• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

Jack Hays said:
1. All of the scary global warming scenarios are based on computer models.
Click to expand...

So what do you want them to be based on?

2. None of the models work.
Click to expand...

NONE?! I gave you a graph from a model done in 1995, and it looks like it works just fine, unless you want to say it's off by about 5% or so here and there.

3. There is and has been no scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

Please give links for this assertion. Not a single national or international science academy disputes or denies the scientific consensus around human-caused climate change. That's about as consensus as it gets in science.

4. The data which come from our global experiment, the observations we have made, indicate that the climate is evolving and always has evolved continuously, and people have had nothing to do with that change.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Different sources of climate change leave different fingerprints which can be studied. This one has our fingerprints all over it.
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | The National Academies Press
 
ataraxia said:
Please give links for this assertion. Not a single national or international science academy disputes or denies the scientific consensus around human-caused climate change. That's about as consensus as it gets in science.
Click to expand...

Reposted from #175 above:

The widely quoted number of 97% of scientists believing in global warming is based on an on-line survey of 10,257 earth scientists. 3,146 replied and all but 77 were “disqualified” by the researchers conducting the survey. Of those, 75 thought that humans were contributing to climate change, thus the 97% number, one that is not particularly robust.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
NONE?! I gave you a graph from a model done in 1995, and it looks like it works just fine, unless you want to say it's off by about 5% or so here and there.
Click to expand...

Your graph is unlinked and therefore unverifiable. I doubt it comes from any model.
 
Jack Hays said:
Reposted from #175 above:

The widely quoted number of 97% of scientists believing in global warming is based on an on-line survey of 10,257 earth scientists. 3,146 replied and all but 77 were “disqualified” by the researchers conducting the survey. Of those, 75 thought that humans were contributing to climate change, thus the 97% number, one that is not particularly robust.
Click to expand...

So 97% of the 10,257 earth scientists initially surveyed agreed. And then, even after so many of them were "disqualified" by the researchers, 75 out of 77 of them still agreed. After that kind of elimination, that is probably 75 out of 77 of the world's top experts and cream of the crop on the field.

And that is supposed to prove your bold and confident assertion that there is no scientific consensus? Based on... this? Really? Surely you have something better to base that dramatic assertion on.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
So 97% of the initial earth scientists initially surveyed agreed. And even after so many of them were "disqualified", 75 out of 77 of them still agreed. After that kind of elimination, that is probably 75 out of 77 of the world's top experts and cream of the crop on the field.

And that is supposed to prove your assertion that is no scientific consensus? Based on... just this? Surely you have something better to base that dramatic assertion on.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is what the survey found, Wiki has a quick review of Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surve...ws_on_climate_change#Verheggen_et_al..2C_2014
Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels,
and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
76 out of the 79 respondents 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",
thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing
mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points.
The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant.
Click to expand...
So the numbers for the entire list of replies was considerably lower than the 97%.
When people talk about consensus of scientist , they need to be clear on what they think the
scientist are agreeing with.
In the case of this survey, it is,
A: Do you think the temperature has risen compared to pre-1800 levels?
and
B: That humans significantly influence the global temperature.
Neither of these questions directly address weather they thought CO2 was involved in the warming.
The very heart of the AGW question, is the climates sensitivity to added CO2.
I would expect a survey of the causes of global warming to at least discuss the suspects.
 
longview said:
I don't think that is what the survey found, Wiki has a quick review of Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surve...ws_on_climate_change#Verheggen_et_al..2C_2014

So the numbers for the entire list of replies was considerably lower than the 97%.
When people talk about consensus of scientist , they need to be clear on what they think the
scientist are agreeing with.
In the case of this survey, it is,
A: Do you think the temperature has risen compared to pre-1800 levels?
and
B: That humans significantly influence the global temperature.
Neither of these questions directly address weather they thought CO2 was involved in the warming.
The very heart of the AGW question, is the climates sensitivity to added CO2.
I would expect a survey of the causes of global warming to at least discuss the suspects.
Click to expand...

Again, 97% of the initial ~10,000 scientists surveyed agreed. After the researchers narrowed them by very strict criteria down to 77 scientists, 75 of them still agreed.

And that is supposed to show there is no consensus?
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
"I" knew because the models' deficiencies had already been pointed out. From #165:

Note the disingenuousness here.
Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.
Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.
… that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”
Click to expand...

Why do you post the words of others without giving them credit?

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
 
ataraxia said:
Again, 97% of the initial ~10,000 scientists surveyed agreed. After the researchers narrowed them by very strict criteria down to 77 scientists, 75 of them still agreed.

And that is supposed to show there is no consensus?
Click to expand...

I do not see how you come up with that,
Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels,
and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
Click to expand...
Among all respondents,
90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen,
and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
Scientific significance can be as low as 5%, so the word may not mean much here.
 
ataraxia said:
So 97% of the 10,257 earth scientists initially surveyed agreed. And then, even after so many of them were "disqualified" by the researchers, 75 out of 77 of them still agreed. After that kind of elimination, that is probably 75 out of 77 of the world's top experts and cream of the crop on the field.

