My name is Mark Steyn. I am not a scientist.

[highway001]

No...google is NOT our friend. It makes for lazy, uneducated, would-be intellectuals who can google anything to find the solution they are looking for. Honestly did you even read that paper? Or just the headline on some blog and called it a day?

If you or the author of the blog read the thing you'd know it says in its conclusion that:

How does the PBL-study compare to the often-quoted 97% consensus?
The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

Cook et al. (2013) found that 97% of papers that characterized the cause of recent warming indicated that it is due to human activities. John Cook, the lead author of that analysis, is co-author on this current article. Similarly, a randomized literature review found zero papers that called human-induced climate change into question (Oreskes, 2004).

Other studies surveyed scientists themselves. For instance, Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann (2009) found lower levels of consensus for a wider group of earth scientists (82% consensus) as compared to actively publishing climatologists (97% consensus) on the question of whether or not human activity is a “significant contributor” to climate change. Our results are also in line with those of e.g. Bray and von Storch (2008) and Lichter (2007).

In the PBL-study, among respondents with more than 10 peer-reviewed publications (half of total respondents), 90% agree that greenhouse gases are the largest – or tied for largest - contributor to recent warming. The level of agreement is ~85% for all respondents.

Thoughts?

[Glacier]

Thoughts?

You are awfully dodgy and long winded in your responses. We will just have to agree to disagree on whether or not there is consensus over whether human caused climate change is causing catastrophic climatic behavior. I hate to be harsh, but you seem to be moving the goal posts. If I say that climate scientists are not in agreement, then you focus on a subset of that. If that didn't work, you'd find ways of excluding dissenting voices because you have already made up your mind as much as you are in finding evidence to reaffirm your beliefs.

[highway001]

Long winded?
I copy pasted the conclusion of the paper that you claimed proved you're point. You didn't read the paper.
The paper totally disproved your point and said the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

Subset of scientists?
The most published and relevant in the field according to the survey in the link you provided is over 90%. Or if you include the entire survey its 85%. The other papers range from 86 to 98%. What am I overlooking?

Moving goal posts?
I've now demonstrated 4 peer reviewed papers confirming an overwhelmingly majority. You even supplied a 5th. You only continue to give your opinion. You've supplied NO evidence, only a paper you googled but never read. Why would I move the goal posts when you're scoring on your own net?


Dodgy?
If reading the survey and quoting the conclusion is dodgy then you got me. I'd say it is FAR more suspect to try to pass off a paper as somthing its not. Did you even read it? Or were you being deceitful?

Agreed.....we disagree.

[Glacier]

Moving goal posts?
I've now demonstrated 4 peer reviewed papers confirming an overwhelmingly majority. You even supplied a 5th. You only continue to give your opinion. You've supplied NO evidence, only a paper you googled but never read. Why would I move the goal posts when you're scoring on your own net?

I think we disagree because you assume that the number of scientists who disagree with the assertion that most of the warming since 1950 is human caused is equivalent to number of scientists who think the earth is flat or moon landing was faked or 9/11 was an inside job. By any objective measure, this is not remotely true. I have posted polls as have others on scientists working on climatology, meteorologists, and the like. That is moving the goal posts because you think scientific polls don't count or something. Go ahead, and poll the American meteorological association and see if you can find 50% who are skeptical of moon landing.

Edit: I take back the "dodgy" comment. On second read, I think we were talking over each other so there was no intentional dodge.

[Jlabute]

Agree to disagree.

Doesn't matter who may be regarded as reputable on a very complex and politically fuelled subject. NASA and many other credible sources spread doom and fear back in the 70's regarding global cooling. (as co2 was increasing). It seemed credible since the average dipped a few tenths below. Anytime I see the words "world" and "experts" together I am skeptical. Now a new NOAA pause buster scandal. Obama who supports the UNs agendas is all for increasing climate science funding from 500mn to 7bn and one could expect to see a lot more biased papers in a given time period. Many still follow herd001 thinking.

Uncertainty and noise in measurements exceeds the accuracy of measurements and can't be distinguished from natural variability in a small time period. Thousands of data points have been adjusted and readjusted by >1c and suspiciously (to me) work in favour of an exaggerated rate of rise. Large adjustments imply uncertainty. Together with faulty/biased peer review.

Einstein who published upwards of 300 papers had one paper peer reviewed. The publisher wanted a second opinion and sent it to be peer reviewed and it came back as a negative... followed by Einsteins letter:

"Dear Sir,
We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the in any case erroneous comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.
Respectfully,
P.S. Mr. Rosen, who has left for the Soviet Union, has authorized me to represent him in this matter."

It is only a myth that peer review is always used, or that it reveals what is right or wrong, or that it is even reliable at all. Seeing peer review is everything to you, you are no Einstein. There is a glut of so called peer reviewed papers. So many one could wonder what 10s of thousands of articles deserve to be written about. 10s of thousands of scientists do not agree with the consensus despite what the 'other side' wants to see by browsing article titles. 99.9% consensus in articles from a small time period is indicative of a problem.

This is entertaining.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/197 ... age-scare/

Peer review effectiveness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Do peer reviewers miss stuff?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/29/n ... h-century/

[Jlabute]

Dec 30 Wednesday in Kelowna a balmy 26 degrees

My Dad who is a meteorologist would complain to many stations reporting inaccurate temperatures. Here is an obvious global warming issue. lol. Perhaps a Units issue... Either way, wrong.

[highway001]

1) While editorially there were plenty of 70s world cooling articles. The science and those peer reviewed journals overwhelmingly stated that in fact the Earth would warm. Exxon mobile and other oil gas scientists actually cane to this conclusion as well in the 70s but that was only revealed and admitted recently.

2) Why are there so many...a glut of papers? It's the job of an academic to publish.

3) Einstein was a theoretical physicist from nearly 100 years ago...his ability to publish is so irrelevant it's shocking. Also while his theory was progressive his science was wrong but again this is totally irrelevant.

4) More blogs....ugh ok thanks. Science journals have no credibility with 1000s of citations but googling a Wattsupwiththat blog is 100% legit.

5) If you don't trust scientists that's fine but where (besides your father) are you collecting information in order to form your opinion?

6) Lastly Glacier posted an peer reviewed study hurray...the minute it turns out to not say what you thought it would. Because neither of you read it...and suddenly that's irrelevant.

[highway001]

Whatever, Happy New Year. I'm sure adding a few more Gigatonnes of CO2 this year can't do anything negative right. I mean we take such great care of our environment around the world its a wonder why anyone cares about this topic...ugh

Forget the science, the blogs the politics. We're destroying our planet at a disgusting pace. You guys just need to open your eyes a bit.

GB thinks it's an international conspiracy, Glacier posts articles he doesn't read, Jalabute posts calendar and cites his dad.

Clearly I am outmatched. Gonna jump in my hummer, tear down every wind farm I see and club a baby seal for good measure. Harper 2020, Trump4Life.