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

[mentalfloss]

From two questions...

76 out of 79 is the number of climate scientists responding about an "increase" to question#1.

75 out of 77 is the number of climate scientists responding to anthropogenic causes to question#2.

The percentages are 96% and 97% for both questions, respectively.

Those climate scientists have over 50% of their material peer-reviewed - most likely published in Nature.

So, for me, that's a pretty significant number of credible climate scientists.

 

[Tonington]

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

That's an actually very interesting question. In human terms probably never. We define climate as 30 years of average weather, and that is always changing. I find it more useful to think of climate in longer periods. Life evolves over long periods, and over long periods the climate is relatively stable, with the standard noise. But in this case I use stable to mean that the changes don't cause wild scale disruptions.

To really disrupt things you need to have a rate of change that natural systems can't cope with. It's not really surprising that the major extinction events are also accompanied by large scale changes in climate. From hot houses, to ice ages. That's disruptive. The sign are all around that disruption is happening. The timing of seasonal events is changing, species are migrating outside of their historic ranges, ocean pH is dropping, etc. How far the disruption goes depends a great deal on what we do.

When the climatologists talk about stabilizing our climate, what they mean is conditions where the systems are not overwhelmed. There is plenty of evidence of that in the geologic history of this planet.

 

[CDNBear]

75 out of 77 is the number of climate scientists responding to anthropogenic causes to question#2.

Question 2 is a terrible question. It relies on individual interpretation of significant.

So, for me, that's a pretty significant number of credible climate scientists.

It would be for me too, if there were only 100 climatologists on earth.

But go on believing less than 100 climatologists represent thousands.

No wonder you think the debate is over...:roll:

 

[JLM]

That's an actually very interesting question. In human terms probably never. We define climate as 30 years of average weather, and that is always changing. I find it more useful to think of climate in longer periods. Life evolves over long periods, and over long periods the climate is relatively stable, with the standard noise. But in this case I use stable to mean that the changes don't cause wild scale disruptions.

To really disrupt things you need to have a rate of change that natural systems can't cope with. It's not really surprising that the major extinction events are also accompanied by large scale changes in climate. From hot houses, to ice ages. That's disruptive. The sign are all around that disruption is happening. The timing of seasonal events is changing, species are migrating outside of their historic ranges, ocean pH is dropping, etc. How far the disruption goes depends a great deal on what we do.

When the climatologists talk about stabilizing our climate, what they mean is conditions where the systems are not overwhelmed. There is plenty of evidence of that in the geologic history of this planet.

I think the burning question is not, why the climate is changing, but what can man do to fix it ............if he can, which I very much doubt. Over time it will correct itself which is probably best in the long run. I don't believe in changing what Mother Nature ordains.

P.S. I should have added "unless he knows what the hell he's doing"


[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Tonington]

So, for me, that's a pretty significant number of credible climate scientists.

There's also what's actually published...the question of whether or not man is responsible is no longer a matter of interest in the literature. That has been pretty much nailed for a while now, and the published material is looking at addressing other uncertainties in the climate system. Trying to narrow the climate sensitivity, trying to narrow the uncertainty with respect to water vapour and clouds, trying to improve regional climate projections, aerosols, these are the big topics out there right now. The evidence for man's DNA on the scene is staggering.

Of course then we also have the associations of professional scientists. AAAS, American Geophysical Union, European Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Geologic Society of America, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, Royal Society of Canada, American Chemical Society, etc. It's a long list with hundreds of thousands of scientists as members, all supporting the consensus position. The consensus exists because the evidence is overwhelming. The American Chemical Society alone has over 150,000 members.

Of course there's still a few who try to overturn the position, and that would be a hallmark achievement in any scientists career. A consensus is built by many many many scientists. It's unlikely that so many would be wrong. But I can see the draw it has for some.

