Dr. Steven J. Allen is not an expert in any related field. He had a master's degree in political science, a law degree, and a Phd in Biodefense(study of biological warfare, very disconcerting). I can see how this information presented by Capital Research Center and Berman & Co( which the president of Capital research, Scott Walter was the director of development) could be very misleading. On top of that the research is hard to understand. But the 97% is real, it is 97% of all those that took a position one way or the other. "Unfortunately, the key issue is not whether anthropogenic GHGs have caused any increase in global temperature – the issue is how much global warming have they caused." This is simply not true, read the descriptions in the table provided. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024#erl460291s5 This link provides thorough outline of methodology and conclusion. Berman & co and Capital Research center are not able to be objective. They are run by political players not scientists. This is what you are referring to, but somehow you missed that it was on the side that is feeding you information. These are lobbyist, far right wing and tea party members. This is Scott Walter's own personal description of Capital Research from his linkedin page. " Established in 1984, CRC is an investigative think tank based in Washington, D.C., known for connecting the dots between the radical Left and activist groups, labor unions, foundations, and other nonprofits. It specializes in exposing cronyism and corruption." While that last line might invite you to find a straw to grasp, this is not an unbiased description and is not possible to interpret that way. If they are actively working against a specific group then they have formulated their conclusion without interpreting evidence. Berman & Co's actual motto is "changing the debate". Here is a few examples of their work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A6j1r3Kbuo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wuKMID3Gq4. Don't you find it odd, Mike, that they only seem to support conservative, rightwing, corporate, and republican ideals? If they were objectively researching these topics, one would expect that at some point they would present a point contrary to these ideals. This happens in the scientific community all the time; ideas have been presented that directly oppose left wing politics. But not on your side, nothing gets in it seems. Ask me to supply an example and I will oblige. What is your argument Mike? That money is influencing the science? If you are getting you information from a biased public relations firm and an "investigative THINK TANK" funded by the same people that would benefit from the "TRUTH" they propagate, that doesn't bode well for your argument or logic. Here is a description from Capital Research's website, " We do have a specific point of view. We believe in free markets, Constitutional government, and individual liberty. But facts are facts, and our journalists and researchers go where the facts lead them.". That's a coincidence, isn't it that they have conservative views and all their "facts" happen to work out in their favor. Maybe Mike you need to do some research on the information streams you are getting, I'm willing to scrutinize my own. Can you say the same? We can make another thread with only sources, objectively analyzed, presenting their funding, ties, the whole nine yards. If each of us include links and citations it is not possible to omit information that would sway our arguments. I apologize for my hurried posts earlier today, I was preoccupied. Now you have my full attention...Waylon, I think you are catching on. Here is a link on the 97%. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
trouble with posting
Using logic and standing back and looking at the big picture. If it is true that money is affecting our science. Then it really should not be affecting the science in places like China for example. So how are they seeing what is going on with the climate change with the research being done in China? Here is an example China: Wärmephase des 20. Jahrhunderts war im Kontext der letzten 2000 Jahre nicht einzigartig – Kalte Sonne
Warm Periods in the 20th Century Not Unprecedented during the Last 2000 Years
In other words, the heat we are having today has happen twice before in the last 2000 years. Meaning that the CO2 has had no effect as far as the heating of the earth beyond what has happened in the near past.
Now I have heard that before from our scientists, but it has been discarded by the CO2 movement. I wonder if that movement is going to do the same with findings by the Chinese scientists? China is part of the IPCC. If the IPCC is being influenced by political influence they should come to butt heads with the Chinese scientists before the next report.
This report came out a week ago and I would like to see how it matches up with the sun cycles.
China chart]
Here is an example www.kaltesonne.de/china-warmephase-des-20-jahrhunderts-war-im-kontext-der-letzten-2000-jahre-nicht-einzigartig/The website of Fritz Vahrenholt. See e.g. here]. He has financial interests in RWE], which promotes nuclear energy. He is known to take results from other scientists and take them out of context, still doing so after being criticised from exactly these scientists.
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses?
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses? Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world. I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is.
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses? Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world. I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is. To prosecute something, a law has to be violated. For evolution, we had laws about teaching it and that is where the questions were deliberated. Not sure what the equivalent would be for AGW. Knowingly suppressing data that relates to regulations seems like a crime against humanity to me. Where is Klaatu when need him?
