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

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #30 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:25am

Radical wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:13am:

Seriously! Why waste time and energy on deniers? Even the organ grinders have left them behibd.

Tillerson moved on years ago and accepted the reality of climate change. The really, really scary bit is that the organ grinders are now talking mitigation through geoengineering.

Its because the climate deniers are winning. The Heartland Institute strategy is working. Sure we can look at the next poll and feel good about ourselves because belief in climate change has increased to 60% but the reality is that nothing is actually being done to combat climate change and the science is telling us that these next few years are critical. We need as many people as we can to demand action NOW!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #31 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:32am

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:53am:

Radical wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:13am:

Seriously! Why waste time and energy on deniers? Even the organ grinders have left them behibd.

True.

But Longweekend is such a complete lying twat - it amuses me to see the lengths he goes to squirm away from the crap he posts.

Isn't that right Longy - you pathetic, dishonest little man. Still waiting for you to who us where show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".?

Will you ever own up to being a snivelling little liar?

Or will you just start a new thread and post the same crap again?

You need to understand that for Longy this is ideological. He actually started a thread about 2 years ago titled something like "Why I don't believe in AGW" and the main reason he gave was that if we accept climate change it would mean we would have to change our way of life and he wasn't prepared to do that. The truth of the matter doesn't matter to him (that's why he finds it so easy to lie) and nor does the consequences. It's just about maintaining this way of life.

Back to top

IP Logged

Radical

Junior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 64
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #32 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 9:38am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:32am:

You need to understand that for Longy this is ideological.

The climate deniers won years ago.

Any chance of limiting the warming to two degrees in an orderly sensible form is long gone.

It doesn't take much grey matter to know that for ecocidal maniacs who are so ecologically challenged that they cannot understand the most basic fundamentals about this planet's life support systems it's ideological. You cannot reason with that ideology. Especially when its response is to elect a barking mad rottweiler as its leader. Its the ideology that has got us in this mess. Now have a look around. Are they putting the brakes on? No, they are quite literally making the hole bigger.

The only way you'll get change is to get 100,000's on the street in the major capitals. That's what you need to work on.

Back to top

Now playing "Retard Australia Fair" by the Fiscal Fascists and the Blueshirts

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #33 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 9:46am

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 9:15pm:

Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey

by Dennis Bray
On May 26, the Online version of the Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece titled ‘The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?’ It was written by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer. The brief bio informs the reader “Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.” The posting contains the statement “Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.”

Since the time of publication, the opinion piece, or parts thereof, has been widely distributed, more often than not verbatim, in the blogosphere.

We, (Bray and von Storch) the authors of the ‘Rigorous international surveys’, find this disconcerting. Bast and Spencer make claims about our work, which are inaccurate if not outright false. This is not the first time that statements of us have been misrepresented – the case of Ameling in August 2013 was another blatant one; thus it may make sense opposing publicly such claims.

In the WSJ opinion piece, Best and Spencer inform the readers that based on the results of our survey; there is disagreement ‘with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models’. What IS the consensus on the reliability of climate data and computer models? What are our results compared to so that such a claim can be made?

A second conclusion reached by Blast and Spence reads 'They [climate scientists] do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change'. On this account, first, Blast and Spencer do not seem to have taken the time to read our discussion of the use of the term prediction versus the use of the term projection, a paper which itself raised a lot of comments, i.e. prediction and projection, in climate science, are synonymous.

But the point here is the claim of correlation between the understanding of clouds and the ability to assess the future of climate. What the survey asks is how well the respondent thinks that climate models can deal with clouds. Admittedly the confidence is fairly low. However when asked ‘Concerning TEMPERATURE VALUES, how would you rate the ability of GLOBAL models to simulate mean values for the next 10 years’, (and the next 50 years)’ the response was considerably more positive than that assigned the assessment of clouds. The correlation of the two variables was a minimal .09.

The point being, our results are modified in a way so as to support the opinions of many blog authors, not just Bast and Co. This amounts to manipulations, and to damaging our academic reputation. We, Hans von Storch and myself would like to clarify that, in undertaking the surveys, we attempt to produce results that are as objective as possible. It is not our intention to provide fodder for this camp or that camp, we are not acting as partisans of any particular persuasion and we do not particularly appreciate being stuck with a label assigned by some third party imagination.

klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/misrepresentation-of-bray-and-von.html

and despite all the bluster the fact remains that the supposed 97% consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, it doesnt even form a majority. And that's before you even discuss the validity of consensus as a scientific tool at all which most would reject outright.

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: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #34 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:06am

Radical wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 9:38am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:32am:

You need to understand that for Longy this is ideological.

The climate deniers won years ago.

Any chance of limiting the warming to two degrees in an orderly sensible form is long gone.

It doesn't take much grey matter to know that for ecocidal maniacs who are so ecologically challenged that they cannot understand the most basic fundamentals about this planet's life support systems it's ideological. You cannot reason with that ideology. Especially when its response is to elect a barking mad rottweiler as its leader. Its the ideology that has got us in this mess. Now have a look around. Are they putting the brakes on? No, they are quite literally making the hole bigger.

The only way you'll get change is to get 100,000's on the street in the major capitals. That's what you need to work on.

a more powerful motivation would be ACTUAL warming and ACTUAL massive sea rises an so on. failed predictions are not really winning over anyone.

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

____

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #35 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:14am

What fact Washedoutweekend?

You have posted a propaganda opinion spouted by a group funded by exxon. A company that once funded 9 out of 10 denialist sites so to muddy the water.

Your peered review link, the authors of, has stated the writers of your opening post opinion are lying.

That means your dead on the water ... you have nothing ... time to stop quacking old duck.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:31am by ____ »

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #36 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:20am In all honesty I've never really cared about the 97% consensus rubbish. Science has nothing to do with consensus.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17305
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #37 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:26am

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:23pm:

And funny - not a single scientist in that survey said that they are not convinced that climate change is occurring

Nope, Climate change is occurring, has occurred for millions of years in the past and possibly millions into the future. It is the effect of CO2 on climate change that is being debated.

You can't just define your own terms.

Back to top

IP Logged

innocentbystander. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4723 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #38 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:31am ... and on it go's, on and on and on
Back to top	IP Logged

innocentbystander.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4723
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #39 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:43am

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 7:25am:

Its because the climate deniers are winning.

I thought this piece was a rather damning indictment of the warming movement and where they at considering the amount of time and money they have invested in convincing us all of the dangers of climate change ...

” The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.“

— Graham Richardson, Friday May 22nd, 2015

No one has engaged them?

That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.

With a budget of nothing we’re winning. Why? We have nature on our side.* The world isn’t warming, the models can’t predict the real climate, and half the population have wised up to the propaganda. The main arguments of those who would control CO2 are not scientific, but insults and bluster, shutting up and disqualifying critics rather than answering politely, and producing the evidence. The University of Queensland offers a whole course in namecalling to train people to “engage” deniers. But the public know that the endless drought ended, the dams filled, the predictions were wrong and that “denier” is not science. Namecalling isn’t working anymore (so keep it coming Graham, it helps the skeptics

).

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/no-one-has-engaged-the-deniers-says-graham-rich...

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #40 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:28pm

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:26am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:23pm:

And funny - not a single scientist in that survey said that they are not convinced that climate change is occurring

Nope, Climate change is occurring, has occurred for millions of years in the past and possibly millions into the future. It is the effect of CO2 on climate change that is being debated.

You can't just define your own terms.

Longy tells us however that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".
(but cannot ever seem to show us evidence of this)

And then posts a paper that says not a single scientist in that survey said that they are not convinced that climate change is occurring.

Longy really is a lying fool.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #41 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:35pm

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:26am:

It is the effect of CO2 on climate change that is being debated.

No - it isn't being "debated".

The effects of CO2 on climate change are well understood.
The actual consequences of these effects are still unclear, because it involves modelling chaotic systems - but the simple fact that CO2 emissions are warming the planet is not being 'debated' by sane people anywhere. It is happening.

Silly lies and nut job blogs posted endlessly by Longy does not change this. Only the truly ignorant (i.e. Andrew Bolt fans) still "question" the impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions on climate.

Back to top

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4010
Gender: female

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #42 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:41pm

Ultimately, it does not really matter if there are climate change deniers, or if they are 'winning'. Generally speaking, people take comfort in repeating what they know, and wanting to hold on to what they have. But its the progressives, the ones who dare to challenge and change that drive the course of entire humanity. While the rest are just servants to the ruling elite.

Assuming if climate change is untrue, but turning to renewable energy production will improve our health, our productivity, and able to keep a healthier environment for our future generations. That in itself should already be incentive enough to change our ways. This is the future, that I wish to have.

Assuming if climate change is true, and we continued our current way. Then, there will be un-measurable and detrimental impact on our way of life. Perhaps even driving us to extinction. But then again, mass extinction had happen before just like climate change, if we do go extinct, or near extinct, at least, other creatures can finally have a chance in thriving. Biologist had told us, that having intelligence does not necessary mean evolutionary success.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17305 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #43 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:45pm rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:35pm: No - it isn't being "debated". How much Climate Change is being caused by CO2? By what metric was this derived?
Back to top	IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #44 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:52pm

lee wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:45pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:35pm:

No - it isn't being "debated".

How much Climate Change is being caused by CO2? By what metric was this derived?

has it ever occurred to you actually READ something about this topic yourself? (well - beyond the Andrew Bolt blogs?)

There is a lot of information out there. Let me know if you need help understanding it.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

Back to top

IP Logged