Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[bripat9643]

Since when do we care about what "Germany and France" think?

It's not only France and Germany------- Its the whole world laughing at us because we are going backwards.
The whole world is sacrificing for the sake of one Planet A and the future. There is no planet B.

They were laughing at Obama behind his back when he signed on to this giant swindle.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The whole world signed and agreed to this accord except Nicaragua and Syria. The whole world supports Obama.
Today the whole world is laughing at Trump and blasting Trump as a ignorant who claim this is hoax here and over seas. That's a fact.
BTW his EPA chief cannot even answer direct questions from his news briefing today. That's a fact.

The whole world rightly took Obama to be a fool and were waiting to get their share of the loot from this swindle.

 

[JBond]

Yep, and I know all about some of those accomplishments.

One of them was forcing diesel fuel companies to have lower sulfur in the fuel. Since that time, diesel fuel became more expensive than gasoline whereas before, diesel was around a dollar a gallon less.

Yes, it closed down some trucking operations and private haulers, but government didn't stop there.

My employer started to price new tractors to replace our old equipment a few years back. Tractors were around 10K more per unit than three years earlier. All that pollutions shit they force truck manufacturers to install in the truck was the main reason. Now, over 80% of the time something is wrong with the truck, it has to do with some pollution gadget going haywire. Our trucks are in the shop nearly every month now, and truck garages charge $80.00 per hour plus parts. Our mechanic told me that they don't have one computer anymore, they have three that have to work in sync with each other, and computers don't always perform well in single digit weather.

What's more? Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. Yes, now we have to fill up with DEF which is a separate reservoir. DEF is pollution shit that squirts into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the fumes less harmful to the environment. If you run out of DEF, you screw up your engine.

We have to pass all these costs to our customers, and our customers pass on those costs to us--the US consumer. It also may be the breaking point of a company leaving the US because manufacturing being too expensive in this country.

But hell, it's worth it, isn't it? I mean after all, now all the environmentalists are happy and stopped complaining and making more demands.............Oh wait!!!!!!

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

 

[bripat9643]

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

How about RCA? I used to have one of those.

 

[Dale Smith]

Dale, I love your posts, or most of them. Some things go over my head. I am a simple business owner. I do not have an engineering degree. Dumb it down like an executive briefing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Bond......James Bond, per chance? LOL!

I write the things I do for those like you that have an open mind because like a parachute, it only works if it is open. So, to put it simply, weather modification has been around in earnest since the mid 70's but now the technology is so precise that steering weather fronts is as easy as steering a car. The technology to do it really isn't that hard to understand or grasp...the concepts are simple and the MIC has all the funds they need to make it happen.

Some people believe that if you have something to say, say it. Get to the point. Thanks, you did that. Next step, verify.

Needless to say, they beat their deadline......


http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

 

[Dale Smith]

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

"The quality goes in before the name goes on"??????

 

[JBond]

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

How about RCA? I used to have one of those.

Yep.

 

[JBond]

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

"The quality goes in before the name goes on"??????

Sony ended up kicking their ass. Case study.

 

[Rustic]

The Paris accord was bad for America, socialist countries love taking advantage of fucked up policies.

 

[usmbguest5318]

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."

The very poor quality of your circumspection and ostensibly "critical" analysis is perfunctory at best. Though I'd like to be incredulous that you've cited the content of a 2009 essay that's based on a 2008 survey in response to my having provided multiple more current survey/study results -- ranging from 2010 to 2013 (effectively early 2014, for one the 2013 survey results I cited included information pertaining to scientists who published work up through December 2013) -- answering the very same question using content from the same general body and types of scientists, even if they aren't the same individuals, I cannot because the simple fact is that's precisely what you have done.

Let's be honest, given the placement of temporal indicators in my earlier post and the fact that the post was made before the one containing the content quoted above, looking only at the date of the study you referenced should have been enough for you to recognize the comparative insufficiency of citing the 2008-2009 work. And yet an observation that basic, that simplistic and easily performed, is one you either didn't make or one you didn't consider thoroughly enough to at least present something that credibly and with rigor (equal to or besting that of the more recent studies) militates for rejecting the more recent studies findings and that thereby gives due cause for instead accepting the findings of the early study.

More important than your patently evident cognitive quiescence and indolence, however, is that of the respondents to the 2008 survey you've cited, "82% agreed that ‘human activity’ had been ‘a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’"

In, the American Meteorological Society conducted its own survey of all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an e-mail address, excluding associate members and student members." With a slightly lower than average participation rate, they found that:

• 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.
• Higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful.... Expertise[is] positively associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming, concurring with previous studies on the relationship between climate science expertise and global warming views. [1] This result is [in contrast with] members of the public with greater scientific literacy [who have been found to view] climate change as a slightly less serious risk [than do experts]. The difference between is likely explained by the different measures of expertise. As opposed to comprehension of rudimentary scientific facts, knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant.

From where I sit, 70%, 73%, 78%, 82%, 93% or 97% are indeed different percentages, but in the context of the topic at hand -- the extent of agreement among scientists regarding whether the currently observed patterns of global warming are anthropogenically caused -- its a difference with distinction. It is that for me for several reasons:

• That many scientists are not going to risk their careers and credibility, thus their livelihood, by misrepresenting their own research results or by openly attesting to an outcome that cannot be corroborated indirectly or directly by other objective researchers who aim to do so, respectively, by performing a valid propositional inference test or a replicating a researcher's work.
• Scientists (people having a PhD in a scientific rather than arts discipline) are all capable of reading a scientific study's methodology and determining whether it is valid. The reason for that is that the available mathematical modelling, testing and analytical approaches are the same no matter what one is examining. It's a matter of whether one applies the correct model/testing approach for the situation at hand. [2] Given that any scientist will be at least familiar with all of them -- they have to be because they cannot predict which of them they'll need to use for any given research they may one day perform -- it's not much of a "leap" to discern whether a specific subject matter is better or worse suited to one modelling approach or another.[3]

Even just thinking about the significance of the noted range of rates were they merely political consensus about, frankly any matter, the least of them would, for example, be sufficient, say, to accord Congress a veto-proof vote. Were a POTUS or any other elected official to win an election with 70% or more of the electoral or popular vote, it'd indeed be rightly termed a landslide. Yet when that degree of consensus exists among scientists -- people whose very raison d'etre is to rigorously and soundly challenge and question things, not agree with them out of hand -- remarking on the verity of anthropogenically effected climate change, you challenge the rate of their concurrence rather than reviewing their published works and credibly showing the material error(s) in their research methodology. Moreover, when upon reading the document you cited (cited) in an attempt to bolster your challenge of the concurrent among scientists, one sees the researchers found not 97%, but an immaterially different 82%, which, rather than lending strength to your assertion, amplifies its demerits and languor.


Notes:

1. One will note that this finding corresponds to those in the 2010 study I cited in post 1547.
2. Even middle and high school students, in principle if not so as to literally express as much, understand this to be so. Think of how many different kinds of word problems (mathematical applications) teachers and textbooks present to test/illustrate any given math technique, say, determining the length of a side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem. It's no different with applying other and more advanced measurement and analysis techniques. Is there a limit to the types of things that can be analyzed using "this or that" regression model? No. It's merely a matter of choosing the one that's best suited to the subject matter being examined. Doing so is conceptually much the same as choosing to use trigonometric functions, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem, to obtain the side-length of an equilateral triangle.
3. Being able to aptly and quickly discern what type of modelling approach best, reasonably well, or doesn't suit a given context is why high school students are taught math/statistics theory along with practice. That's not to say that literally everyone need be strong at both; however, if one is of a mind to challenge (or fully understand) the methodology and results of a scientific (natural or social) study, one need to be strong enough at both to comprehend the match used in the study. That is why there is, minimally, a baccalaureate-level statistics and calculus requirement associated with any graduate degree in a scientific discipline offered by a "high quality" institution. (I wrote "high quality" only because I don't know what every institution requires, but I do know what the schools that I applied to requires(-ed), each of which was "top-ten" ranked at the time -- they may still be, but I haven't bothered to check for I no longer need to know whether they are because I have long since successfully completed all the advanced-degree-seeking study I intend to perform.)

 

[Just_Saying]

.


The funniest thing about it the left can't blame it on big oil like ExxonMobil, they are against Trump pulling out


Lmfao




.

Nope. The only person to blame is Trump himself. What an ignorant old man he is turning out to be.

Are you aware that China and India who are without a doubt hands down the worst polluters on the planet were given exempt status? I mean they have air so bad in those countries they have to wear masks most days. So due to the fact they won't be joining the effort, why should the U.S. bother especially when considering it will cost around two million American jobs?

