I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here

Westside Steve

I just want to point out one thing to the alarmists. Notice that he has changed the premise when he mentions that one out of four Americans are skeptical and think that the effect of global warming may be exaggerated. Then he goes on to say that one out of four people deny man-made global warming exists at all which was not the question. One out of four believe set the reports are exaggerated. Do you, Chris or woody, believe that it's possible that many of these reports might be exaggerated? And we are talking about the predictions of long-term and short term damage. They have always been exaggerated up to now and I don't see any reason to think that will change.

That disingenuous style of reporting is what allows the skeptics to get a foothold. You guys really should try to understand that.

W

Westside Steve

speaking of the accent where do you suppose he's from?

(regionally of course)

WSS

gftChris

He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.

To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.

gftChris

Oh, and, Bill Nye is cool

Westside Steve

@gftchris said:

He's from Birmingham. I lived there for 4 years while at university - I used to love the place, but having moved to London, any time I go back there it seems to small.

To the point, yes, it's over the top journalism. But it does pretty much sum up how I feel about deniers, along with all those debates where it's represented as a 1-vs-1 opinion joust, where scientific views are split down the middle.

I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.

WSS

gftChris

There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible.

Westside Steve

@gftchris said:
There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree.

And as long as you include the qualifier "at least to some degree" we have a consensus.

WSS

gftChris

@westside-steve said:

And as long as you include the qualifier "at least to some degree" we have a consensus.

WSS

Does it matter? If we agree it's happening, then regardless of the degree to which we've caused it, it's a concern for us and we should be doing something about it.

Westside Steve

@gftchris said:
Does it matter? If we agree it's happening, then regardless of the degree to which we've caused it, it's a concern for us and we should be doing something about it.

Of course it matters. Take any other situation that you are not so personally devoted to you and apply the same logic.

Example:

Second hand smoke probably has an effect on health.

Wouldn't it be useful to have some idea of what extent the effect would be?

Or is it enough just to grumble that its probably bad?

WSS

Westside Steve

And again ya gotta love the statement "well we just have to do something!!!"

WSS

calfoxwc

"something" = "vote for liberals" and "let us have a bunch of your money to buy votes for liberals"

and, of course, pay to make poverty and hunger alllllll over the globe go away.

MLD Woody

@westside-steve said:

I just want to point out one thing to the alarmists. Notice that he has changed the premise when he mentions that one out of four Americans are skeptical and think that the effect of global warming may be exaggerated. Then he goes on to say that one out of four people deny man-made global warming exists at all which was not the question. One out of four believe set the reports are exaggerated. Do you, Chris or woody, believe that it's possible that many of these reports might be exaggerated? And we are talking about the predictions of long-term and short term damage. They have always been exaggerated up to now and I don't see any reason to think that will change.

That disingenuous style of reporting is what allows the skeptics to get a foothold. You guys really should try to understand that.

W

1/4 are "skeptical". I am guessing that means more so that they don't believe man made climate change is real (Cal) than that they think it is overblown. I am also guessing they wouldn't know enough of the specifics about that actual predictions to come up with an educated guess on whether or not it is overblown. That 1/4 number is most likely mostly deniers. IMO at least.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you say "alarmists" either.

Also, just like there are hyperbolic stories on the right, there are hyperbolic stories on the left. I would not be surprised to find an article on some blog saying we're all dead from climate change (Greenpeace? those dumbasses). But, I would like to see an actual scientific study that is considered "alarmist" in your eyes. You say that all the time, that people are freaking out or whatever, or that we're all doomed, but I'd like to see this in a legitimate study. If you can, then I'll read it an comment. I just think your belief that others are claiming "doomsday" are overblown.

MLD Woody

Also, I like that show. Now that I have Xfinity on Demand and HBO, I watch the episode during the week. It is pretty funny.

calfoxwc

There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible. Chris

*********************************************************************************

Really? How about according to a Pew poll, only 40% say that we are causing mmgw.

How about 53% are sceptics. There is no debate about there being plenty of debate on the subject.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

calfoxwc

It's political theater. it's good for silly people to be a part of the "we are the world"

subculture.

From the link:

ccording to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to mankind is warming the Earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity.

That’s a 53 percent majority against the president’s position.

Of the 35 percent who cite lacking evidence for their disbelief, half say it’s because man-made global warming is “just not happening” or that we “don’t know enough yet” about the issue to tell. Pew says that “business conservatives” and “steadfast conservatives” have the largest majorities that don’t believe in man-made global warming, with 75 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

Forty percent of Americans believe that mankind is causing the planet to warm. So-called “solid liberals” are the most likely to say human activity is warming the Earth — 78 percent of this group believes this to be true.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz35oGwemNk

gftChris

@calfoxwc said:

There's no debate that it's happening, there's no debate that we're causing it to at least some degree. There should be debate about what we can do to stop it, followed by the adoption of policies putting those ideas in to plan as quickly as feasible. Chris

*********************************************************************************

Really? How about according to a Pew poll, only 40% say that we are causing mmgw.

How about 53% are sceptics. There is no debate about there being plenty of debate on the subject.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/poll-53-of-americans-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

53% of the ill-informed, media-driven public are sceptical (and that's more the number I was expecting than 1/4). Meanwhile, less than 3% of scientific papers are sceptical. We reached scientific consensus on this matter decades ago, and yet for some reason people are still claiming it's all up in the air.

What matters is what the overwhelming majority of science is saying, rather than what Donald Trump and the Daily Caller (or Huff Post, BBC or anything just to be clear) say.

sadbrownsfan

@westside-steve said:

I'm just saying you've changed the debate. The point, to me, is not whether or not global warming exists or whether or not man has an effect. I'm sure both are true. How much damage will it cause, how soon will it happen, how much is directly related to mankind and how to solve it have often been exaggerated.

WSS

Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens

Westside Steve

@sadbrownsfan said:

Over-exaggeration and over-sentimentalization in today's media and with the internet? I am sure that never happens

It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.

If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.

WSS

gftChris

@westside-steve said:

It happens all the time. I'm just telling the scientists that if they want the skeptics to buy in then they should be a little more, well, scientific.

If you are really worried about this you can't afford to cry wolf.

WSS

It's not the scientists that are proclaiming the end of the world, it's media outlets. They're annoying, but marginally less so than the opposite extreme because at least they're asking for things to be done

Stewy

@gftchris said:

53% of the ill-informed, media-driven public are sceptical (and that's more the number I was expecting than 1/4). Meanwhile, less than 3% of scientific papers are sceptical. We reached scientific consensus on this matter decades ago, and yet for some reason people are still claiming it's all up in the air.

What matters is what the overwhelming majority of science is saying, rather than what Donald Trump and the Daily Caller (or Huff Post, BBC or anything just to be clear) say.

If you're referring to that 97%...that myth was busted a long time ago by more sources than this one...

The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey

Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.

Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².

So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.

The survey is titled:

Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹

Abstract

Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, ( viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.

From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported.

The introduction says:

Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).

So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort.

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:

Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:

Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

Here is table 1 from the paper which shows the entire population of respondents (click to enlarge):

Table 1. Meteorologists’ assessment of human-caused global warming by area and level of expertise. Figures are percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in the bottom four rows represent percentage of respondents giving each possible response to the follow-up email question, including non-response to the email (labeled “insufficient evidence – unknown”). These responses together add to the same number as displayed in the insufficient evidence (total) row; some differences occur due to rounding. Similarly, columns total to 100% if all numbers except those in the bottom four rows are added, and differences from 100 are due to rounding. Although 1854 people completed some portion of the survey, this table only displays the results for 1821 respondents, since 33 (less than 2% of the sample) did not answer one or more of the questions on expertise and global warming causation.

Note the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t. People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. As we know, the number of “climate scientists” versus others tends to be a smaller clique.

Dr.. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column: 52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic. One common categorization would categorize the other 48% as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

That’s a long way from Cook’s “97% consensus” lie.

References:

[1] Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

[2] Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article).