Millions of US homes could be destroyed with rising sea levels

[Leafsdude7]

This analogy is brilliant.

Wish I could take credit for it, but I stole it from someone else. Don't remember exactly who or where, though.

It is pretty apt.

 

[Kestrel]

Wish I could take credit for it, but I stole it from someone else. Don't remember exactly who or where, though.

It is pretty apt.

Wow, just came back to this thread. I hope Leopold doesn't find his way to the other forum on HF that I frequent... we don't need him joining the likes of Shoop, Clunk, and KI.

 

[BNHL]

So you think 98% of climate scientists have been bought out just to vouch against emissions?

It's actually 97% of scientists that peer reviewed some studies agreeing that humans activities probably account for more than 50% of climate change. The number drops to 46% if only meteorologists are included. Then there is the study released in Feb stating that the Antarctic is now cooling and the warming period was an extreme example. Glacier recession is slowing-Feb- Science of the Total Environment.

 

[BNHL]

Way too much $$$'s in play to believe any "research". You didn't address my point that science has been perverted by money and politics.

Michael E. Mann is an atmospheric science professor at Penn State University, a climate catastrophe advocate, and a militant campaigner against scientists who disagree with him. He is most famous as the creator of the discredited and controversial “hockey stick graph,†which has been discredited by statisticians for distorting past climate history and offering outlandish predictions of future carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

And then there is this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#3350f39032dc

Obama's Undersecretary of Energy recently admitted his administration fudged numbers to the point of just being wrong.

 

[Leafsdude7]

It's actually 97% of scientists that peer reviewed some studies agreeing that humans activities probably account for more than 50% of climate change. The number drops to 46% if only meteorologists are included.

Wait a minute...

What?

Climatology is the field of study on climate, not meteorology. You're citing the wrong authoritative position.

What's your citation for the numbers, anyway?

Then there is the study released in Feb stating that the Antarctic is now cooling and the warming period was an extreme example. Glacier recession is slowing-Feb- Science of the Total Environment.

Can you provide a better citation for this? I can't find any paper or media release with the above.

Obama's Undersecretary of Energy recently admitted his administration fudged numbers to the point of just being wrong.

[Citation Needed]

 

[BNHL]

Wait a minute...

What?

Climatology is the field of study on climate, not meteorology. You're citing the wrong authoritative position.

What's your citation for the numbers, anyway?



Can you provide a better citation for this? I can't find any paper or media release with the above.



[Citation Needed]

The narrative of 97% does not specify which field of science,they group them all together. Only about 160 of the 928 that they are referring to are climate scientists.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.


"A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152

 

[Leafsdude7]

The narrative of 97% does not specify which field of science,they group them all together. Only about 160 of the 928 that they are referring to are climate scientists.

I'll make the request again: what's your citation for these numbers?

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

Worth pointing out that Koonin is a climate denier who has publicly published his opinions using faulty understanding of the data, so his idea of "right" data/analysis would likely be opposed to most accepted peer-reviewed science. He also believes the human impact on climate is still being seriously debated, when it absolutely is not.

Moreso, his comments are based on statements to the media. I rely on peer-reviewed studies to determine whether climate change is real, and regardless of this guy's statements being true or not, that evidence still unequivocally says the science is correct.

"A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152

ETA: This study is about the Antarctic Peninsula, not Antarctic as a whole.

This is the Antarctic Peninsula:

The rest of Antarctica is still warming, and the Antarctic glacier is still receding. Regardless, the Antarctic ≠ "global", so even if the entire continent was cooling, it would be unlikely to have any impact of modern climate change.

 

[BNHL]

I'll make the request again: what's your citation for these numbers?



Worth pointing out that Koonin is a climate denier who has publicly published his opinions using faulty understanding of the data, so his idea of "right" data/analysis would likely be opposed to most accepted peer-reviewed science. He also believes the human impact on climate is still being seriously debated, when it absolutely is not.

Moreso, his comments are based on statements to the media. I rely on peer-reviewed studies to determine whether climate change is real, and regardless of this guy's statements being true or not, that evidence still unequivocally says the science is correct.



ETA: This study is about the Antarctic Peninsula, not Antarctic as a whole.

This is the Antarctic Peninsula:

The rest of Antarctica is still warming, and the Antarctic glacier is still receding. Regardless, the Antarctic ≠ "global", so even if the entire continent was cooling, it would be unlikely to have any impact of modern climate change.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

You can lead a horse to water.

 

[Leafsdude7]

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

You can lead a horse to water.

Okay, so your numbers are coming from polls of individuals with credentials (some relevant and some not) within non-peer-reviewed literature? Awesome. This would be an argument from authority. It's not scientific. Absolutely.

However, the 97% also exists from a peer-reviewed meta-study by Cook et al that looked at the scientific literature, not individual opinion, and graded their support for human-caused climate change. This is scientific consensus and is scientific, as it quantifies both repeatability and concordance of scientific hypotheses and theories through experimentation and observation. 97% is up there with similar consensus in fields like evolution, germ theory and relativity.

Outside of conspiracy theories, this is indisputable.

ETA: Looking at the article you cited again, it says the following:

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!

Of course, if you look at the actual paper that I linked, you'd know that the 97% was not from dividing 33% by 34%, it was via meticulous study showing that 97% of papers that stated (implied or explicitly) a position on climate change (still well in the thousands) stated a position for climate change. Nowhere in the paper does it state that 33% of papers endorsed AGW (the only appearance of "33%" in the paper is in reference to the number of duo-analysis disagreements with regards to positions of papers). It should be noted that the 66% of papers that didn't state a position weren't explicitly stated as to why they didn't state a position. For all we know, it was because they weren't about contemporary climate change, as the search parameters for the papers didn't limit against paleoclimate studies (searching only for "global climate change" and "global warming").

 

[BNHL]

Okay, so your numbers are coming from polls of individuals with credentials (some relevant and some not) within non-peer-reviewed literature? Awesome. This would be an argument from authority. It's not scientific. Absolutely.

However, the 97% also exists from a peer-reviewed meta-study by Cook et al that looked at the scientific literature, not individual opinion, and graded their support for human-caused climate change. This is scientific consensus and is scientific, as it quantifies both repeatability and concordance of scientific hypotheses and theories through experimentation and observation. 97% is up there with similar consensus in fields like evolution, germ theory and relativity.

Outside of conspiracy theories, this is indisputable.

If you are not a scientist,then you are choosing to agree with some scientists and disagree with other scientists who I am sure have read all the same literature. I'm not going to be able to show you the light,because then that would mean you've been suckered and I'm sure there are egos involved all over the place. Don't stop believing.

 

[Leafsdude7]

If you are not a scientist,then you are choosing to agree with some scientists and disagree with other scientists who I am sure have read all the same literature. I'm not going to be able to show you the light,because then that would mean you've been suckered and I'm sure there are egos involved all over the place. Don't stop believing.

Um...Okay.

I don't believe anymore.

In reality, I'm not agreeing with scientists. I don't give a **** what scientists say. I care what the scientific literature says. That's what matters. So, no, as long as you hold on to scientists as your point of contention, as opposed to the science, then you're not going to "show me the light".

 

[BNHL]

Um...Okay.

I don't believe anymore.

In reality, I'm not agreeing with scientists. I don't give a **** what scientists say. I care what the scientific literature says. That's what matters. So, no, as long as you hold on to scientists as your point of contention, as opposed to the science, then you're not going to "show me the light".

Choose your literature carefully or you're just another sucker. Way too much evidence that they've been fudging numbers and spinning quite a profitable yarn. Don't Stop Believin!

 

[Leafsdude7]

Choose your literature carefully or you're just another sucker. Way too much evidence that they've been fudging numbers and spinning quite a profitable yarn. Don't Stop Believin!

As I said, the only way to argue against climate change is via conspiracy theories...

If the best evidence you have is from someone who has already stated a position opposed to climate change and a willingness to lie about facts to support that position, then don't mind me if I don't listen.

 

[BNHL]

As I said, the only way to argue against climate change is via conspiracy theories...

If the best evidence you have is from someone who has already stated a position opposed to climate change and a willingness to lie about facts to support that position, then don't mind me if I don't listen.

Hook,line and sinker.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Hook,line and sinker.

You've convinced me again!

 

[BNHL]

From climategate https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#176247927ba6 to Nasagate http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 and many other revelations,this house of cards is crumbling.

 

[Leafsdude7]

As we suggested to William Happer, if climate contrarians want their opinions to be taken seriously, they should engage in real science within the peer-review system that works for every scientific field. That is how science advances - not through letters filled with empty rhetoric, regardless of how many inexpert retirees sign them.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html

NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

...

If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679

 

[chicagoskycam]

Can't these climate deniers see the benefits of alternative energy beyond just climate change.

 

[BNHL]

Can't these climate deniers see the benefits of alternative energy beyond just climate change.

I can,but they were taxing the bejeesus out of companies and shutting down others needlessly. Once they wash the political stink off all this,we'll see more clearly.

 

[kurt]

If you are not a scientist,then you are choosing to agree with some scientists and disagree with other scientists who I am sure have read all the same literature. I'm not going to be able to show you the light,because then that would mean you've been suckered and I'm sure there are egos involved all over the place. Don't stop believing.

lol irl

 

[kurt]

do any of you "seers of the light" realize and appreciate that if one could generate peer-reviewed and irrefutable scientific literature showing that climate change is NOT a concern, they would earn WAY WAY more funding?

Suggesting that people are fudging data to try to paint a negative picture around the state of the environment in order to earn money is one of the most backwards nonsense ideas I've ever heard of. If they're in it for the money they would be doing the opposite, my dogs.

 

[Leafsdude7]

do any of you "seers of the light" realize and appreciate that if one could generate peer-reviewed and irrefutable scientific literature showing that climate change is NOT a concern, they would earn WAY WAY more funding?

Suggesting that people are fudging data to try to paint a negative picture around the state of the environment in order to earn money is one of the most backwards nonsense ideas I've ever heard of. If they're in it for the money they would be doing the opposite, my dogs.

Moreso, the idea that thousands upon thousands of individuals worldwide would all allow for "fudging" without blowing the whistle is absurd. Considering the only supposed whistle-blowers out there are people outside of the discipline should result in any reasonable person accepting the higher likelihood that those people don't know what they're talking about (literally) rather than having some inside info that they can only reveal through the underground media.

Regardless, this is all politics and not science, so I don't really want to go down this path much further.

 

[BNHL]

do any of you "seers of the light" realize and appreciate that if one could generate peer-reviewed and irrefutable scientific literature showing that climate change is NOT a concern, they would earn WAY WAY more funding?

Suggesting that people are fudging data to try to paint a negative picture around the state of the environment in order to earn money is one of the most backwards nonsense ideas I've ever heard of. If they're in it for the money they would be doing the opposite, my dogs.

What's the margin of error on the temperature recordings?

 

[kurt]

What's the margin of error on the temperature recordings?

lol what

 

[Leafsdude7]

What's the margin of error on the temperature recordings?

Which one?