So basically Trump is trying to force the U.N. back to the bargaining table in an effort to make ALL countries help in the process with no exceptions. Also he wants everyone to pay their fair share of expenses for resolutions they vote for that as of yet they've declined to do. And I for one agree with Trump that crap needs to stop.

At any rate according to the science behind what they're advocating about global warming, reportedly it will take well into the next century for the temperature to raise even one degree.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV.

 

[Dale Smith]

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."

The very poor quality of your circumspection and ostensibly "critical" analysis is perfunctory at best. Though I'd like to be incredulous that you've cited the content of a 2009 essay that's based on a 2008 survey in response to my having provided multiple more current survey/study results -- ranging from 2010 to 2013 (effectively early 2014, for one the 2013 survey results I cited included information pertaining to scientists who published work up through December 2013) -- answering the very same question using content from the same general body and types of scientists, even if they aren't the same individuals, I cannot because the simple fact is that's precisely what you have done.

Let's be honest, given the placement of temporal indicators in my earlier post and the fact that the post was made before the one containing the content quoted above, looking only at the date of the study you referenced should have been enough for you to recognize the comparative insufficiency of citing the 2008-2009 work. And yet an observation that basic, that simplistic and easily performed, is one you either didn't make or one you didn't consider thoroughly enough to at least present something that credibly and with rigor (equal to or besting that of the more recent studies) militates for rejecting the more recent studies findings and that thereby gives due cause for instead accepting the findings of the early study.

More important than your patently evident cognitive quiescence and indolence, however, is that of the respondents to the 2008 survey you've cited, "82% agreed that ‘human activity’ had been ‘a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’"

In, the American Meteorological Society conducted its own survey of all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an e-mail address, excluding associate members and student members." With a slightly lower than average participation rate, they found that:

• 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.
• Higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful.... Expertise[is] positively associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming, concurring with previous studies on the relationship between climate science expertise and global warming views. [1] This result is [in contrast with] members of the public with greater scientific literacy [who have been found to view] climate change as a slightly less serious risk [than do experts]. The difference between is likely explained by the different measures of expertise. As opposed to comprehension of rudimentary scientific facts, knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant.

From where I sit, 70%, 73%, 78%, 82%, 93% or 97% are indeed different percentages, but in the context of the topic at hand -- the extent of agreement among scientists regarding whether the currently observed patterns of global warming are anthropogenically caused -- its a difference with distinction. It is that for me for several reasons:

• That many scientists are not going to risk their careers and credibility, thus their livelihood, by misrepresenting their own research results or by openly attesting to an outcome that cannot be corroborated indirectly or directly by other objective researchers who aim to do so, respectively, by performing a valid propositional inference test or a replicating a researcher's work.
• Scientists (people having a PhD in a scientific rather than arts discipline) are all capable of reading a scientific study's methodology and determining whether it is valid. The reason for that is that the available mathematical modelling, testing and analytical approaches are the same no matter what one is examining. It's a matter of whether one applies the correct model/testing approach for the situation at hand. [2] Given that any scientist will be at least familiar with all of them -- they have to be because they cannot predict which of them they'll need to use for any given research they may one day perform -- it's not much of a "leap" to discern whether a specific subject matter is better or worse suited to one modelling approach or another.[3]

Even just thinking about the significance of the noted range of rates were they merely political consensus about, frankly any matter, the least of them would, for example, be sufficient, say, to accord Congress a veto-proof vote. Were a POTUS or any other elected official to win an election with 70% or more of the electoral or popular vote, it'd indeed be rightly termed a landslide. Yet when that degree of consensus exists among scientists -- people whose very raison d'etre is to rigorously and soundly challenge and question things, not agree with them out of hand -- remarking on the verity of anthropogenically effected climate change, you challenge the rate of their concurrence rather than reviewing their published works and credibly showing the material error(s) in their research methodology. Moreover, when upon reading the document you cited (cited) in an attempt to bolster your challenge of the concurrent among scientists, one sees the researchers found not 97%, but an immaterially different 82%, which, rather than lending strength to your assertion, amplifies its demerits and languor.


Notes:

1. One will note that this finding corresponds to those in the 2010 study I cited in post 1547.
2. Even middle and high school students, in principle if not so as to literally express as much, understand this to be so. Think of how many different kinds of word problems (mathematical applications) teachers and textbooks present to test/illustrate any given math technique, say, determining the length of a side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem. It's no different with applying other and more advanced measurement and analysis techniques. Is there a limit to the types of things that can be analyzed using "this or that" regression model? No. It's merely a matter of choosing the one that's best suited to the subject matter being examined. Doing so is conceptually much the same as choosing to use trigonometric functions, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem, to obtain the side-length of an equilateral triangle.
3. Being able to aptly and quickly discern what type of modelling approach best, reasonably well, or doesn't suit a given context is why high school students are taught math/statistics theory along with practice. That's not to say that literally everyone need be strong at both; however, if one is of a mind to challenge (or fully understand) the methodology and results of a scientific (natural or social) study, one need to be strong enough at both to comprehend the match used in the study. That is why there is, minimally, a baccalaureate-level statistics and calculus requirement associated with any graduate degree in a scientific discipline offered by a "high quality" institution. (I wrote "high quality" only because I don't know what every institution requires, but I do know what the schools that I applied to requires(-ed), each of which was "top-ten" ranked at the time -- they may still be, but I haven't bothered to check for I no longer need to know whether they are because I have long since successfully completed all the advanced-degree-seeking study I intend to perform.)

So did this study that you quoted take into account the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying program that has been going on since at least 1997 and factor it into their equation or "model" in order to derive their conclusions? Because if they didn't, then their findings are (and how can I put this delicately) not worth so much as a cow's fart in the wind.

Debate me on this topic and we can go back to the very origin of this "man-made" catastrophic illusion that was 50 years in the making with an all-star cast. You put your faith in "science"? Then review the water and soil samples from independent labs that shows unsafe levels of strontium and barium . Here is your "Global Warming" and here is your "Climate Change" in bright colors. We can discuss the motives after you acknowledge that this program is indeed in place and every NATO country is subjected to it..........what say ye?

 

[Iceweasel]

If it was worthless why all the fuss?

Did I say it was worthless?

Yep. Have a grownup explain your words to you.

No point putting your name forward then.

You make no sense at all. Somehow you went downhill when you were snake shit low to start with.

Genius!

Retard!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's difficult to believe that he admitted it.

BTW, there's a reason TVs are no longer made in the USA: environmental regulations. It has nothing to do with outsourcing or any of the other evils that leftwingers always lament.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Zenith?

How could I forget. It was our very first color television set when I was a kid. When I got older and got my first apartment, I wanted the best TV I could get, so I bought a 25" Curtis Mathes. Back in 1980, I paid $1,500 for that thing; even took out a loan from the bank.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And America is saying **** Trump. As of today three states, 100 cities, scores of major corporations, hundreds of businesses, and millions of citizens are saying "no, orange one, no." All of that community growing exponentially will work with the UN and each other for the goals of the Accord. Not a damn thing Trump can do about it.

If any of you don't like it, move to Syria and nowhereaguay.

Maybe it's time you move. We're in charge now and WE call the shots--not you.

As for cities and states, they can do whatever they want--they always could. You don't need Trump's permission for that. Let all these loud mouths spend billions of their taxpayers money on this nonsense. Trump doesn't care and neither do we. Run your city or state into a hole for all we care. Trump won't bail you out and neither will the Republicans.

You don't call anything.

The USA cannot begin leaving the Accord until 2020, and Trump and you can do nothing about American governments, institutions, business, corporations, groups, and individuals working together to work for the Accord's success.

Trump's bans are dead in the water. Gorsuch may not vote to hear them. Watch. They may not make to SCOTUS until after Trump is out of office.

RussiaGate investigation continues with no hindrance in the DOJ and Congress. Now it may be a criminal problem for the Trump associates as well an intel operation about them.

You guys are so messed up.

We don't have to abide by anything on that piece of toilet paper. And when we don't, who's going to force us to?

Yes, we do call the shots, that's why we have elections. And as I was told, elections have consequences.

The Accord will not be a success, and Trump made sure of that. Everybody in this country is free to follow it if they like, but no brownie points. Like I said, run your business, city, state, county right into a hole. There is no law against stupidity in this country.

How are they going to follow it, send $380 billion to the U.N.?

Liberals have no spending limit when it comes to their pet causes that won't do shit for anybody or anything. Talk about tax cuts that could help the economy and create jobs, now they have a problem because that kind of spending (not really spending though) shows results.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals have no spending limit when it comes to their pet causes that won't do shit for anybody or anything. Talk about tax cuts that could help the economy and create jobs, now they have a problem because that kind of spending (not really spending though) shows results.

Did you write that with a straight face?

Tax cuts that help the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle classes?

9TRILLION$$$ increase in the deficit?

1TRILLION$$$ alone on needed infrastructure repair, but instead of creating uses taxes to support it, the credit card is used again.

Good heavens.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since when do we care about what "Germany and France" think?

It's not only France and Germany------- Its the whole world laughing at us because we are going backwards.
The whole world is sacrificing for the sake of one Planet A and the future. There is no planet B.

They were laughing at Obama behind his back when he signed on to this giant swindle.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The whole world signed and agreed to this accord except Nicaragua and Syria. The whole world supports Obama.
Today the whole world is laughing at Trump and blasting Trump as a ignorant who claim this is hoax here and over seas. That's a fact.
BTW his EPA chief cannot even answer direct questions from his news briefing today. That's a fact.

If the whole world signed onto this farce, why the need for the US to do it too? Seems like those countries will do just fine without us.

US is the second worst polluters. We are the leader not a backward follower. We now at level of Syria and Nicaragua. Even China the worst polluters sign on to this accord.

Maybe you should get your facts right:

Air pollution from industrial activity isn’t just an environmental concern—it’s a major public health problem, too.

In a report (pdf) released Tuesday (Sept. 27), the World Health Organization (WHO) found that 92% of the population breathes air with unhealthy levels of pollutants. WHO collected air quality data from 3,000 locations across the globe and looked for concentrations of fine particulate matter, including sulfates, nitrates, mineral dust, and black carbon, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter—about 1/1000 of a millimeter, or the width of a credit card. Both indoors and outdoors, these particles work their way into the lungs when we breathe, and can cause cardiovascular disease like lung cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Every country has terrible air pollution, but these are the world’s worst

Now, if you click on the link (and I doubt you will) you can scroll down to the bottom of the page where they list the countries from worst to best. Just so you don't waste too much of your precious time, I suggest you scroll quickly to find the US.

Of course China signed onto it. They don't have to do shit until 2030, and even then, who knows if they'd honor it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, and I know all about some of those accomplishments.

One of them was forcing diesel fuel companies to have lower sulfur in the fuel. Since that time, diesel fuel became more expensive than gasoline whereas before, diesel was around a dollar a gallon less.

Yes, it closed down some trucking operations and private haulers, but government didn't stop there.

My employer started to price new tractors to replace our old equipment a few years back. Tractors were around 10K more per unit than three years earlier. All that pollutions shit they force truck manufacturers to install in the truck was the main reason. Now, over 80% of the time something is wrong with the truck, it has to do with some pollution gadget going haywire. Our trucks are in the shop nearly every month now, and truck garages charge $80.00 per hour plus parts. Our mechanic told me that they don't have one computer anymore, they have three that have to work in sync with each other, and computers don't always perform well in single digit weather.

What's more? Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. Yes, now we have to fill up with DEF which is a separate reservoir. DEF is pollution shit that squirts into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the fumes less harmful to the environment. If you run out of DEF, you screw up your engine.

We have to pass all these costs to our customers, and our customers pass on those costs to us--the US consumer. It also may be the breaking point of a company leaving the US because manufacturing being too expensive in this country.

But hell, it's worth it, isn't it? I mean after all, now all the environmentalists are happy and stopped complaining and making more demands.............Oh wait!!!!!!

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

Again. What you want is don't do nothing.

Windmills, solar panels and other reusable energy saves the planet in the long run and create jobs.
Coal is dirty either you or Trump like it or not---- it will disappear.
What is my thermostat has anything to do with this topic?
You are very wrong about China. China is doing a major major overhaul of their regulatories because they are suffering now. A lot of them are here in US for training. They used to drive cars with lots of smoke coming out from exhaust. About 2 years ago they don't even have a smog checks. They used to dump used both engine and used cooking oil anywhere Now those are penalized. That's a fact.

So in other words, you're telling me you don't do squat for the environment. You don't own a windmill, you don't have solar panels, and I bet the only bike you have is the rusted out one in the corner of your garage that hasn't moved in years. An electric car is only something you read about.

