Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never fear- We will now be faced with the prospect of "global cooling". The same "global warming" loons will claim that man made CO2 is causing the cooling and will seek the usual "remedies":
increased taxes
limitations on industrial output
redistribution of wealth
a new jet for Al Gore
destroying the coal industry
raising electricity rates
Could you post your source for saying the PLANET is cooling? Your link is about the US which is indeed experiencing changing weather patterns however the US is not the entire planet.
This does not refute global warming. Global warming does not mean that it gets warmer everywhere. Some places will get warmer, some colder, some drier, and some wetter. What matters is the average GLOBAL temperature not the temperatures in one country.
If only you put that in context and actually understood what they mean by "self-rated" or "abstracts expressing an opinion".
Notice that the self-rating was the "second phase" of the study. The first phase was a formula-driven rating of the abstracts of 11,944 journal articles. The second phase helps to confirm what the first phase found. In other words, the authors had a chance to correct the category in which their paper was placed. The point was that most authors did not change the category of their papers, which supports the idea that the first phase gave reasonably good stats. (No formula-driven process of categorization is perfect, of course. Some authors did indicate that, as they saw it, their paper was in the wrong category. But after making the corrections, the overall stats did not significantly change.)
As for "abstract expressing an opinion": not all papers published in professional climatology journals are meant to address the human causes of global warming. (Around a third of the papers simply don't address the issue.) The study is designed to focus on the papers in which the authors do say whether or not their data supports AGW.
Assuming that this temp plotting for just the past 10 years and only the past 10 years is correct, it should be pointed out that the United States does not represent the entire globe so therefore it is bunk. FYI, the USA takes up less than 2% of the total land and water mass on the planet. You cannot lump the US and the globe in the same mix. Sorry.
Yeah, but the drought in California is clear and convincing evidence of Global Warming. You warmists set records, not for double standards but for multiplicative standards.
Notice that the self-rating was the "second phase" of the study. The first phase was a formula-driven rating of the abstracts of 11,944 journal articles. The second phase helps to confirm what the first phase found. In other words, the authors had a chance to correct the category in which their paper was placed. The point was that most authors did not change the category of their papers, which supports the idea that the first phase gave reasonably good stats. (No formula-driven process of categorization is perfect, of course. Some authors did indicate that, as they saw it, their paper was in the wrong category. But after making the corrections, the overall stats did not significantly change.)
As for "abstract expressing an opinion": not all papers published in professional climatology journals are meant to address the human causes of global warming. (Around a third of the papers simply don't address the issue.) The study is designed to focus on the papers in which the authors do say whether or not their data supports AGW.
Good for you for attempting a dignified response, but I don't think TrapperJohn actually understood why 'expressing an opinion' was important... in fact, I'm pretty sure that he just glimpsed at it and thought 'OH HEY IT'S JUST AN OPINION NOT A FACT LOL STUPID WARMERS AND OH SCIENTISTS CAN RATE THEIR OWN WORK NOW HAHAHAHAHA IT IS OBVIOUSLY A CONSPIRACY!!!'.
This is what happens when something requires more than 5 seconds of middling concentration to understand-- the deniers start grinning smugly, assume they've found the 'common sense' answer to it all and eventually we return to 'the earth heats and cools periodically'.
You didn't bother to read the paper I linked to did you?
June 4th 2015.... The rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as the warming seen during the last half of the 20th Century, according to new study published in Science this month by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A Pause In Global Warming? Not Really - Forbes
Plus this... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. Is sea level rising?
Only because they cooked the numbers to generate the results they wanted. Anyone but a purblind fool or a collaborating apologist would recognize it immediately.
Here is a quote from the paper: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
So now the question is: What evidence can you give that there is no consensus among climatologists? (Notice the issue is about climatologists, not scientists in general.) To the best of my knowledge, the "97%" number always applies to climatologists - not to scientists in general. I don't know the percentage for scientists in general, but I suspect that it falls in the ballpark of a strong majority.
Excellent. Thanks for posting that. As far as I am aware, that is as close to a supporting document as you are likely to find for this false claim. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Here is the abstract of your article (which I also linked earlier in the thread):
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings,a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
As you can see in the first sentence, all this claims to be is a examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since when is a selective evaluation of literature on a topic a proxy for what all people associated with a particular field of study think? It never has been before. And it still is not now.
Also, LOL, 66% of the sample is cast aside right off of the bat. And this is a problem, because this is the segment that skeptics such as myself would be publishing papers in.
Unbelievable. You really cannot make this stuff up.
The "survey" you linked talks about those who reject the AGW consensus. But what does that mean? That skeptics believe that the globe is not warming, the climate is not changing or that humans have no contribution to climate change at all?
As you know very well, skeptics such as myself do believe that the Earth has warmed (depending on when you start the measurements), that the Earth's climate has changed (always has and always will), and that humans have probably made some sort of contribution to our planet's climate situation. All of this has been posted here many thousands of times by skeptics such as myself. And you have seen it before quite a few of those times. So do not pretend that you do not understand our position on this.
What we skeptics believe is that we do not have sufficient understanding to justify the sort of radical (leftist) agenda being promoted by the supporters of the extreme AGW alarmism hypothesis. In other words, our position is that we have no opinion other than that you people have gone completely over the top about this.
Therefore, skeptics who publish papers are to be found among the 66.4% noted above. And that whole segment is cast into the waste bin, straight away. This is clearly unacceptable and not a very scientific approach to evaluating this sort of question.
This is not a statistically sound poll of either all scientists or climate scientists. It is not even clear what kind of scientists this survey is specifically speaking of. And what about the rest of the scientists who have not published papers on this? What about their opinions? Apparently they do not count. They certainly have not been counted here.
All this shows us is that the hardcore ideological zealots who profess to have sound knowledge on this topic and who have published articles documenting their position favor the AGW alarmism hypothesis by 97%. That does not tell us what all scientists or all climate scientists believe on this topic.
I am still waiting for a source on this claim that is scientific and that even claims to represent the final conclusion that 97% of either all scientists or all climate scientists support the AGW alarmism hypothesis. Certainly this study does not even purport to do that.
When this NASA site is posted = http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I'm starting to believe you GW deniers dont even read it and just do a knee jerk move to the next post,
Within the link is the whole reason for climatologists warnings ,many other scientific communities weigh in in agreement on the issue.Also is a menu that contains
Evidence,
Causes,
effect
Vital signs
FAQ
If these two sites and the information contained within are in your opinion all lies and deceit then theres nothing more to be said as these are the worlds leading authorities on the state of our climate.
Last edited by jambo101; 06-16-2015 at 03:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
