The 97 Hours of 97 Percent Consensus continue at Skeptical Science.
It appears that our work will not be done, until a new generation of journalists takes the helm.
Bless their fair and balanced hearts.
But a consensus on climate change is yet to be reached. There are plenty of people, including scientists and politicians, who challenge the evidence used to support the concept of climate change and are concerned about the costs of the policies being introduced to tackle it. On top of this, scandals such as ‘Climategate’ have shaken the public’s faith in global warming science over the last few years. In US politics, global warming has become even more divisive than abortion, gun control and the death penalty. So can scientists and politicians ever agree?
Below, Climate denialist James Delingpole goes speechless when confronted with the role of consensus in mainstream medical practice.
Just as fields reach a consensus about what constitutes evidence, they reach a consensus about what that evidence has demonstrated. Confusion about the potential causes of AIDS dominated the early years of the epidemic, but it took researchers only two years after the formal description of the disorder to identify a virus that infected the right cells. In less than a decade, enough evidence piled up to allow the biomedical research community to form a consensus: HIV was the causal agent of AIDS.
That doesn’t mean that every single person in the field had been convinced; there are holdouts, including a Nobel Prize winner, who continue to argue that the evidence is insufficient. Those in the field–and humanity in general—simply don’t find their arguments persuasive. We’ve since oriented public policy around what the vast majority of experts consider a fact.
Meanwhile, most recent representative scientist on the “97 percent” list, is Josh Willis of NASA, a frequent “go to” contributor to these videos.
I spoke to Josh last year in this video about the so called “pause” in global warming.(below)
One NASA guy says AGW caused by man emitting CO2, a group of other NASA guys says that is bunch of you know what so who to believe? I suggest all you head worshipers really should take a different policy approach. Why not actually, gasp, read the science? Compare the papers and then make your own decision. The math is complex but the first thing to remember about math is it can lie. You feed in the wrong data, make the wrong math model and the result is a lie. Lets take the claim the world is warming, the IPCC among others have all kinds of math to show a warming trend. The giss data set is available for all to read, If you look at that without any math you can see there is a problem. the world cooled from 1880 to 1915, did not warm from 1940 to 1980, and is currently not warming, 18 years and counting. If the model cannot predict that despite all the math it is not much of a model as random chance could give you the same results. Another thing to remember about math is what are they doing with it. Lets look at the IPCC model again. They cut off the data to a very short period, 1951 to 2012. That ignores thousands of years of CO2 data and temperature reconstructions which the consensus agrees with. Why is that? Again we go back to the math model, it you throw in that data it most likely does not work so the IPCC ignores it but that is my opinion, you develop yours.
This guy would fit under the category of spammer, in my opinion. He’s offensive. He calls people names, throws insults, and all the things that flag him as someone to ban. That’s just me, though.
Plus he lies, distorts, and misinforms—-and ignores admonitions from Peter to “up his game” and prove to us he is not a useless denier troll.
Or is that his soulmate M Fellion I’m thinking about? I get so confused sometimes.
Perhaps Peter will soon relieve us of the burden of reading crap from both of them. In any event, if this fool is allowed to continue trashing up the discourse on Crock, I will rename him Maybe85 in recognition of the probable upper limit of his IQ score.
“Bless their fair and balanced hearts”, says Peter?. LOL A real garbage piece from This Week that shows how far we have to go before the media “gets honest”.
And the clip on Delingpole “going speechless” is an all-time classic—-keep replaying it at the slightest excuse. Delingpole says he was “intellectually RAPED”?—–lord love a duck! And speaking of ducks, seeing Monckton demonstrate once again that he is a charlatan is always welcome.
And remember, “….the first thing to remember about math is it can lie”, You heard it first here on Crock from Maybe85. Yes indeed, we should all beware of zero divided by zero or infinity minus infinity—–those lying math SOB’s will mess you up every time.
I enjoyed dissecting mbell’s comment way too much to want to ban him, even though I, gasp, read the science. IMO, he’s not a spammer. He believes he’s being logical.
Maybe he isn’t a spammer but his emarrassing nonsense lowers the whole
tone of debate and there is just no place for it in here.
There are denierblogs like WUWT or the Daily Mail comments threads where he could go and post his junk to his hearts content and not bore eveyone to tears – this is one of the very few blogs on the net where we shouldn’t have to tolerate this level of drivel.
One of the main reasons I lurk here is the interesting below the line information.
If it is allowed to deteriorate to the level of any other blog what is the attraction?
I dare say it won’t be any great loss to anyone here if I don’t come back but it’s not just me that gets put off by clueless trolls – and thats why a lot of them do it. They deliberately set out to disrupt any serious debate about climate change.
It’s clear that Mbe11 is way too stupid for that but it does have the same effect.
Just my two pence worth but I think anyone who persistantly posts such risible garbage after being warned not to should be banned.
This blog is too important to drown in denialist **** like so many others have done.
Well said. Dealing with Omnologos is disruptive enough. Maybe85 is a complete waste of time and space and should be sent to wherever Stonehead Swallow now lives.
Well put Leslie. You changed my mind. Although, mbel’s latest comment about CO2 and Katharine Hayhoe softened me up.
“There are plenty of people, including scientists and politicians, who challenge the evidence used to support the concept of climate change and are concerned about the costs of the policies being introduced to tackle it.”
You hear this all the time. We are against renewable energy or AGW because it would be too expensive to tackle it. I call bullshit on this.
When have you EVER seen an actual economic analysis comparing the costs of fossil fuels vs renewables? Such analyses don’t exist, for several reasons:
Nobody knows the cost of a new renewables system for one thing. Nobody even knows how much the world spends on fossil fuels. Go ahead – google it and tell me if there is a consensus on the amount of subsidies the FF industry receives annually. Try to find up-do-date figures on total fossil fuel expenditures world-wide or by citizens, businesses, countries. Not exactly on the tip of people’s tongues.
I can tell you this – several years ago the U.S. alone spent over $1.3 trillion dollars for fuel. People estimate that world-wide subsidies to the FF industry are several trillion dollars every year. Across the globe, people must be spending many trillions of dollars for the privilege of fossil fuels every year. And that cost will only become larger and larger.
Additionally, the M.I.T. study tells us that BAU CO2 emissions will cost the world $1240 trillion in adaptation expenses by year 2100, so add $14 .4 trillion dollars in adaptation expenses every year from now until the year 2100 to the tab for what it costs to burn fossil fuels.
$14.4 trillion is a godawful titanic amount of money. If we spent that kind of money on a new renewable energy system, it would pay for everything in a single year, with enough left over to retrofit every building to electric heating and put the most expensive Tesla in every driveway.
Building a new energy system will not only save the planet – it will put a lot of money in our pockets.
What do you suppose the “economic cost” has been and will be of sending multi billions of dollars to KSA and Iran for oil and similar amounts to Tsar Putin for natural gas and oil. Has that money been spent wisely? How much of it has ended up in the hands of al Qaida, ISIL, Hamas and various “rebels” in the former USSR? Now where are the keys to my SUV. I’ve got to catch my plane to Paris.
Sleight of hand there. Is there a 97% consensus with Willis’ statement? No there is not.
I have never heard of any carbon sequestration scheme that can actually work. And it doesn’t seem that there is a controversy over how long it will take natural processes to scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere – most sources I have read talk about 1 to 2 millennia.
Do you have any authoritative source which is contrary to Willis’ statement, or are you – as usual – trying to find anything to criticize, no matter how small or legitimate? (As if several years of your fly-by cavil cavalcade has not been instructive).
that’s amazing Gingerbaker – I point at a sleight of hand and you reply with another sleight of hand.
The quote by Willis does not mention carbon sequestration or any natural processes removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It might as well be possible, for example, that if climate disruption materializes then it would remain around even if CO2 levels went back to 270ppm.
Not sure why it would be so difficult to stick to what people say instead of embroidering one’s dreams to it. However, this is exactly the weakest point of every SkS campaign. Say, 97% of scientists agree…agree on what, exactly? Does anybody believe that 97% of scientists agree on every one of the cartooned statements? Is nobody really aware that even I belong to the 97% consensus, if the wording is carefully constructed?
100% agree that there is a consensus among climate scientists that the current climate changes are peculiar and largely caused by human activities. This consensus is most likely around 85% or more. I take it as an established fact and am sure most people would concur that 85% is more than enough for any policymaking purposes. Instead, a lot of time is wasted in attaching a ghostly 97% figure to all sorts of statements that cannot possibly be having such a consensus behind them.
This is a waste of time. Worse, it demonstrates that the subject is so weak, even its proponents opt to pump numbers up as much as possible instead of concentrating on getting things done.
If you really thought it was a waste of time highlighting the 97% you’d not comment. And it’s 99.98% by papers anyway.
What’s BEYOND amazing is that Omno continues to be amazed at the normal types of reasoning employed by Gingerbaker, myself, and all the other reasonably sane and intelligent folks who comment on Crock.
Gingerbaker understands what Willis’s statement implies, even though the statement is merely a “sound bite” and a bit unclear because it has been removed from context. Gingerbaker states some generally known and accepted truths about CCS and natural CO2 scrubbing. He is thinking both “in the box” and stepping beyond it in an attempt to respond to Omno’s gibberish about “97% consensus”. Everyone who reads that understands what point Gingerbaker is making—–everyone except Omno
Omno diubles down on the brain-fart concept of “sleight of hand” and proceeds to argue pointless points. All of what he says in his “arguments” is worthy only of a WHAT-WHAT-WHAT the hell is he talking about?
“It might as well be possible, for example, that if climate disruption materializes then it would remain around even if CO2 levels went back to 270ppm”. WHAT? What will “remain AROUND even if”? And where does the “thought” come from that we will ever see 270PPM for decades, if ever? (It just hit 401)
Omno speaks of “embroidering one’s dreams to it”, which is what HE constantly does when faced with logic or facts that mystify or scare him.
He asks, “Does anybody believe that 97% of scientists agree on every one of the cartooned statements?” I for one do believe that they likely do, and at a very high confidence level. What number would satisfy Omno? If 95% agreed with 93% of the cartooned statements? Does he not understand what “overwhelming consensus” means? Is Omno as much a WIFI as Delingpole?
Omno baldly asserts “This consensus is most likely around 85% or more”, a figure that can only have been plucked from his anal orifice, and follows that with blatherings about “….attaching a ghostly 97% figure to all sorts of statements that cannot possibly be having such a consensus behind them”. Can’t possibly? Why not?
Lord love a duck, Omno-!—PLEASE go away and stop your attention seeking on Crock. YOU are the waste of time here.
But if I went away dumbold, how would you waste your time in improbable remote-reading exegesis where you first claim to be able to understand what is implied and then proceed not to understand a word that is implied?
Siete senza speranza, Omnino.
The Week: “SCANDALS such as ‘Climategate’ have shaken the public’s faith…”
The Week (later in article): “A subsequent investigation debunked these accusations…”
Correction, NINE investigations:
1) Penn State (inquiry):”no credible evidence that…[there was]… an intent to suppress or to falsify data”,
2) UK House of Commons: “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”,
3) Royal Society (int’l panel): “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”,
4) Penn State (final investigation): “no substance to the allegation against Dr. Mann”,
5) U East Anglia (independent review): “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”,
6) US EPA: “this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues “,
7) UK Government: “Professor Jones was [not] trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments”,
8) US Dept of Commerce Inspector General: “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”,
9) National Science Foundation: “no research misconduct… this case is closed”
The Week (later in article): “but the SCANDAL temporarily shook the public’s faith”
Question: Would TEN investigations exonerating the ‘Climategate’ Scientists suffice to get ‘The Week’ to stop calling it a SCANDAL?? Because, frankly, as things stand, ‘The Week’ is admitting that something is a SCANDAL whenever the Climate Deniers (i.e. the Fossil Fuels industry) says it is, and it doesn’t STOP being a scandal until these same people say so, no matter what the investigations find.
In related news, The Week is toilet paper. Because I say so…
The Widgery Tribunal fully exhonerated the British authorities from any blame regarding the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972. That was in the same year. However everybody understood that there was something very dodgy about the exhoneration.
The Saville Inquiry had then to work between 1998 and 2010 to finally establish the historical truth.
This is to explain one shouldn’t be worked up about limping exhonerations here and there. For climategate, it is a matter of perception, and after all these years the upper hand has consistently been in the Nonbelievers camp.
Did you miss the earlier reply to you?
You must have as the only other possibility is that you are completely delusional.
NINE investigations:
1) Penn State (inquiry):”no credible evidence that…[there was]… an intent to suppress or to falsify data”,
2) UK House of Commons: “actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”,
3) Royal Society (int’l panel): “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”,
4) Penn State (final investigation): “no substance to the allegation against Dr. Mann”,
5) U East Anglia (independent review): “we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”,
6) US EPA: “this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues “,
7) UK Government: “Professor Jones was [not] trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments”,
8) US Dept of Commerce Inspector General: “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”,
9) National Science Foundation: “no research misconduct… this case is closed”
The sordid little smear campaign long ago blew up in the Denial Industry face and everyone, apart from delusional denialists, knows it.
