69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Besides the fact that PBSG' estimated declines are based SWAG, and the fact that I do view them as a trusted source, 1/4 of the population in estimated decline, does not a global warming catastrophe make. Especially when one factors in the increase in other subpopulations.

It's actually closer to half. I counted them properly. I get 8/19 in decline. The number of sub-populations experiencing growth has declined, and the number declining has increased in just the last 5 years. Global warming will place another stressor on the bears. There is no question about that. It's just one more straw on the camel's back.

Which brings us back to the beginning, where using Polar Bears as any manner of support for proof of climate change, is flawed.

I agree. I'm working in the opposite direction...as in what impacts will climate change have. I don't require polar bears as proof that climate change is happening.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's actually closer to half. I counted them properly. I get 8/19 in decline. The number of sub-populations experiencing growth has declined, and the number declining has increased in just the last 5 years.
Did you bother to read the 'comments' attached to each region, in the status table?

Here's a taste...

100% of PVA simulations resulted in subpopulation decline after 10 years. Subpopulation is declining without harvest. Local people are seeing more polar bears and TEK suggests that there may have been a northward shift in distribution.

They really put the tables conclusions in perspective.

Global warming will place another stressor on the bears.
And nature, as nature does, will find ways to relieve those stressors.I bet the deer in york Region were stressing when the development began. Now we have almost 20 deer to a square kilometer. A population bloom and the possibility of disease.
There is no question about that. It's just one more straw on the camel's back.
The alarmist tone aside, come back and talk to me when the GW crowd wants to address the environment as a whole, sans the unethical behavior. And not cherry pick data for their cause du jour.

I agree. I'm working in the opposite direction...as in what impacts will climate change have. I don't require polar bears as proof that climate change is happening.
That's you. But it hasn't stopped you from using them as a tool in your scheme.

When the data is inconclusive at best.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,369
8,161
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
OK....I've just quickly skimmed through this Thread, without reading it in
depth. Can we all agree that the climate is changing or is in change?

My question is, "When was, if ever, was the planet's climate truly static?"
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
OK....I've just quickly skimmed through this Thread, without reading it in
depth. Can we all agree that the climate is changing or is in change?

My question is, "When was, if ever, was the planet's climate truly static?"


At this point in time there is a warming of the climate that is based on 4 or 5 different factors. The most influential factor has been shown to be anthoprogenic (human) in nature.

The science on this case is complete and verifiable from multiple sources. The acceptance of the science is now in the hands of politicians who need to decide what's more important: long-term investments or short-term prosperity.

Anyway, I'm kind of appalled by the OP. In a nutshell, the claim went:

1.) In other news, AGW was proven false today
2.) A survey of American adults shows they think scientists falsify data

Are we really getting this pathetic about the debate?

As someone who was previously a staunch skeptic, I made sure I drew the line based on valid data and credible science. The rest should do the same.
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The science on this case is complete and verifiable from multiple sources.
That are self sourcing, self peer reviewed, and based on theoretical prediction models.

And anyone with a valid prediction model that says something different, is a big oil shill, or just a neocon.

Ya, we've all heard about the 'complete and verifiable' sourcing, that has scientists jumping ship and others questioning the ethics and models involved.

Are we really getting this pathetic about the debate?
Ah, and there's the predictable.

As someone who was previously a staunch skeptic, I made sure I drew the line based on valid data and credible science. The rest should do the same.
Yes, Suzuki already told me that.

Thing is, when people start saying things that sound like jackbooted orders. I have a tendency to become even more skeptical.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
That are self sourcing, self peer reviewed, and based on prediction models.

Can you clarify this with some examples?

Ah, and there's the predictable.

C'mon Bear. Give me some credit here.

If you're surveying everyday Americans on their interpretation of the science, they do not have more clout than climate scientists themselves. That's ridiculous, and I'm surprised you wouldn't agree.

Yes, Suzuki already told me that.


Who said Suzuki was a highly credible source?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,369
8,161
113
Regina, Saskatchewan


At this point in time there is a warming of the climate that is based on 4 or 5 different factors. The most influential factor has been shown to be anthoprogenic (human) in nature.

The science on this case is complete and verifiable from multiple sources. The acceptance of the science is now in the hands of politicians who need to decide what's more important: long-term investments or short-term prosperity.

