27 Replies to “Another Climate Alarmist Shibboleth Debunked

  1. 1
    mahuna says:

    The 97% thing was discredited almost as soon as it came out. It’s been known to be a, um, misrepresentation for years. And you JUST heard about it?

    You show spend some time at Climate Depot:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    Among other bits, Climate Depot regularly quotes newspaper articles from past decades in which other “scientists” made unsubstantiated claims about warming or cooling or the poles melting. Although we don’t have any fancy satellite data to provide photos and exact data, the 1930s were unusually warm and the Arctic, and most probably the Antarctic, had substantial melting based on uncoordinated observations by individual ship captains. But it all froze over again.

    But in general, something like 95% of ALL of the frozen water on the planet is covering Antarctica. Another 3% or so covers Greenland. And since this ice is several MILES thick in many places, stats about the AREA of the ice cover are meaningless.

    Also, ya gotta consider SOME of the available history. When “scientists” went crazy because the glaciers in the Pyrenees appeared to be melting away, someone who had read a history book or 2 pointed out that this would be only the THIRD time this had happened since 1300 AD… Along the same lines, the Alpine pass through which Hannibal led his elephants is now routinely buried under several hundred feet of ice and snow. The same with the pass Napoleon used to take the French army into northern Italy against the Austrians in 1800.

    I blame The News writers more than the Scientists. There was a time when a reporter did more than quote the press releases.

  2. 2
    leodp says:

    One reason the bogus 97 percent claim is widely believed is because President Obama famously tweeted it. And the claim has been endlessly repeated. But it wouldn’t be the first time this guy has either got the facts wrong, or has simply and wildly lied.

  3. 3
    Zachriel says:

    Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found.

    Per the authors of the study, “In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.”
    http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-t.....al-warming

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    Our Boys Zach believes that the more a group of scientists believe a particular claim is true, the more truer it appears to be.

    Yay science!

    Andrew

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: believes that the more a group of scientists believe a particular claim is true, the more truer it appears to be.

    The question in this thread isn’t whether scientists are right, but whether there is a consensus concerning global warming among scientists working in climate science and related fields.

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “The question in this thread isn’t”

    Yes it is.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Yes it is.

    Not sure why you would say that. The original post concerns a reported consensus, and the supposed debunking of that consensus.

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    “Not sure why you would say that.”

    OP: “If the science is so solid, why do they constantly lie?”

    This issue goes to the question of the scientists being right or not.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: “If the science is so solid, why do they constantly lie?

    The particular lie concerns the claimed consensus. It cites a report which concludes, per the authors, that there is a strong consensus.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    “The particular lie concerns the claimed consensus”

    It concerns what the scientists claim generally, not limited to the consensus claim.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    mike1962 says:

    Questions:

    What percentage of the alleged “consensus” believes that the alleged warming that is occurring or will occur per current trends per the latest IPCC report is a significant danger to humans?

    Discuss

  12. 12
    Zachriel says:

    mike1962: What percentage of the alleged “consensus” believes that the alleged warming that is occurring or will occur per current trends per the latest IPCC report is a significant danger to humans?

    Verheggen et al. didn’t report on that issue as yet.

  13. 13
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel:

    Per the authors of the study, “In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.”

    This is very troubling, if true. It shows that the AGW alarmists are given a free rein to spread their lies while the dissenters are blocked at every turn by the fascist and dishonest peer-review system.

    But why am I not surprised? It’s time to kick the liars out of the system, IMO.

  14. 14
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: It shows that the AGW alarmists are given a free rein to spread their lies while the dissenters are blocked at every turn by the fascist and dishonest peer-review system.

    Actually, it seems to show that the original post was relying upon an unreliable summary of the report.

  15. 15
    Mapou says:

    Unreliable summary according to who, you? That’s a laugh. You are a professional weaver of lies and deception, Zachriel.

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    Mapou: Unreliable summary according to who

    According to the authors of the report being cited.

  17. 17
    Dr JDD says:

    Per the authors of the study, “In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.”

    So basically that says that if you have >10 peer review publications, that 9/10 of those agree that greenhous gases are responsible or equally so. Anyone with <10 peer reviewed publications agrees 8/10 times.

    Not much in that really.

    But again, so what? Is the argument that greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2) cause global warming at times, or is the argument that is man-made? I thought the argument was that was man-made….

    (hint – plenty of things outside of man's control emit a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere)

  18. 18
    Zachriel says:

    Dr JDD: But again, so what?

    The article cited in the original post twisted the results to reach a predetermined result contrary to the actual findings.

    Dr JDD: Is the argument that greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2) cause global warming at times, or is the argument that is man-made?

    No one reasonably doubts that the current change in greenhouse gases are anthropic. The question the study addressed is scientific opinion concerning the link between the change in greenhouse gases and global warming.

  19. 19
    mikael says:

    Sory couldnt help it.

    AGW, well, the “science” behind it all, witch I have tryed to explain for two f…. decades and what CO2 de facto IS, even the rocksolid science upon it, is drowned in utter bollocs and pure manure as I call it, since this analogies are correct I will show ou the verdict upon the scam about CO2.
    The numbers and what CO2 is, its physicalitys and what it infact do.

