Why we should listen to the 97%

[westwall]

I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense. I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again. How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas? Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from? Someone's fertile imagination?

Frank is absolutely correct. There is zero empirical data to support the idea that a 200ppm increase in CO2 can do anything. There are computer models that claim it...but as we have seen from the Harvard study those models are "close to useless" (their words) so that leaves you where?

With an unsubstantiated claim...

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate scientists don't coincidentally support AGW. They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true. That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists. Did you lose track of that wee point?

OK!!


Then why do they feel so compelled to rig the data??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry Frank, but that is utter nonsense. I'm not sure where the lot of you got this idea that no lab experiment has ever demonstrated the greenhouse effect, but it is wrong and you all look a lot of idiots spouting it over and over again. How difficult do you believe it to be to determine and demonstrate the absorption and emissions spectra of carbon dioxide or any other gas? Where do you think the idea of the greenhouse effect came from? Someone's fertile imagination?

However, your Bizarre Theory is NOT That CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas; it's that a 200PPM Change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere is causing (insert phrase du jour, e.g. Global warming, climate change, climate disruption)

 

[Saigon]

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

It's a bit baffling to me that Sceptics arguing that Climate Change is to Science what Jesus is to Christian theologians.

Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW surveyors do their work just like AGW scientists...cherry-pick, massage, and distort.

Mr Solomon statements about the surveyor's motives are completely anally derived. He (and you) ignore the point that publishing climate scientists are THE most expert of the experts in the precise question under examination. Their's was not the only survey to find that the more folks knew about the climate, the more likely they were to believe AGW a valid theory.

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

Well they do have Consensus and there's more evidence that Jesus turned water into wine than there is for CO2 driven Climate Warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

It's a bit baffling to me that Sceptics arguing that Climate Change is to Science what Jesus is to Christian theologians.

Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?

We have science because it fails your theory 100% of the time

Dave made the brilliant observation that the AGWCult worship their Gods like the Christians worship theirs.

 

[Abraham3]

Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?

"When are they gonna start testing 200PPM of CO2 in a Lab?"

"Never"

 

[Abraham3]

Frank,

On what do you believe theories regarding the Greenhouse Effect are based?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank,

On what do you believe theories regarding the Greenhouse Effect are based?

Do you even know what your "Theory" is?

Is NOT that CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas", it's that a change in the chemical composition of Earth atmosphere by adding 200PPM of CO2 causes cataclysmic changes

 

[daveman]

Climate scientists don't coincidentally support AGW. They support AGW because, in their expert opinions and with intimate knowledge of its successes in supporting the observations and surviving the tests of the scientific method, they believe it to be true. That was the purpose of those surveys, Dave: to determine how much support AGW had among climate scientists. Did you lose track of that wee point?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

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.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

--

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, 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.​

Even when climate researchers try to stack surveys in their favor, they don't get the results they want.

 

[daveman]

Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

It's a bit baffling to me that Sceptics arguing that Climate Change is to Science what Jesus is to Christian theologians.

I don't know why. It's a simple concept.

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change. There is no hard evidence of the divinity of Jesus.

Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?

We still do.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake.

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.

 

[daveman]

Nothing like the manner in which you treat Watts, McIntyre, Spencer or (I choke to say this) Monckton?

Oh, you mean the "heretics" your side tries to destroy personally?

You bolster my case.

 

[Saigon]

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.

Really?

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.

 

[daveman]

Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake.

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.

You might want to read it again. The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.

 

[daveman]

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.

Really?

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.

I don't even have to look at your list to dismiss it:

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Saigon]

Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake.

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.

You might want to read it again. The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.

I have read it - which is how I know that your maths is wrong.

btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?

 

[Saigon]

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.

Really?

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.

I don't even have to look at your list to dismiss it:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Of course you won't look at the evidence, because you know what would happen if you did.

btw. Melting glaciers causing sea levels to raise is not a correlation - it is cause and effect, clear and simple. As you know, obviously. It is scientifically proven, and something you can check fairly easily online about your nearest coastal area.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no hard evidence of Anthropegenic Climate Change.

Really?

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.

Ice melts, waterways shift, that's been going on forever; the idea that a wisp of CO2 is causing it is quite recent and borderline lunacy