Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

[Subduction Zone]

What a very few scientists are actually saying.

The majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Funny, I have not heard back from him since I demanded to see the peer reviewed papers with predictions that his claimed "climate scientists" made. If one is not working in the field one really cannot claim to be a scientist of any particular discipline. And his first source should have papers. He is a professor at a college and they almost always have to publish to get those positions. He also was making his claims as early as at least 1992. That gives us over thirty years of warming to compare his predictions against what happened.

 

[Heyo]

Thank you for the inquiry.

It's not about being a video. It's about showing as directly as possible what the scientists are actually saying.

What they are saying is their opinion. What they are publishing in peer-reviewed media is their work.

If you think providing papers is the best approach, I would encourage you to create your own thread like this geared towards papers.

These videos I will be posting are generally not going to be videos that the scientists make on their own; it will be an interview or a presentation to large audiences, and they are recorded by a separate source.

It's not feasible to carry out live, in-person talk by scientists on a forum, and the advantage of a recording is you can go back and review it as much as you want to learn from it or critique it thoroughly.

I think video recordings directly showing scientists speaking for themselves are the most reliable way of showing what they have to say for themselves.

I see that you are talking about "scientists", you list their title and sometimes the institute they work for, but you have omitted to list the field they work in. It would be nice if you could provide that info in future contributions. Ideally, you would exclude all scientists who don't work in climate science. Also, some of them are seriously out-of-date.
I'll do your work for you for the examples you already brought:
Richard Lindzen - physicist, retired 2013
Judith Curry - climatologist, retired 2017
Patrick Moore - ecologist, no relevant academic work, has been an activist since 1970
Ivar Giaever - solid state physicist and engineer, latest relevant publication in his field 1974
William Happer - physicist (optics and atomic), latest relevant publication in his field 1997
Freeman Dyson - theoretical physics and mathematics, died in 2020

 

[crossfire]

Now this one is nice. It is based on work from the year 2000 where they have both forecasts and hindcasts. Computers can do honest "hindcasts". They can take a model and show what it predicts, even if we already know the answer. That is a valid way of testing models. But is also has forecasts. Please note that they have an envelope since there are quite a few different models out there. Some are too generous and some are too conservative. But what the average climatologists predicts is almost right on the money.

Where is the peer reviewed works of your guys? Videos are just opinions. Science is based upon evidence and results:

NASA GISS: NASA GISS: Research Features: Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

www.giss.nasa.gov

View attachment 90533

Question: was there a noticeable drop in 2020 when the world shut down due to Covid -19? If there was a drastic drop then, it would make human caused warming more believable, or at least give us an idea how much humans are contributing to it, and hence, how much power we have to change it.
I found this: interesting!

The World Was Cooler in 2021 Than 2020. That’s Not Good News

The global temperature was down, thanks to La Niña, but it was still the sixth-hottest year on record. And 2 billion people had their warmest year yet.

www.wired.com

snippet:

(The pandemic-based drop in carbon dioxide production didn’t have a cooling effect. Human civilization produces so much of the planet-warming gas every year, and it persists so long in the atmosphere, that the pandemic didn’t even register as a blip.)​

 

[anotherneil]

Sabine Hossenfelder - PhD (Goethe University Frankfurt); Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics professor

Thank you for finding and posting this; I just have a few remarks - she herself (or her organization) posted this video on her YouTube channel, and it has sponsors (which opens up the possibility of a conflict of interest). Aside from that, it's relevant and qualifies for this thread.

There don't appear to be any articles that she has written on climate change: Sabine Hossenfelder's articles on arXiv

I don't think every scientist I'll be posting have written articles of their own on climate change & my goal or desire with this thread isn't to exclude those who haven't, but there are some who want to know about peer-reviewed work, and in this video she endorses AGW, so I wonder how they feel about her lack of climate change articles, in other words whether they're willing hold her to their same standard that they require of those who don't endorse AGW.

Yay spoon feeding trolls.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[anotherneil]

No, I could tell from your first source that you are cherry picking. You tipped your hand and demonstrated your bias. If they are climate scientists then they will have peer reviewed work on the topic. If they do not have peer reviewed works they are only scientists with opinions and since they go counter to the consensus, which can be shown to be accurate by comparing peer reviewed work to measurements since that time then their unsupported claims would be of no value in a debate.

Yes, I'm guilty of cherry picking. I'm excluding politicians, celebrities, media personalities, and activists who are not subject matter experts.

While I get your position regarding the need for scientists to have peer review papers on climate change in order to have credibility, which I can respect and appreciate, right now I don't think I can agree with it, because of the potential conflict-of-interest entailed from funding sources to write such papers, and in general it's still opinions that may just be based on confirmation bias; there are also some assertions that they don't even check for correctness or errors in calculations, there are inconsistencies, and it's a subjective process.

There are some scientists on both sides of the AGW issue who do have peer-reviewed work on climate change, and some who don't appear to have such articles.

For now my intention is to put forth a large collection of what scientists are actually saying; they're the ones who peer review each other's papers.

 

[anotherneil]

What a very few scientists are actually saying.

The majority (97%) of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

What's your source for this 97%, and does it list the names of all these scientists? If it doesn't list the names of these scientists, how can it be reliable?

I did a Google search using the string "97% climate change consensus", and this is one of the results I get:

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

science.nasa.gov

From that page, there's this reference link:

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

On Table 3, there's a 97.1%, but it's not for a percentage of climate scientists; it's for abstracts with AGW position that endorse AGW. On that same table, the percent of all authors that endorse AGW is only 34.8% (which is far from a consensus).

 

[anotherneil]

Willie Soon - PhD (USC); research scientist:

Roy Spencer - PhD (University of Wisconsin); research scientist:

 

[anotherneil]

Bob Carter - PhD (University of Cambridge); James Cook University professor:

 

[ChristineM]

What's your source for this 97%, and does it list the names of all these scientists? If it doesn't list the names of these scientists, how can it be reliable?

I did a Google search using the string "97% climate change consensus", and this is one of the results I get:

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

science.nasa.gov

From that page, there's this reference link:

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

On Table 3, there's a 97.1%, but it's not for a percentage of climate scientists; it's for abstracts with AGW position that endorse AGW. On that same table, the percent of all authors that endorse AGW is only 34.8% (which is far from a consensus).

So you have no argument that global warming is occurring (and killing people and making some animals extinct). Your argument is what is the cause

Cheers

Oh and when you list all climat scientists who don't believe global warming then I'll respond in kind

 

[anotherneil]

Tim Ball - PhD & professor (University of Winnipeg):

Murry Salby - PhD & professor (University of Colorado):

David Evans - PhD (Stanford University):

Don Easterbrook - PhD & professor (Western Washington University):

 

[anotherneil]

So you have no argument that global warming is occurring (and killing people and making some animals extinct). Your argument is what is the cause

Cheers

Oh and when you list all climat scientists who don't believe global warming then I'll respond in kind

Why didn't you answer my question? What's your source for this 97%? Don't try to dodge, you brought it up - I'm holding your feet to the fire. Answer my question - now.

 

[libre]

edit: my mistake, I mixed up posters.

 

[Heyo]

On Table 3, there's a 97.1%, but it's not for a percentage of climate scientists; it's for abstracts with AGW position that endorse AGW. On that same table, the percent of all authors that endorse AGW is only 34.8% (which is far from a consensus).

You mentioned that the number of papers is 97.1% for those papers with an AGW position.
You omitted that the number of authors at 34.8% is for all authors.
The number of authors with an AGW position is in the same table with 98.4%

Poor reading skill or deliberate misdirection?
Either way, your bias or your incompetence disqualify you.

 

[crossfire]

Question: was there a noticeable drop in 2020 when the world shut down due to Covid -19? If there was a drastic drop then, it would make human caused warming more believable, or at least give us an idea how much humans are contributing to it, and hence, how much power we have to change it.
I found this: interesting!

The World Was Cooler in 2021 Than 2020. That’s Not Good News

The global temperature was down, thanks to La Niña, but it was still the sixth-hottest year on record. And 2 billion people had their warmest year yet.

www.wired.com

snippet:

(The pandemic-based drop in carbon dioxide production didn’t have a cooling effect. Human civilization produces so much of the planet-warming gas every year, and it persists so long in the atmosphere, that the pandemic didn’t even register as a blip.)​

If it is true that the carbon dioxide drop from the pandemic didn't result in any global cooling effects, then it means that the carbon trading scheme won't work to slow global warming--it will only serve to consolidate all energy sources (both green energy through carbon offsets) and petrochemical sources into the hands of the few corporations--giving them opportunity to raise prices at will for any excuse. No alternative energy sources will be available, as the green energy will be tied up into the whole carbon-credit scheme.

I would suggest we put our efforts into reducing single use plastics and cleaning up the real pollutants--and adapting to the changes in ways we can make a difference.

 

[ChristineM]

Why didn't you answer my question? What's your source for this 97%? Don't try to dodge, you brought it up - I'm holding your feet to the fire. Answer my question - now.

After you.

And i don't take kindly to ultimations

 

[Altfish]

...... I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change....

You can find scientist to say anything, 'Smoking is good for you', 'Vaccines are harmful', etc. BUT the vast majority of scientists are honest and publish their findings in peer reviewed papers not via YouTube

 

[Audie]

Thank you for the inquiry.

It's not about being a video. It's about showing as directly as possible what the scientists are actually saying.

If you think providing papers is the best approach, I would encourage you to create your own thread like this geared towards papers.

These videos I will be posting are generally not going to be videos that the scientists make on their own; it will be an interview or a presentation to large audiences, and they are recorded by a separate source.

It's not feasible to carry out live, in-person talk by scientists on a forum, and the advantage of a recording is you can go back and review it as much as you want to learn from it or critique it thoroughly.

I think video recordings directly showing scientists speaking for themselves are the most reliable way of showing what they have to say for themselves.

Post away, or lecture an empty auditotorium.

I like others read at a high multiple of speech speed.

So a gish-o-vids is not getting any of my time.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You can find scientist to say anything, 'Smoking is good for you', 'Vaccines are harmful', etc. BUT the vast majority of scientists are honest and publish their findings in peer reviewed papers not via YouTube

--and that argument hits three obstacles:

First, when you mention scientists that "publish their findings in peer reviewed papers" then it's fair to consider those that do not. To be able to publish there has to be funding. In most places the funding comes from the gov't. Polls show that unpublished scientists differ from the published group on climate.

Another point is that much of the published work is required to simply "assume" that the climate rhetoric is correct. Anyone can assume anything.

Finally, reality is not up for a vote, it is what it is. If you look for data that supports the notion that people are heating up the earth then you find it's just not there. People who believe the climate mantra do so w/o a scientific basis.

 

[Altfish]

--and that argument hits three obstacles:

First, when you mention scientists that "publish their findings in peer reviewed papers" then it's fair to consider those that do not. To be able to publish there has to be funding. In most places the funding comes from the gov't. Polls show that unpublished scientists differ from the published group on climate.

Another point is that much of the published work is required to simply "assume" that the climate rhetoric is correct. Anyone can assume anything.

Finally, reality is not up for a vote, it is what it is. If you look for data that supports the notion that people are heating up the earth then you find it's just not there. People who believe the climate mantra do so w/o a scientific basis.

There are no obstacles.

Peer reviewed papers in Scientific Journals are the gold standard; 'peer reviewed' means that the rest of the scientific world gets a chance to debate, refute and prove wrong anything written.
Yes, some is backed by funding but even if it is, if it is scientific nonsense it will get called that.
"Polls show that unpublished scientists differ from the published group on climate." - I'm sure they do, but science is not run by popular vote, it is done with evidence and facts.

Nothing is 'assumed' it is argued about, debated, amended and a consensus reached or not reached.

I have looked at the data; you have obviously not done. There are graphs posted in this thread that show the temperature and sea levels are rising. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's not about being a video. It's about showing as directly as possible what the scientists are actually saying.

Take the feedback and dump the videos.