More Climate BS...

#3,101
#3,101
Gladiator1 said:
I remember doing papers on "the mini ice age" in school and not to long after that, "Acid Rain". I don't know how we've made it this through all the climate changes.
Click to expand...

nuclear war
global cooling
acid rain.
ozone layer
global warming
climate change

There is always fear of the future. Where there is fear, there is money to be made and people to control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and 7 others
#3,103
#3,103
LouderVol said:
I acknowledge your failed appeal to authority.

Its more like I know how to read a scientific paper and will take the time to instead instead of relying on the click bait to tell me what I want to hear. I actually studied this in school and know enough to be able parse at least some of the BS. My classes were taught by PhDs, I know several others, and worked with several more at ORNL on this subject as part of the Solar Decathlon project. you get past the guys working for a pay check and find the ones who its a passion for and you quickly find out there is way too much fear mongering on the man made side of things.

the crap you posted was more on the bs side of things.

I know you won't, but just start at the very simple matter of aligning "warming over pre-Industrial levels" with the fact that we were in a mini Ice Age. go ahead, find me some actual research paper than explains that part of the equation, and I will read it.
Click to expand...

FACT: 97% of publishing climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.

CRAP: @LouderVol thinks he knows more about climate science than publishing climate scientists.

😁

Here’s a summary of what climate science research and scientific organizations have found about how many climate scientists accept that humans are causing global warming:

📊 Scientific consensus among climate scientists​

✔️ ~97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
This figure comes from multiple analyses of the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that of the papers that take a position on the cause of warming, about 97% endorse the view that most recent warming is human-caused. (NASA Science)

Some key points about this consensus:

  • A 2013 study analyzing thousands of climate science papers found around 97.1% of those expressing a view agreed that humans are causing global warming. (NASA Science)
  • Broader reviews of scientific literature through 2020 found that well over 99% of peer-reviewed studies do not reject human-caused climate change (e.g., a >99.9% agreement in one large survey of ~88,000 papers). (Cornell CALS)
  • When surveys focus on climate scientists actively publishing in the field, the agreement typically clusters around 97–98%, and consensus increases with level of expertise. (Yale Climate Communication)
Different methods and definitions (e.g., whether you count all papers or only those that explicitly state a position) produce a range, but virtually all rigorous studies show a very high level of agreement.

🌍 Scientific organizations’ positions​

Virtually every major scientific organization that has issued a climate position statement agrees that:

  • Climate warming is happening.
  • Human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming.
Examples include:

  • NASA: states that about 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change, and that leading scientific bodies worldwide support this conclusion. (NASA Science)
  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, and other national academies acknowledge human influence as the primary driver of recent warming. (NASA Science)
  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a global body coordinated by the UN—concludes with high confidence that most of the recent warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. (United Nations)

📌 Summary statistics​

Group surveyedApproximate agreement that humans are causing warming
Actively publishing climate scientists (peer-reviewed literature analyses)~97% consensus (NASA Science)
Large reviews of published studies overall>99% of studies do not reject human causation (Cornell CALS)
Major scientific organizations globallyEssentially all endorse human influence as primary cause (NASA Science)

🧠 Interpretation​

  • Climate science expert surveys and literature analyses consistently show an extremely high level of agreement (often quoted as “~97%” or higher) among climate scientists that recent global warming is largely caused by human activities. (NASA Science)
  • Leading scientific bodies worldwide endorse this conclusion as the consensus view of climate science. (United Nations)
 
#3,107
#3,107
MontyPython said:
FACT: 97% of publishing climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.

CRAP: @LouderVol thinks he knows more about climate science than publishing climate scientists.

😁

Here’s a summary of what climate science research and scientific organizations have found about how many climate scientists accept that humans are causing global warming:

📊 Scientific consensus among climate scientists​

✔️ ~97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
This figure comes from multiple analyses of the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that of the papers that take a position on the cause of warming, about 97% endorse the view that most recent warming is human-caused. (NASA Science)

Some key points about this consensus:

  • A 2013 study analyzing thousands of climate science papers found around 97.1% of those expressing a view agreed that humans are causing global warming. (NASA Science)
  • Broader reviews of scientific literature through 2020 found that well over 99% of peer-reviewed studies do not reject human-caused climate change (e.g., a >99.9% agreement in one large survey of ~88,000 papers). (Cornell CALS)
  • When surveys focus on climate scientists actively publishing in the field, the agreement typically clusters around 97–98%, and consensus increases with level of expertise. (Yale Climate Communication)
Different methods and definitions (e.g., whether you count all papers or only those that explicitly state a position) produce a range, but virtually all rigorous studies show a very high level of agreement.

🌍 Scientific organizations’ positions​

Virtually every major scientific organization that has issued a climate position statement agrees that:

  • Climate warming is happening.
  • Human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming.
Examples include:

  • NASA: states that about 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change, and that leading scientific bodies worldwide support this conclusion. (NASA Science)
  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, and other national academies acknowledge human influence as the primary driver of recent warming. (NASA Science)
  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a global body coordinated by the UN—concludes with high confidence that most of the recent warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. (United Nations)

📌 Summary statistics​

Group surveyedApproximate agreement that humans are causing warming
Actively publishing climate scientists (peer-reviewed literature analyses)~97% consensus (NASA Science)
Large reviews of published studies overall>99% of studies do not reject human causation (Cornell CALS)
Major scientific organizations globallyEssentially all endorse human influence as primary cause (NASA Science)

🧠 Interpretation​

  • Climate science expert surveys and literature analyses consistently show an extremely high level of agreement (often quoted as “~97%” or higher) among climate scientists that recent global warming is largely caused by human activities. (NASA Science)
  • Leading scientific bodies worldwide endorse this conclusion as the consensus view of climate science. (United Nations)
Click to expand...
@MontyPython

so not even going to address the one point I made? typical.

I have read a lot of papers, most of them fall into one of several fallacies. the most common, that I have seen, I already mentioned. They reference the "preIndustrial era" which was artificially cool. so any return to normal looks like "warming" instead of returning to normal.

some other common fallacies:
1. other reliance on flawed understanding of how averages work. one day/month/year being hotter than the "average" doesn't mean something changed. the average is built of both higher and lower numbers, there is almost never a day that actually meets the assigned "average" value. case in point, lets say the average temperature of Dec 15 in Atlanta GA is 40 degrees fahrenheit. the last 5 Dec 15ths have been 41, 36, 43, 34, and 46. 46 HOLY CRAP its 6 degrees WARMER THAN AVERAGE. GLOBAL WARMING PROVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!! Its science, right? well, not really. those 5 temps still average to 40 degrees, even though there was never a 40 degrees, and we got up to 46 one year. if you read a lot of methodology they very rarely control for this.
2. the change in instrumentation. we use different, more precise equipment, and we get different values than we did before. in every other form of science there is a control any reading will be based on, climate change not so much.
3. variable changing outside of the actual weather and climate. most temperature readings are taken from the same spot year over year. makes sense. however the reality around those individual locations change pretty dramatically which effect the micro climate. more development means a greater heat island effect, which pushes the temperature up with out changing the actual macro climate. Micro vs macro is a big area of discussion in the actual field. but you won't address that either.
4. selective data reporting. again go and read any climate study and they will tell you all the data they throw out. some of it makes sense, like a solar eclipse, others don't make sense, they threw out rainy days. even though they were basing their historical data on days that included rain.

most of the papers when you sit down and read them do say what they are saying but they are throwing in some many qualifiers it begs the question why even say it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim, marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and 1 other person
#3,109
#3,109
MontyPython said:
FACT: 97% of publishing climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.
Click to expand...

I'll take Someone Doesn't Know the Different Between a FACT and a THEORY for $1,000, Alex.

Monty, if you are worried about the heat just put your face diaper on, it not only will beat a common cold it will beat common heat. Meanwhile, we barely have summers anymore and we're about 6 weeks into Winter here yet its not even Winter for another week.

Its actually time to rinse and repeat the global freeze scam, sign Monty up.

C-CgY7UXgAEpM-b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and GroverCleveland
#3,110
#3,110
LouderVol said:
@MontyPython

so not even going to address the one point I made? typical.

I have read a lot of papers, most of them fall into one of several fallacies. the most common, that I have seen, I already mentioned. They reference the "preIndustrial era" which was artificially cool. so any return to normal looks like "warming" instead of returning to normal.

some other common fallacies:
1. other reliance on flawed understanding of how averages work. one day/month/year being hotter than the "average" doesn't mean something changed. the average is built of both higher and lower numbers, there is almost never a day that actually meets the assigned "average" value. case in point, lets say the average temperature of Dec 15 in Atlanta GA is 40 degrees fahrenheit. the last 5 Dec 15ths have been 41, 36, 43, 34, and 46. 46 HOLY CRAP its 6 degrees WARMER THAN AVERAGE. GLOBAL WARMING PROVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!! Its science, right? well, not really. those 5 temps still average to 40 degrees, even though there was never a 40 degrees, and we got up to 46 one year. if you read a lot of methodology they very rarely control for this.
2. the change in instrumentation. we use different, more precise equipment, and we get different values than we did before. in every other form of science there is a control any reading will be based on, climate change not so much.
3. variable changing outside of the actual weather and climate. most temperature readings are taken from the same spot year over year. makes sense. however the reality around those individual locations change pretty dramatically which effect the micro climate. more development means a greater heat island effect, which pushes the temperature up with out changing the actual macro climate. Micro vs macro is a big area of discussion in the actual field. but you won't address that either.
4. selective data reporting. again go and read any climate study and they will tell you all the data they throw out. some of it makes sense, like a solar eclipse, others don't make sense, they threw out rainy days. even though they were basing their historical data on days that included rain.

most of the papers when you sit down and read them do say what they are saying but they are throwing in some many qualifiers it begs the question why even say it?
Click to expand...

Understood.

Damn science eggheads.

I'm now gonna hire my landscaper to do my taxes.
 
#3,111
#3,111
McDad said:
You are incredibly bad at inference. It is remarkable how a man can live to adulthood and systematically connect dots which do not exist.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed that you know more than published climate scientists on this subject.

1765810386031.png
 
#3,112
#3,112
LouderVol said:
@MontyPython

so not even going to address the one point I made? typical.

I have read a lot of papers, most of them fall into one of several fallacies. the most common, that I have seen, I already mentioned. They reference the "preIndustrial era" which was artificially cool. so any return to normal looks like "warming" instead of returning to normal.

some other common fallacies:
1. other reliance on flawed understanding of how averages work. one day/month/year being hotter than the "average" doesn't mean something changed. the average is built of both higher and lower numbers, there is almost never a day that actually meets the assigned "average" value. case in point, lets say the average temperature of Dec 15 in Atlanta GA is 40 degrees fahrenheit. the last 5 Dec 15ths have been 41, 36, 43, 34, and 46. 46 HOLY CRAP its 6 degrees WARMER THAN AVERAGE. GLOBAL WARMING PROVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!! Its science, right? well, not really. those 5 temps still average to 40 degrees, even though there was never a 40 degrees, and we got up to 46 one year. if you read a lot of methodology they very rarely control for this.
2. the change in instrumentation. we use different, more precise equipment, and we get different values than we did before. in every other form of science there is a control any reading will be based on, climate change not so much.
3. variable changing outside of the actual weather and climate. most temperature readings are taken from the same spot year over year. makes sense. however the reality around those individual locations change pretty dramatically which effect the micro climate. more development means a greater heat island effect, which pushes the temperature up with out changing the actual macro climate. Micro vs macro is a big area of discussion in the actual field. but you won't address that either.
4. selective data reporting. again go and read any climate study and they will tell you all the data they throw out. some of it makes sense, like a solar eclipse, others don't make sense, they threw out rainy days. even though they were basing their historical data on days that included rain.

most of the papers when you sit down and read them do say what they are saying but they are throwing in some many qualifiers it begs the question why even say it?
Click to expand...

Monty hasn't taken to the new program (re-programing) - the whole global warming scam is mostly been abandoned, its now onto the AI scam where they will have to start up mothballed power plants including goal, natural gas, etc.
 
#3,117
#3,117
LouderVol said:
as long as you don't actually review his work, you will never know that he is wrong. funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Its funny that he is still promoting all this nonsense when its abandoned for money i.e. AI/Massive Energy Production especially considering we just hit a new record low where I'm at. 🧊
Monty isn't accepting the new programming.
 
#3,120
#3,120
McDad said:
nuclear war
global cooling
acid rain.
ozone layer
global warming
climate change

There is always fear of the future. Where there is fear, there is money to be made and people to control.
Click to expand...
Fear of X is a driving force of human nature and utterly ubiquitous. Even something as simple as FOMO drives actions and yes, it's been a recognized way to herd money since money has existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland, LouderVol and 1 other person
#3,121
#3,121
McDad said:
If it is settled, why does it matter what others think?
Click to expand...
I know I've dropped this before but when I see anything regarding "settled science" I'm practically compelled to lob it into the convo.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

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."

Michael Crichton

This is often used in reference to, but in no way whatsoever limited to, "climate science".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim, marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and 6 others
#3,122
#3,122
hndog609 said:
I know I've dropped this before but when I see anything regarding "settled science" I'm practically compelled to lob it into the convo.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

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."

Michael Crichton

This is often used in reference to, but in no way whatsoever limited to, "climate science".
Click to expand...
There are several areas where one would need to have faith in the processes in order to claim the science is settled on many topics (not just climate).
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top