I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[The Evil Genius]

So your argument is that extreme weather and climate change are not interlinked?

[Skins24]

So your argument is that extreme weather and climate change are not interlinked?

That's a trick question. The climate is ALWAYS changing. The Earth has and will always have extreme weather events. So....

[twa]

So your argument is that extreme weather and climate change are not interlinked?

 

careful or someone will call ya a science denier.....not that there's ....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

 

could be worse...and might be

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_graumlich.html

[Mad Mike]

Global Warming In China: ‘Wealth Accumulation’ Will Amplify Climate Disasters In China, Says Country’s Top Weather Scientist

 

 

Comments made this week by China’s meteorological scientists illustrates progress in the country’s acknowledgment of its role in global warming. But the government’s move to ban the smog documentary likewise shows the limits of its willingness to allow the public to participate in the debate.

“To face the challenges from past and future climate change, we must respect nature and live in harmony with it,” Xinhua quoted Guogang as saying during a series of events in advance of World Meteorological Day Monday. “We must promote the idea of nature and emphasize climate security.” Guogang said global warming will threaten major Chinese infrastructure projects, such as the massive Three Gorges Dam in Hubei province, the world’s largest power station in terms of capacity.

[PeterMP]

careful or someone will call ya a science denier.....not that there's ....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

 

could be worse...and might be

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_graumlich.html

 

From your first link:

 

"Peer-reviewed studies are divided on whether the drought can be blamed on climate change."

 

I've already posted a study that actually predicted that this would happen several years ago due to decreasing Arctic sea ice.

[Mad Mike]

We already know this is a lie....

 

Florida’s Gov. Rick Scott denies muzzling global warming talk - Marc Caputo - POLITICO

 

You've heard about this...

 

Florida employee 'punished for using phrase climate change' | Environment | The Guardian

 

and this....

 

FEMA to States: No Climate Planning, No Money | InsideClimate News

 

So what happens when you combine them all?...

 

Video: Watch Scott's Disaster Chief Refuse to Say "Climate Change" in Hearing | Miami New Times

 

 

Your state becomes a joke.

 

I should have punched Rick Scott in the face when I had the chance.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Mad Mike

[twa]

From your first link:

 

"Peer-reviewed studies are divided on whether the drought can be blamed on climate change."

 

I've already posted a study that actually predicted that this would happen several years ago due to decreasing Arctic sea ice.

 

So no consensus?......or were the later studies better?

 

Do we tally the % like the 97% meme?.....Science says......

[twa]

 

I should have punched Rick Scott in the face when I had the chance.

 

Aboutas much chance of that as that suit......

[Mad Mike]

Do you see now why its a waste of time to try to reason with people like this. Just like a 9/11 turfier, no matter what you say, they will just keep flinging crap against the wall. 

[Mad Mike]

Aboutas much chance of that as that suit......

 

Punching him?... Oh he was right there... it would have been so easy. But I value my freedom too much to give it up for one moment of heavenly gratification.

 

The law suit? We shall see. This thread is just my exploratory mixing bowl of facts. I'm still digging at the money trail. And as time goes on each new report from respected scientific organizations and each new climate event piles the evidence higher and higher.

 

But right now I'm taking care of myself using health insurance that Republican death panels want to deny me of so I'm a little busy.

 

And that's about all I have to say to you. You just aren't worth my time.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Mad Mike

[PeterMP]

So no consensus?......or were the later studies better?

 

Do we tally the % like the 97% meme?.....Science says......

 

I'd say it isn't really clear.  I'm pretty sure you aren't going to get 97% of climate scientists to say that climate change is a component of the CA drought.

 

The consensus isn't nearly what it is with respect to general AGW.

[twa]

I'd say it isn't really clear.  I'm pretty sure you aren't going to get 97% of climate scientists to say that climate change is a component of the CA drought.

 

The consensus isn't nearly what it is with respect to general AGW.

 

I'm pretty sure too.

 

just like the AGW consensus it changes every time ya get more defined........a part, a significant part,exactly how much ect

 

The general AGW consensus even includes me, hard to remove mankind from the equation.....they are like ****roaches

[PeterMP]

I'm pretty sure too.

 

just like the AGW consensus it changes every time ya get more defined........a part, a significant part,exactly how much ect

 

The general AGW consensus even includes me, hard to remove mankind from the equation.....they are like ****roaches

 

There is broad support to do something about climate change by climate scientists.

 

Like I already said, even Curry talks about mitigation.

 

If the Republican party (or you) started putting forward what they (or you) thought were reasonable mitigation strategies and how to pay for them, the conversation would be different.

[Skins24]

From your first link:

"Peer-reviewed studies are divided on whether the drought can be blamed on climate change."

I've already posted a study that actually predicted that this would happen several years ago due to decreasing Arctic sea ice.

I predict rain will fall in a rainforest...

Could you please repost that study? Or do you know what they cited would be different in a "climate change drought" over a regular drought in a drought prone area? How do we know the difference?

[PeterMP]

I predict rain will fall in a rainforest...

Could you please repost that study? Or do you know what they cited would be different in a "climate change drought" over a regular drought in a drought prone area? How do we know the difference?

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL019133/abstract

[twa]

There is broad support to do something about climate change by climate scientists.

 

Like I already said, even Curry talks about mitigation.

 

If the Republican party (or you) started putting forward what they (or you) thought were reasonable mitigation strategies and how to pay for them, the conversation would be different.

 

That is rather vague

 

Have you read Curry.coms latest?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/23/mitigating-co2-emissions-a-busted-flush/

Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush?

 

http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

 

I've given some before ,even ones that pay for themselves and improve energy security......not what most want to hear.(but they are being done rather than talked about)

[PeterMP]

That is rather vague

 

Have you read Curry.coms latest?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/23/mitigating-co2-emissions-a-busted-flush/

Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush?

 

http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

 

I've given some before ,even ones that pay for themselves and improve energy security......not what most want to hear.(but they are being done rather than talked about)

 

I'm talking about mitigation climate change effects.  Not CO2 generation.

 

Earlier in this thread you talked about protecting the East Coast.  I asked why the East Coast.  Given the complexity of sea level changes and if you doubt climate models, why would I spend my money on protecting the East Coast from sea level changes.

 

You ran away from the idea as fast as possible.

Edited March 24, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

I'm talking about mitigation climate change effects.  Not CO2 generation.

 

Earlier in this thread you talked about protecting the East Coast.  I asked why the East Coast.  Given the complexity of sea level changes and if you doubt climate models, why would I spend my money on protecting the East Coast from sea level changes.

 

You ran away from the idea as fast as possible.

Being vague again bro

 

 

Because the East Coast is clearly sinking and there are major population areas,,,,,don't need climate models for that

 

The sinking is Climate Change as well....think you can mitigate the cause or just the effect?

[Mad Mike]

That is rather vague

Have you read Curry.coms latest?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/23/mitigating-co2-emissions-a-busted-flush/

Mitigating CO2 emissions: a busted flush?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

I've given some before ,even ones that pay for themselves and improve energy security......not what most want to hear.(but they are being done rather than talked about)

Have you read about the author of the piece you quoted?

"Biosketch. MichaelKelly is Professor of Solid State Electronics and Nanoscale Science in the Division of Electrical Engineering, University of Cambridge.He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993 and won its Hughes Medal in 2006. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. He was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government."

In other words NOT an actual climate scientist. Tell me, do you go to a dentist about your foot pain?

[twa]

do you go to a climate scientist about anything other than climate?....one probably does your taxes 

 

think a engineer might know more about energy production and the engineering reality test?

 

 

besides which if you read the second link you will find Curry (who of course you will not like,but does fit the climate scientist mold  )

 

different disciplines for different aspects

[btfoom]

Great write-up on analysis of the often cited 97% statistic.

 

For example:  

 

In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19^th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.

 

Also:

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

 

 

....  "Lies, damned lies, and statistics..."

[PeterMP]

Great write-up on analysis of the often cited 97% statistic.

 

Eh.

 

I didn't even know of Cook's work.