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses? Nah, if we could make deliberately misrepresenting what the scientists are actually saying - a criminally actionable offense - that would make all the difference in the world. I would volunteer to be on the team prosecuting Mike Yohe who feels he as a right to maliciously misrepresent what scientists are saying and lie about what the state of the understanding actually is. To prosecute something, a law has to be violated. For evolution, we had laws about teaching it and that is where the questions were deliberated. Not sure what the equivalent would be for AGW. Knowingly suppressing data that relates to regulations seems like a crime against humanity to me. Where is Klaatu when need him? How about knowingly, tactically maliciously misrepresenting what scientists have actually said and reported. How about repeating lies, that have been clarified and explained, over and over and over, yet continuing to republish original versions of deliberately fabricated lies, having been totally deliberately malicious deaf to all corrections and evidence provided? We do have slander and liable standards and laws. Don't we? But we seem to have lost our communal expectation of truth from ourselves and others. Today it's whatever you want to believe and anyone who doesn't agree is an enemy. So to hell with it. quite literally. Just sit back and watch the show unfold MikeYohe, you'll find yourself in the middle of some of this before you know it.
2017 Off to Destructive Start: Severe Weather Reports Tally 5,000+ ... https://weather.com/storms/.../severe-weather-hail-tornado-wind-damage-2017-mid-a... Apr 10, 2017 - 2017 Off to Destructive Start: Severe Weather Reports Tally 5,000+, .... rare early- season event when severe thunderstorms spawned three EF1 ... Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events ... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events In 2017 (as of July 7), there have been 9 weather and climate disaster events with .... Severe storms also caused damage across several other states (OK,TN, KY,MS .... 2016-06-22, 2016-06-24, Torrential rainfall caused destructive flooding ... U.S. Communities Clobbered by $53 Billion in Extreme Weather and ... https://www.americanprogress.org/.../2017/.../u-s-communities-clobbered-by-53-billio... Jan 19, 2017 - Center for American Progress analysis found that the economic toll of the 15 most destructive extreme weather events in 2016 was more than ...
Here is an example www.kaltesonne.de/china-warmephase-des-20-jahrhunderts-war-im-kontext-der-letzten-2000-jahre-nicht-einzigartig/The website of Fritz Vahrenholt. See e.g. here]. He has financial interests in RWE], which promotes nuclear energy. He is known to take results from other scientists and take them out of context, still doing so after being criticised from exactly these scientists. Thanks for checking that out. My checking was with Prof. Quansheng Ge. EurekAlert had the same data. //eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/ioap-wpi080817.php The Professor’s data seem to be more popular in Germany. He had been at the universities in Germany collaborating on paleoclimatic research. His book just came out “Atlas of Environmental Risks Facing China Under Climate Change". The professor has represented China in several countries, therefore seem to be a good pick for what China is thinking about climate change right now. Wattsupwiththat.com did publish it here first but it did not go anywhere. I know I missed it. A few of the posted remarks were; “Unless climate is fractal, the signature of a chaotic system. Then variation is the same on all spatial scales. Imagine that?" “Mann’s Hockey Stick went back 1000 years. On this graph, going back the lesser of 600 years, there is another Hockey Stick" “Whether someone believes our present climate change is natural, man-made or a combination of both, somehow many have portrayed it as bad for mankind, when actually history has shown that the opposite is actually true."
What I would like to see done is that we put a lid on climate change and global warming. Nobody can write or talk on public media about the subject unless they have a license. To get that license they will have to be heavily bonded against using political or false statements. But that will never happen.To have a license, you have to have a body that determines who qualifies for the license. Someone makes the test and determines who passes. I trust the 97% consensus as the standard but you think it has become politicized and misused. So who is going to certify these licenses? I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed! :coolgrin: This fake reporting is making the Americans look like dumb fools and costing too much. In real life, determination would be done by the bonding companies who have funds at risk. If you’re a crackpot scientist, then no one would bond you.
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation?
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation? Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all.
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation? Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all. Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change. What do you mean by "up and running"? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point?
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation? Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all. Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change. What do you mean by "up and running"? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point? Actually he doesn't have the first clue what climate models are actually used, or even what they are. or that it's climate models run by government people, the horror, giving us days worth of warning about hurricanes paths and such.
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation? Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all. Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change. What do you mean by "up and running"? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point? Let’s get out of the want to be world and get back into today’s world. I know some people refuse to go there. But, it is what we make it to be. The 97.1% is a good item for discussion about the science and the money. It relates to the reports. What are there now over 10,000 reports a year being written? 200 work days in a year. Let’s say a scientist spends on average 10% of his overall time reading reports. Therefore, he is going to read 500 reports a day. This would not include the time spent on the peer review of reports. Noting that all these reports are peer reviewed. That’s not going to work, is it? Isn’t a report mostly someone’s idea about a subject giving a different view point or expanding the understanding on the subject, or the rearranging and combining of other reports into one report for better understanding? Four decades of sharping the concepts of global warming by American scientists. Hundreds of thousands of reports. More data and paperwork done on global warming than for projects like going to the moon or creating the nuclear bomb. The best cutting age computers and data accessing equipment used. It should be safe to assume scientists by now with the resources that we, the taxpayers have provided could, if wanted, give names and weight to every rain drop and snowflake that is generated today. The 97.1% report has been used as the proof that all but 3% of our scientists believe that anthropogenic actions are the main cause of global warming today. It has been quoted in the news and by congressmen and even the president. Lausten, I respect your wordsmithing and your debating skills. I hope to someday reach half the level you’re at. I would be happy. You say that you agree with the 97.1%. Can you tell us what you are agreeing with and why?
I will volunteer to weed out the bad scientists. I am that pissed!I don't think being pissed is sufficient qualification. How would I know that you were doing you're job? How would I determine if you had weeded out a bad scientist or allowed a crack pot to influence legislation? Would not be a hard job. If you are a scientist working directly on the computer model projects, you stay. Other-wise you go. Once the computer models are up and running then open the field to all. Clarifying. All of the current scientists who are working directly on the computer model projects are certified, according to you, to speak about climate change. What do you mean by "up and running"? Do you think these models can be stabilized and just run on their own at some point? Actually he doesn't have the first clue what climate models are actually used, or even what they are. or that it's climate models run by government people, the horror, giving us days worth of warning about hurricanes paths and such. Yea, my degree in computer science is of no help, I need a degree in political science to talk climate change with CC.
This is not a debate. We are not debating. I’m trying to figure out you are saying. If you take that as a challenge to your thoughts, that’s up to you. I used the word “agree” as a shortcut for “I accept that the IPCC and related scientists use methods that are quality controlled and verified to reach a consensus conclusion”.
Your accounting of reports is interesting, but it seems to assume that all scientists related to the climate change debate are, or should have, a full understanding of all of the data and should keep up on every bit of the latest data and analysis. That’s not how science works. Scientists create studies, do them, and report on them. One might study ocean temperatures, another sun spots, and some of them consolidate all of those and look at things that need to include many disciplines, like global climate. What you fail to recognize is the complexity. Which is odd, since all of these reports will tell you what degree of accuracy they think they are achieving and that ultimately, we only have one globe, so we don’t really know.
You also misinterpret the data of 97.1% consensus. Reports don’t translate to people. I suspect you could two reports with someone’s name in the consensus and not in the consensus. That doesn’t make that person whacko, it means they found different data and had differenct conclusions based on it. You might also want to look into the 3%. Some of it is a few people and a few institutions pumping out a lot of bad data. If you count scientists, I believe the vote is higher. But counting scientists is not how you reach a consensus, so it’s a vote, it doesn’t carry the same weight as the consensus.
Yea, my degree in computer science is of no help, I need a degree in political science to talk climate change with CC.NO you phony. You need an understanding of Earth Sciences! Very different from climbing inside computer programs! You got the nerve to talk about the scientific method, then you put a blanket rejection on anything coming from "the government" - well unless it seems to agree with something you think you're say, then you happily cherry pick and claim it. You have a simple on off switch, if it agrees with you it's great science - if it doesn't agree with your claim of the moment, you decide it's fraud and you feel free to totally ignore it. That is not how science works. You should know that, but you choose to ignore that also.
Yea, my degree in computer science is of no help, I need a degree in political science to talk climate change with CC.Even here the way you are driven to misrepresent me. I'm the one that keep coming up with examples of real scientific studies that give the background to the things I say and the claims I make. You never pursue any of that, instead it's back to arm waving and then throwing in a total non sequitur - to distract the discussion away from the specific points I'm trying to explain. Who do you think you're kidding, you are the one with the masters in politicizing science and avoiding the substance. And I understand why. You have no honest leg to stand on. So it's make believe all the way down.
Science, science, science. It is the word you hear regarding Climate Change. We have made a few steps in the last several years. But have been hindered by political influence. Today there is really, only one big question that is being debated. We know that CO2 is a major anthropogenic Climate Change player. But, “is CO2 the main driving force behind Global Warming?" That is the question. If it is not, then the sun is the main driving force. A completely different type of ball game. That is correct, you showed up with gloves and bats for a football game. The debate and the science itself has been tilted by the dollar. Not just a lot of dollars, and not just a bunch of dollars. But a mountain size pile of dollars. And where you find dollars you find political agendas providing the dollars. Behind the debate are two pathways. If CO2 is the main driving force. Then regulations, carbon credits, population control, alternative energy sources are needed. If the sun is the main driving force. Then infrastructures are needed. The CO2 pathway requires taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Where the sun’s pathway may require adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Talk about right or left. Has there ever been a scientific debate like this before in your lifetime? Shouldn’t the science settle the debate? Normally yes. But the science in buried under that mountain of cash right now. And the political agendas don’t care about global warming. Their goals are taxes and regulations. Then along comes President Trump. He sees what’s going on and stops the flow of money to the mountain. Then backs off regulations and stops taxing laws from moving forward. It will take some time for the money to get used up. When it does hopefully the science will change to following the ideology instead of the money. When it does maybe President Trump will re-join the Paris Accords. The most important items to debate right now is the computer models. If President Trump can hold off the political forces until the computer models can get out from under the mountain of cash and start producing needed projections with creditability. We may have a chance to let science settle the debate. spam program holdupThe actual title of this thread is Denial, Denial, Denial brought to us by the chief climate change denier working here, this isn't debate for Yohe it's pure industry funded spin. John Tyndall demonstrated in the 1850s that carbon dioxide was the main persistent constituent of the atmospheric greenhouse effect turns the Earth from what would otherwise be a ball of ice to a world with water in all three phases and millions of species in a diverse biosphere. In the 1890s Svante Arrhenius did the highly laborious hand calculations to determine what would happen if we doubled the concentration of atmospheric CO2, something we are on pace to do quite soon and his results are still within the margin of error even with vast advances in theoretical and experimental science. Quantum mechanics didn't even exist when Tyndall Arrhenius and others did their actual science and it's addition has made what was very solid science over a century ago almost dead certain, as I've already posted in other places if the science that indicates that carbon dioxide wasn't the main factor in the moderation of climate through the radiative balance of the atmosphere then it wouldn't be possible to post here using transistor based electronics entirely dependent on those same quantum effects. Do I really need to point out how utterly pointless it is to ask a question that by it's very presence in this form presents the firm answer. Yes, carbon dioxide is the prime moderating factor in the Earth's surface heat balance, virtually all the peer-reviewed science indicates this. Like I said, the actual title of this thread is Denial, Denial, Denial... which makes the actual title of Mike Yohe Denier, Denier, Denier. He's not here asking genuine questions he wants facts based answers on or he would have stopped this industry funded idiocy long ago.
Yea, my degree in computer science is of no help, I need a degree in political science to talk climate change with CC.Even here the way you are driven to misrepresent me. I'm the one that keep coming up with examples of real scientific studies that give the background to the things I say and the claims I make. You never pursue any of that, instead it's back to arm waving and then throwing in a total non sequitur - to distract the discussion away from the specific points I'm trying to explain. Who do you think you're kidding, you are the one with the masters in politicizing science and avoiding the substance. And I understand why. You have no honest leg to stand on. So it's make believe all the way down. Chatter and side stepping is all that you can do. Yes, you do a lot of data dumps, but you are not making any specific points with them. Every time I try and nail you down you run. I have offered several times to list and go over each of your and my agreements and disagreements so that you would stop cluttering the site with the same junk repeatedly. This would be a simple and easy approach to zero in on the items of disagreements. And maybe a way to get you to stop all your lying. Where has global warming been going over the years here on the CFI forum with me. First, we had Al Gore using the Ice Core charts. When the CO2 following the heat was questioned. The responses were that I didn’t know anything. You had to know science to understand how all this works. Second, I brought up the Milankovitch cycles. I was hammer that the cycles were too long and of no relationship to today’s global warming. The responses were that I didn’t know anything. You had to know science to understand how all this works. Third, the Milankovitch cycles are now a standard part of the global warming understanding. Next step was to introduce solar cycles. I used Dr. Soon’s work. The responses were that I didn’t know anything. You had to know science to understand how all this works. The solar cycles are now picking up accelerating in the public view and the “time will show" factors are just coming into play. The hurricanes were predicted to start up and be very strong. That is happening now and the solar cycles along with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation are being given much more attention. Forth, is the political corruption. It is really, really, bad and has been setting back the climate change progress. The responses were that I didn’t know anything. You had to know science to understand how all this works. Today’s news has a story titled Academics Omitted Key Evidence In Study Showing Exxon Misled Public On Climate Change. Use the title to look it up. WaylonCash posted how Exxon was conning the public. Now it is being claimed that the Harvard researchers were using data provided by Greenpeace. And that data was deceptive. One should be asking, why would anybody do such a thing? All it does is undermined getting a solution for how we should be dealing with global warming. The answer obviously is that these people like CC don’t give a damn about global warming. They are trying to promote their political agenda or being funded to promote and disrupt. CC, is easy to figure out. She is a communist and hates big corporations. I ask her if she was receiving funds for her postings and she would not answer. Fifth, we have come almost full circle. Over the next year or two expect to see the CO2 as the main driving force to bequeath to the solar process. I understand right now CO2 is as accepted more than any other time. But, mostly on fake data or twisted conclusions. And that is about to crumble to the real facts. Which takes us back to the question in number one. Why does the CO2 follow the heat? It just seems to me that we could have saved a lot of time by answering the ice core question at the beginning. But I do understand that smog and acid rain had the CO2 dollars on the table for the scientists at the time.