    I wrote decades ago, its basicly food.
    And they laughe at me.
    And the long time charts shows this, its corrolates with temp but is behind it since temp rise gives plant life and co2 rises, and vice verca when it goes down.

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/
    But hey, we are just conspiracy nutts, right.

    And when I give them the Cheshire Cat experiment, they dont respond.
    When I say Darwinianism is pure hoggwash, they scream about Me begin a religious freak whom belives in magic, yup, and thats from the congregation of belivers in Snow is a thing of the past.
    Yup ask the Tasmanians about That.

    When I say the sentral finnacial system is based upon money created out of thin air, they go numb, and if not they scream at me, when I then explain it that dont help for a splitt second, because I am “anti scientific”.
    Even when the Bank of England long time CDO and director of the board sayes the same, its dead silent.
    The present monetary system is hoggwash and a scam, fractinal banking, is de facto the scam of scams.

    And so on.

    i thought the science of quantum physics was funn, and would be revealing and educational, well I was wrong, its like banging your head against the CarboNazis and their insane religion AGW.
    Witch I define as a cargo cult, period created to take down the coal industry, to boulster the Nuklear ind, and replace it, and of course they needed a “reason” and they invented the CO2 scare, this was the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher and the Crony capitalism She invented along with another scammer, Ronald Regan.

    No, il think il slipp silent out of it all, its not funn anymore, when I have to defend strawmens, ad homeniems and so on, from jewhater to antiscientific, crackpott.

    keep up the good work, UD.

    May the lord have mercy upon us all.
    My final warning isnt ww3 witch was hyped abitt by the MSM, but the biggest man made cathasrophe ever, this is so bigg it scares me, fukushima.

    peace and out.
    peace

  20. 20
    Limbo says:

    Zachriel:

    “Per the authors of the study, “In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest – contributor to recent warming.”

    Of course we know from the climategate emails that there was a concerted effort to keep dissenting papers out of peer reviewed publications, so this is not saying much.

  21. 21
    Virgil Cain says:

    For all those interested:

    The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1

    The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2

    The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 3

    The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4

    The jest of it is that a doubling of CO2, from 280ppm to 560ppm, would only cause a 0.6C change, as opposed to a 1.2C change.

  22. 22
    Zachriel says:

    Limbo: Of course we know from the climategate emails that there was a concerted effort to keep dissenting papers out of peer reviewed publications, so this is not saying much.

    You left this part out.

    “The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents,” including those with “public criticisms of mainstream climate science”.
    http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-t.....al-warming

  23. 23
    Limbo says:

    Why do you only quote from the FAQ, and not the entire article? Seems like cherry picking to me.

    Some interesting findings in the paper:

    Almost 3/4 of those surveyed think the MWP was as warm as, or warmer than the past decade. So much for unprecedented warming.

    Less than half of those surveyed think sea level rise has accelerated since pre-industrial times. So much for all the hysteria about flooding due to AGW.

    Less than 2/3 of all respondents think CO2 is responsible for the majority of the warming.

    Spin it all you want, but 2/3 is a lot less than 97%. Clearly the 97% number is pure propaganda.

  24. 24
    Zachriel says:

    Limbo: Why do you only quote from the FAQ, and not the entire article?

    Because it refutes your previous comment. They explicitly included dissenters.

    Limbo: Less than 2/3 of all respondents think CO2 is responsible for the majority of the warming.

    Two-thirds agreed that greenhouse gases were a dominant influence on climate, while only 12% disagreed. Of those who expressed an opinion on the cause of global warming, 85% said greenhouse gases are the largest contributor.

  25. 25
    Limbo says:

    Zachriel: “Of those who expressed an opinion on the cause of global warming, 85% said greenhouse gases are the largest contributor.”

    This is false because “don’t know” can be a valid opinion in this case. People that “don’t know” the exact contribution of man-made CO2 to warming surely aren’t part of a consensus!

    In any case, thanks for accepting my points on sea level rise and the medieval warm period. Glad you agree the scare tactics about flooding are nothing but B.S., and that the warming this century is NOT unprecedented in recent history.

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    Limbo: “don’t know” can be a valid opinion in this case.

    The “unknown due to lack of knowledge” would be a valid opinion, but that group was very small. Here’s a graphic view:
    https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/verheggen-et-al-figure-1-ghg-contribution-to-global-warming.png

    Limbo: In any case, thanks for accepting my points on sea level rise and the medieval warm period.

    Ignoring your comment is not the same as accepting the points. The paper didn’t originally report on sea level rise or the medieval warm period. They were to publish those results at a later date.

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    Mathematics has proven the climate alarmists to be wrong.

    Two-thirds agreed that greenhouse gases were a dominant influence on climate, while only 12% disagreed.

    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and by far the most dominant and influential greenhouse gas. CO2 is a very minor player. A doubling of CO2, from 280 to 560 PPM would only result in a 0.6C increase- ie not even noticeable.

Leave a Reply