Neil deGrasse Tyson shuts down climate change deniers

a reply to: luciddream

I never said that. I do believe humans make an impact. I only question the amount of that impact when it comes to AGW.

I am very concerned with the environment. I think we need to focus on cleaning up all aspects of our environment. There are 315 billion pounds of plastic in our oceans. Nobody ever talks about that, and it literally makes me sick.

originally posted by: jrod
Don't try to tell me there is no credibility to the 400ppm and rising CO2 count.

There are plenty of pseudoscience studies out there. We can change the rate of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere.

You just keep sticking to that CO2-does-it-all story. CO2 is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Heat is the problem. Blurred vision, a headache or slurring your speech (CO2) isn't the problem, it's the stroke (heat/energy) that needs to be fixed and an aspirin may seem to get rid of the problem for a couple of hours, but it isn't the cure. If you don't deal with the problem and cure it, that stroke is going to kill you anyway.

Well, that's what we have here, a nasty heat stroke. Shall we take the aspirin and give the governments/corporations cash for nothing, or should we try and find a cure in alternate energy or heat shedding?

As long as people continue to use the religion of AGCC and the guilt paradigm, and think that giving people/governments we can't trust, money to fix a problem they say we allegedly created, this isn't going to get fixed and you my friend, along with the rest of us, will go the way of the dinosaurs. So keep your head in the sand and try and sequester CO2 with silica and let us know how that works out for you.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yeahright

I won't suggest 100% do it knowingly, but bottom line, these guys for two.

Someone will always look for a profit to be made from anything. Do you have a problem with profit?

You claimed that the climate scientists being paid to provide pro AGW work. By whom?

a reply to: Phage

I don't think you understand what I am saying here. They had an initial study done with 11944 papers, of which 7930 had no position on AGW. In the second part of the study they sent out a survey to 8547 authors and only 1200 responded(only 14%). 2142 papers received self ratings from 1189 authors. The reason this is important is that the majority who responded had a position on AGW to begin with, vs the original study which was the opposite of that. Also, most importantly, among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.

Knowing that in the self rated study around half of the authors that didn't express an opinion endorsed the AGW consensus, it is fair to say that if all the authors of the original study had responded, far less than 97% would endorse the AGW consensus.

It is easy to manipulate numbers, especially in this type of a scenario.

Given that even they said:

A Web of Science search for 'climate change' over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for 'climate' yields 128 440 papers. The crowd-sourcing techniques employed in this analysis could be expanded to include more papers.

Lastly, I found this interesting from the Introduction of that study:

Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).

It literally says that the reason climate scientists supposedly agree more than ever on AGW is due to "the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW."

Why should what the IPCC says have a bearing on what you do as a scientist?

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

a reply to: Phage

interesting.

though in the article i linked. the op claims that the original paper says that these were papers that endorsed the consensus on AGW.

however when the writers were contacted the writers said that no, they did not.

In the comments one author chimes in and makes a comment.

Looking at your link I don't see a way to search for individual papers and authors listed on the site that claim to not support agw. I would be very interested to see whether or not the iop.org site claimed that

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

endorses agw when the author claims it does not.

a reply to: grey580

though in the article i linked. the op claims that the original paper says that these were papers that endorsed the consensus on AGW.

however when the writers were contacted the writers said that no, they did not.

Yes. You said that the first time.

I guess I have to repeat myself. The researchers knew that articles could be misclassified.

They knew this because they were making the classifications based only on the abstracts of the articles and because there would be a certain amount of subjectivity involved in the process. Because they knew this, the study was planned with a second part. In that second part authors were sent a questionnaire. They were asked to rate their papers based on the same scale used by the researchers. Responses for 2,136 self-classified articles were recorded. The statistics for the self-classified articles were very similar to those for the researcher classified articles.

Since the statistics for the self-classified articles so closely matched those of the researcher classified articles, it is a strong indication that the researcher classified sample (a larger sample) is valid.