These days, if anyone mentions the smear campaign at all it is to highlight just how low the Denial Industry was (and still is) prepared to sink to protect profits.
“one shouldn’t be worked up about limping exhonerations”
You’re an Ax Murderer. Now, the authorities could investigate my claim, and the investigation could exonerate you, but ‘it is a matter of perception’: in this case, of MY perception. Therefore, whether you are found innocent by a Jury or not, ‘The Week’ is perfectly justified, according to you, to continue to refer to you as ‘that Ax Murderer’, for the rest of your life.
You’re making my point again. If a narrative established claiming “Maur is an axe murderer” then I’d forever be on the backfoot at every such claim. Whole political actorial musical and movie careers have flourished and floundered around such concepts.
so when a publication writes ” scandals such as ‘Climategate’ have shaken the public’s faith in global warming science over the last few years” they’re reporting the current narrative. You should ask yourself why all those exonerations haven’t changed it. Cue conspiracy theorists.
“they’re reporting the current narrative” Calling something a ‘scandal’ is not a narrative, its a judgement. Like calling someone an ‘ax murderer’, you don’t ask popular opinion, you ask the appropriate judges. Popular opinion has labelled people witches and worse, in the past. Is that really the level of journalism ‘The Week’ ascribes to? That would appear to be your prescription.
And speaking of conspiracy theorizing, what is your theory as to how the affected Universities (Penn State, U East Anglia), the House of Commons, the EPA, the Royal Society, the National Science Foundation, and the Dept of Commerce concluded there was no Scandal in Climategate? They can’t all be incompetent, can they, so they must be part of a Global Communist Conspiracy to rob us of our Freedoms! Shades of 9-11!
No conspiracy is needed. Only a widespread belief in the cause.
No, he didn’t miss it—-he doesn’t “do” the English language very well, but aside from that he is most certainly delusional.
Ditto on your comment—-I will repeat what I said earlier—-“A real garbage piece from This Week that shows how far we have to go before the media “gets honest”.
Nice. I speak of the longstanding upper hand wrt climategate fot the ninbelievers, and you both unwittingly confirm the sane
WWWWW-WHAT? I have read this three times and it still makes no sense.
“Longstanding upper hand?” “Ninbelievers”? “Confirm the SANE”?
Omno has “unwittingly confirmed” everything we have said about his insane thought “processes”.
Low-end laptop: $400 US
Monthly DSL Internet service: $45 US
One ounce “medicinal” marijuana: $300 US
A heaping helping of omnologos word salad: Priceless!
Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle never recovered his fame after the death of Virginia Rappe. Even after being acquitted and receiving a written apology.
He simply never managed to get the upper hand against the narrative describing him as a rapist monster. Perhaps he would have done so, had he not died at 46.
This does not mean the entire journalistic social class of the 1920s and 1930s were some kind of low-level scum. Public reputation is quick to go (see Climategate) and hard to get back,
FATTY FREAKIN’ ARBUCKLE and the Virginia Rappe case? Lord love a duck! Omno has really lost it as he frantically ferrets out far-fetched and foolish fragments of idiocy from his subconscious. (Sorry, my mental “F” key got stuck).
It is perhaps indicative of the sludge inside Omno’s brain that he would dredge up something from 90+ (NINETY!) years ago that is forgotten even by those of us who are old enough to have been exposed to some of Arbuckle’s work as young children.
And “Perhaps he would have done so, had he not died at 46”?. Sure, Omno—-he died ELEVEN years after the event, and the world MIGHT have eased up on him somewhat if he had lived to be 90.
Yes, Public reputation is quick to go (see the “public” response to Omno’s rantings) and hard to get back. If Omno had any sense at all, he’d go away for a while and hope that we all forget what he has said on this thread.
I don’t mind all this picturesque screaming and shouting of yours really. At the end we all agree. Public reputation isn’t linked to actual culpability and it takes an incident to lose it for a long time.
Too bad we can’t bottle and sell whatever it is that makes Omno so “impervious” to rational thought. The clandestine services of the world would buy it by the boatload to immunize their operatives against any and all forms of psychological attack.