The hypocrisy from you people is amazing. WE WANT A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT as long as I'm not paying for it.

Don't feel bad, all of you are the same way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? I mean really?
People like you who don't believe global warning is way too hard for you to understand that these has nothing to do with those Bear invading human habitat.
Are you trying to measure the distance between Alaska and Paris? Confused?
What are you trying to say do it ourselves? Yes we can do it ourselves but your point is DONT do nothing. Confused?

Don't do nothing because there is nothing we can do.

Sometimes when discussing these environmental topics, I picture a school in about 150 years from now. The teacher explains to the children that back in 2017, man thought they could control the climate, and the classroom busts out in laughter the same way we did as children when our teacher explained that we once thought the earth was flat, and if you go to far, you'll fall off!

"Folks, liberals measure success by intent--conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Wyatt earp]

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."

The very poor quality of your circumspection and ostensibly "critical" analysis is perfunctory at best. Though I'd like to be incredulous that you've cited the content of a 2009 essay that's based on a 2008 survey in response to my having provided multiple more current survey/study results -- ranging from 2010 to 2013 (effectively early 2014, for one the 2013 survey results I cited included information pertaining to scientists who published work up through December 2013) -- answering the very same question using content from the same general body and types of scientists, even if they aren't the same individuals, I cannot because the simple fact is that's precisely what you have done.

Let's be honest, given the placement of temporal indicators in my earlier post and the fact that the post was made before the one containing the content quoted above, looking only at the date of the study you referenced should have been enough for you to recognize the comparative insufficiency of citing the 2008-2009 work. And yet an observation that basic, that simplistic and easily performed, is one you either didn't make or one you didn't consider thoroughly enough to at least present something that credibly and with rigor (equal to or besting that of the more recent studies) militates for rejecting the more recent studies findings and that thereby gives due cause for instead accepting the findings of the early study.

More important than your patently evident cognitive quiescence and indolence, however, is that of the respondents to the 2008 survey you've cited, "82% agreed that ‘human activity’ had been ‘a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’"

In, the American Meteorological Society conducted its own survey of all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an e-mail address, excluding associate members and student members." With a slightly lower than average participation rate, they found that:

• 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.
• Higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful.... Expertise[is] positively associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming, concurring with previous studies on the relationship between climate science expertise and global warming views. [1] This result is [in contrast with] members of the public with greater scientific literacy [who have been found to view] climate change as a slightly less serious risk [than do experts]. The difference between is likely explained by the different measures of expertise. As opposed to comprehension of rudimentary scientific facts, knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant.

From where I sit, 70%, 73%, 78%, 82%, 93% or 97% are indeed different percentages, but in the context of the topic at hand -- the extent of agreement among scientists regarding whether the currently observed patterns of global warming are anthropogenically caused -- its a difference with distinction. It is that for me for several reasons:

• That many scientists are not going to risk their careers and credibility, thus their livelihood, by misrepresenting their own research results or by openly attesting to an outcome that cannot be corroborated indirectly or directly by other objective researchers who aim to do so, respectively, by performing a valid propositional inference test or a replicating a researcher's work.
• Scientists (people having a PhD in a scientific rather than arts discipline) are all capable of reading a scientific study's methodology and determining whether it is valid. The reason for that is that the available mathematical modelling, testing and analytical approaches are the same no matter what one is examining. It's a matter of whether one applies the correct model/testing approach for the situation at hand. [2] Given that any scientist will be at least familiar with all of them -- they have to be because they cannot predict which of them they'll need to use for any given research they may one day perform -- it's not much of a "leap" to discern whether a specific subject matter is better or worse suited to one modelling approach or another.[3]

Even just thinking about the significance of the noted range of rates were they merely political consensus about, frankly any matter, the least of them would, for example, be sufficient, say, to accord Congress a veto-proof vote. Were a POTUS or any other elected official to win an election with 70% or more of the electoral or popular vote, it'd indeed be rightly termed a landslide. Yet when that degree of consensus exists among scientists -- people whose very raison d'etre is to rigorously and soundly challenge and question things, not agree with them out of hand -- remarking on the verity of anthropogenically effected climate change, you challenge the rate of their concurrence rather than reviewing their published works and credibly showing the material error(s) in their research methodology. Moreover, when upon reading the document you cited (cited) in an attempt to bolster your challenge of the concurrent among scientists, one sees the researchers found not 97%, but an immaterially different 82%, which, rather than lending strength to your assertion, amplifies its demerits and languor.