And that is supposed to prove your bold and confident assertion that there is no scientific consensus? Based on... this? Really? Surely you have something better to base that dramatic assertion on.
Click to expand...

Try reading again. Of the 10,257, about 70% didn't even reply.
 
ataraxia said:
You're right. My bad. Here is the link.

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate

______________
And while you are checking out links, this is another good one showing graphs of IPCC predictions from the 1990s, compared to the predictions of deniers like Lindzen and others:

Denier predictions vs IPCC projections
Click to expand...

As I suspected, it was not a model. After creating an array of projections, and then observing temperatures, the best fit was selected. Dishonest propaganda.
 
Jack Hays said:
As I suspected, it was not a model. After creating an array of projections, and then observing temperatures, the best fit was selected. Dishonest propaganda.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your objection. You wanted to know how accurate the IPCC projections had been. The charts show the IPCC projections (that's who "created" the projections, as you accuse) and compared that to what actually happened. How else would you like to see whether the "created projections" were accurate?
 
ataraxia said:
I don't understand your objection. You wanted to know how accurate the IPCC projections had been. The charts show the IPCC projections (that's who "created" the projections, as you accuse) and compared that to what actually happened. How else would you like to see whether the "created projections" were accurate?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "projections" is your word, not mine. I was discussing models. Substituting projections is a way for you to dodge the failure of climate models.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but "projections" is your word, not mine. I was discussing models. Substituting projections is a way for you to dodge the failure of climate models.
Click to expand...

The models were used to project into the future. The models and the projections have worked well so far. There is no reason to suspect that that will change for the future.
 
Jack Hays said:
As I suspected, it was not a model. After creating an array of projections, and then observing temperatures, the best fit was selected. Dishonest propaganda.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why this is dishonest propaganda. It is just comparing what the models projected with what actually happened. How else would you recommend checking them to see if they're reliable predictors of the future?
 
ataraxia said:
The models were used to project into the future. The models and the projections have worked well so far. There is no reason to suspect that that will change for the future.
Click to expand...

Do not conflate the two. Models produce identifiable results and can be judged. As I already pointed out, the 1995 SAR presented an array of projections. It was a clever propaganda trick to go back after the fact and pick the one that fit best.
 
ataraxia said:
I am not sure why this is dishonest propaganda. It is just comparing what the models projected with what actually happened. How else would you recommend checking them to see if they're reliable predictors of the future?
Click to expand...

The 1995 SAR included an array of projections. Then, after the fact, the one that fit best was selected.
 
Jack Hays said:
The 1995 SAR included an array of projections. Then, after the fact, the one that fit best was selected.
Click to expand...

All of the projections are fairly close, and all of them are better than any denialist projections like Lindzen's.

I would recommend looking at the graphs on this article:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Hey, the graph you like to use to show how unreliable the models are is shown at the bottom!
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
All of the projections are fairly close, and all of them are better than any denialist projections like Lindzen's.

I would recommend looking at the graphs on this article:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Hey, the graph you like to use to show how unreliable the models are is shown at the bottom!
Click to expand...

Just an elaborate exercise in excuse-making.
 
ataraxia said:
So is there any evidence that could ever be presented which would not be dismissed by you as such?
Click to expand...

Sure, evidence that isn't just making excuses. The dodge from models to projections gave you away this time.
 
ataraxia said:
OK, this seems to be a new Shtick running on the AGW denial websites.

So let's look at a comparison between projections by the IPCC from way back in 1995 compared to actual observations so far:

View attachment 67223006

Looks pretty good to me. But nice try.
Click to expand...

Wow...

That disagrees with all the papers looking for the reason of the hiatus...
 
ataraxia said:
So 97% of the 10,257 earth scientists initially surveyed agreed. And then, even after so many of them were "disqualified" by the researchers, 75 out of 77 of them still agreed. After that kind of elimination, that is probably 75 out of 77 of the world's top experts and cream of the crop on the field.

And that is supposed to prove your bold and confident assertion that there is no scientific consensus? Based on... this? Really? Surely you have something better to base that dramatic assertion on.
Click to expand...

So... out of over 10,000, it was deemed only 77 of them were qualifies to answer the question, and 75 of them did in the affirmative...

What percentage is 75 of the over 10,000?

I'm sorry, I never did the |new math" they teach in schools these days, but I don't think it's 97%.

Is that the study that disqualified all the had less than 20 papers and also picked from a pool of those writing for the IPCC and other government entities?
 
ataraxia said:
You're right. My bad. Here is the link.

Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate

______________
And while you are checking out links, this is another good one showing graphs of IPCC predictions from the 1990s, compared to the predictions of deniers like Lindzen and others:

Denier predictions vs IPCC projections
Click to expand...

LOL...

Skeptical Science

LOL...
LOL>..
LOL...

A blog written by alarmists.

LOL...

LOL...
\

LO>...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom