Are human activities influencing the climate?

dense · 01-01-2018 3:33pm

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No, but then again, I don't live in Houston, Texas...

.....go on?

RoundBox11 · 01-01-2018 3:33pm

dense wrote: »

Paper never refuses ink my friend.

A consensus agreement amongst scientists would require the majority of the world's 8 million scientists stating an opinion.

Where is that? You brought up the claim, so back it up.

All I'm seeing from your links are various tiny polls amongst junk scientists.

Everyone knows that Cook et al's "the consensus project" was fake news with just 33% of 12,000 "climate papers" checked endorsing AGW, and that that somehow ended up being flipped to mean "97% of scientists" by greenist Barrack O'Bama.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Just to check:

Do you also believe that 9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas?

https://mobile.twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fview%2Farticles%2F2017-06-15%2F97-percent-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated

If you wish to claim and demonstrate that a scientific consensus exists you'll have to work harder, much harder.

The majority of scientists have not endorsed your AGW theory.

Do you accept that now that I've explained it in plain English for you?

Sweet jesus, did you read the article you linked or do you not understand it? To quote from it

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

Also of these "8 million scientists" how many are involved in climate science? How many are in medicinal chemistry? Organic chemistry? How many are neuroscientists? Not all scientists are the same.

I don't think you understand anything that you're saying or anything that anyone is saying to you. You clearly didn't understand the article that I sent you. You clearly didn't read or understand the one you sent me.

This is all a total waste of time, you're never going to listen or try to understand.

JackTaylorFan · 01-01-2018 3:35pm

dense wrote: »

.....go on?

Your username is apt... I give you that... Like I'm gonna waste my time :pac:

PopePalpatine · 01-01-2018 3:40pm

RoundBox11 wrote: »

Sweet jesus, did you read the article you linked or do you not understand it? To quote from it

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

Also of these "8 million scientists" how many are involved in climate science? How many are in medicinal chemistry? Organic chemistry? How many are neuroscientists? Not all scientists are the same.

I don't think you understand anything that you're saying or anything that anyone is saying to you. You clearly didn't understand the article that I sent you. You clearly didn't read or understand the one you sent me.

This is all a total waste of time, you're never going to listen or try to understand.

Good luck trying to stop him banging his "97% of scientists agreeing with AGW is fake nooooooooooooz!" drum...:rolleyes:

dense · 01-01-2018 4:03pm

pitifulgod wrote: »

See, that's just a ream of conspiracies..

Do you not realise that the UN/WMO/IPCC is actually one and the same thing, all bleating on about the weather and trying to use it a ruse for global domination one-world style government?

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

http://dailysignal.com//2010/11/19/climate-talks-or-wealth-redistribution-talks/

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

:Gorbachev. You might not remember him.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/#1c47c03529be

dense · 01-01-2018 4:08pm

RoundBox11 wrote: »

Sweet jesus, did you read the article you linked or do you not understand it? To quote from it

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

Also of these "8 million scientists" how many are involved in climate science? How many are in medicinal chemistry? Organic chemistry? How many are neuroscientists? Not all scientists are the same.

I don't think you understand anything that you're saying or anything that anyone is saying to you. You clearly didn't understand the article that I sent you. You clearly didn't read or understand the one you sent me.

This is all a total waste of time, you're never going to listen or try to understand.

If you wish to alter and water down your original claim go right ahead.

But it will make you look a little silly at this stage.

First you rely on the "majority of scientists" phrase and now you're whittling them down to "climate scientists".

There are 8 million scientists according to the UN.

How many of them are "climate scientists"?

Are they the "scientific majority" you were speaking of earlier?

Please be specific.

Would you have people believe that 97% of scientists are climate scientists?

If so please show why.

RoundBox11 · 01-01-2018 4:12pm

dense wrote: »

If you wish to alter and water down your original claim go right ahead.

But it will make you look a little silly at this stage.

First you rely on the "majority of scientists" phrase and now you're whittling them down to "climate scientists".

There are 8 million scientists according to the UN.

How many of them are "climate scientists"?

Are they the "scientific majority" you were speaking of earlier?

Please be specific.

I've reached my maximum idiot tolerance for 2018 so I'm out.

Read all of my previous posts and you'll see I've answered your questions again and again and you continue to ignore all evidence provided. I've wasted enough time on this. Good luck to ya

dense · 01-01-2018 4:15pm

RoundBox11 wrote: »

I've reached my maximum idiot tolerance for 2018 so I'm out.

Read all of my previous posts and you'll see I've answered your questions again and again and you continue to ignore all evidence provided. I've wasted enough time on this. Good luck to ya

Bye bye.

