Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

Or 84% are convinced to a large extent or greater

 

Read the other link you requested.

 

Look
This guy cook is a blogger
And i certainly would not take his word as gospel

That said
Your original post said what he looked for was

Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.


I point out he has lots of wiggle room for subjective analysis
Both by saying

Explicitly or IMPLICITLY

and also by saying
Responsible for SOME warming

And in debunking
The guy has totally changed the goalposts

So you have debunked a non scientific study
That starts out by telling how generously subjective it was


There are several more rigorous studies presented here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

Actually, Cook and his buddies only reviewed papers and if they contained the right words, they included them in the surveyed papers as a position statement that the writers never made. For instance, some of the papers involved had nothing to do with climate, one was about cooking stoves. His methods have been reviewed and considered to be sloppy. What would you expect from a cartoonist blogger.

 

I do not expect much
And shooting him down is therefore not such a proud accomplishment imo

It does not change some simple facts
The preponderance of climate scientists around the world think that it is likely that the clinate is growing warmer

And the preponderance of climate scientists think that human activity is to some extent promoting that change
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

Well duh! After that, how much, what it means, if it is bad, if the environmental alarmist viewpoint is valid, is pretty much a crap shoot in opinion.

 

See, the thing is, the answer to this question is bit more nuanced than alarmism, vs denial
Although the alarmists and the deniers love to argue those are the only possible answers

On the denier side, they will argue every point
For example, they will say the climate is always changing
But apparently the climate cannot change to be warmer
The climate has changed in the past.... But it is not changing now
Sea levels are not rising, glaciers are not melting
And i have to say
If you want a 97 % consensus among scientists
Ask them if sea levels are rsn and glaciers are melting

I mean we could quibble about why, or how rapidly, or the degree of threat, or future model based projections
But at least a few facts are so well supported by incontrovertible data that there REALLY IS a scientific consensus

And, yes, alarmism does exist... And lots of people do say some things that are far beyond the science

 

One would have to ask how the now retreating glaciers advanced in the past after retreating before that. One would have to ask why sea levels have risen since the end of the last glaciation period fluctuating as it does?

The alarmism is based on only a few things, some like unverified computer models and others only being populist phenomena like the Hockey Stick that eliminated all other science before it by eliminating the past using a few select tree rings and adopted by a politicized organization created to advise politicians.

In parallel, a very non-scientific media amplifies the alarmism because it sells.

Glaciers are melting, well some of them, others are advancing and at this time we have more glacial coverage in some of the more advertised glacial melt than we did in the 50's which is not easy to look up but some have done just that but that is inconsequential to the agenda.

 

Science is never settled.. anyone who spews that doesn't understand science.

 

The truth may not win out in this case as government force is at play with calls for prosecuting scientists that do not agree with the political consensus.

 

Yes, we could discuss that-those questins to try to detimine the significance, cause, or threat, or any number of other relevant questions

But do we really need to discuss WHETHER sea levels are rising and glaciers are melting?

Btw
If you agree that sea levels are rising.... How is that happening
Is more water escaping from the center of the earth
Or is it sunspots?

Btw2
If glaciers are increasing in size
Why is sea lev.el rising?

Btw3
The fact that climate has changed over 10's of thousands of years is a totally separate question from whether we can and are impacting the climate NOW.

 

How did sea levels rise in the past? How did they recede? Very good questions to which not all answers are known, in fact, there are many hypothesis about such things and the debate about the past rages on. Another question would be why glaciers were receding before the modern (and very short) period of technologically advance temperature measurements and before CO2 is supposed to be the culprit for warming? One would ask what the actual variability of temperature readings were before this period where it is not able to be discerned and only spotty proxy data is available.

Just because sea levels are rising now does not immediately indicate anything unusual. In fact the rate of sea level rise has been deprecated from the historical 3.3mm per year to 1.8mm per year. What does that mean? Does it mean warming is slowing down or does it mean that measurements are better now than 100 years ago? In fact, so much is being discovered as we speak that can change what is understood that it calls into question our current alleged knowledge and what I would call the current hubris of certainty.

 

Well first off, the tide going in and out has literally, 100% nothing to do with global warming. Imagine that. Secondly, there have been plenty of other places around the world that are currently and will soon experience the need to push back their homes due to the rise of the sea; one of these places being Bangladesh. There have been many towns within this country that have had to push back their homes up to 40 meters or put them on stilts.

Lets say for sake of argument that the majority of scientists are wrong and global warming is not happening nor is it made man, and people continue to drill for oil and have high carbon emissions and so on, and so forth. At one point the whole world is going to run out of oil which will without a doubt cause mass war and global/economic destruction. The sound option is to switch to solar power, alternative fuels, cars such as Tesla, wind power, water power, and so forth. We now will create a large job market due to the demand to build and engineer these types of technology and also maintain them. On top of that, we have cleaner air and we bring our country into the 21st century with fuels, this also will allow us to have oil as a backup for a lot longer than thought. No matter if the science is right or for some wild reason it is wrong, switching to alternative fuels and investing in these technologies is only beneficial. We see this with cars like Tesla. Running on nothing but a battery, and having a 620 HP engine, out running any super car that runs on fuel ( Lamborghini, Ferrari, Nissan GTR) of its day and coast a a fifth of the price to make or even less. The car looks great and has loads of technology packed into, making it just as modern as any other car on the road. Why is this such a bad thing? Money is now lost. The reason why their is such a large pushback to the science is mainly because huge oil companies are making billions off of drilling and companies needing their product. So of course when you have scientists, and engineers challenging their money; these greedy men and women of the oil industry are going to claim that you are wrong and fight tooth and nail to make sure that you are not taking away anything from their business.

Why would you think that global warming is not happening? You do not even need to look at the science to notice that the earth is warming. You take your cue from the rest animal and planet kingdom (nature never lies). Animals are migrating at a different rate, planets are migrating north that never did so before, cause they cannot sustain the warm weather that is there. Migration patterns have shift. So nature already knows the subject that we are arguing about.

 

Sorry
It seems like you must have misunderstood my question
Will you agree that sea levels are inversely related to glaciation?
I am not ask ing why glaciation varies
But only whether that variance impacts sea levels

Regarding previusly receding glaciation
You make a VERY common mistake
It is not true that scientists propose that co2 variation has been the only cause of previous climate change events. By far the most important initiating factors had to do with eccentricities in earths orbit, or collisions with asteroids, or a dramatic change in volcanic activity

However such changes happen over a geologic time scale and are not involved in current climate variation

 

The climate changes, there is next to nothing humans can do about it. Areas near the Western and Eastern coasts should however, strive to limit their burning of fossil fuels. They represent the most dense population centers with many UHIs (Urban Heat Islands). They are mostly of liberal philosophy and blame everyone else.

 

Be honest rob, you know as well as I do that the truth and I know you know. The 2015 budget for climate change research alone is approx $2.5 billion. They'd sell their Moms to the devil to keep that kind of dough rolling in.

 

But climate like underwear does not change does not change by itself.

 

Mate - the scientists would LOVE that to be true!!
It is not anything LIKE that - that figure is only attained IF and only IF you ADD in all and I mean all the research being done on alternative energy sources

Meanwhile Exxon alone made

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/b...fit-falls-for-a-4th-quarter-running.html?_r=0

 

Climate changed long before man existed and will long after we are gone.. So you are incorrect.. Try again.

 

The Daily Mail again? Frankly anything this reactionary right-wing tabloid rag, notorious for lies, distortion of facts and outright fabrication, prints needs very careful scrutiny. Naturally conservatives love quoting from this unimpeachable source.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
As always it pays to check the bona fides of a source before accepting its pronouncements unconditionally.

 

I am being honest, this notion of a global conspiracy is complete BS. Again this makes the 9/11 truthers sane.

 

If I type in "Porn", I get 3.56M links. Does that mean that global warming is caused by porn?

 

There you have it. If a comedienne says it's true then it must be true.

 

Depends on how much you view it.

 

Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. NSIDC's numbers indicate a 43 percent increase of 1.71 million square kilometers of ice over the course of the last two summers. DMI's statistics are even more dramatic because of a different measuring system that agency uses. It reports a 63 percent rise — from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers — over the same time period.

Another apostolate of Doom and Gloom worshipping at the Church of Chicken Little..