Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[SageBrush]

31,000+ scientists agree with me

Reference ?

 

[SageBrush]

How would a tax on reforestation encourage tree planting?

I think he is saying that only 1/5 of the proposed carbon tax amount amount would be enough money to offset the transport sector CO2 pollution if invested in reforestation.

 

[EinSV]

How would a tax on reforestation encourage tree planting?

Sorry, typo in that quote -- should be: "We calculate that spending 15% of the [carbon] tax on large scale reforestation programmes would offset the entire EU road transport sector emissions and serve as a carbon sink while removal technologies mature."

Btw, if you hit a paywall you can get to the op-ed by opening a private or incognito browser and searching "financial times repsol electric cars"

 

[SR22pilot]

That is exactly what I deal with now. The real consensus is that AGW is not occurring. The fact that you believe in easily discredited "studies" from AGW cultists that purport to show otherwise is your problem. 31,000+ scientists agree with me, maybe a few dozen agree with you.

Wow, and to think deniers don't like Cook. The study you reference included such notable names on the petition as: Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls, and several Star Wars characters. All that was supposedly needed was a BS degree in any of numerous fields such as engineering. You might read Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

By the way, I seem to recall that a fair number of Fox News weathermen did agree with the petition but I wouldn't consider that a survey of serious researchers in the field.

 

[jrad6515]

All you seem to do is throw personal attacks.

...says the guy who repeatedly calls skeptic scientists "deniers" with all the pejorative holocaust insinuations attached. Cognitive dissonance much? lol

 

[JRP3]

If this is that simple as you state, then why to current climate models always run hot and overestimate the temperature rise from co2? I mean, it's simple physics, right?

As I've said previously it may be the models didn't take into account the current unusually low sunspot activity we are experiencing which may be temporarily masking the full effects of CO2.

 

[SR22pilot]

...says the guy who repeatedly calls skeptic scientists "deniers" with all the pejorative holocaust insinuations attached. Cognitive dissonance much? lol

I call them deniers because they deny the consensus on climate change and deny AGW. If that is inaccurate I apologize. I have no problem being called a believer in AGW. If you want to shorten that to believer I won't be insulted. Not once have I brought up the holocaust and the thread is on climate change and not WW2. I haven't called people morons or idiots or a dumbass as you have.

 

[JRP3]

Reference ?

It references a long discredited "petition" signed by people who are not climate scientists, including some completely fake identities.

 

[SageBrush]

It references a long discredited "petition" signed by people who are not climate scientists, including some completely fake identities.

Thanks !

It rings a bell now. That was the survey of the oil industry, right ?

This is probably it:
Global Warming Petition Project
They are up to ~ 9k "PhD" signatories of any field who apparently agree with this statement:

By no means the jrad stance that rejects global warming at all, let alone AGW. I wonder how many PhD's of a basic science signed that petition, or would today.

@jrad6515 , do you know the breakdown by field for the PhD signatories ?

 

[SR22pilot]

Thanks !

It rings a bell now. That was the survey of the oil industry, right ?

This is probably it:
Global Warming Petition Project
They are up to ~ 9k "PhD" signatories of any field who apparently agree with this statement:

View attachment 430269

By no means the jrad stance that rejects global warming at all, let alone AGW. I wonder how many PhD's of a basic science signed that petition, or would today.

@jrad6515 , do you know the breakdown by field for the PhD signatories ?

Read the link I posted above on the petition. Scientific American checked in on some of the signees. I believe it also includes the PhD number you are asking for.

 

[Swampgator]

All you seem to do is throw personal attacks. I have yet to see you give a link to a better survey showing there isn't a consensus among research climatologists. This is the old Merchants of Doubt methodology. You throw doubt without giving contrary data.

One day people will look back at this the same way we look back at the people explaining how there is no data that tobacco is harmful. Sadly, the damage from this will be much worse than the damage was from tobacco. Society will be forced to do expensive things when much cheaper things done earlier would have been just effective.

Post #612 I did just that. I don't need to provide studies claiming no consensus as I am not the one invoking consensus to support my arguments. Your side is. And you use this as a way to cut off debate. I know ohmman disagrees, but just read this thread and see the evidence. I will say the majority of climate scientists think that the earth is warming, and that humans have contributed to that warming. That is much different than 97% agreement that the warming is going to be catastrophic, as most on this thread believe.
Look at how CAGW adherents attack anyone who disagrees with their "consensus" in a personal manner. Basically I have been called an idiot, a denier, troll etc.
I guess the ends really do justify the means for some.
As for my own personal insults, I really do try not to do that. I did it to NWDIVER before I placed him on ignore, but only after he had attacked me personally for several weeks.

