New ACTUAL survey of Climate Scientist Opinions. About 100 detailed questions.

[Crick]

I noticed something the other day. Powell's study has resemblances to Legates. The results of his study, which looked for published papers that explicitly stated they disagreed with AGW came up with Legates-like results. His first review showed that 99.827% did not reject AGW. His second study, showed that 99.989% did not reject AGW.

From Wikipedia
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[127] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[128]

 

[flacaltenn]

Figure 15. (v012a) How would you rate the ability of global climate models to simulate aglobal mean value for temperature values for the next 10 years?

View attachment 85617

So what CONSENSUS is shown in that graph? If you cannot estimate the actual SCOPE of "the crisis" -- what is the true meaning of any CONSENSUS?

AGW does not include "the scope of the crisis" as any of its critical parameters, does it.

That just might be the stupidest comment you've ever made in this forum.. And if there wasn't a long waiting list of stupid comments for my sigline -- I'd bump that to the top. If anyone CARED about your flippant remarks.

THe entire BASIS of AGW is a Trigger theory and reliance on increased accelerations and positive feedbacks and massive destructive potential because of those parts of the "theory". There would BE no GW movement or issue if those elements of AGW lore did not exist.

That's why von Storch has dedicated a LARGE part of time in the past 10 years trying to "moderate" what the take--away message should be to policy makers from AGW science. That's WHY this survey includes MULTIPLE questions about the ROLE of science versus policy and those questions about forming public/private agencies to INFORM the politicians and policy wonks about the REAL science.

Get a clue..

 

[Wyatt earp]

How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes? (v007)
not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much

The entire report may be seen at The Bray and von Storch 5 th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016

Falls short of 97%

I get 95.225%

Damn a cook prodigy...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes? (v007)
not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much

The entire report may be seen at The Bray and von Storch 5 th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016

Falls short of 97%

I get 95.225%

Um, yeah, at what confidence level?

 

[Crick]

I can't tell you how much more pleasant it would be if conversations with you didn't constantly fail from the abysmal level of your technical knowledge.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All Crick can say for sure is that 97% answer the question, therefore: consensus!!

 

[jc456]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

YOU put this survey up. If you don't think the questions are valid, why the big sales pitch? Besides, the standard criterial is whether or not human causes represent more than 50% of causation. This survey finds over 80% or respondents agree it is the primary cause.

You're not having problems reading simple graphs are you?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out?

"Exact nature"... "50 years out". Get real. Can you hear yourself?

Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?

Are you now suggesting that our climate is not changing? I didn't realize there was any doubt on that issue.

THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

You mean, this consensus rather than the prior consensus? You mean you go along with expert consensus as long as it goes along with your unqualified opinion?

Are you now suggesting that our climate is not changing? I didn't realize there was any doubt on that issue.

Dude, Ive asked you before where climate has changed. You came back with some bug thingy on trees that I debunked with the Japanese beetle. so again, where has climate changed?

 

[Crick]

Figure 15. (v012a) How would you rate the ability of global climate models to simulate aglobal mean value for temperature values for the next 10 years?

View attachment 85617

So what CONSENSUS is shown in that graph? If you cannot estimate the actual SCOPE of "the crisis" -- what is the true meaning of any CONSENSUS?

AGW does not include "the scope of the crisis" as any of its critical parameters, does it.

That just might be the stupidest comment you've ever made in this forum.. And if there wasn't a long waiting list of stupid comments for my sigline -- I'd bump that to the top. If anyone CARED about your flippant remarks.

THe entire BASIS of AGW is a Trigger theory and reliance on increased accelerations and positive feedbacks and massive destructive potential because of those parts of the "theory". There would BE no GW movement or issue if those elements of AGW lore did not exist.

That's why von Storch has dedicated a LARGE part of time in the past 10 years trying to "moderate" what the take--away message should be to policy makers from AGW science. That's WHY this survey includes MULTIPLE questions about the ROLE of science versus policy and those questions about forming public/private agencies to INFORM the politicians and policy wonks about the REAL science.

Get a clue..

Find me a statement of AGW that includes "the scope of the crisis" as a mensural parameter. By the way, you're being an ass.

 

[SSDD]

I did a quick goole of the keywords climate + scope of the crisis and got about 1.8 million hits. It seems that warmer wackaloons can't talk about climate without gushing about the scope of the crisis....for a non issue non crisis...among warmers it has a hell of a scope.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I did a quick goole of the keywords climate + scope of the crisis and got about 1.8 million hits. It seems that warmer wackaloons can't talk about climate without gushing about the scope of the crisis....for a non issue non crisis...among warmers it has a hell of a scope.

Exactly those of us around for the first earth day in the early 70s seen the same fear mongering phenomenon..

Back then it was all about saving the planet from pollution, it just morphed to compas every damn thing.

For some reason in their little brains they think little ol' man can balance it all out, live in some type of sterile utopia between civilization and living in trees .

 

[Crick]

I don't give two shits what you got in a google search. Show us a DEFINITION of AGW that includes the scope of the crisis as a critical, necessary or needful parameter of the theory. Otherwise, I call a Skook on you - no one gives a shit.

 

[SSDD]

I don't give two shits what you got in a google search. Show us a DEFINITION of AGW that includes the scope of the crisis as a critical, necessary or needful parameter of the theory. Otherwise, I call a Skook on you - no one gives a shit.

Hell, just go to your precious IPCC and see how many times the term "scope of the crisis" appears....you are, as always, full of shit and completely misinformed.

 

[Crick]

The point of contention is not whether people are discussing the scope of the crisis. The point is whether or not that topic makes up any portions of the actual AGW theory. The answer, of course, is no. You're just too chicken shit to admit it.

 

[SSDD]

The point of contention is not whether people are discussing the scope of the crisis. The point is whether or not that topic makes up any portions of the actual AGW theory. The answer, of course, is no. You're just too chicken shit to admit it.

AGW is a hypothesis and a piss poor one...it would have perhaps evolved into theory had there been any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support it rather than a consensus agreeing on failed computer model output.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

 

[SSDD]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

Far more rapid than predicted....are you kidding...we were told in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that the arctic would be ice free by 2013....and there are bunch of idiots up there right now scrambling to avoid having to be rescued from the ice in the summer time.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

What is catastrophic to you?

Be specific.

 

[SSDD]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

What is catastrophic to you?

Be specific.

anything that triggers his knee jerk hand waving hysteric tendencies....a butterfly flapping its wings can trigger a hurricane and all that alarmist clap trap. He is a hand waving ninny who has come to believe his own lies....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

What is catastrophic to you?

Be specific.

anything that triggers his knee jerk hand waving hysteric tendencies....a butterfly flapping its wings can trigger a hurricane and all that alarmist clap trap. He is a hand waving ninny who has come to believe his own lies....

We know that..


He sees the end of an ice age and throws a hissy fit

 

[SSDD]

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)

1=0% 2=1-25% 3=25-50% 4=51-75% 5=76-100%

That's less than 50% of the survey attributing MORE than 75% of the warming to human causes.
You think THAT is a consensus on an ACTUAL question?

Did you see all the doubt about whether the exact nature of future weather changes could even be determined 50 years out? Or whether GoldiRocks can actually claim that CURRENT extreme weather events were "proof" of climate change?


THIS is the sane RATIONAL view of the science that SHOULD become the basis for public policy. NOT propaganda and alarmism.

LOL Gotta love this. We see things that are happening, and we see rapid changes in the Arctic. Far more rapid than predicted. But you advocate just continue doing the same thing until the case is proven. And completely ignore the residence time in the atmosphere of the GHG gases.

What we see happening today is the result of the GHG levels 30 to 50 years ago. By the time the case is 'proven' to people you, we are going to be well into a catastrophic scenerio.

What is catastrophic to you?

Be specific.

anything that triggers his knee jerk hand waving hysteric tendencies....a butterfly flapping its wings can trigger a hurricane and all that alarmist clap trap. He is a hand waving ninny who has come to believe his own lies....

We know that..


He sees the end of an ice age and throws a hissy fit

Guess he thinks you can exit an ice age without melting some ice...and I am sure that he is blissfully unaware that for most of earth's history, there has been absolutely no ice at one, or both of the earth's poles.