Anyway, I'm kind of appalled by the OP. In a nutshell, the claim went:

1.) In other news, AGW was proven false today
2.) A survey of American adults shows they think scientists falsify data

Are we really getting this pathetic about the debate?

As someone who was previously a staunch skeptic, I made sure I drew the line based on valid data and credible science. The rest should do the same.



I'm kind of appalled by statements like "The case is complete" or "The debate is over"
when it seems like few, if anyone, truly understands what is happening in this instance.
That, I believe, would include many of the scientists quoted or cited on both sides of
this thing. I'm assuming things are being learned constantly that open windows of
thought in directions that where simply not understood or pursued previously.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Can you clarify this with some examples?
The publications of John Christy.

C'mon Bear. Give me some credit here.

If you're surveying everyday Americans on their interpretation of the science, they do not have more clout than climate scientists themselves. That's ridiculous, and I'm surprised you wouldn't agree.
But that isn't what you said, nor is it how you packaged it.

Who said Suzuki was a highly credible source?
As one of the puppets of the AGW campaign, he's the Canadian centerfold for it.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I'm kind of appalled by statements like "The case is complete" or "The debate is over"
when it seems like few, if anyone, truly understands what is happening in this instance.

This is perfectly normal.. or common place is more appropriate.. as the social discourse on this issue is much different than the scientific discourse. When I say the science is sound, I mean that climate scientists (those whose expertise is in this particular field) overwhelmingly agree on the particulars of the warming.

The social discourse between the lay person may be different because most of us are not as critical as climate scientists. If we're speaking strictly about the nature of this warming, climate scientists look at all factors - even those that are not anthropogenic. They are constantly re-assessing all the variables to determine the most credible causes.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
When I say the science is sound, I mean that climate scientists (those whose expertise is in this particular field) overwhelmingly agree on the particulars of the warming.
That's false.

They are constantly re-assessing all the variables to determine the most credible causes.
No they aren't. The IPCC is a good example of that.

So is Suzuki, and yourself.

Didn't you just say it was complete?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,369
8,161
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I honestly wasn't looking to start a pissing match, & then leave for the week.
We all have access to the interweb, or we wouldn't be here. The same stuff
can be found by all of us, and there are three camps it seems. For, against,
and on the fence. Sort'a like religion.

Weird that, as the O.P. does allude to, the "for or against" camps happen to
somewhat coincide with trains of thought politically.....and there is a boatload
of $$$$ on the line on two sides of the issue to sway public opinion (& pockets).

I think I'll stick with the cautiously skeptical train of thought in the middle of
the road on this one, as polar extreme decided opinions (like with religion)
don't leave much room for new information to be factored in if it doesn't
coincide with an already formed opinion.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I think I'll stick with the cautiously skeptical train of thought in the middle of
the road on this one, as polar extreme decided opinions (like with religion)
don't leave much room for new information to be factored in if it doesn't
coincide with an already formed opinion.
Cool, I'll have company.

I have an extra lawn chair, and the cooler is full of ice.

You got any salty snack treats?

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
That's false.

No they aren't. The IPCC is a good example of that.

So is Suzuki, and yourself.

Didn't you just say it was complete?


The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities.

Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1).

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2.

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.




http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
That means what in defence of your false claim?

How does 76 people suddenly represent "overwhelming" consensus?

Keep trying.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
That means what in defence of your false claim?

How does 76 people suddenly represent "overwhelming" consensus?

Keep trying.

Um.. okay.. well, those are the climate scientists, and I did say scientific consensus. So if you think that climate scientists aren't credible on climate science, then you are free to believe that.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Um.. okay.. well, those are the climate scientists, and I did say scientific consensus. So if you think that climate scientists aren't credible on climate science, then you are free to believe that.
That's not what I challenged, that's not what your cut and paste was in reply to, and stop putting words in my mouth.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Follow the string back.

Because I have no idea how you came to this...

Um.. okay.. well, those are the climate scientists, and I did say scientific consensus. So if you think that climate scientists aren't credible on climate science, then you are free to believe that.

From two questions...

That means what in defence of your false claim?

How does 76 people suddenly represent "overwhelming" consensus?

Keep trying.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
There are more cows on the planet than people...
Surprised nobody challenged that claim yet. According to the UN's FAO there are about 1.4 billion cattle on the planet, only about 20% of human numbers. Overall, livestock certainly outnumber people, there are about 19 billion chickens around for instance, but cattle alone don't outnumber us.