scientists tamper with "global warming" data

[eagle1462010]

Over 31 000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian orforestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working inclimate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.

13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

We can, however, compare the number of atmospheric scientists, climagologists, ocean scientists, and meteorologists who signed this petition to the number of members of the various professional organizations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU)has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

The AGU hydrology group has over 6,000 members who call hydrology their primary field. The OISM list has 22 names that claim to be hydrologists, or 0.4%.

The AGU ocean sciences group claims approximately 6,800 members. The OISM has 83 names, or 1.2%. And again, given that AGU membership is not required to be a practicing ocean scientists, this number is inflated.

Perhaps the list has been cleaned up, but originally some people spotted it for what it was, and sent in forms with Dr. Donald D. Duck, and other such names.

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

 

[Crick]

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

It's not A poll, bird-brain. It's many of them. And then there's the fact that EVERY national science foundation on the planet and every science organization of the slightest standing concur with the IPCC's conclusions. The 97% consensus is quite real. The value of the Oregon List of Shite... not so much.

 

[eagle1462010]

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

It's not A poll, bird-brain. It's many of them. And then there's the fact that EVERY national science foundation on the planet and every science organization of the slightest standing concur with the IPCC's conclusions. The 97% consensus is quite real. The value of the Oregon List of Shite... not so much.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. WhenPopular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.

To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.

Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.

“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

 

[Crick]

It's not my fault your reduced to going to F-oxNews-orbes for your information. Forbes criticisms of the Cook study are shite themselves, but if you don't like Cook's, try the SIXTEEN other surveys covered in
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You will find that the supporters of mainstream science around here (Mamooth, Orogenicman, Liminal, myself and others) were talking about a very strong consensus among climate scientists years before the Cook study was even begun. Yet that seems to be the only survey that deniers have ever heard about; it is certainly the only one about which they make comment.

 

[Crick]

An objective description of Cook et al's survey from Wikipedia's "
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change":

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25] Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".[26]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[27] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1

 

[eagle1462010]

An objective description of Cook et al's survey from Wikipedia's "
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change":

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25] Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".[26]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[27] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

Why where the 66.4% included in the number endorsing.............aka they are part of the so called survey..............in the 11944 number............................see post 66 for reference..................

See post 67 for 650 well noted scientist, etc.............rejecting the claims from IPCC your pet surveys that claim 97%

 

[eagle1462010]

Consensus means agreement on a narrow range of views about something. A “97%” consensus that relies on a range from 5% impact to 100% is virtually meaningless for scientific or public policy purposes. The scope is too broad. However, such statements have a powerful psychological impact on the public, who misinterpret these ‘consensus’ statements as meaning scientists are agreed that human impact on climate is catastrophic in nature. As this paper will show, only a very small percent of scientists, in very narrow fields of study, hold that view. Many scientists hold the view that human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide have beneficial impacts on earth, and little impact on climate.

Ironically, a detailed review of the most recent ‘consensus’ study by Cook et al (2013) found only 64 papers out of 11,958 that explicitly state that AGW caused more than 50% of recent warming. This represents only a 0.54% ‘consensus.’ Furthermore, the 50% of warming referenced by Cook is far short of the IPCC AGW estimate that AGW caused at least 90% of the warming. Scientists have mixed views on this issue, contrary to the claimed consensus. The previously quoted declaration was that AGW caused 50% of warming at 90% certainty, but they also say best estimate that AGW caused at least 90% of warming, which is similar but different. Scientists’ opinions are their best estimate, 50% chance could be more; 50% chance could be less.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's not my fault your reduced to going to F-oxNews-orbes for your information. Forbes criticisms of the Cook study are shite themselves, but if you don't like Cook's, try the SIXTEEN other surveys covered in
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You will find that the supporters of mainstream science around here (Mamooth, Orogenicman, Liminal, myself and others) were talking about a very strong consensus among climate scientists years before the Cook study was even begun. Yet that seems to be the only survey that deniers have ever heard about; it is certainly the only one about which they make comment.

Your in the hole so far we can no longer see you... Do you want a bigger shovel?

How many times must you be spanked in public before you let go of your foolish ideology? Cook Et AL is the worst kind of scientific fraud (well, second worst next to what was just published by NOAA and NCDC) and both are easily shown false and a deception.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

It's not A poll, bird-brain. It's many of them. And then there's the fact that EVERY national science foundation on the planet and every science organization of the slightest standing concur with the IPCC's conclusions. The 97% consensus is quite real. The value of the Oregon List of Shite... not so much.

Yeah, 97% is as real as Mann one tree ring

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cook Et Al looked at 11,944 papers, which were published on climate since 1991. Of those papers Cook and his clan threw out 11,890 because they did not conclude man had caused warming leaving only 64. Of those 64, just three were identified as stating implicitly that man had little or no impact.

11,893 papers said no or little impact. Only 61 of those papers were determined by cook to have significant impact.

11,893 / 61 = 0.48% giving benefit of the doubt well round it up to 0.5% Its a far cry from from that lie of 97%.. Throwing away data that shows your agenda a fallacy is something alarmists are good at. Just ask Phil Jones where the original climatic data set is at the CRU... He dumped it after he made adjustments to it.

 

[eagle1462010]

CO2 Science

CO2-Enriched Air Does Double Duty Fighting Heat and Drought

The two researchers describe how they studied Kentucky Bluegrass plants obtained from field plots in New Brunswick, New Jersey (USA) in controlled environment chambers maintained at ambient and double-ambient atmospheric CO2concentrations (400 and 800 ppm, respectively), while they divided them into sub-treatments of optimum temperature and water availability, as well as drought-stressed (D) and heat-stressed (H) conditions, along with a combined D and H environment. And what did they thereby learn?

Song and Huang report that (1) "the ratio of root to shoot biomass increased by 65% to 115% under doubling ambient CO2 across all treatments with the greatest increase under D" (see figure below), while noting that (2) "high CO2 may enhance the capacity of water uptake by the root system, supplying water to maintain leaf hydration," that (3) "the positive carbon gain under doubling ambient CO2 was the result of both increases in net photosynthesis rate and suppression of respiration rate," that (4) "leaf net photosynthesis increased by 32% to 440% with doubling ambient CO2," that (5) there was a significant decline (by 18% to 37%) in leaf respiration rate under the different treatments "with the greatest suppression under D + H," all of which findings led the two scientists to conclude "the increase in carbon assimilation and the decline in respiration carbon loss could contribute to improved growth under elevated CO2conditions," as they also note has been found to be the case with several other plants," citing the studies of Ainsworthet al. (2002), Drake et al. (1997), Long et al. (2004) and Reddy et al. (2010).

 

[eagle1462010]

Atmospheric CO2 is NOT a POLLUTANT. SEEING IS BELIEVING.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

It's not A poll, bird-brain. It's many of them. And then there's the fact that EVERY national science foundation on the planet and every science organization of the slightest standing concur with the IPCC's conclusions. The 97% consensus is quite real. The value of the Oregon List of Shite... not so much.

Yeah, 97% is as real as Mann one tree ring

Mann did some very similar things by throwing out 11 tree ring cuts which showed the two he kept as outliers. Pseudo science at its best..

Seems to be a behavioral trait with alarmists.

The first thing I was taught in the physics lab was to keep all data sets, PERIOD! Why has basic science principals failed? Agenda driven? Money Grubbing? Useful idiocy?

 

[jc456]

Look in the mirror with your 97%. A trumped up poll which is worse than the very thing you are spitting at now.

It's not A poll, bird-brain. It's many of them. And then there's the fact that EVERY national science foundation on the planet and every science organization of the slightest standing concur with the IPCC's conclusions. The 97% consensus is quite real. The value of the Oregon List of Shite... not so much.

Palease

 

[jc456]

It's not my fault your reduced to going to F-oxNews-orbes for your information. Forbes criticisms of the Cook study are shite themselves, but if you don't like Cook's, try the SIXTEEN other surveys covered in
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You will find that the supporters of mainstream science around here (Mamooth, Orogenicman, Liminal, myself and others) were talking about a very strong consensus among climate scientists years before the Cook study was even begun. Yet that seems to be the only survey that deniers have ever heard about; it is certainly the only one about which they make comment.

Your in the hole so far we can no longer see you... Do you want a bigger shovel?

How many times must you be spanked in public before you let go of your foolish ideology? Cook Et AL is the worst kind of scientific fraud (well, second worst next to what was just published by NOAA and NCDC) and both are easily shown false and a deception.

He needs a rope

 

[jc456]

CO2 Science

CO2-Enriched Air Does Double Duty Fighting Heat and Drought

The two researchers describe how they studied Kentucky Bluegrass plants obtained from field plots in New Brunswick, New Jersey (USA) in controlled environment chambers maintained at ambient and double-ambient atmospheric CO2concentrations (400 and 800 ppm, respectively), while they divided them into sub-treatments of optimum temperature and water availability, as well as drought-stressed (D) and heat-stressed (H) conditions, along with a combined D and H environment. And what did they thereby learn?

Song and Huang report that (1) "the ratio of root to shoot biomass increased by 65% to 115% under doubling ambient CO2 across all treatments with the greatest increase under D" (see figure below), while noting that (2) "high CO2 may enhance the capacity of water uptake by the root system, supplying water to maintain leaf hydration," that (3) "the positive carbon gain under doubling ambient CO2 was the result of both increases in net photosynthesis rate and suppression of respiration rate," that (4) "leaf net photosynthesis increased by 32% to 440% with doubling ambient CO2," that (5) there was a significant decline (by 18% to 37%) in leaf respiration rate under the different treatments "with the greatest suppression under D + H," all of which findings led the two scientists to conclude "the increase in carbon assimilation and the decline in respiration carbon loss could contribute to improved growth under elevated CO2conditions," as they also note has been found to be the case with several other plants," citing the studies of Ainsworthet al. (2002), Drake et al. (1997), Long et al. (2004) and Reddy et al. (2010).

Excellent post

 

[SwimExpert]

How many times must you be spanked in public before you let go of your foolish ideology?

 

[IanC]

It's not my fault your reduced to going to F-oxNews-orbes for your information. Forbes criticisms of the Cook study are shite themselves, but if you don't like Cook's, try the SIXTEEN other surveys covered in
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You will find that the supporters of mainstream science around here (Mamooth, Orogenicman, Liminal, myself and others) were talking about a very strong consensus among climate scientists years before the Cook study was even begun. Yet that seems to be the only survey that deniers have ever heard about; it is certainly the only one about which they make comment.

About a year ago crick played the same game and put up a list of polls. Von Storch was first on the list and I showed it wasn't 97%. I also showed the second wasn't 97%. By then he was no longer responding. No doubt he will again ignore any rebuttals this time, and in the future play the same game all over again and act as if he had never been shown that the 97% claim is false for anything other than the most basic of questions that even skeptics agree to.