"97% of Climate Scientists Agree Climate Change is Real." YET . . . .

[Skwim]

You fail to note that no matter who he is, he is quoting empirical and verifiable evidence

And you know this to be a fact because: _______________________________________________________ .

.

 

[Kenny]

Actually no he is selective about what evidence he chooses to use, based on a coal industry agenda. I know him, and attended some of his talks in West Virginia concerning Coal geology, in that field he is excellent, and I worked in coal reclamation of old mine waste piles he helped with, but no it does matter who he is and what he is basing his climate model on. Note the article clearly stated he is a Coal Engineer, and an 'amateur climatologist.' He does not even have the background I have in climate science, and his agenda is to support the coal industry.

I guess that eliminates just about everybody's opinion unless you are a climatologist.

 

[Kenny]

And you know this to be a fact because: _______________________________________________________ .

.

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat

by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:

f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Air and Water Issues
by Freedom 21.org, 2005
Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.

h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

 

[Skwim]

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat

by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:

f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Air and Water Issues
by Freedom 21.org, 2005
Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.

h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

If you're suggesting that I believe you've read and understood all these resources, AND THEN determined how they all support what Monte Hieb has said, you're sadly mistaken. You could have saved yourself a lot of research---assuming you dug all these up on your own---and simply had a glass of milk and a peanut butter sandwich.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess that eliminates just about everybody's opinion unless you are a climatologist.

First and foremost, by definition 'opinions' are as meaningful as a one legged mouse a horse race.

Second, as far as whose is reliable in any discipline science it is the scientists in that field who publish their work in peer reviewed journals. In this case Climatologists are the most reliable in presenting the case for global climate change. My background is excellent, but I still cite those that publish their work in peer reviewed journals.

For example the same problem concerns the science of evolution. Engineers, philosophers, theologians, computer scientists, statisticians may express their 'opinions' concerning the science of evolution, but I will go with the dominance of the peer reviewed scientists in the fields related to the science of evolution.

 

[Kenny]

If you're suggesting that I believe you've read and understood all these resources, AND THEN determined how they all support what Monte Hieb has said, you're sadly mistaken. You could have saved yourself a lot of research---assuming you dug all these up on your own---and simply had a glass of milk and a peanut butter sandwich.

.

Are you saying you have?

 

[Cooky]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

Because the scientists have not been able to figure out whether the increased oceanic water evaporation predicted by heightened temperatures will cause more greenhouse effects or if increased clouds will help by actually reflecting solar heat from entering in the first place.

 

[metis]

So, according to some, should we assume that the NAS, NOAA, NASA, the Royal Academy, Scientific American, National Geographic, well over 90% of all climate scientists, and even our own Department of Defense here in the States are all fools or on the "take"? Also, beware of dates on studies as much has been determined even over just the last decade. As a long-term subscriber to S.A., I've seen the evolution of what scientists have been able to determine.

Seems to me the common sense should tell us to prepare for the worse, not just hope for the best. The fact also is that if we address climate change properly, we also will reduce our consumption of non-renewable energy and reduce both air and water pollution. Also, we are creating more jobs in the "green" sector than in the carbon sector, which also has its benefits.

 

[Skwim]

Are you saying you have?

In as much as I'm positive you haven't I see no reason I should. So, no. I haven't, and won't.

.

.

 

[Kenny]

In as much as I'm positive you haven't I see no reason I should. So, no. I haven't, and won't.

.

.

Then I can equally say your sources in the original OP are no good too. Even if you read it, I'm sure you didn't understand it. And I did read and understand the graphs.

 

[Skwim]

Then I can equally say your sources in the original OP is no good too.

Yes you can, but hey, not being a climate scientist or knowing what your sources say I'm in no position say they're no good, nor have I. I said I simply find no reason to even look at them. However, in light of the fact that your Monte Hieb article goes against the opinion of 97% of climate scientists, I'm sticking with the odds here and calling your source a buffoon. And calling you, snookered.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then I can equally say your sources in the original OP are no good too. Even if you read it, I'm sure you didn't understand it. And I did read and understand the graphs.

I have seen most of these references before, sorry no brass ring nor cigar here. I may respond specifically in further posts. The manure shotgun approach to throwing out a bunch of articles without an explanation for why or what context your are referring to them get's you nowhere, and indicates that you did not necessarily understand all you quote. It you do this you need to give an explanation for each reference and why you are citing it.

What this amounts to just a massive manure shotgun citation by web link. The more ethical websites do not allow this.

For example:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

This is simply a reference that provides the data of the increase in gases related to global warming. Nothing here provides and argument either way. Why are you citing this reference?

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

Data available to members only! Why are you citing this reference?!?!?!

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This reference is not available error message. Why cite this reference?

 

[Father Heathen]

I guess that eliminates just about everybody's opinion unless you are a climatologist.

Informed, educated, and substantiated opinions are far more valid and credible than those that are not, obviously.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The most recent report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the leading international body for the assessment of climate change — concludes that 100% of all warming experienced since 1950 is due to human activity. Multiple studies also show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by human activity.

Retorting [sic] to authority does not prove that climate change itself is real but this consensus is actually based on peer-reviewed published, verifiable science. If anything, the fact that thousands of professionals and experts in their field agree in such a staggering majority that climate change is real should make any person of another opinion think twice, at the very least. After all, the vast majority of doctors agree that smoking causes cancer — this is an undisputed scientific fact — and the public seems to be fully aware of this and trusts the consensus.

So then why is the public in the United States so divided on the issue?

According to a 2017 Yale study, only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence by human hand.

The country’s President, for instance, is one of the most outspoken climate change denialists, saying that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” and later that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” According to a list compiled by Vox, Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times (as of June 2017). Last week, on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, Donald Trump — who claims to have “a natural instinct for science” — had this to say:
source​

So is it surprising that Trump is so block-headed? Not really. After all he is his own best source for information on everything. But also, he is a Republican, and Republicans are noted for their denial of climate change.

Also of interest is how climate change sits among religious folk.

source
​

So my question is, why? Why do sooo many Republicans and religious folk deny what almost every climate scientist says is a fact?

.

.

I'd say it's largely due to a failure to explain adequately as to how they arrived at the conclusions.

All the public has been given is theoretical modeling , which even in science is a touch and go route to take.

Only one poster actually helped convince me a little bit more that man would be a source, and that has to do with the specific type of carbon atom found in the atmosphere that can be exclusively traced and attributed to human activity.

I don't think man is 100% responsible and there's no real reason givin to think otherwise, I do think however that mankind can manipulate ongoing trends of warming and make things worse.

I think there are other factors aside from humans that are the cause of the warming trends we are experiencing.

Bottom line is scientists need to explain a good deal better as to what they're doing, and how exactly they're going about it when they come to the conclusions that they make.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Shouldn't have made it a political issue.

Bingo. Unfortunately the Archilles heel of science is politics, along with who exactly is doing their funding.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bingo. Unfortunately the Archilles heel of science is politics, along with who exactly is doing their funding.

. . . nor a religious issue like evolution

 

[Wirey]

I'd say it's largely due to a failure to explain adequately as to how they arrived at the conclusions.


Bottom line is scientists need to explain a good deal better as to what they're doing, and how exactly they're going about it when they come to the conclusions that they make.

I call BS. If a professional scientist tried to explain his/her conclusions to most of the people on this site they would have no clue what they were hearing. There’s an old saying in engineering that “You can’t send an intelligent message with a stupid person”. What it means is that if you tell someone who doesn’t understand the core material an important fact, they’ll try to interpret it in their chicken nugget brain so that they can understand it, and screw it up in the process.

In real life, we routinely take the advice of the professionals. When your doctor prescribes antibiotics, do you demand that he prove to you that he went through the proper process for determining that need? Of course not. He’s a professionally trained medical practioneer and you’re not. When a mechanic tells you that whining sound is your serpentine belt, and it needs to be replaced, do you make them run you through the whole process so you can determine if they got it right? Of course not. He sees that stuff every day and you don’t. But in the case of a climate scientists, we should question them? BS. Theyre right, and if you don’t understand it (I don’t completely) that’s on you (or me). But to say “I don’t care for the presentation so therefore you’re wrong” is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Shaul]

So the real question isn’t whether humans are affecting the climate. The real question is how much do we? If it isn’t 0.0001% nor 99.99997%, how much is it? AGW alarmists want to use the issue for political purposes. They want to increase state power and use that power for their own megalomaniac purposes. They want to engender fear because it suits their purposes.

 

[Wirey]

So the real question isn’t whether humans are affecting the climate. The real question is how much do we? If it isn’t 0.0001% nor 99.99997%, how much is it? AGW alarmists want to use the issue for political purposes. They want to increase state power and use that power for their own megalomaniac purposes. They want to engender fear because it suits their purposes.

Again, the scientists who do this professionally say it’s us. So, it’s us. The only other explanation available is that all science has been a lie to this point to trick us.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'd say it's largely due to a failure to explain adequately as to how they arrived at the conclusions.

I disagree, because most of the opposition to global warming falls along religious boundaries with the fundamentalist Christians form the main bull work of opposition to global warming.

Self inflicted ignorance with an agenda is the main issue in the opposition to global warming.

[quote[
All the public has been given is theoretical modeling , which even in science is a touch and go route to take. [/quote]

This a scapegoat Red Herring. There are many sources that explain global warming at different levels. like: Climate change explained in six graphics - BBC News

Only one poster actually helped convince me a little bit more that man would be a source, and that has to do with the specific type of carbon atom found in the atmosphere that can be exclusively traced and attributed to human activity.

Not a serious response.