Notes:

1. One will note that this finding corresponds to those in the 2010 study I cited in post 1547.
2. Even middle and high school students, in principle if not so as to literally express as much, understand this to be so. Think of how many different kinds of word problems (mathematical applications) teachers and textbooks present to test/illustrate any given math technique, say, determining the length of a side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem. It's no different with applying other and more advanced measurement and analysis techniques. Is there a limit to the types of things that can be analyzed using "this or that" regression model? No. It's merely a matter of choosing the one that's best suited to the subject matter being examined. Doing so is conceptually much the same as choosing to use trigonometric functions, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem, to obtain the side-length of an equilateral triangle.
3. Being able to aptly and quickly discern what type of modelling approach best, reasonably well, or doesn't suit a given context is why high school students are taught math/statistics theory along with practice. That's not to say that literally everyone need be strong at both; however, if one is of a mind to challenge (or fully understand) the methodology and results of a scientific (natural or social) study, one need to be strong enough at both to comprehend the match used in the study. That is why there is, minimally, a baccalaureate-level statistics and calculus requirement associated with any graduate degree in a scientific discipline offered by a "high quality" institution. (I wrote "high quality" only because I don't know what every institution requires, but I do know what the schools that I applied to requires(-ed), each of which was "top-ten" ranked at the time -- they may still be, but I haven't bothered to check for I no longer need to know whether they are because I have long since successfully completed all the advanced-degree-seeking study I intend to perform.)

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."

The very poor quality of your circumspection and ostensibly "critical" analysis is perfunctory at best. Though I'd like to be incredulous that you've cited the content of a 2009 essay that's based on a 2008 survey in response to my having provided multiple more current survey/study results -- ranging from 2010 to 2013 (effectively early 2014, for one the 2013 survey results I cited included information pertaining to scientists who published work up through December 2013) -- answering the very same question using content from the same general body and types of scientists, even if they aren't the same individuals, I cannot because the simple fact is that's precisely what you have done.

Let's be honest, given the placement of temporal indicators in my earlier post and the fact that the post was made before the one containing the content quoted above, looking only at the date of the study you referenced should have been enough for you to recognize the comparative insufficiency of citing the 2008-2009 work. And yet an observation that basic, that simplistic and easily performed, is one you either didn't make or one you didn't consider thoroughly enough to at least present something that credibly and with rigor (equal to or besting that of the more recent studies) militates for rejecting the more recent studies findings and that thereby gives due cause for instead accepting the findings of the early study.

More important than your patently evident cognitive quiescence and indolence, however, is that of the respondents to the 2008 survey you've cited, "82% agreed that ‘human activity’ had been ‘a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’"

In, the American Meteorological Society conducted its own survey of all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an e-mail address, excluding associate members and student members." With a slightly lower than average participation rate, they found that:

• 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.
• Higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful.... Expertise[is] positively associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming, concurring with previous studies on the relationship between climate science expertise and global warming views. [1] This result is [in contrast with] members of the public with greater scientific literacy [who have been found to view] climate change as a slightly less serious risk [than do experts]. The difference between is likely explained by the different measures of expertise. As opposed to comprehension of rudimentary scientific facts, knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant.

From where I sit, 70%, 73%, 78%, 82%, 93% or 97% are indeed different percentages, but in the context of the topic at hand -- the extent of agreement among scientists regarding whether the currently observed patterns of global warming are anthropogenically caused -- its a difference with distinction. It is that for me for several reasons:

• That many scientists are not going to risk their careers and credibility, thus their livelihood, by misrepresenting their own research results or by openly attesting to an outcome that cannot be corroborated indirectly or directly by other objective researchers who aim to do so, respectively, by performing a valid propositional inference test or a replicating a researcher's work.
• Scientists (people having a PhD in a scientific rather than arts discipline) are all capable of reading a scientific study's methodology and determining whether it is valid. The reason for that is that the available mathematical modelling, testing and analytical approaches are the same no matter what one is examining. It's a matter of whether one applies the correct model/testing approach for the situation at hand. [2] Given that any scientist will be at least familiar with all of them -- they have to be because they cannot predict which of them they'll need to use for any given research they may one day perform -- it's not much of a "leap" to discern whether a specific subject matter is better or worse suited to one modelling approach or another.[3]

Even just thinking about the significance of the noted range of rates were they merely political consensus about, frankly any matter, the least of them would, for example, be sufficient, say, to accord Congress a veto-proof vote. Were a POTUS or any other elected official to win an election with 70% or more of the electoral or popular vote, it'd indeed be rightly termed a landslide. Yet when that degree of consensus exists among scientists -- people whose very raison d'etre is to rigorously and soundly challenge and question things, not agree with them out of hand -- remarking on the verity of anthropogenically effected climate change, you challenge the rate of their concurrence rather than reviewing their published works and credibly showing the material error(s) in their research methodology. Moreover, when upon reading the document you cited (cited) in an attempt to bolster your challenge of the concurrent among scientists, one sees the researchers found not 97%, but an immaterially different 82%, which, rather than lending strength to your assertion, amplifies its demerits and languor.


Notes:

1. One will note that this finding corresponds to those in the 2010 study I cited in post 1547.
2. Even middle and high school students, in principle if not so as to literally express as much, understand this to be so. Think of how many different kinds of word problems (mathematical applications) teachers and textbooks present to test/illustrate any given math technique, say, determining the length of a side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem. It's no different with applying other and more advanced measurement and analysis techniques. Is there a limit to the types of things that can be analyzed using "this or that" regression model? No. It's merely a matter of choosing the one that's best suited to the subject matter being examined. Doing so is conceptually much the same as choosing to use trigonometric functions, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem, to obtain the side-length of an equilateral triangle.
3. Being able to aptly and quickly discern what type of modelling approach best, reasonably well, or doesn't suit a given context is why high school students are taught math/statistics theory along with practice. That's not to say that literally everyone need be strong at both; however, if one is of a mind to challenge (or fully understand) the methodology and results of a scientific (natural or social) study, one need to be strong enough at both to comprehend the match used in the study. That is why there is, minimally, a baccalaureate-level statistics and calculus requirement associated with any graduate degree in a scientific discipline offered by a "high quality" institution. (I wrote "high quality" only because I don't know what every institution requires, but I do know what the schools that I applied to requires(-ed), each of which was "top-ten" ranked at the time -- they may still be, but I haven't bothered to check for I no longer need to know whether they are because I have long since successfully completed all the advanced-degree-seeking study I intend to perform.)

Produce names like I do Judith Curry Richard Lizden..they are part of the 97% yet you call them deniers why?






.

 

[Theowl32]

Of course now they are going to claim there was no danger or bad deal for the US in this sham of a deal. The truly hidden danger of the Paris Accord is that it would have given the globalist elites the authority to bypass our own government and mandate any changes that they wished. If they chose to outlaw coal or shale oils then all they would have to do is mandate it.

If they decided that nuclear energy was altering the atmosphere then we would have to shut it down. That agreement was the single biggest sell-out and scam on the American people of Obama's eight year horrendous reign.

Just understand what this is about control and nothing to do with the environment. It never is. As I have pointed out, if the planet is so dire and it truly is dying as a result of the mythical CO2 crap, then they would not be creating a NON BINDING "accord."

The ONLY "evidence" of CO2 emissions causing global warming/climate change is from computer climate models that can be, and ARE being, manipulated to get the desired POLITICAL result. In other words, there is absolutely NO evidence that human activities have any effect on global temperatures or on changing the Earth's climate.

It's all a massive hoax fabricated out of whole cloth in the 1990s by Maurice Strong and his UN Commission on Global Governance.

As Michael Crichton pointed out in a speech several years ago:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus.Period."

So, whenever you hear them talking about consensus or "97%" and skewed numbers like that, know they are nothing but political tools pushing an agenda. Most of them do not even know it. Most of them admittedly have good intentions, but that is typical.

Here, read this article about manipulated data....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...noaa-manipula/

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

---------------------------------------------

They are liars. One can also tell how GOOD this was for AMERICAN and the real people. Look at all who are bitching. Make believe and want to be celebrities, MEDIA, some talk show host, The fat one Moore, Hollywood, Washed up and to old actors, SWAMP creatures in POLITICS both R and D, "etc" When they are against it one knows it is good for the country.