Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The “97% of Scientists” Claim is a Lie

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So says study:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Comments
Zachs, you do realize that the paper you cited was from 5 years ago, right?
This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn, but it is a far cry from the claim that no reconstruction is possible.
Ever heard of circular reasoning? They are assuming a naturalistic formation of Jupiter and Saturn to solve the formation of planets naturalistically? Whaatt?!?!!!?! It's quite interesting that their pixie dust comes from Jupiter and Saturn given discoveries like this and this.Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
When you consider that he has to disregard or completely distort all the evidence from more than about 6000 years ago
Same old story.
is it even worth reading what he says?
You do realize what a genetic fallacy is right?Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Quote-mine.
In your spaghetti dreams.Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Zachy can get out his doctor-approved rectal thermometer and give is his expert opinion.
Maybe he needs a new one. Paging Dr. Smiggle... we need a rectal thermometer STAT! LOL.Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
"The mean of temperature measurements show surface warming. This indicates the surface is increasing its heat content." This is not necessarily true. Depends on the data you choose to use. Plus you avoided my question about actual measurements. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
asauber: Means are calculations. The question pertains to actual measurements. The mean of temperature measurements show surface warming. This indicates the surface is increasing its heat content.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
"Mean surface temperature, mean tropospheric temperature, mean lower stratospheric temperature." Means are calculations. The question pertains to actual measurements. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
asauber,
“the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature” Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature? Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on? Andrew
I don't know that Andre would agree. I am speaking of global average surface temperature, to be clear.daveS
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
asauber: Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature? Mean surface temperature, mean tropospheric temperature, mean lower stratospheric temperature.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Vy,
What a lovely genetic fallacy.
When you consider that he has to disregard or completely distort all the evidence from more than about 6000 years ago, is it even worth reading what he says? I did read the article you linked to, which discusses a possible negative feedback mechanism, but it doesn't answer my question. I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism.daveS
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Vy: that story took a hit a few months ago. Wow, that was last year The article does not contradict that the Earth experiences ice ages and ice free periods. Notably, the new study points to CO2. asauber: But still no expertise. Not responsive. Vy: That’s a dud Quote-mine.
Tsiganis: Standard planet-formation models have been unable to reconstruct the distributions of the Solar System's small, rocky planets and asteroids in the same simulation. A new analysis suggests that it cannot be done.
The statement is that standard models can't reconstruct the distribution, not that any model can't reconstruct the distribution. What is the standard model?
Tsiganis: Standard formation models don't consider the fact that giant planets can substantially change their orbits while forming in the disk.
And what is the solution?
Tsiganis: An intricate migration pattern of the giants has been reported 6 to produce a mass distribution that solves the Mars problem and generates an asteroid belt broadly similar to the observed one.
This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn, but it is a far cry from the claim that no reconstruction is possible.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
"Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on?" Zachy can get out his doctor-approved rectal thermometer and give is his expert opinion. lol Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
"the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature" Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature? Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on? Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Sorry, but I don’t how know anyone can take the writings of a YEC (Dr. Jay L. Wile, PhD) on global warming seriously.
What a lovely genetic fallacy ;)
That said, negative feedbacks must be considered. How closely have they been shown to counterbalance the effects of humans on the climate?
First, what effect? Second, read the article.Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Vy,
Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms? * as good as a fallen world can be :)
Sorry, but I don't how know anyone can take the writings of a YEC (Dr. Jay L. Wile, PhD) on global warming seriously. That said, negative feedbacks must be considered. How closely have they been shown to counterbalance the effects of humans on the climate? Andre says the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature.daveS
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"Climate science has overlapping support" But still no expertise. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Climate science has overlapping support from many other scholarly fields, including planetary science ...
That's a dud:
[The MYTH]: About 4.5 billion years ago, the Solar System formed in a disk of gas and dust particles that surrounded the newly born Sun. The ‘giant’ planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) formed first, within the few million years of the disk’s lifetime. Closer to the Sun, the small, rocky ‘terrestrial’ planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) took tens of million years to form, by collisions of numerous smaller objects generated in the disk. Myriad small bodies formed the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. [The TRUTH]: Despite decades of attempts, no computational realization of standard formation theories has reproduced the mass and orbital distribution of both the terrestrial planets and the asteroids. Writing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Izidoro et al. show that this is not possible. ... A new analysis suggests that it cannot be done.
Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Zachs, that story took a hit a few months ago. Wow, that was last year :) This is also important to consider.Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
asauber: There is no expertise in the area of Global Warming/Climate Change Climate science has overlapping support from many other scholarly fields, including planetary science, atmospheric science, oceanography, geophysics, glaciology, ecology, etc. It's this overlap that provides confidence in a field of study.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
The problem with your notion is that the Earth apparently oscillates between two different stable points; ice ages and ice free periods. Unfortunately, technological humans evolved to live in an equipoise between those two polar opposites.
What a lovely story. Lemme get da popcorn ;)Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
"And what is the difference between reliance on medical opinion than on other areas of expertise?" There is no expertise in the area of Global Warming/Climate Change, Zachy. Drawing squiggly lines and then pretending to be scared of them is only expertise to a troll like you. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
asauber: And The Doctor Card is played for the 1st time in 2016. And what is the difference between reliance on medical opinion than on other areas of expertise? Other than the direct personal relevance, of course, which is what gives the comparison its impact. Vy: Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms? There are a number of negative feedbacks in the climate system. The problem with your notion is that the Earth apparently oscillates between two different stable points; ice ages and ice free periods. Unfortunately, technological humans evolved to live in an equipoise between those two polar opposites.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
why is it implausible that humans could cause global warming?
Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms? * as good as a fallen world can be :)Vy
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
"If 97% of medical professionals" And The Doctor Card is played for the 1st time in 2016. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Andre: Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet? Not the whole planet. Just the surface region. Andre: And it is hypocritical of you to enjoy the benefits of an economy built on the use of fossil fuels but denying devolving nations those very same benefits. That was an issue leading up to the Paris Agreement, which does account for differences in development. computerist: why should we trust the 97% and not the 3%? If 97% of medical professionals say you likely have cancer, then you should seriously consider possible courses of action. While a consensus of experts in a field may not be necessarily correct about matters in their own field, they are more likely to be correct than non-experts. Policy-makers need to account for the best available science.Zachriel
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Andre,
DaveS…. People have no influence on the warming and cooling and that is my point. Not one or all of the 7 000 000 000 can do it. If I did not make it clear that I was speaking specifically of man-made global warming I apologise.
I understood you to be speaking of man-made global warming, so no problem there. What I don't understand is how you know that humans have no influence on warming and cooling, if you do acknowledge that greenhouse gases exist. We obviously put a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (increasing from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 250 years). Methane and water vapor are being added by us as well. If these are greenhouse gases (some more potent than others), and humans are driving up their concentrations, why is it implausible that humans could cause global warming?daveS
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
"...they aren’t climate scientists" Then the next layer of the onion is "are climate scientists actually climate scientists?" As far as I can see it's Mere Squiggology all the way down. Andrewasauber
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
DaveS.... People have no influence on the warming and cooling and that is my point. Not one or all of the 7 000 000 000 can do it. If I did not make it clear that I was speaking specifically of man-made global warming I apologise.Andre
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
Andre,
If it is not clear to you why the earth has no input on its own warming consider that heat increases and cool downs are all tied to the Sun’s solar activity.
That is definitely not clear to me. In your previous post, you even stated that water vapor is "the problem", presumably meaning that it is a greenhouse gas? Therefore greenhouse gases exist, and the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, for one thing, can influence its warming and cooling.
The sun’s activity is decreasing again.. .
Do you care to make some predictions about global cooling in the near future?daveS
December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
DaveS If it is not clear to you why the earth has no input on its own warming consider that heat increases and cool downs are all tied to the Sun's solar activity. It works in average 10-12 year cycles and we have been documenting it since the 13th century. Heck we came out of a mini ice age in the 19th century due to an abnormally slow cycle. The sun's activity is decreasing again.. . http://m.phys.org/news/2015-08-solar-decliningwhat.htmlAndre
December 31, 2015
December
12
Dec
31
31
2015
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply