AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by bcspace »

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

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”
.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.” Accordingly, those who do receive support typically get more time free of teaching responsibilities, providing more time available for publishing activities.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Res Ipsa »

Meanwhile, in the real world..... http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm

Oh, and on that bit about no one having measured the human contribution to climate change? http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57.

Why does bcspace hate his kids and grandkids so much?
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

Brackite
God
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Brackite »

I really wish that somebody would give me a dollar for each of the Global Warming threads that bcspace starts here.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Res Ipsa »

Maybe we should start donating $1 in his name to The Climate Reality Project for each post.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by canpakes »

Brad Hudson wrote:
Why does bcspace hate his kids and grandkids so much?


Because he's cheap.

Die-hard conservatives are afraid that they'll be 'taxed' another dollar a year on some kind of climate solution, but they're too afraid to admit that reality, so they spend their time pretending that the problem doesn't exist, on the hopes that the problem pushes off to the next generation.

It's not a mature way to deal with a problem, but for folks whose God is money, it's what they understand.

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Gunnar »

And so bcspace gets spanked once again and still remains clueless about the reality of AGW.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

Brackite
God
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Brackite »

UN Panel: Global Warming Human-Caused, Dangerous

Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous — and it's increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible, a draft of a new international science report says.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a final draft of its synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group. There is little in the report that wasn't in the other more-detailed versions, but the language is more stark and the report attempts to connect the different scientific disciplines studying problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas.

The 127-page draft, obtained by The Associated Press, paints a harsh warning of what's causing global warming and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.

"Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems," the report says. The final report will be issued after governments and scientists go over the draft line by line in an October conference in Copenhagen.

Depending on circumstances and values, "currently observed impacts might already be considered dangerous," the report says. It mentions extreme weather and rising sea levels, such as heat waves, flooding and droughts. It even raises, as an earlier report did, the idea that climate change will worsen violent conflicts and refugee problems and could hinder efforts to grow more food. And ocean acidification, which comes from the added carbon absorbed by oceans, will harm marine life, it says.

Without changes in greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change risks are likely to be high or very high by the end of the 21st century," the report says.

In 2009, countries across the globe set a goal of limiting global warming to about another 2 degrees Fahrenheit above current levels. But the report says that it is looking more likely that the world will shoot past that point. Limiting warming to that much is possible but would require dramatic and immediate cuts in carbon dioxide pollution.

The report says if the world continues to spew greenhouse gases at its accelerating rate, it's likely that by mid-century temperatures will increase by about another 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) compared to temperatures from 1986 to 2005. And by the end of the century, that scenario will bring temperatures that are about 6.7 degrees warmer (3.7 degrees Celsius).
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by bcspace »

Looks like someone needs a bit a of a reminder. The OP of this thread contains the only relevant data.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by canpakes »

bcspace wrote:Looks like someone needs a bit a of a reminder. The OP of this thread contains the only relevant data.


:wink:

No one has ever been able to measure cigarette smoke contributions to lung cancer.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by EAllusion »

canpakes wrote: :wink:


If you read the full link, which I just did, basically every single paragraph contains a misleading or false statement. It's almost impressive in being a clearinghouse of climate change deception unto itself.

Amore
God
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Amore »

EAllusion wrote:If you read the full link, which I just did, basically every single paragraph contains a misleading or false statement. It's almost impressive in being a clearinghouse of climate change deception unto itself.

Where's the proof?
It seems to go against facts, as an attempt to spend money...

"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature. The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%." http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-t ... -spending/

"Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence." http://www.thegwpf.org/how-much-money-a ... ion-a-day/

There has and always will be climate change... "
•1880-1940: A prolonged rise in temperature in spite of modest global carbon dioxide outputs
•1940-1970: A decline in temperature, in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels
•1970-2000: A rise in temperature which follows carbon dioxide levels
•2009-2005: A levelling-out of the temperature rise
•2005-2011: A slight decline in temperature, in spite of still-rising carbon dioxide levels

So, over a period of more than a century, only the data from one thirty-year slot actually fits the human-induced global warming theory. The rest does not. In this situation it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the discrepancy. With the bulk of the data not fitting the theory, this is indeed an onerous task."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Chang ... id=6849578

User avatar
ludwigm
tired, less active investigator
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by ludwigm »

-list-
- Droopy
- bcspace
- ajax18
- (PM me if I've missed somebody of importance)

+
- Amore

Welcome in the club of troglodytes.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by canpakes »

Amore wrote:
"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research...


Only 4 billion? Is there a list of projects that qualify?

This is pretty awesome; we allow an equivalent amount in tax credits to oil companies making billions in profits to help them look for and develop oil resources (which they seem to be very good at already without any additional government help), so it seems like some research directed towards climate issues is worth it by comparison. : )

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Res Ipsa »

Amore wrote:Where's the proof?
It seems to go against facts, as an attempt to spend money...

"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature. The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%." http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-t ... -spending/

"Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence." http://www.thegwpf.org/how-much-money-a ... ion-a-day/

There has and always will be climate change... "
•1880-1940: A prolonged rise in temperature in spite of modest global carbon dioxide outputs
•1940-1970: A decline in temperature, in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels
•1970-2000: A rise in temperature which follows carbon dioxide levels
•2009-2005: A levelling-out of the temperature rise
•2005-2011: A slight decline in temperature, in spite of still-rising carbon dioxide levels

So, over a period of more than a century, only the data from one thirty-year slot actually fits the human-induced global warming theory. The rest does not. In this situation it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the discrepancy. With the bulk of the data not fitting the theory, this is indeed an onerous task."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Chang ... id=6849578


Amore has posted this exact same information in a previous thread, but has failed to respond to any of the responses that explain why it doesn't refute the scientific consensus on global warming. Here are my previous responses, which I'm still waiting for her to address. Others have responded as well, with nothing but crickets from Amore.


This is just an exercise in what they call "mathturbation." The problem is not the total amount of greenhouse gases added annually to the atmosphere, because a significant amount of those gases are removed from the atmosphere by natural "sinks." The problem is the amount by which the annual additions exceed the natural subtractions every year, resulting in increased greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere. That accumulation is almost entirely due to human activity (combination of deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions). I think the emissions part is around 75%, but I could be a little off. If you take into account only the natural causes of climate change, we should be experiencing very slow cooling (much slower than the present warming).


I'd be remiss if I didn't identify the logical fallacies that Amore is employing in the above posts. The "mathturbation" exercise commits the "red herring" fallacy. Because the problem is the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere, focussing on the total that goes in (i.e., ignoring the amount that is naturally removed) is completely irrelevant. Thus, the math valid, but completely misses the point. That the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is not controversial among people that know the science. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

The quote from an "e-zine," commits the straw man fallacy. It assumes that the "human induced global warming theory" predicts that the global average atmospheric surface temperature will follow the track of CO2 with some unstated level of precision. It doesn't. The author ignores facts known to every climate scientist -- (1) global average atmospheric surface temperature is affected by many things other than CO2 concentration and, the shorter the period gets, the more important other factors are; and (2) the additional heat from increased CO2 does not just go into the atmosphere -- it goes into the oceans and the air in a complex system of distribution and exchange. It is well understood by climate scientists that, for one example, the ENSO cycle (El Nino/La Nina) has a variation from year to year that is much larger than the increase caused by increases in greenhouse gases. So, what the "e-zine" author does is misrepresent what "human-induced global warming actually predicts" and then attacks it with a statistics free interpretation of data. Dunning Kruger at its finest.


Until she actually makes a substantive response to the criticisms of her post, I think one good cut and paste deserves another.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Gunnar »

That Amore merely repeats that post without even attempting to address the valid issues raised by critical responses that have already been made to it is yet another example of sticking her fingers in her ears and saying "nya nya nya, I can't hear you!
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by canpakes »

Brad Hudson wrote:
Until she actually makes a substantive response to the criticisms of her post, I think one good cut and paste deserves another.


And this is the shame of it. A good debate about anything relies upon an examination of the positions, not just mere statement of the positions themselves.

In this thread, and in the others regarding s/s marriage, Amore has relied upon simple statements of position but offers very little explanation as to why she'd hold that position, or how it was arrived at. It is as if she was handed the script and is willing to repeat it, but cares not to know too much about it.

If she was willing to self-examine her positions with a slight tip away from the emotive/reactive side of her process and towards the analysis/logic side then it could very well alter things, given that the 'herd mentality' that she so often speaks of is driven by the former much more so than the latter.

This is not to say that an emotional or reactive response is - by default - always a 'bad' thing, but without the substructure of an intellectual analysis and prior learning framing that response (example: what to do when encountering a bear), then pure emotive/reactive action can oftentimes be very dangerous and/or counterproductive.

Brackite
God
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:12 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Brackite »

ludwigm wrote:-list-
- Droopy
- bcspace
- ajax18
- (PM me if I've missed somebody of importance)

+
- Amore

Welcome in the club of troglodytes.


- subgenius?

I don't believe that bcspace will ever accept the reality of Global warming. However, I do believe that a few of his kids and many of his grand-kids will accept the reality of Global warming.

P.S. I had to look up what the definition of the word "troglodytes" is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troglodyte
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by EAllusion »

To put it in perspective, the entire NIH budget is around 30 billion. The federal government funding 4 billion in climate change related research seems unrealistically high. I tried to figure out where that number came from. Where I think it is coming from is total federal allocations on climate change related programs. This includes technological investment, which makes up the bulk of that total, along with basic research.

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by Gunnar »

EAllusion wrote:To put it in perspective, the entire NIH budget is around 30 billion. The federal government funding 4 billion in climate change related research seems unrealistically high. I tried to figure out where that number came from. Where I think it is coming from is total federal allocations on climate change related programs. This includes technological investment, which makes up the bulk of that total, along with basic research.

And the portion of that money allocated to technological investment will potentially return a profit that far exceeds the money invested, as Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute http://www.rmi.org/ are doing their best to demonstrate. It is also far less than it will ultimately cost society if we keep our heads in the sand and refuse to make that investment.

This: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_09_04_going_above_and_beyond_with_the_general_services_administration is just one example of the kind of technological investment the government is and ought to be making. The money saved by this kind of investment will ultimately much more than pay for the cost of the investment--even if AGW really were a hoax (which it is not).
Last edited by Gunnar on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: AGW: The Scientific Consensus Fraud

Post by canpakes »

EAllusion wrote:To put it in perspective, the entire NIH budget is around 30 billion. The federal government funding 4 billion in climate change related research seems unrealistically high. I tried to figure out where that number came from. Where I think it is coming from is total federal allocations on climate change related programs. This includes technological investment, which makes up the bulk of that total, along with basic research.


If this document is accurate, the actual figure is 2.7 billion. See page 6 -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... ngress.pdf

Definitions of subcategories and links to agency plans are given on subsequent pages.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests