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.

"climate change denial is not about scientific skepticism" - very true.

================
Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in agreement over human-caused climate change

Date: April 12, 2016
Source: Michigan Technological University
Summary: A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans.

A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University.

"What's important is that this is not just one study -- it's the consensus of multiple studies," Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of non-experts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."

Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week. In it, the team lays out what they call "consensus on consensus" and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the co-authors. This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than 11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change. Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers -- and their data gathered from different approaches -- lead to essentially the same conclusion.

The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.

There are many surveys about climate change consensus. The problem with some surveys, Green points out, is that they are biased towards populations with predetermined points of view. Additionally, respondents to some surveys lack scientific expertise in climate science.

"The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community," she says. Only 12 percent of the US public are aware there is such strong scientific agreement in this area, and those who reject mainstream climate science continue to claim that there is a lack of scientific consensus. People who think scientists are still debating climate change do not see the problem as urgent and are unlikely to support solutions.

This new paper is a rebuttal to a comment criticizing the 2013 paper. Green is quick to point out that skepticism, a drive to dig deeper and seeking to better validate data, is a crucial part of the scientific process.

"But climate change denial is not about scientific skepticism," she says.

. . .

"By compiling and analyzing all of this research -- essentially a meta-study of meta-studies -- we've established a consistent picture with high levels of scientific agreement among climate experts," she says.

And among climate scientists, there's little doubt. There is consensus on consensus.
===============

[rushmc 18]

LOL

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

LOL

Quote

"The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific community," she says.

Indeed

- Dan G

[kallend 1,625]

Meanwhile, in Greenland:

polarportal.dk/en/nyheder/arkiv/nyheder/usaedvanlig-tidlig-afsmeltning-i-groenland/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Apparently, NASA is getting a bit annoyed at being misrepresented.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/04/14/nasa-smacks-down-climate-change-doubters-in-facebook-discussion/

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>Apparently, NASA is getting a bit annoyed at being misrepresented.

From the article:

"Irrespective of whether it was the best use of NASA’s time or whether it changed minds, the fact that a federal official expended the effort to protect the integrity of science in an online discussion is refreshing."

Agreed.

[kallend 1,625]

wolfriverjoe

Apparently, NASA is getting a bit annoyed at being misrepresented.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/04/14/nasa-smacks-down-climate-change-doubters-in-facebook-discussion/

Meh - same outfit that faked the Moon landings.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,625]

Another month, another record:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

That's three in a row.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Another month, another record:

What are you talking about? There's a tiny cool area just south of Greenland! See, there is NO CONSENSUS in temperatures!

[kallend 1,625]

Hey Marc, I found this picture of you:

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.