First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17
The 97% consensus seems to be hotly contested and the only consensus is that the Earth is warmer now than in the ice and CO2 is a greenhouse gas:

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.

“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”

“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.

Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.

A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.

“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”

Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” Obama said in 2013, announcing his new global warming plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook’s paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it’s part of a political machine that’s used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.

“If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?” Lindzen said.

“If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works,” he said.



Scientists are even signing a petition to get us to stop and rethink the "consensus".



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

It added: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments."

The petition was reissued last year by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research group, partly in response to Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.

Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can’t continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

One of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.

"This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities. I consider that inconclusive at the present time," he said.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.”

9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17
Except.....

It is hotter. And if reducing our output is possible, then we should try to so we can eliminate a variable, and then, MAYBE get a better idea as to what's going on.

Plus, most of the Co's comes from burning non-renewable resources. It's, as a general principle, to conserve the shit you can't get more of, and use things other people consider trash, or, in one form or another are free or nearly free. (that's just good business).

So climate change may be the big driver towards the actions we're taking, but it's not a bad thing in principle to do anyway.
14840 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/26/17
Sounds like the 3% of scientists who don't agree with climate change really don't like being called a minority xD
92 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17
Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.
6570 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/17
I thought the sun made the Earth warm...
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.


Your forgetting the #1 greenhouse gas in the world. Water.



Technically every time the Earth gets warmer we get more water vapor which causes more heat to be trapped which causes more water to evaporate which traps more heat, etc.
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/23/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.


Or, ya know, have people stop breeding... 8 billion can't be good...
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

serifsansserif wrote:


SchlomoShekelberg wrote:

Most of the Earth's climate change is from greenhouse gasses like Methane, which is 30 times more powerful than CO2 and N2O, which is 300x more powerful than CO2.

To compare, the emissions of just the methane is equivalent to 7 times the CO2 emitted annually, and for N2O it would be 27x the amount of CO2 emitted. It definitely makes a huge difference in the weather. The Earth isn't "getting warmer" it's that in the summer the climate is hotter and in the winter is colder.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

These sources primarily come from Agriculture and farming, and can simply be eliminated if fat americans just stop eating and are some healthy foods instead.


Or, ya know, have people stop breeding... 8 billion can't be good...


The Americas and Europe both have sustainable populations that do not overly stress the environment. It's Asia and, in the future, Africa thats the issue. They have more people than their land can support and you can see the effects.

9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

The Americas and Europe both have sustainable populations that do not overly stress the environment. It's Asia and, in the future, Africa thats the issue. They have more people than their land can support and you can see the effects.



Curiously enough, the more they move towards a post-industrial society, the more likely it is that they'll stop breeding... So by helping them, you're probably ensuring to change their reproductive plans.

As for the US and Europe... We're not really sustainable. we're actually losing population, it's just that the majority of it is staying alive longer and we still have immigration to counteract some of the effects.
21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

serifsansserif wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

The Americas and Europe both have sustainable populations that do not overly stress the environment. It's Asia and, in the future, Africa thats the issue. They have more people than their land can support and you can see the effects.



Curiously enough, the more they move towards a post-industrial society, the more likely it is that they'll stop breeding... So by helping them, you're probably ensuring to change their reproductive plans.

As for the US and Europe... We're not really sustainable. we're actually losing population, it's just that the majority of it is staying alive longer and we still have immigration to counteract some of the effects.


No I mean sustainable as in environmentally sustainable. We can feed ourselves and are not reliant on other continents for sustenance. Who cares if we lose some population that would be a god thing overall.
gsm642 
1878 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/23/17
if its not caused by humans than how come the entire middle east will have to be relocated soon and than india and Africa. They will have to be relocated because its so hot that the middle east will no longer be able to support human live and we are now talking about it happening within my lifetime. Not to mention the islands in the south pacific that have to be relocated because they are now under a foot of water that 20 years ago was fine so all them people are refugees and lost there all there land.
92 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

Not actually how it works. Normally water would cool back down into liquid. However due to increasing temperatures due to other substances, the hydro logical cycle gets broken. the water does not condense back into liquid and results in a feed back loop.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Also the majority of the greenhouse gasses comes from developed nations with industries. Obviously a farmer in Africa barly contributes anything to the atmosphere with his mud huts, compared to Cletus in America with his McDonalds and latest iPhones.





And greenhouse gassed per capita. More red means, each individual person contributes more greenhouse gasses vs greener.

21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

gsm642 wrote:

if its not caused by humans than how come the entire middle east will have to be relocated soon and than india and Africa. They will have to be relocated because its so hot that the middle east will no longer be able to support human live and we are now talking about it happening within my lifetime. Not to mention the islands in the south pacific that have to be relocated because they are now under a foot of water that 20 years ago was fine so all them people are refugees and lost there all there land.


Damn those humans melting the ice caps and burring doggerland under the ocean! All those spears and farms ruined the planet!



21553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/23/17 , edited 6/25/17

SchlomoShekelberg wrote:


Not actually how it works. Normally water would cool back down into liquid. However due to increasing temperatures due to other substances, the hydro logical cycle gets broken. the water does not condense back into liquid and results in a feed back loop.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

Also the majority of the greenhouse gasses comes from developed nations with industries. Obviously a farmer in Africa barly contributes anything to the atmosphere with his mud huts, compared to Cletus in America with his McDonalds and latest iPhones.





And greenhouse gassed per capita. More red means, each individual person contributes more greenhouse gasses vs greener.



Water only cools down into a liquid when it approaches a certain temperature, due to the atmosphere being unable to hold it when cooler. Then it evaporates upon the rising sun to trap greenhouse gases. Your link just confirmed that.

You have a really bad view of Africa... However what is contributing more to "green house gases" than that is permafrost de-thawing and releasing huge amounts of methane into the Atmosphere all of which we have 0 control over. Meanwhile we are throwing pennies into a massive lake.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.