 

I always though that 97% came from this paper:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

 

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

 

And from a Harris poll that showed that 97% of climate scientists agreed the Earth was warming (and then somewhat smaller percentage essentially believed in AGW).

 

(which some people might think is sort of duh, but there are a lot of people out there complaining about the global surface temperature data sets and "adjustments" made to them as if there is some chance the Earth is not actually warming.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-Expert_credibility_in_climate_change-118

 

"97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. "

 

Does is really matter what the exact number?  If you are going to argue for or against based on that, it is clearly a large number.

Edited March 27, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

yes ,more thinking the impacts will be moderate/little impact is a large number .

 

Ya'll can't even scare the scientists

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/the-campaign-to-make-you-care-about-climate-change-is-failing-miserably/

[btfoom]

Eh.

 

I didn't even know of Cook's work.

 

I always though that 97% came from this paper:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

 

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

 

And from a Harris poll that showed that 97% of climate scientists agreed the Earth was warming (and then somewhat smaller percentage essentially believed in AGW).

 

(which some people might think is sort of duh, but there are a lot of people out there complaining about the global surface temperature data sets and "adjustments" made to them as if there is some chance the Earth is not actually warming.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-Expert_credibility_in_climate_change-118

 

"97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. "

 

Does is really matter what the exact number?  If you are going to argue for or against based on that, it is clearly a large number.

 

 

First, the site I showed above shows how the Wiki and PNAS sites got their number,  They saw a paper that saw a paper that had the 97% number (by Cook), and ran with it.  Doesn't matter how far it spreads, it is wrong.  They misinterpreted the number, period.

 

Yes, to address your last, bolded question, I simply go back to the middle ages.  EVERY scientist thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth.  Many were put to death arguing this.  Were the "97+%" right?  You tell me.

 

A scientific mind will look at all evidence, conduct real tests, and then come to conclusions.  In my area (space-flight), models are good, but only backed by real world evidence.  If these models worked that way, they would all need to change to see they are all wrong. Instead, most of the AGW folks want the Earth to change (or at least the way people act on the Earth - the real reason behind much of this AGW stuff) to fit the models.  Just like changing the horse to make the cart go.

 

By the way, more on the farce that was the 97% consensus.

 

Love this quote:

 

As Tol explains, the Cook et al paper used an unrepresentative sample, can’t be replicated, and leaves out many useful papers. The study was done by biased observers who disagreed with each other a third of the time, and disagree with the authors of those papers nearly two-thirds of the time. About 75% of the papers in the study were irrelevant in the first place, with nothing to say about the subject matter. Technically, we could call them  “padding”. Cook himself has admitted data quality is low. He refused to release all his data, and even threatened legal action to hide it. (The university claimed it would breach a confidentiality agreement. But in reality, there was no agreement to breach.) As it happens, the data ended up being public anyhow. Tol refers to an “alleged hacker” but, my understanding is that no hack took place, and the “secret” data, that shouldn’t have been a secret, was left on an unguarded server. The word is “incompetence”, and the phrase is “on every level”.

 

The hidden timestamps of raters revealed one person rated 675 abstracts in 72 hours, with much care and lots of rigor, I’m sure. It also showed that the same people collected data, analyzed results, collected more data, changed their classification system, and went on to collect even more data. This is a hopelessly unscientific process prone to subjective bias and breaches the most basic rules of experimental design. Tol found the observations changed with each round, so the changes were affecting the experiment. Normal scientists put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment, run it, and then analyze. When scientists juggle these steps, the results influence the testing. It’s a process someone might use if they wanted to tweak the experiment to get a specific outcome. We can’t know the motivations of researchers, but there is a reason good scientists don’t use this process.

Edited March 27, 2015 by btfoom

[PeterMP]

yes ,more thinking the impacts will be moderate/little impact is a large number .

 

Ya'll can't even scare the scientists

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/the-campaign-to-make-you-care-about-climate-change-is-failing-miserably/

 

Okay, but even moderate affects are going to have costs, and unless you stop generating CO2 or come up with some drastic/permanent drastic efforts, you are going to be paying those costs indefinitely into the future.

 

Even for moderate affects that doesn't make sense.