Question for all you global warming denialists?
I'm just wondering, are you honestly going to sit down and say that 95% of the world's scientists are wrong? I mean seriously, what do they stand to gain? Is taking responsibility that hard?
- MikeLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.
The 95% agree is based on a very narrow claim, that CO2 causes global warming, or that manmade CO2 causes global warming. getting to whether it is a very serious problem is another thing entirely.
James Annan to Andy Revkin:
Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’
- 7 years ago
The funny thing is that I actually bought into human caused global warming until I saw the whole 97%, or in your case, 95% number. That seemed unlikely and prompted me to do research. This is because in my experience working with scientists, they don't agree; they argue with data and theories. If they agree, they endorse and add onto another's data. They don't sit around a table and agree or disagree on something. They don't ever seem to agree, they just stop arguing when their colleagues get stubborn. It seems that the lack of argument was taken as an agreement by environmentalists. I jumped off that bandwagon quick and stuck my head into books.
Global warming is a fact; the globe has been getting warmer since the last ice age. Duh. The question is whether humans had anything to do with the acceleration of it. What I have read and seen in the data is that the theory has incredibly low evidence to support it, at best. Less than half of climate scientists actually endorse it. I'm not done researching, but so far, climate science seems to be a very difficult, theoretical, guessing game. I do believe the world could use help as far as excessive pollution of the environment, but throwing human contributed global warming is seemingly hardly an argument when you really pick at the data.
- 7 years ago
This is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.
I am not going to sit down and tell 95% of scientists that they are wrong. I don't think they are all wrong. It would be interesting to know what you think they think.
What about all those 97% surveys you may ask? Well have you actually read one and not just believed the hype? DId they ask the questions you thought they did? Did the 97% represent the whole 10,257 that the surveys were sent to or did they just (cherry) pick answers from the 77 that were "right". How were the groupings assigned? Did the 97% include just the abstracts that mentioned that man was more than 50% responsible or were other groupings aggregated to make the figures look better. If you were to look at the raw data could you conclude that only 0.3% of abstracts claimed that man was at least 50% responsible? (The answer is "Yes", by the way.) Did they actually ask any questions at all or did they just massage some data from Google Scholar to give a pre-determined conclusion?
Scientists understand lots of the details. Let me re-use my "shoot to kill" example. Scientists know about ballistics, trajectories, transit time, supersonic velocities, enthalpy, heat of formation, chemical reactions, trauma, tissue damage etc etc.
Do they know if A shot B, though? They can take you through the whole story in considerable detail but they do not actually know if A murdered B. I feel the same applies to the climate. You can ask "Did man-made CO2 pull the trigger?" They know CO2 can have that effect; they know how it could work; they understand heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation; they understand spectral analysis of solar radiation, the laws of Planck, Stefan and Boltzmann; they know about the layers of the atmosphere etc etc. OK, but did man-made CO2 actually pull the trigger?
All the evidence shows that the warming always started before any CO2 increase, either man-made or natural, pulled any trigger.
What about all those scientific institutions that support AGW? How many surveyed their members before pontificating? The American Meteorological Society has just carried out a survey and 52% replied that man is mainly responsible. So 48% do not. So much for the 97% consensus. I wonder how many other institutions will now carry out their own survey?
- RichLv 67 years ago
The weather is being used as the basis for a scam and you are a tagalong. I don't disagree with scientists on fact, and I'm sure you'll agree that using a change in climate for political and financial gain is not only unscrupulous but diabolical. Calling it a scam is whitewashing over the putrid home of frustrated environmentalists, aspiring self-aggrandizing climatologists, corrupt politicians, and predatory profiteers.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Ben OLv 67 years ago
The majority of the worlds scientists expect that there will be some warming associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2, as opposed to the minority of scientists who speculate there will be a net cooling. Many of the mainstream climate scientists are 'Luke Warmers' who think that warming from CO2 is quite small compared to natural climate variations.
Global warming alarmists like to claim that anyone who doesn't buy into their beliefs is going against scientific consensus, but that's really not the case. The IPCC is doing what any organisation does when it's gets paid billions of dollars to push an idea.
- PindarLv 77 years ago
By 95% I take you mean 75 out of 77, and yes it doesn't matter how many there are, if they can't provide scientific evidence then why should any one 'just' believe them?
Think of this way, if 95% of scientists still can't prove agw then doesn't that imply that it's false.
- MaxxLv 77 years ago
The number always touted by Warmists is actually "97%" and it's a fraud just like everything about man-made Global Warming.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
- CaliservativeLv 57 years ago
We will ignore, for the moment, your characterization of people who question CAGW as 'denialists' (petitio principii, ad hominem, loaded language).
"...seriously..." appeal to ridicule
"...95% of..." appeal to social proof
"...scientists..." appeal to authority
"...are wrong..." reversal of the burden of proof; if this is a scientific argument, it is not necessary to prove them wrong, only to show that their conclusions are not supported within the confines of the scientific method
"...what do they have to gain?" see Drapala, "Global Warming Cracked Open"
In any scientific question, the burden of proof fall squarely upon those advocating a hypothesis. The presumptions contained within the stem of your (non) questions demonstrate that none of your arguments are scientific, and so it is with every one of the warmists here.
There is no reason to take you seriously.
- Hey DookLv 77 years ago
It is the vast worldwide conspiracy of the Elders of Zion, the Federal Reserve, Lucifer and the Peer Reviewers, Al Gore, and the Reptilian Holographic Mindbenders in the hollow moon matrix. They stand to gain by furthering the Socialist Tyranny in place ever since gasoline was taxed starting in the 1920s, and promoting their diabolical Universal Literacy. True skeptics of course accept all this on faith, and know that it must be a pure coincidence that the brave true scientists risking their lives to resist this Commie Red Greenie Plot, by massively recycling on blogs, are in lockstep with what the Marshall Institute and other fossil fuel front groups figured out, 20+ years ago, EXACTLY as Galileo did, that global warming doesn't exist, except when it's not man-made, except when it's man-made plant food.Source(s): Search for AGW, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc. to discover the Inner Billy of the anti-science kooks here
- Who Dat ?Lv 77 years ago
If you're going to make up percentages out of thin air its traditional that you use 97% not 95%.
Heres how that 97% number was created.
A couple more takes on the same subject.
Actually the consensus has never been as solid as you may have been led to believe.
Heres a Yahoo news article that's a couple of years old but still relevant that may shed some light on the mythical "missing heat"