Yes, the researchers got it wrong in some cases. Yes, in some cases they said an article had no position when the author said it rejected AGW. But the opposite happened as well, in some cases the researchers said an article had no position but the author said it endorsed AGW. Those numbers are:

Self-classified matched researcher classified: 798

Self-classified tended more toward AGW rejection than researcher classified: 269, Of these, there were 8 cases when the researchers gave a classification of endorsing AGW when the author gave a classification of rejecting AGW.

Self-classified tended more toward AGW endorsement than researcher classified: 1069

Looking at your link I don't see a way to search for individual papers and authors listed on the site that claim to not support agw.

iopscience.iop.org...

originally posted by: Euphem
Lastly, I found this interesting from the Introduction of that study:

Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).

It literally says that the reason climate scientists supposedly agree more than ever on AGW is due to "the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW."

No it doesn't - you're just reading it that way because that's what you want it to say.

IPCC reports are gatherings of the most up to date papers and research on climate change. They don't commission any new research on the topic - they simply collect what's already out there and evaluate it. If the IPCC statements are becoming more definitive, it's because the science that they base their statements from is becoming more definitive, not the other way around.

You're trying to put the cart before the horse.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Phage

interesting.

though in the article i linked. the op claims that the original paper says that these were papers that endorsed the consensus on AGW.

however when the writers were contacted the writers said that no, they did not.

In the comments one author chimes in and makes a comment.

Looking at your link I don't see a way to search for individual papers and authors listed on the site that claim to not support agw. I would be very interested to see whether or not the iop.org site claimed that

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

endorses agw when the author claims it does not.

Please just have a look at the abstract of this paper for yourself:

We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming

So great, he's biggin' up the Sun...while completely acknowledging that anthropogenic influences have become the dominant forcing.



This is the kind of goofy denier logic that makes it hard to even take skeptics seriously to be honest.

Every aspect of the anthropogenic influence is constantly trolled, marginalized, demeaned and debased by the anti-climate crowd - and yet, at the end of the day when all the numbers are tallied up - it's still the #1 cause for current climate change.

But we're supposed to throw that all out the window now because apparently we've underestimated the #2 cause!

a reply to: Moresby

Neil believes all is one, and understands the implications of all the quantum discoveries humans have made. Otherwise, he would not have done the show.

After Cosmos part 2, I could proudly call the man a brother in humanity, much like Sagan was. It is a damn shame there are not many more like him. The world would be a new place.

a reply to: mc_squared

No, you read it that way because that's what you wanted it to say. You picked the only rhetorical point I made to dispute, and left the others alone.

Come back to me when you can form a coherent argument okay big guy?

a reply to: Euphem

Yeah you call it incoherence, I call it cognitive dissonance.

The rest of your post was just more mental gymnastics trying to make the data say what you want it to say.

Because "only" 58.3% of the papers that were originally identified as no position were actually self-rated as endorsing AGW, that's supposed to lower the 97% result?? If anything it raises it - because it means the original 3rd party interpretation was far too conservative.

Just because 58.3% were moved from neutral to pro-AGW on self evaluation doesn't mean 41.7% were re-evaluated the other way - it means most of them likely remained as is. Phage already explained earlier in this thread - most papers don't push one opinion or the other because that's simply not their intent.

Neutral doesn't mean no - it just means the cause is either immaterial to the research, or so well-established (i.e. like 97% kind of established), that it's treated as a given. But you're just very obviously reaching to fill those blanks with the results you want instead.

So you can call my argument incoherent all you like, but the fact that it doesn't make sense to you just furthers the point that you can't see it because you seem to be hopelessly stuck inside the box. I don't need to waste my time trying to explain it to someone who very clearly doesn't want anything demystified. You seem to just prefer living in a world of neutrals and maybes that you can then conform into your pre-disposed beliefs.

Meanwhile everyone else here can judge for themselves. If there really was so much explicit disapproval of man made warming in the peer-reviewed research then it would just show up, plain and simple. So again - where's the beef?

a reply to: mc_squared

Meanwhile everyone else here can judge for themselves. If there really was so much explicit disapproval of man made warming in the peer-reviewed research then it would just show up, plain and simple.

Thats a really big pie chart. It must be true!

a reply to: tadaman

Oh good - so when the results don't say what you want them to say, you can just twist them around with your own personal interpretations like Euphem, or try to belittle them with memes.

Thanks for posting - you guys are making a great case for "skepticism" lol.

a reply to: mc_squared

I think the opposite was shown and well proven.

A large pie chart is the response? Here is another.

See its easy.


Was the question whether they REJECTED man made global warming? It could have been about how many reject jesus riding a dinosaur examples in history. Not many would be rejecting that now would they?

Here is a relevant question: HOW MANY OUTRIGHT PROPOSE MASSIVE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

P.S.
Intellectual dishonesty is a lose /lose for all. When science is used as a political tool it is seen as an instrument of oppression. People then resist it out of justified concerns and all of its progress and potential is then all but wasted on temporal currency that is usually misspent in a single generation.

You are making a great case for religious extremists.LOL

Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'
youtu.be...

An Honest IPCC Scientist Tackles 'ClimateGate'
youtu.be...

a reply to: mc_squared

I love it. You have these preformed arguments, charts, graphics at your ready whenever you can't win with your own logic and knowledge. The easiest, laziest, and most comforting thing a person can do is become part of the crowd. This is what the average human is programmed for. I am glad you and Phage feel so cozy in your ignorant bubbles.

That pie chart is sweet...did you make that yourself? It almost looks legiti..wait a second..are you trying to pull a fast one over the ignorant in the crowd? Shame on you...

What is the number of those "13,950 peer-reviewed articles" that have no opinion on AGW? There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed climate articles, which ones did you pick for your awesome pie chart, and why? I love the part where you put that 24 reject global warming...so cute...nice touch!!

Okay in all seriousness, your pie chart is crap.

Your lack of understanding in basic statistics is concerning at best. You assimilate that the number would be HIGHER when adding in the neutral AGW crowd, because 54% were pro AGW? Sorry...won't work with me. I actually understand math, and think on my own.

Keep on with your pro AGW agenda though. Totally winning people over, and really helping the planet!

I hope the next time I run my Ocean Conservancy Coastal Cleanup group you will tag along.

Actually doing something for the environment rather than spreading propaganda can be very enlightening and uplifting.

a reply to: tadaman

Was the question whether they REJECTED man made global warming?

You could try reading the study.
Then you wouldn't be arguing from a position of ignorance.

a reply to: tadaman

You say when science is used as a political tool, yet you parrot what fox news and am radio says., you are parroting what the fossil fuel industry "scientists" say. Just like big tobacco did years ago, the fossil fuel industry is attacking global climate change, this is well researched, but none of that matters.

Are you a koch brother? Are you heavily invested in this industry? I have read your links, you claim to be unbiased but you link to forbes "a elitist right wing rag", yet you don't question there opinions.

You can't blame the rise in co2 on the sun, you can't explain away that Co2 is twice the recorded level from 100 years ago, volcanic activity doesn't account for the rise in Co2 in our atmosphere in the last 100 years.

a reply to: LDragonFire

yet you parrot what fox news and am radio says

I dont watch TV. I wouldnt know what faux news says.

Calling me a koch brother and alluding to my political leanings? Yes, the very spirit of fair debate and free thinking.

I do like tobacco....I am not denying Co2 emissions causing an impact. I never did. I am saying that the proof of massive man made global warming caused by Co2 emissions is not yet proven, which it isnt. It could be negligible and not even part of the core problem if there even is one and NOT even a deviation from a natural cycle going BEYOND a couple hundred years.

EXCUUUUSE me for not parroting the other side as you do.

EDIT TO ADD:

You can't blame the rise in co2 on the sun, you can't explain away that Co2 is twice the recorded level from 100 years ago, volcanic activity doesn't account for the rise in Co2 in our atmosphere in the last 100 years.

I didnt even mention Co2. The sun could account for the fluctuations in temperature. I do support that idea.

Co2 could be a product /symptom for something else happening. YOU cant explain it as being caused by man either so I suggest we keep looking. That would be the most honest thing to do.

Maybe we have destroyed too much vegetation and plant life isnt processing it like before. Maybe there is another factor. Can you prove anything either way? If so please prove it and claim your Nobel prize and end this.