Global Warming is over.

[Fusion]

I'm not sure actually. I'm just parroting what O said.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere.

And we continued to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that’s something that the American people would support.

Made me giggle.

[nando]

pls post a link to the "reputable" survey

why? you'll just ignore it anyway.

[tjts1]

Im not going to read this...

Ok, me neither.

[gwb72tii]

why? you'll just ignore it anyway.

not true
so far the 97% myth is part of the backbone of the recent frontline docudrama, and it specifically referred to the one i mentioned before, with the 75 out of 77 saying man's contribution was significant to GW.

open end question
how many climate scientists and climate related scientists are there anyway?

[cale]

not true
so far the 97% myth is part of the backbone of the recent frontline docudrama

Stop calling it a myth or use any other similar words in your feeble attempts to downplay it. You've been shown it's real and the criteria for being a part of that particular selection pool. You can disagree with it, you don't get to cover your eyes and pretend it's not real.

[herbivor]

why? you'll just ignore it anyway.

not true
so far the 97% myth is part of the backbone of the recent frontline docudrama, and it specifically referred to the one i mentioned before, with the 75 out of 77 saying man's contribution was significant to GW.

open end question
how many climate scientists and climate related scientists are there anyway?

The answer to your question was in the links I provided, which you obviously ignored as nando said you would. How about reading those and letting us know the answer to your own question.

Anyone else notice that the other RNWJs no longer contribute to this thread? Only George and fusion left. Your denial to all the evidence presented on this thread is truly impressive.

[Fusion]

And what is the general LWNJ opinion on why the president basically doesn't care about this 'issue' and is obviously even uneducated about how CO2 works? What is 'making a dent in climate change'? If his car standards are 'taking a lot of carbon out of the atmo.', problem solved, no?

[gwb72tii]

so out of nearly 10,000 invitations to respond to the following questions
1. When compared with pre-1800s lev- els, do you think that mean global tem- peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a sig- nificant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

the survey then pared the "qualified" respondents to 79 on question 1 and 77 to question 2 to arrive at the 97% consensus?

pardon me, but

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??

this is what you, nando, rwh, cale and brave hang their hat on to try and argue there is a consensus?
i was born at night, but not last night.
this survey is pathetic.
and honestly, i just googled the "97% consensus" about 2 weeks ago and came up with the same survey. i thought maybe you guys had some survey that was actually meaningful. this one is not
and if this survey had asked the opposite, and got the same results, you all would be laughing your asses off at me bringing the survey up.

#1 you don't have to understand statistics to know the survey's results are meaningless
#2 neither question asked if anthropogenic CO2 drives GW, or if man's significant contribution was in some other form (deforestation maybe?).

and you wonder why some are skeptical.

here's a forbes critique on the survey

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

you cannot make this up

[cale]

Forbes, pioneers in climate study and research.

As to your condemnation of the survey I linked to. I linked to it AFTER you had attempted to use an article which had it as part of it's references in your argument, I did so to make you realize how much of a jackass you are that your own material doesn't agree with you...but now it's not sufficient enough?

Speaking of things you cannot make up, the lengths in which you're willing to bend the argument and your position on it to try to come out on top.

Post with link to said article, you're too funny.

go back and read my posts nando. i have agreed in the past, more than once, that the earth's climate has changed (to use the new buzzwords from your side). the arguments i have been making center on the facts presented from numerous places that:
1..warming indeed stopped 16 years ago per Hadcrut 4 data, ad even the likes of Phil Jones don't know why

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GXaUqpw

2. there is no such thing as a broad based 97% consensus among climate scientists that man is the driver of climate change, yet your side hammers skeptics with this falsehood constantly in order to "win" arguments
http://blog.heartland.org/2011/07/yo...limate-change/ <<<<<<<<<<<------------
3. in the absence of any consensus, to "remedy" a "problem" we really know very little about is costly, perhaps unnecessary, kills world GDP etc. yet you and others feel compelled to act in the absence of consensus or valid data that proves anything can be done at all to stop climate change.

yet "something" has to be done or the earth will come to an end

oh really

[gwb72tii]

go back and read my posts cale before telling me i'm wrong
i'm refuting the "consensus" argument others and you refer to
the link i posted supports that there is no 97% anything, and in fact that survey, shoeing a majority supporting AGW while at the same time shooting down the consensus argument is full of errors as well.
there has been no comprehensive survey about any consensus

[rwh11385]

Forbes, pioneers in climate study and research.

As to your condemnation of the survey I linked to. I linked to it AFTER you had attempted to use an article which had it as part of it's references in your argument, I did so to make you realize how much of a jackass you are that your own material doesn't agree with you...but now it's not sufficient enough?

Speaking of things you cannot make up, the lengths in which you're willing to bend the argument and your position on it to try to come out on top.

Post with link to said article, you're too funny.

Indeed. Especially when the contributor is an architecture professor and an author of a book called "Climate of Corruption".

Or when he quotes Heartland Institute and says:

And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.

And then he says:

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.

So he is attacking the subset statistic of what most of the people he knows would also agree with?

And not the most reputable source, but interesting information. Should be easily confirmed later.

Bell has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate.

He is best known as the author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. In an Accuracy in Media interview, Bell described how he started on his book shortly after meeting Fred Singer. His book talks about how "politics is responsible for the global warming hoax."

Key Deeds

May 21 - 23, 2012

Larry Bell was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.

Here's an analysis of Bell's previous Forbes contribution:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/forbes-rich-list-of-nonsense/

[rwh11385]

so out of nearly 10,000 invitations to respond to the following questions
1. When compared with pre-1800s lev- els, do you think that mean global tem- peratures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a sig- nificant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

the survey then pared the "qualified" respondents to 79 on question 1 and 77 to question 2 to arrive at the 97% consensus?

pardon me, but

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME??

this is what you, nando, rwh, cale and brave hang their hat on to try and argue there is a consensus?
i was born at night, but not last night.
this survey is pathetic.
and honestly, i just googled the "97% consensus" about 2 weeks ago and came up with the same survey. i thought maybe you guys had some survey that was actually meaningful. this one is not
and if this survey had asked the opposite, and got the same results, you all would be laughing your asses off at me bringing the survey up.

#1 you don't have to understand statistics to know the survey's results are meaningless
#2 neither question asked if anthropogenic CO2 drives GW, or if man's significant contribution was in some other form (deforestation maybe?).

and you wonder why some are skeptical.

here's a forbes critique on the survey

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

you cannot make this up

At least you admit that you don't understand statistics.


Is the 82% of 3000 valid to you then?

[rwh11385]

You know, you could just remove the carbon from the atmosphere, if it bothers you so much.

I'm pretty sure I posted about that a while ago.

I'm not sure actually. I'm just parroting what O said.

Made me giggle.

He was trying to say that higher efficiency would prevent as much CO2 entering the atmosphere, but he's not a scientist so oh well.



Here's scientists testing geo-engineering:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon

Don't worry Fusion, Bill Gates is backing the research:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

[CorvallisBMW]

Oh hey, look at that...

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

[herbivor]

there has been no comprehensive survey about any consensus

You didn't read the NAS link I posted did you, which is a comprehensive survey? That survey included 1372 researchers. You are correct that there is not a 97% consensus amongst all researchers, it was closer to 67%. But many of those researchers publish very little or do very little research. Amongst those that are actively publishing and researching the most, there is a 97% consensus. That is a separate survey than the one you keep referring to.

The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97%