Another one hawking the scientific consensus and the 97% of scientists lie quietly exits the stage.

Ken. · 01-01-2018 5:08pm

Mod- Dense do not post in this thread again. Reason- trolling and being obtuse.

Thargor · 01-01-2018 5:19pm

RoundBox11 wrote: »

Sweet jesus, did you read the article you linked or do you not understand it? To quote from it

"Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

Also of these "8 million scientists" how many are involved in climate science? How many are in medicinal chemistry? Organic chemistry? How many are neuroscientists? Not all scientists are the same.

I don't think you understand anything that you're saying or anything that anyone is saying to you. You clearly didn't understand the article that I sent you. You clearly didn't read or understand the one you sent me.

This is all a total waste of time, you're never going to listen or try to understand.

He already admitted a few pages back that he doesnt have a clue what he's saying and therefore doesnt have to interpret any of the links he posts.

dense · 01-01-2018 6:37pm

<snip>

dense · 01-01-2018 6:45pm

<snip>

one world order · 02-01-2018 2:28am

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod- Dense do not post in this thread again. Reason- trolling and being obtuse.

If cannot address the issues raised, then ban the poster.

Cheerful Spring · 02-01-2018 2:51am

This is an extreme example of climate change in China (video supplied below) I think we lucky in a way in Ireland we don't see this I think the vegetation helps us. I think it's hard to pin down what climate change is and how will affect us in real terms. Are we going to experience extreme weather we never saw before? Global ramifications are likely real (just hard to see with your own eyes) but I have seen no reason to doubt the scientists work on this topic.

Dakota Dan · 02-01-2018 11:50am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is an extreme example of climate change in China (video supplied below) I think we lucky in a way in Ireland we don't see this I think the vegetation helps us. I think it's hard to pin down what climate change is and how will affect us in real terms. Are we going to experience extreme weather we never saw before? Global ramifications are likely real (just hard to see with your own eyes) but I have seen no reason to doubt the scientists work on this topic.

It's smog, how is it an example of climate change?

Akrasia · 03-01-2018 12:52pm

Preliminary NASA figures show that 2017 was the 2nd warmest year for global temperatures on record.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/02/2017-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-without-an-el-nino-thanks-to-global-warming

This would be absolutely astonishing as 2017 was neutral to weal La Nina year and La Nina has a cooling effect on global climate. Also, the Sun's output is close to the minimum of it's 11 year cycle, so we have declining input from the sun, and increased transfers of heat from the atmosphere into the ocean due to ENSO.

This is not astonishing for those of us who accept anthropogenic global warming because the greenhouse effect is capable of overwhelming the negative feedbacks of the sun and La Nina, bu those who still think that global warming is all 'natural variation' or some other denial du jour, have a lot of explaining to do

The rate of warming over the past 10 years has been extremely worrying. Any talk of a 'pause' or hiatus in global warming has to be completely irrelevant now given the almost half a degree in warming we have seen in the last 10 or so years.

Can all the climate change skeptics place their bets today. If global warming isn't real, then 2018 should be just as likely to be above average as below average temperature. Who here wants to predict that 2018 will be outside of the top 10 warmest years on record?

Akrasia · 03-01-2018 1:08pm

We've all heard about the studies that show that about 98% of scientific papers which state a position on the reality of global warming accept the consensus on global warming, but what about the other 2-3%

a 2015 study looked at a selection of these papers and tried to replicate their results, and surprise surprise, they discovered that every one of the papers had some kind of methodological flaw that meant the results could not be replicated independently.

In fact, when the methodology was corrected, these studies all fell in line with the consensus on global warming.

We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.....

.... We expect that scientific papers in general form networks by citing one another, and it is interesting to ask whether conclusions drawn in flawed papers are independent of each other or if errors propagate through further citation. To address this question, we need to identify errors through replicating previous work, following the line from the original information source, via analysis, to the interpretation of the results and the final conclusions, testing methods and assumptions. The objective of this paper is to present an approach to documenting and learning from mistakes. Errors and mistakes are often considered to be an essential ingredient of the learning process (Bedford 2010; Bedford and Cook 2013), creating potential learning material. The supporting material (SM) contains a number of case studies with examples of scrutiny and replication, providing an in-depth analysis of each paper (Benestad 2014a). Accompanying open-source software (also part of the SM) includes the source code for all of the analyses (Benestad 2014b, c). An important point is that this software too is open to scrutiny by other experts and, in the case of replication, represents the “hard facts” on which the SM and this paper are based.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5