Well, Jeff, you've one-upped me by making your snark personal.
IPCC Climate Change Report........
by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current
-
-
JeffT
Just a personal observation. Try saying something substantive sometime.
-
slimboyfat
Well the sea temperature sure looks like rising on that graph. What does Judith Curry say about that?
I dont know besty, initially I was convinced by all the global warming stuff, when Al Gore's film came out and all that. I thought it was only right wing nuts or stupid contrarians who doubted the science. But since then it emerged about the falsified evidence on CO2 (how it increased after not before temperature rises) and then more recently the trends didn't confirm the IPCC predictions. There are a lot of academics making careers from the theory, and the likelihood of bias is not to be discounted. Since I don't know the science I can only follow the discourse, and it looks and feels to me like a theory in retreat. The fact is that the public is losing faith in the global warming narrative. Either that means they are getting a genuine sense of a theory in retreat, or scientists are proving abysmally poor at explaining their findings in a clear and persuasive manner.
For the prevailing global change narrative to be true all the following must be right:
1. Humans are changing the climate.
2. The extent of the change is dramatic enough to threaten dangerous conditions for significant numbers of people.
3. We can do something to stop the worst climate change at this stage.
There is a lot of scope for error in any one of those three areas.
-
Glander
slimboy - well put.
-
Calebs Airplane
These palm trees would beg to differ...
-
Glander
Is that where this discussion is going? Anecdotal pics of snow on palms. Calebs - excellent!
Kind of a foretaste of the where this climate change thing is leading. COL (chuckle out loud).
Besty, et al are playing defense for a reason.
-
besty
Well the sea temperature sure looks like rising on that graph. What does Judith Curry say about that?
That's your comment on it?
falsified evidence on CO2 (how it increased after not before temperature rises)
CO2 both leads and lags temperature. A small increase in CO2 caused by orbital cycles does trigger a small increase in temperature. That temperature rise then releases more CO2 which increases the temperature still further. This is well understood. The missing piece in the current scenario can only be explained by human activity.
There is no falsified evidence. Otherwise publish a paper and make yourself rich and famous. Your falsified evidence exists only on the blogosphere.
Since I don't know the science I can only follow the discourse, and it looks and feels to me like a theory in retreat.
Your position on matters of science is decided for you by the tides of public opinion? I don't understand why you would reject what 97% of climate scientists say about climate science, whilst simultaneously accepting what 50% of Joe Public's think about climate science. Doesn't make sense.
-
-
slimboyfat
How do you arrive at the 97% figure? Does it refer to academic articles on the subject, because what gets published in academic journals is notoriously impacted by bias and interest groups. Have you read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre? He explains this phenomenon in relation to medicine. How a dozen studies can be performed on a drug, only one showing that it works, and it's the only one that gets published. A similar thing could be going on in climate science. Plus scientists who believe in climate change are naturally drawn to the field, and publish their work. Others who find the evidence less compelling may pursue other topics and hence never publish on the subject of climate change. So there may be selection bias both at the level of what gets published and who enters the field in the first place. It is my strong suspicion that the coming decades will confound the climate change narrative, that is if humanity does not destroy itself with nuclear weapons before then.
-
tootired2care
How do you arrive at the 97% figure?
Unless Betsy has a new source, she is probably referring to the 2009 Doron/Zimmerman survey that came up with the 97% figure. The details of how that survey was conducted are quite fascinating.
According to Ambler's [peer] review of the Doron/Zimmerman data, 10,257 scientists were contacted, 3,146 responded. That's less than 31%. Of that group "only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as "specialists."
Ambler further dissects the consensus: "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
http://voices.yahoo.com/only-76-scientists-97-agree-cagw-11314412.html?cat=3
