Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17324 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #120 - Jul 24^th, 2015 at 8:58pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 8:31pm: what the hell is a temperature sensor doing anywhere near aircraft????? They are to make sure the engines don't overheat.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #121 - Jul 25^th, 2015 at 5:09pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:09pm:

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

No need to provide a detailed rebuttal. The whole article is a load of crap.

Here's why. It's a load of opinionated waffle on a topic that has nothing to do with science.

OPINION-BASED SURVEYS HAVE NO BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17324
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #122 - Jul 25^th, 2015 at 6:36pm

Yep John Cook of 97% fame has been identified as an identity thief. Real trustworthy fellow.

'If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.'

'John Cook: … If a few more agree with the idea of this blog post (noting it won’t directly engage Watts or even mention him, it’ll be a general discussion post) and the direction I propose we go with the d-word issue, I’ll have a crack at writing it over the next day.

EDIT: sorry, accidentally posted this under my Lubos_Motl username, sorry for any confusion Sad

…'

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience...

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #123 - Jul 25^th, 2015 at 6:50pm

Bam wrote on Jul 25^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:09pm:

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

No need to provide a detailed rebuttal. The whole article is a load of crap.

Here's why. It's a load of opinionated waffle on a topic that has nothing to do with science.

OPINION-BASED SURVEYS HAVE NO BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

hmm guess who DIDNT read the article and the fact that it references a PEER-REVEIWED published report.

not real good at honesty and intelligence are you, pebbles?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #124 - Jul 26^th, 2015 at 1:40pm and bam goes missing.... again.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #125 - Jul 26^th, 2015 at 8:49pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE

fake hydrologist.

Your thought experiment implies the temperature change is confined!

Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #126 - Jul 26^th, 2015 at 8:51pm lee wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:34pm: So a complex system can't explain why rainfall patterns change? 30 year trends are 30 year trends If you want a circle party I love these things so bring it on
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17324 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #127 - Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm And 60 year trends, 500 year trends?
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #128 - Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:18am lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm: And 60 year trends, 500 year trends? dont bother engaging with DRAH. he is quite literally insanse brought about by drug use.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

innocentbystander.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4723
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #129 - Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:23am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

And 60 year trends, 500 year trends?

dont bother engaging with DRAH. he is quite literally insanse brought about by drug use.

The drugs were bad enough but the slight warming that is well within natural variation finished him off Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #130 - Jul 27^th, 2015 at 10:13am

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

And 60 year trends, 500 year trends?

dont bother engaging with DRAH. he is quite literally insanse brought about by drug use.

The drugs were bad enough but the slight warming that is well within natural variation finished him off Cheesy

I think it is also some copper poisoning. He probably tries to eat it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #131 - Aug 7^th, 2015 at 12:47am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:41pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

on the subject of lies... your claim to be a hydrologist unravelled fast didnt it. You didnt even try and explain what 1D 2D 3D modelling is or what is the dominant calculation engine in hydrologic models.

0.6 degrees in warming changes NOTHING.

Stop running away liar.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

Why are you only interested in surface temperature?

Does Mr Expert not understand the role heat plays in the hydrological cycle?

0.6 deg can change water from a solid to a liquid. I would have thought that may have quite a significant impact on its behaviour. Wouldn't you?

barely true and mostly not. when the antarctic ice warms from -74C to -73.4C, how much water is formed? NONE

fake hydrologist.

Still waiting for that answer.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". Why can't you just show us where they said this?

I think you have entertained us enough with your gross ignorance of heat exchange in the water cycle - how about you actually get back to explaining why you told a big fat lie?

Does an "expert" like you really need somebody to explain to you the difference between surface temperature and total heat content?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-5-4.jpeg
Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4; continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006), Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html

None of those numbers are negative are they. All positive.
That means the planet is warming, doesn't it

so... fake hydrologist. It appears you are unwilling to produce a TEMPERATURE GRAPH and we all know why - because it shows that pause you are intent on denying.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming". So far - you have failed to show any evidence of this whatsoever. It appears that you are a liar

Are you now trying to tell us that "global warming" is only related to surface temperature? why is that?

Why are you ignoring the increase in ocean temperature?
Why are you ignoring the decrease in the cryosphere

Global ocean heat content certainly doesn't support you lie that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"."

You told a lie.

Even if we just restrict ourselves to just surface temperature - you are still lying:

And nowhere does "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"

You are a liar.

You have been caught red-handed telling lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2015 at 5:41pm:

and why arent you at least TRYING to answer that hydrologists question? I framed it specificially so that google would not help muc. You'd actually have to know about hydrology.

Seriously?!?! Who are you trying to fool?

You get caught telling lies - and you try to divert attention away from it.

Yes- I get it. You are some half-arsed computer monkey that somebody has taught how to punch numbers into TUFLOW or something. Good for you.

Then you come out and tell us that rising temperature will have no effect on the hydrological cycle!!!

Really!!!

Do your employers actually know how pig-ignorant you are?

Now - sonny - stop telling lies. Stop trying to pretend you are something you are not. And stop trying to avoid the question.

Why did you write:
"NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"

That is just a 100% lie isn't it.

Don't you think it is about time you admitted this?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #132 - Aug 7^th, 2015 at 10:09am lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm: And 60 year trends, 500 year trends? Why not just ask God for the answer to everything?
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #133 - Aug 7^th, 2015 at 10:11am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

lee wrote on Jul 26^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

And 60 year trends, 500 year trends?

dont bother engaging with DRAH. he is quite literally insanse brought about by drug use.

...longy wants me to go away because he is sick of getting owned Grin

Longy, they all love me here mate because i own you!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17324 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #134 - Aug 7^th, 2015 at 11:47am rabbitoh08, Ocean heat according to the Argo buoys, adjusted since they once showed cooling- and that would never do, show 0.023C/decade warming. Scary eh? Why do you think that even though the Argo buoys measure in C, they convert it into zetajoules? It makes it scary.
Back to top	IP Logged