Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Swa]

No it isn't. Several studies have shown this, for example, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002.

That's only 82% with a response rate of 30%. So a lot of room for confirmation bias. Also the majority of those aren't climate scientists so are likely to not be exposed to the actual research and instead influenced by the media.

In any case science isn't determined by consensus (which there isn't in this case) but by the body of research which is inconclusive in this case.

 

[lumeer]

That's only 82% with a response rate of 30%. So a lot of room for confirmation bias. Also the majority of those aren't climate scientists so are likely to not be exposed to the actual research and instead influenced by the media.

Amongst the actual climate scientists though, 75 of 77 (97.4 %) answered "yes" to human activity being a significant contibutor to climate change.

In any case science isn't determined by consensus (which there isn't in this case) but by the body of research which is inconclusive in this case.

Again you write it like it's a made-out fact that there isn't consensus, when there clearly is. And no, science isn't determined by consensus, I'm just pointing out this study to rebut your claim that the idea that there is consensus, is mere propaganda.

 

[Geoff.D]

I pick the side of the over 90 % of climate scientists who believe that there is man-made climate change.

Hmm based on what? The media reports of what the media thinks is in the report and studies or because you have read them yourself?

 

[Geoff.D]

Maybe it really is just a bad paper. I mean, the evidence of one of its main claims is deferred to the yet-to-be-published article [6]. But maybe the authors are innocent parties to all of this. It could be that they uploaded the article to arXiv as a work-in-progress, when opportunistic climate change denialists pounced upon it as new evidence against manmade climate change. But then, considering that they've also published in the journal International Review of Physics, which is not ISI-listed and appears to be a predatory journal (such journals charge a publishing fee and publish practically anything with little or no quality control), I'm not sure they're innocent.

Absolutely. That could very well be the outcome. That is all I am on about. Let the peer review process take is course. THEN we can all step in and crow "I told you so" or "Hmm so there is some truth in their results" and can be accepted into the mainstream studies. Nothing more and nothing less.
It is the unprecedented outright attack from post number 2 that got me going. Knowing full well what has transpired to date because I have been following the IPCC process since the release of the very first report in 1990.
I have deliberately not looked at all the rather radical videos posted, preferring to stick the "established science" instead.

And yes those scientists need to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Especially given that one of them at least has been actively involved in the IPCC studies.

If there is a fight to pick, it is about the quality of the Scientific Journalism at play in this saga, as Gordon_R pointed out in one of his posts.

 

[Swa]

Amongst the actual climate scientists though, 75 of 77 (97.4 %) answered "yes" to human activity being a significant contibutor to climate change.

Can't find the number you are quoting. Again nobody is arguing that the climate change doesn't occur but rather the factors involved and their significance.

Again you write it like it's a made-out fact that there isn't consensus, when there clearly is. And no, science isn't determined by consensus, I'm just pointing out this study to rebut your claim that the idea that there is consensus, is mere propaganda.

Again don't see the consensus you mention.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

They can't incorporate it as there is no record. So these things are ignored.

The only way they can incorporate it is by adding a footnote: "The Sun and space weather also could influence Earth temperatures but we have no data so we are not sure about the impact"

This will give less credence to their actual study of CO2 or whatever else so it is just omitted.

I have no idea what you mean by 'space weather' in this context, but there's a lot of research and evidence regarding the sun's influence, including a record. The sun has been generally flat with a slight cooling trend for the last ~40 years, yet temperatures are rising. They're moving in opposite directions. At the same time, there are no models that can explain rising temperatures without rising greenhouse emissions (specifically CO2) present.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Again don't see the consensus you mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.

A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.

 

[Swa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature

Articles being the operative. Far from the claim that 97.1% of climate scientists endorse the position.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Articles being the operative. Far from the claim that 97.1% of climate scientists endorse the position.

Why? It's a justifiable claim, in my view. Of climate scientists that published in the field (why wouldn't you look at this, for example?) or were surveyed about their view, those are the figures we get.

The evidence for the consensus is massive. Multiple studies find basically the same result, some even stronger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

 

[Gordon_R]

Absolutely. That could very well be the outcome. That is all I am on about. Let the peer review process take is course. THEN we l can all step in and crow "I told you so" or "Hmm so there is some truth in their results" and can be accepted into the mainstream studies. Nothing more and nothing less.

It is the unprecedented outright attack from post number 2 that got me going. Knowing full well what has transpired to date because I have been following the IPCC process since the release of the very first report in 1990.
I have deliberately not looked at all the rather radical videos posted, preferring to stick the "established science" instead.

And yes those scientists need to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Especially given that one of them at least has been actively involved in the IPCC studies.

If there is a fight to pick, it is about the quality of the Scientific Journalism at play in this saga, as Gordon_R pointed out in one of his posts.

IMO the Finnish paper will never be published in a reputable journal. The lengthy reviews in the link that I posted (not by laymen but by reputable climate scientists) indicate why. One key point is that since it does not specify the data source, it cannot be checked and is thus unverifiable (and unscientific). It is fine to be skeptical, but you cannot take this undergraduate level of work as proof of anything.

My very first post was to call out the BS in the thread title, the biased logic, and the unproven claims, and that it was posted in the News forum. My comment was not unprecedented, it was not an attack, it was a statement of fact, which was later backed up by extensive reviews.

Shifting the goalposts to questioning known uncertainty in the IPCC process is intellectually dishonest. Claiming that we should give fringe theories the benefit of the doubt until they are disproven, is a typical denialist strategy. Choose your friends.

This thread has been unnecessarily acrimonious and verbose, and done no credit to the MyBB community. Years ago I would never have posted on such a forum, but I slowly found useful ways to contribute. This thread has almost exhausted that goodwill.

Be careful what you wish for, otherwise such discussions may just end up a bunch of squabbling. Or silence, since those who know anything will have moved on...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Very good paper here on some of the common issues in the papers that fall outside the consensus.

Learning from mistakes in climate research

And explanatory article:

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers.

A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus

 

[Swa]

Why? It's a justifiable claim, in my view. Of climate scientists that published in the field (why wouldn't you look at this, for example?) or were surveyed about their view, those are the figures we get.

The evidence for the consensus is massive. Multiple studies find basically the same result, some even stronger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Sorry but the only thing I see from your link is that the studies are all over the place. Miles away from the claim that the evidence for consensus is overwhelming. A quick glance over them one even seems to indicate the consensus being that AGW doesn't exist.

The fatal flaw in taking published studies as evidence for consensus is that you don't know under what expectation those studies were published. As the investigative factor is AGW it stands to reason the majority of papers would examine that. It does not mean it's the position of the author that it's true or that they endorse it. There are also tremendous flaws in a lot of pro positions with the rest not being able to show any conclusion.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Sorry but the only thing I see from your link is that the studies are all over the place. Miles away from the claim that the evidence for consensus is overwhelming. A quick glance over them one even seems to indicate the consensus being that AGW doesn't exist.

Nope, it's pretty clear what they're all saying.

The fatal flaw in taking published studies as evidence for consensus is that you don't know under what expectation those studies were published. As the investigative factor is AGW it stands to reason the majority of papers would examine that. It does not mean it's the position of the author that it's true or that they endorse it. There are also tremendous flaws in a lot of pro positions with the rest not being able to show any conclusion.

This makes no sense and is just a blanket claim with no substantiation, really.

 

[Swa]

In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.

...

Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

...

An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Seems the claim of consensus is equally without consensus.

 

[Swa]

Nope, it's pretty clear what they're all saying.



This makes no sense and is just a blanket claim with no substantiation, really.

Only to you and others who believe what they want to believe. Well done in ignoring my point that one study even showed 51% not believing it.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Climate predictions from the past were completely off -we're now bearing witness to those failed predictions.

That's incorrect.

Here's How Scarily Accurate NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far
How well have climate models projected global warming?
How reliable are climate models?

Maybe it's time we try and figure out why instead of shooting down (Ie. "debunking" with flawed science) any / all real-on-the-ground science (increasingly) being put forward.

Good idea. There's a boatload of it coming out, practically daily.

https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/climate-science

I did not watch it, until now. (Apologies, it got away from me and I forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder )
Did a quick search on "Peter Hadfield" (and watched his "Who I am" video):
So he used to be, most notably, a BBC / CNN / reporter (with nothing to do with climate change, space weather or the sun), who eventually got a degree in geology.
A **main stream media reporter who focuses on "the accurate reading of science", but hasn't actually done any of the science or published any peer reviewed papers with on the ground scientists.

(I think I'll be sticking with the scientists doing the work -not reporters...

Then why did you post (and evidently follow) Davidson, who isn't a scientist?

But cool, if you want to stick to scientists:

https://twitter.com/KHayhoe
https://twitter.com/DrShepherd2013
https://twitter.com/dana1981
https://twitter.com/hausfath
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins
https://twitter.com/PeterGleick

...or (97% of) scientists who reference flawed [or worse, proven doctored] science.

Pretty massive and unsupported generalisation. Can be applied just as easily to the folks you cite, don't you think?

--EDIT: I emailed Dr. Tinsley and asked him whether he's aware that his presentation (even though it was hosted by the "Observing the Frontier" conference) was used in this capacity. I also asked him whether he endorses
--Davidson's assertions that the sun is the driver behind climate change and just generally what he thinks. I'm not sure I'm going to get a response, but yeah...I tried. So let's see what happens.

Cool.

In the mean time, here's a solar physicist debunking Davidson.

https://twitter.com/drkstrong

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Only to you and others who believe what they want to believe. Well done in ignoring my point that one study even showed 51% not believing it.

Which one showed 51%?

This one?

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta.

...

Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[20]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry"

Come on, man...

Also, they're not climate scientists, which is the claim you disputed.

 

[rietrot]

I don't understand why people are happy to accept the word of expert scientists on things like engineering, medicine, biology, quantum physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc., but when it comes to climate science, they suddenly think that the experts don't know what they're doing.

This is probably one of the most ridiculous strawman that always pops up.

 

[rietrot]

At this point of the debate trying to convince those that has fallen for the doom and gloom that the world is going to end and all of CC is human driven is a waste of time.

They exhibit classic signs of a cult. They'll believe what the believe, and no logic or reasonable argument will change their mind. Only a dramatic emotional event, because this is emotional for them.

 

[lumeer]

At this point of the debate trying to convince those that has fallen for the doom and gloom that the world is going to end and all of CC is human driven is a waste of time.

They exhibit classic signs of a cult. They'll believe what the believe, and no logic or reasonable argument will change their mind. Only a dramatic emotional event, because this is emotional for them.

But isn't this just classical Dunning-Kruger stuff? That a novice like yourself should declare that the experts all have it wrong?