Global Warming: For Experts Only

[Slartibartfast]

Piehole said above

"If you look the scientists that are well qualified to question Hansen's Hypothesis up on Google,
you will find that they have all been subjected to relentless attack. It's part of the smear campaign waged against any scientist who questions the validity Hansen's Hypothesis."

No they are attacked because they are wrong. Period.

Salby is a fool that thinks the CO2 rise is natural and Curry is an attention whore that is also wrong. In addition Curry does not dispute the man is causing the warming.

Curious that piehole would choose the 1% of industry whores and fools, instead of the 99% that agree that man is causing the warming.

Salby was fired for fraud, not because of his laughable "science".

I recall Salby's disgrace and Curry has not done any science for years, wrote a book?. The problem is we need to find some consensus, we can all see how endless these threads are.

I have seen that the position of we don't want to burn all the fossils anyway works for both sides.

We might as well and we are, moving forward across the globe. The US is seen as a joke anyway and has no authority left. 95.6% of the world disagrees with the US and regard cleaning up as a priority and developing the tech to do so. That will have to be enough. California will lead the way in the US anyway.

Time to stop giving the naughty American special interests the attention they need to get paid.

 

[misterkel]

AWESOME! It used to be 97%, but presto, now it's 99%. Why would anyone be a skeptic with those ever- increasing numbers? And of course, they're completely valid. No one would ever question Cooke's grad students combing through papers and chalking up every mention of climate change to be in consensus with the hypothesis - only the jerks who's papers were wrongly (according to them) put in as consensus papers idiotically objected. As if they knew they what they really meant when they wrote a paper on climate change. Because if you use the words Climate Change in a paper, then you necessarily agree that it is man-made and catastrophic. I mean, that's science, right? As long as it's peer-reviewed, it's absolutely true. We can prove it because no peer-reviewed paper has ever been refuted. Never mind that many papers that express opposite opinions are peer-reviewed. Peer review = TRUE beyond all doubt. Or am I missing something?

Can someone explain how consensus is a scientific mechanism, btw?

 

[misterkel]

95.6% of the world disagrees with the US

Right - I knew there was a specific quantifiable number that 'disagrees with the US' over no precise criteria whatsoever. Just 'disagrees.' Thank you for pointing it out.
I also heard that (sound of dice shaking) 84% of all statistics are made up.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Right - I knew there was a specific quantifiable number that 'disagrees with the US' over no precise criteria whatsoever. Just 'disagrees.' Thank you for pointing it out.
I also heard that (sound of dice shaking) 84% of all statistics are made up.

That is the % of non-Americans on Earth. The US has 4.4% of global population.

 

[futurecurrents]

AWESOME! It used to be 97%, but presto, now it's 99%. Why would anyone be a skeptic with those ever- increasing numbers? And of course, they're completely valid. No one would ever question Cooke's grad students combing through papers and chalking up every mention of climate change to be in consensus with the hypothesis - only the jerks who's papers were wrongly (according to them) put in as consensus papers idiotically objected. As if they knew they what they really meant when they wrote a paper on climate change. Because if you use the words Climate Change in a paper, then you necessarily agree that it is man-made and catastrophic. I mean, that's science, right? As long as it's peer-reviewed, it's absolutely true. We can prove it because no peer-reviewed paper has ever been refuted. Never mind that many papers that express opposite opinions are peer-reviewed. Peer review = TRUE beyond all doubt. Or am I missing something?

Can someone explain how consensus is a scientific mechanism, btw?

Tell you what. Find us ONE publishing climate scientist that denies man made global warming.

I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

there are none. Whereas, when asked, over 97% of publishing climate scientists, all the world's science orgs, Exxon, The Weather Channel, and common sense, says that our release of greenhouse gasses is causing the world to warm.

 

[piezoe]

A problem in the world Piezoe is one person says black and another will say white. Humanity is in danger of being killed on a zebra crossing.

Bias creeps in, some see a picture from quite nebulous data and some need their face shoved in it. We have a system of peer review and such that produces fabulous results in every kind of science but in this one, the one that crass lobbiests are paying a fortune to confound, we have doubt.

I remember as a kid massive deforestation in Europe caused by coal i.e. acid rain. I'm also aware of the incredible effort it took to get governments to agree to legislate against coal despite the fact it was obviously, literally, choking people and turning pine forests brown.

I think in part we have some issue with the media hyping some aspects of climate change. I think a lot of the passionate deniers are paid scumbags or serious Dunning-Kruger effect examples.

Man made climate change is real, too many qualified & honest people agree. Some guy in a trailer might think he knows better or it is a vast conspiracy but .. have you met a flat-Earther?

I am a prisoner of my education, that is undeniable. Do look at the link to Salby's Youtube presentation at University College. Thanks.

We need to be wary of the great ocean liner effect, by the time we see trouble, absolute proof, it will be too late to turn. We need to predict the trend and get in early. Thankfully smog has led to lower car & factory emissions and Chinese cities are being choked right now. These are not global climate change, they are local but one fix works for both. Again, as you said and I have said we need to get off fossils anyway.

GWB pointed to a link before for a guy called Cliff Mass. He puts it fairly well however when do we act?
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cliff-Mass-Climate-change-is-real-but-12236265.php

I'm a prisoner of my education. I can't deny it. Please do listen to Salby's presentation at University College. It is exceptionally clear. Even non-scientists will be able to follow it. (see the link in the Judith Curry Post) Thanks.

 

[piezoe]

Tell you what. Find us ONE publishing climate scientist that denies man made global warming.

I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

there are none. Whereas, when asked, over 97% of publishing climate scientists, all the world's science orgs, Exxon, The Weather Channel, and common sense, says that our release of greenhouse gasses is causing the world to warm.

I don't know any that are denying global warming, though there are undoubtedly some. The serious questions all seem to be centered on Hansen's Hypothesis. You have somehow equated these separate issues. That's not clear thinking. Frankly I haven't bothered to give you references to recent papers by expert scientists who question Hansen's hypothesis because I know from experience that you are not going to take the trouble to read them and make the effort it would take you to try and understand them.

 

[jem]

99 percent of the time the person on the internet who brings up the Dunning Kruger is the person who has no facts or science left supporting his or her argument.

why 99 percent?

the ones winning the argument have no reason to bring up the DK effect.

I hope the irony of bringing up the dunning kruger effect when you have no science showing man made co2 causes warming... is not lost on you.

A problem in the world Piezoe is one person says black and another will say white. Humanity is in danger of being killed on a zebra crossing.

Bias creeps in, some see a picture from quite nebulous data and some need their face shoved in it. We have a system of peer review and such that produces fabulous results in every kind of science but in this one, the one that crass lobbiests are paying a fortune to confound, we have doubt.

I remember as a kid massive deforestation in Europe caused by coal i.e. acid rain. I'm also aware of the incredible effort it took to get governments to agree to legislate against coal despite the fact it was obviously, literally, choking people and turning pine forests brown.

I think in part we have some issue with the media hyping some aspects of climate change. I think a lot of the passionate deniers are paid scumbags or serious Dunning-Kruger effect examples.

Man made climate change is real, too many qualified & honest people agree. Some guy in a trailer might think he knows better or it is a vast conspiracy but .. have you met a flat-Earther?

We need to be wary of the great ocean liner effect, by the time we see trouble, absolute proof, it will be too late to turn. We need to predict the trend and get in early. Thankfully smog has led to lower car & factory emissions and Chinese cities are being choked right now. These are not global climate change, they are local but one fix works for both. Again, as you said and I have said we need to get off fossils anyway.

GWB pointed to a link before for a guy called Cliff Mass. He puts it fairly well however when do we act?
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Cliff-Mass-Climate-change-is-real-but-12236265.php

 

[Slartibartfast]

99 percent of the time the person on the internet brings up the Dunning Kruger is the person who has no facts or science left supporting his or her argument.

why 99 percent?

the ones winning the argument have no reason to bring up the DK effect.

I hope the irony of bringing up the dunning kruger effect when you have no science showing man made co2 causes warming... is not lost on you.

That could have been thought out better.

Still looking for all these failed models.

 

[jem]

that video is so slanted... it lies... Hansen's model has completely failed
the IPCC keeps making new models with lower temperature projections because as they say we don't have as much sensitivity to co2 as hansen predicted.



http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/...s-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html

insight:

• Essentially, the NASA model predicted temperatures would follow the bright green curve if GHGs were not curtailed. The cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed. Greenhouse gases have continued their accelerated growth, yet the observed temperatures (the green and pink circles) closely match the cyan curve. Simply, the model's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, worsening by the year.

...

As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.

Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.

As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.

Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.

That could have been thought out better.

Still looking for all these failed models.