I think the burning question is not, why the climate is changing, but what can man do to fix it ............if he can, which I very much doubt. Over time it will correct itself which is probably best in the long run. I don't believe in changing what Mother Nature ordains.

See, but you're already assuming mother nature ordained this, and that is in the face of mountains of evidence. Do you know that satellites can detect the difference between the carbon dioxide a volcano emits, and the carbon dioxide emitted from your tail pipe? The isotopic signature is very different.

 

[CDNBear]

There's also what's actually published...the question of whether or not man is responsible is no longer a matter of interest in the literature. That has been pretty much nailed for a while now, and the published material is looking at addressing other uncertainties in the climate system. Trying to narrow the climate sensitivity, trying to narrow the uncertainty with respect to water vapour and clouds, trying to improve regional climate projections, aerosols, these are the big topics out there right now. The evidence for man's DNA on the scene is staggering.

Of course then we also have the associations of professional scientists. AAAS, American Geophysical Union, European Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Geologic Society of America, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, Royal Society of Canada, American Chemical Society, etc. It's a long list with hundreds of thousands of scientists as members, all supporting the consensus position. The consensus exists because the evidence is overwhelming. The American Chemical Society alone has over 150,000 members.

Of course there's still a few who try to overturn the position, and that would be a hallmark achievement in any scientists career. A consensus is built by many many many scientists. It's unlikely that so many would be wrong. But I can see the draw it has for some.

I love how you use words that allow variables.

I remember reading an article a while ago, how science was convinced how niggars were genetically inferior to man.

I bet that they had a similar smug self assured scientific elitist tone, when they spoke of the consensus of scientists.

 

[mentalfloss]

I love how you use words that allow variables.

I remember reading an article a while ago, how science was convinced how niggars were genetically inferior to man.

I bet that they had a similar smug self assured scientific elitist tone, when they spoke of the consensus of scientists.

Sweeping generalizations for $300 Alex.

 

[Tonington]

I love how you use words that allow variables.

I remember reading an article a while ago, how science was convinced how niggars were genetically inferior to man.

I bet that they had a similar smug self assured scientific elitist tone, when they spoke of the consensus of scientists.

Like I said earlier, they will have to overturn radiative transfer theory to knock down the consensus position that exists for human caused climate change, and that is unlikely. This would not only have implications for climate science, but for what most would consider unrelated scientific advancements like the semiconductors used in our computers.

 

[CDNBear]

Sweeping generalizations for $300 Alex.

Make stuff up much Vanna?

Feel free to point out your make believe 'sweeping generalization'.

Like I said earlier, they will have to overturn radiative transfer theory to knock down the consensus position that exists for human caused climate change, and that is unlikely.

I like the word theory Ton.

This would not only have implications for climate science, but for what most would consider unrelated scientific advancements like the semiconductors used in our computers.

Sounds interesting, please go on.

And if by chance you have one. What is you opinion of Christy?

 

[Tonington]

I like the word theory Ton.

I do too. A named scientific theory means it has strength. It is supported by many lines of evidence, and is strengthened by many foundations.

Sounds interesting, please go on.

Well radiative transfer concerns the transfer of electromagnetic radiation. The transfer is affected by the absorption, emission and scattering properties of the medium over which the energy is transferred. Using these constraints on radiative transfer, scientists have improved the efficiency of semiconductors used in all sorts of applications, by optimizing the flow of energy across gaps, by optimizing the distance between emitters and receivers in photovoltaic systems, and by optimizing the distance of quantum wells in the semi-conductors to reduce backtransfer.

That kind of nano-physics is beyond me, but it's active research, and many graduate level radiative transfer courses have sections on semiconductors.

I mean they even use radiative transfer to choose the colour of some telescopes. They colour them white in the visible spectrum to reflect sunlight, black in the mid-infrared to promote radiative cooling, and transparent at the wavelengths where you find radio waves so that it neither absorbs or emits noise at those wavelengths.

 

[CDNBear]

I do too. A named scientific theory means it has strength. It is supported by many lines of evidence, and is strengthened by many foundations.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Well radiative transfer concerns the transfer of electromagnetic radiation. The transfer is affected by the absorption, emission and scattering properties of the medium over which the energy is transferred. Using these constraints on radiative transfer, scientists have improved the efficiency of semiconductors used in all sorts of applications, by optimizing the flow of energy across gaps, by optimizing the distance between emitters and receivers in photovoltaic systems, and by optimizing the distance of quantum wells in the semi-conductors to reduce backtransfer.

That kind of nano-physics is beyond me, but it's active research, and many graduate level radiative transfer courses have sections on semiconductors.

I mean they even use radiative transfer to choose the colour of some telescopes. They colour them white in the visible spectrum to reflect sunlight, black in the mid-infrared to promote radiative cooling, and transparent at the wavelengths where you find radio waves so that it neither absorbs or emits noise at those wavelengths.

Cool, and your opinion of Christy?

 

[Tonington]

And if by chance you have one. What is you opinion of Christy?

John Christy? One of the only credible skeptical scientists. What he says in public and what he says with his research are pretty consistent.

 

[CDNBear]

John Christy? One of the only credible skeptical scientists. What he says in public and what he says with his research are pretty consistent.

Ya, that would be the guy. Only he really isn't a skeptic. He's more skeptical about the scope, than anything else.

The abundance of higher education aside, he and I think alot alike.

That is to say, he makes a great deal of sense, that I agree with.

 

[petros]

Christy is skeptical of the methodology of modelling not warming.

The planet warms all the time and cools all the time and THAT is the only FACT ever PROVEN.

 

[Tonington]

Ya, that would be the guy. Only he really isn't a skeptic. He's more skeptical about the scope, than anything else.

Technically all scientists are skeptics. Language choice really matters...they'll jump all over statements that they disagree with. Debate is part and parcel for the job.

He is skeptical in that he thinks there's no need to worry. He thinks the effects will be beneficial...he thinks the added CO2 will be a net positive. I strongly disagree with him on that; the effects on the ocean and hydrological cycle makes me laugh.

 

[CDNBear]

Technically all scientists are skeptics. Language choice really matters...they'll jump all over statements that they disagree with. Debate is part and parcel for the job.

Not according to some of your peers.

He is skeptical in that he thinks there's no need to worry. He thinks the effects will be beneficial...he thinks the added CO2 will be a net positive. I strongly disagree with him on that; the effects on the ocean and hydrological cycle makes me laugh.

I'll join you in that dissent. Alone.

 

[Tonington]

Christy is skeptical of the methodology of modelling not warming.

He uses models in his own research...in fact his modelling was so bad that they had to adjust the satellite record to account for the negative bias introduced by orbital decay. After the adjustments his temperature dataset now agrees with the surface temperature record.

The satellites don't even measure temperature, and they use a model to convert the data into temperature...

Hence the differences in the UAH and RSS satellite records, which both use the same data.

The planet warms all the time and cools all the time and THAT is the only FACT ever PROVEN.

Not the only fact ever proven, and not exactly a useful piece of information for a policy maker.

 

[petros]

If you're going to set policy and charge taxes out the ass, it might be best to stick to proven rather than modelled assumptions of facts?

 

[Tonington]

If you're going to set policy and charge taxes out the ass, it might be best to stick to proven rather than modelled assumptions of facts?

Let us know when you can predict the future with certainty. That's not how the real world works, sometimes you can't wait until something happens to mitigate it.

Would you wait until the asteroid is within 24 hours of striking earth before doing anything about it?

That's insanity.

That's what risk analysis is for, and you can't escape the uncertainty of the future.

 

[petros]

So I should get my **** in knot and start taxing the snot out of everyone in hopes it fixes natural cycles? Is that how the Roman Optimum ended through taxation?

How did they fix it with taxes and policy?