Ohmman has been mostly very cordial and we can have a civil discussion even if we ultimately disagree. Hopefully others on this forum will see things the same way. I doubt it. I am a Tesla owner and fan. Yet I have been called a troll by Swedish advocate and Winfield? Actually Winfield thinks I am a bot so that's pretty funny.

 

[Swampgator]

As I've said previously it may be the models didn't take into account the current unusually low sunspot activity we are experiencing which may be temporarily masking the full effects of CO2.

No, the models have lots of issues. They cannot really model water vapor effects well. They use too high of an ECS value. They are models, not reality. The point of my reply to that poster was that it is not a simple calculation that proves AGW as he had stated.

 

[Swampgator]

Wow, and to think deniers don't like Cook. The study you reference included such notable names on the petition as: Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls, and several Star Wars characters. All that was supposedly needed was a BS degree in any of numerous fields such as engineering. You might read Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

By the way, I seem to recall that a fair number of Fox News weathermen did agree with the petition but I wouldn't consider that a survey of serious researchers in the field.

True that is not a good reference.

Please stop using the word denier. It is pejorative and designed to equate anyone who disagrees with CAGW theory to Holocaust deniers. Maybe you didn't know that? If you did already, shame on you.

 

[Swampgator]

I call them deniers because they deny the consensus on climate change and deny AGW. If that is inaccurate I apologize. I have no problem being called a believer in AGW. If you want to shorten that to believer I won't be insulted. Not once have I brought up the holocaust and the thread is on climate change and not WW2. I haven't called people morons or idiots or a dumbass as you have.

Again, invocation of consensus is NOT science. Are you anti-science?

 

[JRP3]

Please stop using the word denier. It is pejorative and designed to equate anyone who disagrees with CAGW theory to Holocaust deniers.

No it's not, it's a simple reflection of the denial of global warming theory. I'm a "denier" of the flat earth theory myself.

 

[nwdiver]

No it's not, it's a simple reflection of the denial of global warming theory. I'm a "denier" of the flat earth theory myself.

That's generally not the context that description is used in. Deniers are 'deniers' not for the concept they reject but for the objective, empirical evidence they 'deny' exists. You're not denying any objective, empirical evidence suggesting AGW is false or the Earth is Flat.... because there is nothing to deny.... that evidence doesn't exist. You're following the facts to a logical conclusion not starting with a conclusion and molesting facts to fit it....

Deniers tend to start with their conclusion, because they are ideologically opposed to the current consensus of scientific opinion, whether it be on climate change, evolution, the safety of vaccines, the legitimacy of mental illness, or the historical accuracy of the holocaust. They then follow a process which is fundamentally different from scientific skepticism, even though they try to portray it as skepticism.​

 

[SageBrush]

Read the link I posted above on the petition. Scientific American checked in on some of the signees. I believe it also includes the PhD number you are asking for.

Thanks.

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[28]

The original petition circulated in 1998 and was recirculated in 2007
In just 3 years from the original petition that is now over 20 years old, ~ 40% of the original signatories in this S.A. group said they still agreed with the petition. Of the group studied that continued to agree with the petition, ONE of the signatories was an active climate scientist. @ohmman can probably calculate the confidence interval and p value.

But that was 18 years ago and all the mainstream, reputable science organizations in the world have become increasingly confident, if not strident, in their declarations that AGW is real and likely catastrophic under the business as usual scenario.

Lets summarize: 18 years ago, ~ 46 climate scientists of repute agreed with the statement that convincing evidence of future catastrophic AGW was not available. That cohort had already shrunk in size 60% in 3 years.

 

[nwdiver]

Lets summarize: 18 years ago, ~ 46 climate scientists of repute agreed with the statement that convincing evidence of future catastrophic AGW was not available. That cohort had already shrunk in size 60% in 3 years.

Clearly big solar and wind was able to out-bid big oil and coal.....

 

[nwdiver]

1) Pick a theory as to what is happening. Don't throw multiple ones out there. Pick ONE. You can't have it is the orbit, no wait it is the sun, no wait it is galactic arms, wait it is volcanos and get my attention.

How dare you ask that he provide an alternative explanation! I bet I know who's next on swampys 'ignore' list... Just don't explain anything with math. For some reason numbers offend him.

 

[SageBrush]

I bet I know who's next on swampys 'ignore' list...

Get in line !
I was first