• 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!

The "97% Consensus" Deconstructed

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're wrong. He agrees the 97% claim is bogus. That is the author's point. I'm just recording the facts.
Click to expand...

He said it was misleading. Being perfectly happy with using misleading figures doesn't say very much good about you.
 
Jack Hays said:
He said the 97% claim was misleading.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you think Carbon Dioxide does warm the planet. I'm also guessing you think Carbon Dioxide is being released by humans. If humans are not contributing to global warming, how is all that Carbon Dioxide being balanced out?
 
FreeWits said:
So I'm guessing you think Carbon Dioxide does warm the planet. I'm also guessing you think Carbon Dioxide is being released by humans. If humans are not contributing to global warming, how is all that Carbon Dioxide being balanced out?
Click to expand...

My view is that CO2 plays a minor climate role, much less than the solar/cosmic ray flux combination. Not sure what you mean by CO2 being "balanced out."
 
Jack Hays said:
My view is that CO2 plays a minor climate role, much less than the solar/cosmic ray flux combination. Not sure what you mean by CO2 being "balanced out."
Click to expand...

I'm not asking about the solar/cosmic ray flux. I'm asking about the CO2. All of this CO2 has been going into the atmosphere for many, many decades. So if there was no solar/cosmic ray flux, about what could we expect the impact of that CO2 to be in terms of rising temperature?
 
FreeWits said:
I'm not asking about the solar/cosmic ray flux. I'm asking about the CO2. All of this CO2 has been going into the atmosphere for many, many decades. So if there was no solar/cosmic ray flux, about what could we expect the impact of that CO2 to be in terms of rising temperature?
Click to expand...

Not much.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no idea. Much more. Again, I don't think CO2 is significant.
Click to expand...

I know you don't, but I thought you'd have some theory about CO2 given that you believe CO2 does warm a planet and humans are releasing CO2 and have been for a century and a half, especially given that CO2 is the most popular explanation. But you don't seem to have knowledge in that department, you only have knowledge in the department of what is highly mysterious to scientists in cosmic rays. Quite interesting.
 
FreeWits said:
I know you don't, but I thought you'd have some theory about CO2 given that you believe CO2 does warm a planet and humans are releasing CO2 and have been for a century and a half, especially given that CO2 is the most popular explanation. But you don't seem to have knowledge in that department, you only have knowledge in the department of what is highly mysterious to scientists in cosmic rays. Quite interesting.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear since I have apparently not been. I do not believe CO2 has a warming potential worth worrying about in any atmospheric concentration foreseeable for centuries.
 
FreeWits said:
Ah, okay. I must've misunderstood him then.
Click to expand...

Kind of. But in fairness Jack is trying to make spin and half-truths do the work of facts and reason, and he's somewhat good at it; as usual I just reach a point where it's not worth responding further unless he offers something substantive.

In this case for example, I did say that the '97% consensus' figure - while accurate for the question of whether humans have had a 'significant' impact on warming, and while that is something which some contrarians deny or oppose (including Jack at times) - is indeed misleading when used for the purpose which it usually is (ie, in reference to humanity's dominant impact on warming). Of course, that's something that I've been saying for years (eg. from May 2014 or August 2015). With few if any exceptions, survey after survey have shown that some 80-95% of active climate researchers acknowledge the dominant human impact - including the study promoted in this OP - which is what I've said all along.

By contrast Jack has often posted threads promoting much smaller numbers such as "52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus" (from this OP) or "The 43% Consensus" (that 2015 thread). Now however - and quite surprisingly - in post #19 he has acknowledged the fact of a much higher level of agreement among the experts. Jack has also failed to refute or even address the issues I raised in posts #6 and #23 showing how on (at least) three counts his source blogger David Middleton has displayed shocking, probably wilful ignorance in order to promote that misleading 52% figure.


All he's got to offer is trying to spin this as me "conceding" that experts' overwhelming agreement on the dominant human influence is indeed marginally less overwhelming than 97%.

I would have been happy to let him have that last word :lol:
 
Mithrae said:
Jack has also failed to refute or even address the issues I raised in posts #6 and #23 showing how on (at least) three counts his source blogger David Middleton has displayed shocking, probably wilful ignorance in order to promote that misleading 52% figure.
Click to expand...

That's because those issues don't matter in the slightest.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's because those issues don't matter in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Given that you tried to spin it as "conceding" Middleton's point as well as 'yours,' I'd have to disagree. Middleton's promotion of a 52% figure is far more misleading than the 97% figure, and I have shown some of the disingenuous (if not outright dishonest) things he's done to waylay the gullible including:
> Displaying shocking ignorance of basic climate science and the explicitly-stated information in the cited study by pretending that half/half human influence on 150 years of warming is not a dominant influence on recent warming (thereby excluding ten percent from his figure)
> Ignoring one of the key hypotheses of the cited study, along with AMS membership criteria, by portraying it as a survey only of "atmospheric scientists" (thereby including the likes of technicians, weathermen and teachers in his figure)
> Obfuscating the obvious definition of climate scientist as a scientist studying climate, in an effort to denigrate researchers and 'justify' his inclusion of unqualified respondents
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Given that you tried to spin it as "conceding" Middleton's point as well as 'yours,' I'd have to disagree. Middleton's promotion of a 52% figure is far more misleading than the 97% figure, and I have shown some of the disingenuous (if not outright dishonest) things he's done to waylay the gullible including:
> Displaying shocking ignorance of basic climate science and the explicitly-stated information in the cited study by pretending that half/half human influence on 150 years of warming is not a dominant influence on recent warming (thereby excluding ten percent from his figure)
> Ignoring one of the key hypotheses of the cited study, along with AMS membership criteria, by portraying it as a survey only of "atmospheric scientists" (thereby including the likes of technicians, weathermen and teachers in his figure)
> Obfuscating the obvious definition of 'climate scientist' as a scientist studying climate, in order to denigrate researchers and further build on the above
Click to expand...

There's been no "spin." You conceded. The only point at issue was the validity of the "97% consensus" claim. Once you agreed it's not valid, the discussion was over. Your claims against Middleton are nothing more than swinging after the bell. Not only do I not care about Middleton's figure, I don't care about anyone's figure in this context. Thank you for playing. Maybe you'll do better next time.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's been no "spin." You conceded. The only point at issue was the validity of the "97% consensus" claim. Once you agreed it's not valid, the discussion was over. Your claims against Middleton are nothing more than swinging after the bell. Not only do I not care about Middleton's figure, I don't care about anyone's figure in this context. Thank you for playing. Maybe you'll do better next time.
Click to expand...

The AGW crowd will never admit defeat.
 
Jack Hays said:
Let me be clear since I have apparently not been. I do not believe CO2 has a warming potential worth worrying about in any atmospheric concentration foreseeable for centuries.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. I asked how much CO2 it would take before you got worried. You seem to be making conclusions without the answers. You have decided that CO2 isn't the problem without understanding the impact CO2 has.
 
FreeWits said:
That's not what I asked. I asked how much CO2 it would take before you got worried. You seem to be making conclusions without the answers. You have decided that CO2 isn't the problem without understanding the impact CO2 has.
Click to expand...

I don't think CO2 has much impact.


 
Last edited:
FreeWits said:
That's not what I asked. I asked how much CO2 it would take before you got worried. You seem to be making conclusions without the answers. You have decided that CO2 isn't the problem without understanding the impact CO2 has.
Click to expand...
I would be concerned if it looked like CO2 levels could hit roughly 3 doubling s or 2240 ppm, but I do not think even half of that amount is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom