North Pole temperature above freezing - December 30, 2015

[HiLo]

B208:

Please, stop saying "Church of Climatology." It only makes you look like an idiot who does not understand the English language.

Climatology: the science that deals with climates and their phenomena.
Origins: Greek "klima" -place, zone; "logos" -logic

Calling it the "Church of Climatology" says you think either that science is a religion based on a leap of faith, or that you have trouble with the English language.

[pelmet]

HiLo, do really believe what the UN is telling us as well with their studies and forecasts on climate change?

[HiLo]

HiLo, do really believe what the UN is telling us as well with their studies and forecasts on climate change?

I'm willing to believe the results of any reputable, peer reviewed study. More often than not, such research is much more accurate than rhetoric (keep in mind that it is not a matter of being right or wrong, but of being accurate, especially in climate modeling). When 97% of reputable research shows that climate change is a man-made catastrophe waiting to happen, I believe it.

[B208]

B208:
Please, stop saying "Church of Climatology." It only makes you look like an idiot who does not understand the English language.

Well, I guess I was being a bit to subtle for you there sport. "Church of Climantology" was a play on "Church of Scientology". I figured a well read fellow like you would pick up on that. The comparison is valid; both groups use their version of science to herd the weak minded.

[B208]

Where did the 97% number come from?

The 97% number is a myth. Of the 11,944 abstracts since of them 7930 held no opinion at all he excluded them from the study. The fact is that the excluded papers made up 66% of the information they were looking at. To use the 97% number ALLLLL the time is just nauseating. The fact that people still throw this number around is amazing oh and its a lie!!!!




Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
It is nothing more than cleaver math.

Nice find there Hoptowit; As was stated earlier the "97%" is a case of "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

[B208]

Where did the 97% number come from?

...snip... It is nothing more than cleaver math.

Show me a credible, scientific study that shows otherwise.

And therein lay the difficulty son; You won't find any source we quote credible because any source we quote won't jive with your position.

[hoptwoit]

This is science. It never fails to confound me that the people most vocal about refuting science use computers and the internet to do it. It's like driving your car to a rally claiming internal combustion engines will never work.

Science....

There are numerous cases of "scientists" screwing up and causing problems. Sometimes it is a sloppy method sometimes a bad conclusion but if you are old enough, you will remember this example. I was watching CTV national news when they aired a report that said movie theater popcorn cooked in coconut oil would kill you. The movie theaters dumped their coconut oil for hydrogenated vegetable oil and for 15 years popcorn sucked!!! Now "virgin or raw" coconut oil is the sold as one of the healthiest things you can have in your pantry.
The study that did in coconut oil had only a few variables to look at saturated fat, un saturated fats and the trans fat from processing or hydrogenating the oils. This study lead to increased use of non animal derived fats and flooded the market with vegetable oils loaded with trans fats. Now 20 years later we are banning trans fats and we realise that they are very dangerous. The author of the study did eventually say his conclusion was wrong but his correction made page 17 in the paper and the news media never said a word about it. How much damage had been done. Once the train starts rolling it can be hard to stop in this case it took almost 20 years, and we are still living with the effects of the decisions based on bad science. Trans fats are bad for you and this flawed study lead people to consume lots of it thinking they were making the right decision based on the bill of goods the science and the media had sold them. The full explanation is below. It will take some reading but you guys should be able to handle it. The big point I am trying to make is this. Using the number of variables in the study of coconut oil and compare them to the number of variables in a climate change model. The complexity is staggering when dealing with climate and weather. The fact is that such a simple study missed such a glaring variable how many do you think they have missed with climate change.


Why Is Coconut Oil Good for You?
It was not all that long ago that coconut oil was equated with the devil himself. It was supposed to clog your arteries. It was supposed to raise your cholesterol. It was supposed to give you heart attacks. Coconut oil was supposed to be worse than lard or butter or corn oil.

Back in 1994, the Center for Science in the Public Interest killed tens of millions of dollars movie theater popcorn sales by pointing out that the high-calorie "butter" on "buttered" popcorn was really mostly coconut oil. Dr. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center at the time, famously said, "White popcorn should be the Snow White of snack foods, but adding coconut oil turns it into Godzilla."

Nowadays, however, you can find coconut oil in the health food store between the virgin olive oil and the cold-pressed perilla oil. What has transformed coconut oil from greasy (but tasty) treat into health food staple?

It partly has to do with the fact that vegans like frosting on their cupcakes and flaky crusts for their pies. Frosting on desserts is traditionally done with lard. Pie crusts are traditionally made with butter. Vegans don't eat lard and they don't eat butter.

Coconut oil, however, stays solid at room temperature, much like lard and butter. It has a kind of nutty, vanilla flavor. It's milder than butter and lighter than lard.

And because it is not necessary to ice the mixing bowl the way it is for making butter-based pie crust, it's actually easier to make a pie crust with coconut oil than it is with butter. Part of the popularity of coconut oil is the reality that vegans like desserts, too.

But the other reason coconut oil is becoming very popular has to do with the fact that the scientists 20 years ago were just plain wrong.

Or rather than they weren't entirely honest about what they were studying.

Decades of cholesterol research has tested the effects of feeding high-fat foods to rabbits. In case you are unfamiliar with rabbits, rest assured that bunnies usually don't eat fried chicken, bacon, pie crust, or cupcakes. However, when they are fed these and similar foods, their cholesterol levels go right through the roof. Scientists have long told us that they same thing will happen to us.

To make sure their tests of coconut oil gave measurable results, scientists didn't use virgin coconut oil for feeding their test rabbits. They used partially hydrogenated oil, the kind of coconut oil that doesn't turn into a solid when it's held at room temperature.

This wasn't so the rabbits wouldn't start baking pies and icing cupcakes. It was so the scientists could measure liquid coconut oil into the rabbit chow and make sure the rabbits actually swallowed all the oily stuff with their food. Virgin coconut oil would get caught in bunny whiskers and ruin the results.

The bad coconut oil used in the "scientific" study of cholesterol was loaded with artificially created trans- fats. Virgin coconut oil does not contain trans- fats.

Virgin coconut oil is a saturated fat, but it turns out that all saturated fats are not created equal. Medium chain triglycerides, it turns out, lower the bad LDL cholesterol and raise the good HDL cholesterol. That's due to a particular saturated fat called lauric acid, which is abundant in natural, virgin coconut oil, but actually removed from the highly processed coconut oil.

Chemically processed coconut oil puts trans- fats in and takes lauric acid out. If you are a rabbit, it will kill you. If you are a human, it's not exactly good for you.

But virgin coconut oil is almost as beneficial as fish oil. And it's a lot tastier. You can't use fish oil to make a pie crust or to put icing on a cupcake. (Well, you could, but it would taste fishy.) And there are evidence-based claims that virgin coconut oil in your diet can clear up acne and fight viral infections, even HIV.

How much coconut oil is enough, and how much is too much? About 20 grams (1-1/2 tablespoons) is OK, assuming you are not using other oils for health, too. You can use that 20 grams in cooking and still take up to 5 grams (5,000 mg) of fish oil, of course, and not be taking in too much fat in your diet. In fact, it's a great strategy to make your diet as close to no-fat as possible except for healthy oils such as the coconut oil you use in cooking and fish oil or (if you are a vegan or a vegetarian) microalgae oil you take as a supplement.

Virgin coconut oil, by the way, really is good on popcorn. It brings out a sweet flavor in the salty popcorn. It's good for stir fries, and it brings out sweet flavors—without added sugar—in vegetables we don't usually think of as sweet, such as sweet potatoes, yams, carrots, onions, white potatoes, and even Brussels sprouts. It brings out the richness of ginger, garlic, and coriander (coriander seed if you are in most of the world outside the USA, and coriander leaf if you are an American). And it's a great oil for making desserts that pack an antioxidant punch.

So don't forget the coconut oil! Buy one jar for now and one to keep on hand.

[hoptwoit]

Where did the 97% number come from?

The 97% number is a myth. Of the 11,944 abstracts since of them 7930 held no opinion at all he excluded them from the study. The fact is that the excluded papers made up 66% of the information they were looking at. To use the 97% number ALLLLL the time is just nauseating. The fact that people still throw this number around is amazing oh and its a lie!!!!




Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

* All the other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
It is nothing more than cleaver math.

Nice find there Hoptowit; As was stated earlier the "97%" is a case of "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

I should also be clear, the way this 97 % number was arrived at is so disingenuous that I would be included in the 97% number because of my views. I believe the climate is changing and has warmed since 1940. I believe man is causing some of this warming. I do not believe that man is the primary driver behind the changes in temperature nor do I believe that Co2 is the primary cause. But those last two items aren't in the study, so I am taken out of context and thrown into the 97%

The problem with arguing against AGW is that they will liken you to a guy who throws his used oil in the river and dug the out house right next to the water well. The attacks are vicious and have little to do with effecting actual change, or actual science. The recent summit in Paris has no binding targets for emissions and all participation is voluntary. The target to hold the global temperature to 1.5 degrees rise is B.S. The movement is political and the scientists who continue to prop it up are the new high priests of a new religion. Look at the reverence the word scientist is said with. "These are scientist!! who are you to disagree with Science!!"
The money continues to flow to green studies green energy and anything that says green in it. Just keep that in mind when you talk about who has an agenda.

Here is a link to a video and it would seem this group is doing real science. I would disagree with the title but I didn't post it. Notice the part at 2:56 where he said the IPCC has poor understanding of clouds and their effect. He says we are doing the measurements. This is real science. It will be interesting to see what comes of it but I think it proves that the science is far from settled and the debate is just getting started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... FImb5gy7SE

[HiLo]

Hoptwoit: please, please stop quoting that Popular Technology website (at least that's where I think you got it from--you didn't cite any sources). If you look at the home page, it is full of hard-line rhetoric, grounded in little substantial proof. It seems to make most of its points by taking snippets of quotes out of context.

You will notice that the only sources I site are credible ones. If you're wondering, a credible source is one from a reputable news outlet which quotes scientific sources, a well-regarded website (eg: NASA) or a scientific paper which has stood the test of peer review.

[hoptwoit]

Hoptwoit: please, please stop quoting that Popular Technology website (at least that's where I think you got it from--you didn't cite any sources). If you look at the home page, it is full of hard-line rhetoric, grounded in little substantial proof. It seems to make most of its points by taking snippets of quotes out of context.

If you cant understand what is being said then I don't think it would matter where it comes from. I have listened to all kinds of different sources on this you should try to read and think critically about what is being put before you. Its ok to be sceptical about the source but please try to understand the content of what is being said. 97% is nothing more than a math trick and it doesn't matter who says it!

On that note Here is a link to a video and it would seem this group is doing real science. For the record I would disagree with the title, but I didn't post it. Notice the part at 2:56 where he said the IPCC has poor understanding of clouds and their effect. He says we are doing the measurements. This is real science. It will be interesting to see what comes of it but I think it proves that the science is far from settled and the debate is just getting started. This is far from peer reviewed but I think they have more than enough people on that team with fancy letter behind their name to interest you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... FImb5gy7SE

[HiLo]

That video was very good: it cited a well-known particle physicist. It does not, however, say that climate change is manmade, that it is dangerous, or that the IPCC is wrong. In fact, Kirkby isn't seeking to prove or disprove anything: he's seeking to find out how cosmic rays affect cloud formation, without any pre-drawn conclusions. That's good science.

If you look (I even started the looking for you. This is the abstract of a peer-reviewed paper published by well-known scientist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes. She finds that "IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements." It's a quick read http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full )

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible for a scientist to be wrong, but with strong evidence in favor and scant evidence against, is it not reasonable to do something to curb our emissions?

[photofly]

So don't forget the coconut oil! Buy one jar for now and one to keep on hand.

I'll say one thing for coconut oil - soap made with coconut oil gives a fantastic lather. For the fats, try 50% hydrogenated palm fat, 25% coconut oil and 25% olive oil. Awesome.

[Rockie]

"Science" says that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause by upsetting the natural balance of the earth in a very short period of time. This is based on countless hours of research in countless areas of the planet by countless actual - as in real - scientists the world over.

The people who dispute this are not scientists, and have nothing to back up their claims aside from brainless ideology or other more base reasons like personal interest. Thankfully politicians (the only people who can really make a difference) are learning who to listen to.

[Shady McSly]

So don't forget the coconut oil! Buy one jar for now and one to keep on hand.

I'll say one thing for coconut oil - soap made with coconut oil gives a fantastic lather. For the fats, try 50% hydrogenated palm fat, 25% coconut oil and 25% olive oil. Awesome.

I agree. That stuff is great..

[hoptwoit]

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible for a scientist to be wrong, [/b]

Yes they are the statement has been made several times "The debate is over" and "The science is settled" People that are skeptics are called deniers and flat earthers. Anyone who disagrees with the man made global warming people are literally shouted down. If all the man made global warming people came at this issue with the same mindset as those scientists studying cosmic radiation in the video I posted then I think there could be a reasonable discussion. But... No one has addressed the bogus 97% figure and the way it was arrived at. Nor the trans fat fiasco example earlier that took us 20 years off course.


Here is a little tidbit I found I will even give you the link to it at the top.

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks , in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances.


•Clouds cool Earth's surface by reflecting incoming sunlight.
•Clouds warm Earth's surface by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and re-radiating it back down toward the surface.
•Clouds warm or cool Earth's atmosphere by absorbing heat emitted from the surface and radiating it to space.
•Clouds warm and dry Earth's atmosphere and supply water to the surface by forming precipitation.
•Clouds are themselves created by the motions of the atmosphere that are caused by the warming or cooling of radiation and precipitation.


If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect , the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback). Moreover, it is not known whether these cloud changes would involve increased or decreased precipitation and water supplies in particular regions. Improving our understanding of the role of clouds in climate is crucial to understanding the effects of global warming.

Atmospheric scientists have learned a great deal in the past many decades about how clouds form and move in Earth's atmospheric circulation. Investigators now realize that traditional computer models of global climate have taken a rather simple view of clouds and their effects , partly because detailed global descriptions of clouds have been lacking, and partly because in the past the focus has been on short-term regional weather prediction rather than on long-term global climate prediction. To address today's concerns, we need to accumulate and analyze more and better data to improve our understanding of cloud processes and to increase the accuracy of our weather and climate models.


Cloud Climatology: Computer Climate Models

Because there are so many possibilities for change, climatologists must know how clouds over the entire Earth will respond. Determining that response calls for computer models of the global climate that can explore changing conditions. Climate models are sets of mathematical equations that describe the properties of Earth's atmosphere at discrete places and times, along with the ways such properties can change. The challenge for climate models is to account for the most important physical processes, including cloud microphysics and cloud dynamics, and their complex interactions accurately enough to carry climatic predictions tens of years into the future. When contemporary models are given information about Earth's present condition — the size, shape and topography of the continents; the composition of the atmosphere; the amount of sunlight striking the globe — they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%. Such models can also accurately forecast the temperatures and winds of the weather many days ahead when given information about current conditions.

Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today's models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy, a very challenging task. To develop a much better understanding of clouds, radiation and precipitation, as well as many other climate processes, we need much better observations.

Thankfully politicians (the only people who can really make a difference) are learning who to listen to.

Typical left view, its only a democracy until we take power. Then its a dictatorship.

[Rockie]

Typical left view, its only a democracy until we take power. Then its a dictatorship.

Huh?

[Rockie]

HiLo wrote:Nobody is arguing that it's impossible for a scientist to be wrong, [/b]Yes they are the statement has been made several times "The debate is over" and "The science is settled"

Well yes, because it's not "a" scientist saying it, it is the collective opinion of "all" the scientists. Come on Hoppy, on what basis do you claim the collective scientific community of the planet is wrong? And please, don't say it's not the collective finding of the collective worldwide scientific community because you just make yourself look stupid by saying so. You have to have some personally discovered and verifiable proof to make the rest of humanity not believe the scientists.

[crazyaviator]

Not soo long ago, The learned community, including scientists thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. We have come a long way. but still are in our infancy concerning many things!!!

[Rockie]

Not soo long ago, The learned community, including scientists thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

No, the church did and the real scientists were persecuted and even killed for defying their baseless beliefs. Do you still regard evolution as a "theory"? That's still denied by the same type of religious zealot today that claimed the earth was flat centuries ago.

[pelmet]

GUYS....

Rockie and HiLo have been lying throughout this thread.

Here are the quotes which is THE main portion of their argument that they repeat over and over.....

Are you saying that the 97% of scientists think that a man-made increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is causing significant and devastating climate change are wrong?
Scientists agree that Earth will easily survive any climate change we throw at it, just that we won't.

I'm still waiting for the reason you guys think you're smarter than 97% of the world's scientific community.

No there isn't, 97% of the planet's scientific community is in agreement. 3% are the crackpots and most mathematicians would agree that 97 is a much larger number than 3.

And I'm still waiting for compelling proof that you're right and 97% of the world's scientific community is wrong.

This is not 97% of scientists funded by the Feds, but 97% of scientists worldwide.

Do you know how many scientists there are worldwide. Millions.

Who out there is stupid enough to think that all the scientist out there in the world have put forth an opinion on this subject. It appears that Rockie and HiLow are. Unless of course they are blatantly lying like so many fearmongers. There is no way that 97% of scientists have stated what these two AvCanada posters are saying. But please Rockie and HiLow, show us which study interviewed every scientist in the world and found 97% of them with opinions similar to yours.


Of the millions of scientists in the world, here are just a few of the types of scientists
An agronomist specializes in soil and crops.
An astronomer studies stars, planets and galaxies.
A botanist specializes in plants.
A cytologist specializes in the study of cells.
An epidemiologist studies the spread of diseases.
An ethologist studies animal behavior.
A geneticist studies how traits are inherited.
A geologist specializes in the history of Earth.
A geographer studies Earth's surface.
A marine biologist studies ocean plants and animals.
A meteorologist studies weather and climate.
A microbiologist studies microscopic plants and animals.
A paleontologist specializes in fossils.
A physicist studies matter, energy, and how they are related.
A seismologist studies earthquakes.

In fact, I would be inclined to believe that 99% of the worlds scientists have not done any detailed study on climate change yet Rockie and HiLow are telling us that virtually all these scientists in these various various fields are telling us that humans are causing global warming. Well, first off, it is not true and second, even if it is true, I don't care what a vulcanologist, botanist, metallurgist or fruit fly expert have to say on the subject.

But HiLow still says ...

This is not 97% of scientists funded by the Feds, but 97% of scientists worldwide.

and while Rockie stated that 97% of the worlds scientific community has stated that humans are causing global warming, a community that includes hundred of various subjects, he proves total hypocrisy by stating...

I don't expect scientists on my airplane to question my considered opinion on operational matters for which they have no expertise,

So a scientist who knows little to nothing about operational matter of his aircraft has no business questioning Rockie's opinion but all these scientists who have spent their time studying and concentrating on genetics, fossils, earthquakes, etc are credible sources for information on climate change.

Either we are being lied to or there are some not very bright posters here who actually read and believe this 97% thing without even questioning whether it could even be close to being accurate. But some people just believe what supposed authority says. I suspect that they don't want you to question why and just believe.

This is dangerous in general. Relating back to aviation, it amazes me how much inaccurate and wrong information is out there. We need to be able to question and confirm instead of just mindlessly believing what is presented to us as pilots.

[pelmet]

.

[Rockie]

Do you know how many scientists there are worldwide. Millions. Who out there is stupid enough to think that all the scientist out there in the world have put forth an opinion on this subject. It appears that Rockie and HiLow are. Unless of course they are blatantly lying like so many fearmongers. There is no way that 97% of scientists have stated what these two AvCanada posters are saying. But please Rockie and HiLow, show us which study interviewed every scientist in the world and found 97% of them with opinions similar to yours.Of the millions of scientists in the world, here are just a few of the types of scientists An agronomist specializes in soil and crops.An astronomer studies stars, planets and galaxies.A botanist specializes in plants.A cytologist specializes in the study of cells.An epidemiologist studies the spread of diseases.An ethologist studies animal behavior.A geneticist studies how traits are inherited.A geologist specializes in the history of Earth.A geographer studies Earth's surface.A marine biologist studies ocean plants and animals.A meteorologist studies weather and climate.A microbiologist studies microscopic plants and animals.A paleontologist specializes in fossils.A physicist studies matter, energy, and how they are related.A seismologist studies earthquakes.

Nobody has ever said a seismologist knows about climate change, or a geologist, or an astronomer. Please...I'm laughing even as I write this. It reminds me of this piece of hilarity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThZsjQatWDs

Here's the deal pelmet, climatologists and other related scientists are not in doubt anymore. You, and people like you are, have no knowledge to base your opinion on. You just refuse to accept what science is telling you. Why? Beats the crap out of me.

I thought humans had gotten smarter since the crusades....

[pelmet]

Do you know how many scientists there are worldwide. Millions. Who out there is stupid enough to think that all the scientist out there in the world have put forth an opinion on this subject. It appears that Rockie and HiLow are. Unless of course they are blatantly lying like so many fearmongers. There is no way that 97% of scientists have stated what these two AvCanada posters are saying. But please Rockie and HiLow, show us which study interviewed every scientist in the world and found 97% of them with opinions similar to yours.Of the millions of scientists in the world, here are just a few of the types of scientists An agronomist specializes in soil and crops.An astronomer studies stars, planets and galaxies.A botanist specializes in plants.A cytologist specializes in the study of cells.An epidemiologist studies the spread of diseases.An ethologist studies animal behavior.A geneticist studies how traits are inherited.A geologist specializes in the history of Earth.A geographer studies Earth's surface.A marine biologist studies ocean plants and animals.A meteorologist studies weather and climate.A microbiologist studies microscopic plants and animals.A paleontologist specializes in fossils.A physicist studies matter, energy, and how they are related.A seismologist studies earthquakes.

Nobody has ever said a seismologist knows about climate change, or a geologist, or an astronomer. Please...I'm laughing even as I write this. It reminds me of this piece of hilarity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThZsjQatWDs

Here's the deal pelmet, climatologists and other related scientists are not in doubt anymore. You, and people like you are, have no knowledge to base your opinion on. You just refuse to accept what science is telling you. Why? Beats the crap out of me.

I thought humans had gotten smarter since the crusades....

Rockie....you have said over and over things like

Are you saying that the 97% of scientists think that a man-made increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is causing significant and devastating climate change are wrong?
Scientists agree that Earth will easily survive any climate change we throw at it, just that we won't.

I'm still waiting for the reason you guys think you're smarter than 97% of the world's scientific community.

97% of the planet's scientific community is in agreement. 3% are the crackpots and most mathematicians would agree that 97 is a much larger number than 3.

You can claim to be laughing as much as you want. But your statements are outright lies.

Of course, now that I have exposed the lies, all of a sudden Rockie has now changed his tune and it is not the millions of scientists but now changed to what is perhaps a few hundred or thousand. Well, being the type who questions this type of obvious incorrect information, I quickly googled 97% climate change and found some interesting info shown in the following post.

[pelmet]

To those actually willing to believe this 97% lie, let's see where it came from. Turns out that the Wall Street Journal investigated it as seen below...

"The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2813553136

So once again guys...when HiLow and Rockie start their 97% stuff, realize that it is a lie. At least I hope it is a lie as I wouldn't want the guy up front actually believing stuff without thinking it through.

[Rockie]

Well, an astronomer isn't going to deny that human induced climate change is occurring because they have no direct knowledge of it, they'll just look at the peer reviewed history of climate science and accept that those guys know what they're talking about - unlike you. Much like a climatologist isn't about to tell an astronomer he's full of shit when it comes to black holes. Why do you suppose that is Pelmet? Could it be because a scientist (which you're not) recognizes when they are outside their area of expertise?