To "Happy Valley Heretic" that is nice, but the 40% comes from a poll
that they did, not a climatologist guess.
@RedshirtS. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National
Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified
scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40%
now.”"I would guess" seem totally scientific, right?
sounds like a Donald quote that is based on nothing, like "I've
heard" or "people are saying", hardly based in reality though.
To "Utefan60" the 40% comes from a survey of climate scientists by the
National Association of Scholars. The guy who did the study is a professor
emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the
founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the
University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric
and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).So, it was a
scientist with expertise in the field who came up with that finding.Do you now believe that 40% of climate scientists blame man for the
warming?But we come back to the big question. Why trust models that
are always wrong in their predicitons? See "A Startling New Discovery Could
Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts" and "Here's
One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See" in IBD.See
also "Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate
Sensitivity" from UAH where they show that the climate models are wrong.See also "ANOTHER MAJOR STUDY CONFIRMS THE IPCC’S CLIMATE
MODELS WERE WRONG" in the Daily CallerEverything else you say is
just liberal talking points.
Having your heads buried in the sand won't stop the flood waters from
washing you away. It just makes you ill-prepared to escape the deluge--whether
it's water, wind or fire. NTM your brain suffers from lack of oxygen.
Redshirt said: "Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global
Warming" Well Redshirt, Everyone here would like to know where
you got that figure? And could you cite valid real sources.The real
scientific communty has published over 17,000 peer reviewed papers on climate
change.All but 19 of those said that humans can and do contribute in
some measure to climate change. So where do you get 40% of
scientists say no correlation? Doesn't exist in real searches, nor in any
peer reviewed reports of the over 17,000 educated, degreed and certified
research papers.I'll believe what educated scientists say, and
not the low effort, low education people who grab "facts" from thin
air.PS. The vast majority of scientists say the earth is round. But
there are still those flat earthers who claim it isn't... I guess I could
find some obsure report and use that like the climate deniers do right?
@Karen R. "...climate change deniers..."This is simply not
an accurate term. Most CAGW skeptics are skeptical because they know the climate
is constantly changing. The task for alarmists is to show that something is
happening that is outside natural variability. A difficult task, I know; but if
no one shows it, others are not compelled to believe the theory.
@ConservativeCommonTater "It would be nice if the climate deniers posted
their citations to prove that global warming/climate change is false."The burden of proof is on the one making the hypothesis. You know,
science. If the hypothesis is not validated by experiment, no one needs to
To "silo " and what is your point?? If you don't like a research
paper because it was funded by an oil company, then try to make any point about
climate change WITHOUT using any study or paper written by a person who received
government grants.You ilk is funny because you insist that you
won't believe something unless it comes from an peer reviewed paper. Then
when a peer reviewed paper comes along and shows you that you are wrong, you
then insist that it isn't valid because of who funded it. It is as if you
are denying science.Tell us. If a scientist can be biased because of
oil money, why can't they be biased because of government money?To "Karen R." who are the climate change deniers? Please tell us who
thinks that the climate isn't changing. I know of science deniers that use
faulty computer models to give us dire predictions that never come true.
@ silo"Feel free to start listing 800 'scientists who say
the opposite.'"I suspect that confused probably can provide
that list. I've seen something like it. Very impressive.It's just that they aren't climate scientists.IMO, this
sums up the position of climate change deniers: We shouldn't trust science
because it's always changing, but we can have absolute trust in scientists
speaking outside their area of expertise if their opinion agrees with our own.
ate - Pleasant Grove, UTApril 1, 2019 5:06 p.m.@Gerald Lazar
"...climate deniers..."Name-calling is not very convincing.
("climate deniers" is NOT name calling, it's an accurate
description of the uneducated) As one who affirms science, I would ask a favor
of other commenters who have a proper appreciation for science: please post the
name of the paper validating the core hypothesis of global warming (that the
primary driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide). I have been looking for
this for years. If you would include its authorship and date of publication,
that would be extremely helpful.It would be nice if the climate
deniers posted their citations to prove that global warming/climate change is
false. That should be easy since only 3% of "scientists" make that
claim.P.S. you can do the research yourself, you know, google.RedShirtHarvard - Cambridge, MAApril 1, 2019 12:22 p.m."There are thousands of scientists that refute the IPCC and other alarmist
doctrines."OK, name them and cite their credentials.
@Redshirt"look at the time scale. Go back 10,000 years not just 150 or
200. You will see that the Earth was much warmer then."Depends
on what proxy data you look at, generally there's a slow decreasing trend
over most of the past 10k years until recent more rapid warming."Yes the CO2 is about on target because everything older than 100 years is
just a guess"Why are you referencing cycles that take 100k years
if you call everything older than 100 years a guess? We increased CO2 by 30% in
under a century. That is not even remotely close to anything suggested by the
Milankovitch cycle in the ice cores referenced. What would even be your
target?"See "Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown
Begins in 2020" in Livescience."Temperature, solar
irradiance, and CO2 data are easily googled and clearly show correlation between
temperature and the sun til the most recent 50 years where CO2 takes over. That Livescience piece...[Though a new decades-long dip in
solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much,
the researchers' simulations demonstrated. ] (Several tenths F for a grand
@confused"For every scientist you sight(sic) that supports
"Global Warming", oh wait "Climate change" (which is it?, have
to change the name to stop from being proven wrong?). I can find verified and
accomplished scientist who says the opposite."Really? For every
single one?The IPCC AR5 has over 800 contributing authors. The list
can be found on the IPCC AR5 website.Feel free to start listing 800
"scientists who say the opposite". We'll wait.
@ilkshirt"You see, even the scientists who study the climate are
divided as to the the cause of climate change."You cited a Fred
Singer opinion from a 2011 interview. Singer has direct ties to the
Heartland Institute, who is directly funded by Exxon and other Petroleum
industry entities.In addition, Singer's comments about
'scientists being divided' come from his dependence on numbers
produced in a debunked Senate report, a debunked 2007 Heartland Institute report
and the debunked 'Oregon Petition'. Every single one of those lists
has been thoroughly discredited for false data...in some cases refuted by the
listed scientists themselves.In short, your primary source is using
manipulated data, does not submit any of his assertions for peer review, and is
heavily funded by the petroleum industry. These are all readily available facts
found in a 2 minute google search.
@Gerald Lazar "...climate deniers..."Name-calling is not
very convincing. As one who affirms science, I would ask a favor of other
commenters who have a proper appreciation for science: please post the name of
the paper validating the core hypothesis of global warming (that the primary
driver of modern warming is carbon dioxide). I have been looking for this for
years. If you would include its authorship and date of publication, that would
be extremely helpful.I understand the background arguments, so no
need to rehearse them. I do not need to know how many scientists hold a certain
opinion; I consider argumentum ad verecundiam a logical fallacy. If you were
going to recommend an IPCC report, I would ask you to cite the direct origin of
their levels of certainty.I just want to know who validated the
global warming hypothesis and how they did it using the scientific method. A
method we all love, being aligned with science as so many of us are.Thank you in advance.
To "Frozen Fractals" again, look at the time scale. Go back 10,000 years
not just 150 or 200. You will see that the Earth was much warmer then.Yes the CO2 is about on target because everything older than 100 years is just
a guess and shouldn't be considered for anything more than overall trends.
Unless they use the same exact means of measurement anything older than about
100 years should be considered questionable at best.See "Global
Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020" in Livescience.
@RedShirtHarvard"the earth has been steadily cooling (and that
includes the last 150 years)."We have clearly been warming the
past 100 years."In terms of CO2 we are tracking about on target
with the cycle that occurs every 100,000 years."That cycle shows
a range in CO2 from 180 to 290ppm and takes 100k years to go up and down again.
We went from 300ppm to 400ppm in less than a century. You think that is on
target?"If you look at the temperature vs solar activity you see
that there is correlation there"That only really works until the
most recent half century where solar activity says we should have stabilized and
then had cooling but instead we kept warming. We just had the weakest solar
cycle in almost a century but the 5 warmest years in the modern era were the
most recent 5.
@Confused"We in America may want to do thing for climate change, but
does anyone really think China or India is going to do it? I have my
doubts."China is becoming a much bigger player in solar energy.
India still has a couple hundred million people without electricity.
1 American uses roughly the GHGs of 10 people from India. Developing nations
like India will have increasing emissions and would have goals closer to
something like stabilizing at double their current emissions while we cut ours
in half (we'd still be using twice as much as India then and once they
stabilize as well they can at that point drop too).@MacMama"Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is closing"Because the Montreal Protocol phased out the use of the CFCs that created the
ozone hole.@lost in DC"OK, ban volcanoes, which produce
more CO2 than all human activity combined."False. Volcanoes are
estimated to produce 200 million tons of CO2 each year vs 20 billion tons from
humans. Volcanoes are such a non-factor with CO2 they don't even show up in
the CO2 datasets. Volcanoes biggest contribution is SO2, an aerosol cooling
@Blue"it is important to understand that the climate change we are now
seeing is occurring at a rate roughly 1,000 times faster than any previous
natural climate change. "While it is much much faster than
average natural climate change, 1,000 times faster is definitely an
overstatement and there are isolated instances of very rapid natural change
(like the entry and exit of the Younger Dryas event).@Confused"For every scientist you sight that supports "Global Warming", oh
wait "Climate change" (which is it?, have to change the name to stop
from being proven wrong?)."Both names were pretty frequently
used over time, the preference for climate change nowadays comes from making it
clear that warming isn't the only thing going on, but a range of other
effects from sea level rise to ocean acidification." I can find
verified and accomplished scientist who says the opposite."Most
of those people wouldn't be climate scientists which is about as useful as
asking a weatherperson about brain surgery. Climate scientists are strongly
tilted towards thinking humans are primarily responsible for the global warming
the past century.
Redshirt your sources are laughable, and not what you claim they are.A little digging finds your sources are paid by the hydrocarbon industry.From your reference: S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the
National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical
qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40%
now.”"I would guess" seem totally scientific,
right?NIPCC=Heartland instituteThe scientific consensus
is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study
evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists
agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is
real and largely caused by humans.I especially found it hilarious
that you compare Russian propaganda science to America, how Donald of you.
To "Utefan60" they may claim that humans are the driver in climate
change, but that doesn't make them right. Do some research on Lysenkoism.
That was a case where for DECADES in Russia a group of scientists published
papers and had a whole field of study where they all agreed on the same
theories. They were completely wrong, but they were able to maintain their
funding for their careers and perpetuated a bad idea because of it.There are thousands of scientists that refute the IPCC and other alarmist
doctrines.The best scientists say that they don't know what is
going on. The worst ones say that their unproven theories are right.See "Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming"
at NASYou see, even the scientists who study the climate are divided
as to the the cause of climate change.
BlueBan volcanoes and we would still have 300 million tons less (according
to your numbers)And yes, my comments were silly – they were
meant to be silly, in response to a silly letter.Emmanuel why
do they all agree? Because their proposed “solutions” involve a
wealth transfer – from us to them. and because they want to agree - they
are as preconceived as Adam Schiff.Cougfan60Proven? By
thousands of educated scientists? Nope – they have theories they
manipulate data to support, but not proven.Deny alarmism all you
want, but you are not a scientist.
Confused - Sandy, UT, you are stating things that are false. Climate Scientists
overwhelmingly support the issue that humans can and do create some of the
issues with climate change. Proven with thousands of educated scientists.
Thousands!Your statement that you can find a scientist to refute
these people is ridiculous. You can not find those real scientists that refute
this. You may read a Fox News article but that does not count. I want several
thousand references to reputable educated scientists. Can you do that?I can provide thousands of scientific reports....can you? With over 17,000
papers published on climate change by educated, (Key word here, educated) and
degreed scientists, there are less than 20 scientists that claim there is no
correlation of human interaction to climate change. That is .00117 percent that
say there is not correlation. Wow!Deny climate change all you
want. But you are not a scientist. Those educated scientists strongly disagree
with your so called conclusions.Its a great thing that we have
education in this country.
Actually Blue.... I can.. and have on several research projects I have googled
over the years...They not a PR firm, or anything like it..Here is a question for you...have you followed the $$$ on those research
projects that says global change is happening? They are all funded by
organizations who profit from said findings.They key to anything is
a very simple solution... follow the $$$ who is behind the research, because ALL
research is biased depending on who is funding it. That is a fact!
But what temperature should the earth be? If you look at the 10,000 year
record, the earth has been steadily cooling (and that includes the last 150
years).In terms of CO2 we are tracking about on target with the
cycle that occurs every 100,000 years.If you look at the temperature
vs solar activity you see that there is correlation there that isn't
accounted for very well in the CO2 based models.The problem is that
this letter wants us to follow along with science that isn't settled, and
has been used for many decades to give is dire predictions that have not come
true.Can any of the alarmists out there justify to us why we should
listen to them despite the fact that their dire predictions have never come to
pass? (I can count at least 4 times where you told us that by a certain year if
nothing was done that the Earth was doomed.)
In the 1970s we were "running out of oil," but we are not running out of
oil. A lot of decisions were made based on bad science and market manipulation.
The "population bomb" was going to be the end of the world, but now some
are encouraging people to move from poor areas of the world to first world
nations because people in first-world nations are not having enough children.The "climate change" crisis has been accompanied by predictions
that have not come to pass. Any increase of temperature is barely detectable by
thermometers, much less by humans. The seas have not washed over the land.
Carbon in the air is the food for plant and therefore animal and human life. It
may be that we need more carbon in the air, not less.The science is
debatable, not settled, because the models only work when the data is
manipulated. Meanwhile, many of the people pushing the narrative are also
associated with the new "socialism" movement, open borders and other
ideas I cannot support. Don't buy "science" from someone you
wouldn't trust to sell you a used car. Discerning the motives of others is
also a science.
@ ConservativeCommonTater"I wish I knew why so many people deny
science and choose "climate denial" so fervently. It doesn't make
sense."Let me explain. It's not that we
"deny science." It's that we don't simply walk in lock step
believing what they're telling us because it's "science" and
"science" is always right. There's been enough evidence, also
brought about by "science," that run counter to AGW (besides all the
predicted apocalyptic scenarios that haven't manifested). It's a lot like the skepticism I have for all these DNA testing companies
I see advertised on TV. The "actors" say stuff like, "I thought I
was German all these years. Now I wear a kilt." Or, "Now I can celebrate
my Spanish ancestry now that I know I'm Spanish."How the
heck do we know the DNA companies are right? What is it all based on? How good
is their quality control? How do I know they didn't mix up the samples.
How, exactly did they determine my roots? They may be right, but then
again......People blindly believe them because it's,
"science." Me, I'm a skeptic.
To all the climate deniers on this board:If human-caused climate change is
a "hoax," why does every national academy of science in the world
that's weighed in on the subject -- some 40 or more -- disagree? Why do
they all say it's caused primarily by human activity?According
to a 2018 World Bank study “More than 140 million people . . . will be
made climate migrants by 2050 . . including 17 million from Latin
America.” Are you climate deniers saying that the World Bank is an
illegitimate source of information?
Lost in DC, there’s so much that’s just plain wrong with what
you’re saying.Volcanoes produce, at best, 300 million tons of
CO2 each year. Human combustion of fossil fuels annually contributes about 30
billion tons. Do the math.Regarding humans respiration, the CO2 we
exhale involves carbon recently captured from the air in the course of creating
the food we eat. There is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 because we
respirate. The carbon that contributes to the rapid rise of temperatures is
called “fossil” carbon because it was sunk into the ground a minimum
of several hundred thousand years ago. Look up how oil and coal form. Extraction
and combustion of these “fossil fuels” is what releases the ancient
carbon and turns it into the extra CO2 at the heart modern climate change.The rest of your criticisms are too silly to warrant a reply.
Confused, here’s the difference between “Global Warming” and
“Climate Change.” Whereas the term Global Warming
generally just refers to rapid increases being observed in air, land and ocean
temperatures, the term Climate Change covers the related fields of Precipitation
Trends, Magnitude of Extremes, Storm Intensity & Frequency, Drought
Intensity & Frequency, Ocean Acidification, Rising Sea Levels, Diminishing
Sea Ice, Diminishing Land Ice, Biodiversity and Shifting Ecosystems. These are
all related to a rapidly warming planet.And all the published
research in these areas is seeing strong evidence of human-caused warming.
GeraldOK, ban volcanoes, which produce more CO2 than all human activity
combined.Ban sunspots, which increase the level of solar radiation /
energy.Ban exhalation, which contains CO2, especially from
hyperventilating liberals.Running around screaming, “the sky
is falling, the sky is falling” may feel invigorating, but it’s a
recipe for disaster. It creates panic and damaging knee-jerk reactions –
and even more CO2Respect the science – are you talking about
the discipline that once said draining blood from the ill would correct their
balance and they’d recover? Or that touted arsenic in small doses as a
panacea?Science’s “conclusions” change more
rapidly than the climate.
No, Confused, you cannot find an equal quantity of professional, peer reviewed
science to disprove the research results currently available. The fact that an
industry-funded PR firm publishes an op-ed calling climate change a hoax does
not count as refuting the objective, replicated and validated research published
in professional science journals. Note that the oil and coal
industries have hired many of the same PR firms that tried to tell us that
“the science isn’t settled” about the dangers of cigarettes to
sell the same “the science isn’t settled” message about
climate change.Knowing the difference between objective science news
and industry-funded PR is critical here.
MacMama said: "Years ago, the big worry was the hole in the ozone layer. It
was going to kill us all. Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is
closing and now we are not in danger of being killed by it."...and why is that MacMama? Is it because we heeded scientists
advice and stopped using CFCs and found replacements, or because we ignored it
and it went away magically?Yep, it's the former, we did
something about it, instead of listening to lobbyists and paid shills for the
hydrocarbon industry as the right tends to do.
Until China and India get on board, whatever we do here in the United States
will have little to no effect on the human caused portion of climate change.Years ago, the big worry was the hole in the ozone layer. It was going to
kill us all. Now, scientists have discovered that the hole is closing and now
we are not in danger of being killed by it.While I believe we need to take
care of the earth and respect it, I also believe that many of the proposals
(“New Green Deal” for example) are a way to seize control and power
of our economy and our liberties.
Gerald,Here is the problem with your letter...For every
scientist you sight that supports "Global Warming", oh wait "Climate
change" (which is it?, have to change the name to stop from being proven
wrong?). I can find verified and accomplished scientist who says the
opposite.In reality, no one really knows for 100 percent accuracy.
They have some solid theories, but that is all it is... a hypothesis.We in America may want to do thing for climate change, but does anyone really
think China or India is going to do it? I have my doubts.
Ignorance is bliss is the basis of climate change deniers.
While it is true that Earth’s climate has and will always change
naturally, it is important to understand that the climate change we are now
seeing is occurring at a rate roughly 1,000 times faster than any previous
natural climate change. The evidence that this climate change is in fact caused
by human combustion of fossil fuels is now overwhelming. Let’s
live in the real world, respect the science, and act responsibly. Our grandkids
are depending on us to do the right things.The most expensive, and
harmful, thing we can do right now is to do nothing.
When a lot of people choose to bury their heads in the sand, to avoid the
obvious, it puts their butts in a great position for a good kicking.I wish I knew why so many people deny science and choose "climate
denial" so fervently. It doesn't make sense.