Greta Thunberg day in NYC

[Handlebars]

10/20 years

Yeah, with only a 10 or 20 year perspective, such change could be alarming. It's not a very long time to attain the status of being the normal.

 

[elect]

It's interesting that villages are disclosed under the glacier retreat. I don't know particulars. I'll look for that article.

Here is a study abstract saying it was like this or warmer 8 times in the past 10,000yrs.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...uced_glacier_extent_in_the_Central_Swiss_Alps

Showing that 10k years ago it was 8 times warmer proves nothing. Earth goes in warm and cold times periodically

The problem has never been absolute, the problem is relative: changes happen drammatically faster than anything happened on earth based on geological analyses (and timescale)

Yeah, with only a 10 or 20 year perspective, such change could be alarming. It's not a very long time to attain the status of being the normal.

Same as above

 

[Handlebars]

Showing that 10k years ago it was 8 times warmer proves nothing. Earth goes in warm and cold times periodically

It's true that It shows precisely that. That's something that happens commonly. You accept that. I accept that.

The problem has never been absolute, the problem is relative

Well, that isn't the dominant narrative. The narrative is that the temp, non-relatively, is going to annihilate extirpate and extinguish all the nice things...even vape out the oceans to space (after sea level rise floods the lands and Tuvalu disappears beneath the waves).

changes happen drammatically faster than anything happened on earth based on geological analyses (and timescale).

That is a very difficult claim to support due to the methods and materials used being totally insufficient to detect that. It's impossible to know it at this time. How often are samplings done on proxies 10,000 yrs ago? Many times larger windows than 20 30 or 40 yr periods.
So if they catch any, even one, at much faster warming, the hypothesis is dead. Correct?

 

[elect]

That is a very difficult claim to support due to the methods and materials used being totally insufficient to detect that. It's impossible to know it at this time. How often are samplings done on proxies 10,000 yrs ago? Many times larger windows than 20 30 or 40 yr periods.
So if they catch any, even one, at much faster warming, the hypothesis is dead. Correct?

The scientific community has surely its ways to measure and prof that. I'm not an expert, so I cant argue further.

But I do trust the expert and the scientific community.

 

[Handlebars]

Yes, it is very much a case of trust. And I'm not at all recommending a that you do not follow that good ethical path.
What if It could be proved to you in short order that the public has been lied to by the most famous of the climate scientists. The topmost in fame.
What if you saw that and knew it was true that they lie, because you can read it in short order in their own contradictory self-promotions?
What would you know about the increase in catastrophic events if you knew for 100% sure that they had lied repeatedly to you?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

@Handlebars, I'm not really sure what your point is.

You seem to badly misunderstand the hypothesis. In no way can you expect the temperature increase attributable to a warming climate to appear in a uniform amount at all locations on the planet simultaneously. Our planet is a complex system, and the predictions of the hypothesis are that average temperatures will increase. Some areas might show a large increase, some areas a smaller increase or not at all, and some areas might even record lower temperatures.

Similarly, just because some graphs were mislabeled does not invalidate the facts and observations supporting this hypothesis. Or the considerable number of charts that were not mislabeled.

You seem to badly misunderstand how science works.

Let me give you a less loaded analogy. Newton's Theory of Gravity was a very powerful tool that had enormous predictive power. Astronomers could use it to model the motion of the planets and the moons of planets and asteroids, and for the most part it was extremely accurate. However, when astronomers started making detailed observations of Mercury they just couldn't make it fit into Newton's theory.

Well, along came Einstein and General Relativity which made corrections to Newton's Theory that nicely explained Mercury's orbit. So everything was peachy keen after that, right? No. In the 1940s a very good astronomer named Vera Rubin noticed that stars orbiting galaxies were traveling much too rapidly, based on our best estimates of the mass of those galaxies. What was freaky was that the mass of the galaxies had to be about 20 times bigger than our estimates to account for the velocity of stars. And it just wasn't one galaxy. We are still sorting that one out but the best explanation we have so far is that there is some hitherto unknown kind of matter (usually called "Dark Matter") that accounts for the missing mass. Some other alternatives like MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) have been put forward but the Dark Matter Hypothesis has the best fit with our observations so far.

Note that at no point when we discovered that Mercury's orbit did not fit Newton's theory or when we discovered stars moved too rapidly did gravity stop working. Under your logic, after those discoveries people should have been able to fly by running and jumping and things would have started flying off of kitchen tables and bookshelves.

The simple fact of the matter is that the glaciers are melting. Some of them have been melting for over a century. Some of them only recently began receding. In nearly all of them that we observe the rate of melting seems to be accelerating. Errors in graphs or local climactic anomalies don't really have any relevance to either of those things.

If you think that the hypothesis is wrong, that's great. How do you explain what is going on? Why are the glaciers melting? Why are nearly all of the glaciers melting? Why does the rate of glacial melt worldwide seem to be increasing?

 

[Handlebars]

Would you feel elated to be able to know you're being lied to, or would it make you feel worse?

 

[Handlebars]

@Handlebars, I'm not really sure what your point is.

You seem to badly misunderstand the hypothesis. In no way can you expect the temperature increase attributable to a warming climate to appear in a uniform amount at all locations on the planet simultaneously. Our planet is a complex system, and the predictions of the hypothesis are that average temperatures will increase. Some areas might show a large increase, some areas a smaller increase or not at all, and some areas might even record lower temperatures.

Similarly, just because some graphs were mislabeled does not invalidate the facts and observations supporting this hypothesis. Or the considerable number of charts that were not mislabeled.

You seem to badly misunderstand how science works.

Let me give you a less loaded analogy. Newton's Theory of Gravity was a very powerful tool that had enormous predictive power. Astronomers could use it to model the motion of the planets and the moons of planets and asteroids, and for the most part it was extremely accurate. However, when astronomers started making detailed observations of Mercury they just couldn't make it fit into Newton's theory.

Well, along came Einstein and General Relativity which made corrections to Newton's Theory that nicely explained Mercury's orbit. So everything was peachy keen after that, right? No. In the 1940s a very good astronomer named Vera Rubin noticed that stars orbiting galaxies were traveling much too rapidly, based on our best estimates of the mass of those galaxies. What was freaky was that the mass of the galaxies had to be about 20 times bigger than our estimates to account for the velocity of stars. And it just wasn't one galaxy. We are still sorting that one out but the best explanation we have so far is that there is some hitherto unknown kind of matter (usually called "Dark Matter") that accounts for the missing mass. Some other alternatives like MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) have been put forward but the Dark Matter Hypothesis has the best fit with our observations so far.

Note that at no point when we discovered that Mercury's orbit did not fit Newton's theory or when we discovered stars moved too rapidly did gravity stop working. Under your logic, after those discoveries people should have been able to fly by running and jumping and things would have started flying off of kitchen tables and bookshelves.

The simple fact of the matter is that the glaciers are melting. Some of them have been melting for over a century. Some of them only recently began receding. In nearly all of them that we observe the rate of melting seems to be accelerating. Errors in graphs or local climactic anomalies don't really have any relevance to either of those things.

If you think that the hypothesis is wrong, that's great. How do you explain what is going on? Why are the glaciers melting? Why are nearly all of the glaciers melting? Why does the rate of glacial melt worldwide seem to be increasing?

You seem to badly misunderstand the hypothesis.

.... but NOT if I agree with your all your points,or go further in your direction... eh? That wouldn't work out right.

In no way can you expect the temperature increase attributable to a warming climate to appear in a uniform amount at all locations on the planet simultaneously.

Correct. Do you think I do not understand that point?

Our planet is a complex system, and the predictions of the hypothesis are that average temperatures will increase.

Complex, surely, But why would "chaotic system" vis a vis climate not be the more appropriate term?

Some areas might show a large increase, some areas a smaller increase or not at all, and some areas might even record lower temperatures.

Correct.

Similarly, just because some graphs were mislabeled does not invalidate the facts and observations supporting this hypothesis. Or the considerable number of charts that were not mislabeled.

Correct again, except that I didn't mention mislabeling. I mentioned lying. Here's the meeting point. Ongoing lying about the mislabeling. That's a very different thing.

I can respond to the rest after we agree on what my point is: Lying to the public about the science repeatedly.

 

[Handlebars]

I appreciate your posts, Mr. Coffee. You are giving a well put together coverage lesson for beginners who saw something on the internet.

 

[steve mercier]

The solution would be to invest massive amount of funds in research for finding livable exoplanets, warp speed rockets , BIG telescopes and really fast and other space tech. For moving billions of people easily throughout the universe.
Nobody was flying over the Oceans 100 years ago, or riding an ebike at 30mph charging it from the Sun.

Space , the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship Ebiker01.... to explore strange new worlds ...to boldly go where no man has gone....

 

[Mr. Coffee]

....
Correct again, except that I didn't mention mislabeling. I mentioned lying. Here's the meeting point. Ongoing lying about the mislabeling. That's a very different thing.

I can respond to the rest after we agree on what my point is: Lying to the public about the science repeatedly.

I absolutely agree that Lying to the public about the science repeatedly is evil. But I believe that the people doing the lying are the fossil fuel industry and their surrogates, who have known about the risks of CO2-emissions causing climate change for forty years and have spent decades buying elected officials and fake spokespeople who dispute the science. All in the service of making next years numbers and anything else be dammed.

Seriously, do you believe that people would lie to protect a $150,000 per year professorship and $1MM in grants but be scrupulously truthful when hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are at stake? Please do not make me laugh.

As for Professor Mann, multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrongdoing. He is in the process of suing some of his accusers for defamation. The defendants in that case seem to be busy trying to get the case dismissed and firing and hiring different legal representation. Apparently their latest argument is that the case should be dismissed because they were merely engaged in "exaggeration for the purpose of debate". Translation: they (the defendants, not Professor Mann) were lying.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (gets in the weeds but does make it pretty clear that the lying wasn't by scientists.

 

[Handlebars]

I absolutely agree that Lying to the public about the science repeatedly is evil. But I believe that the people doing the lying are the fossil fuel industry and their surrogates, who have known about the risks of CO2-emissions causing climate change for forty years and have spent decades buying elected officials and fake spokespeople who dispute the science. All in the service of making next years numbers and anything else be dammed.

Seriously, do you believe that people would lie to protect a $150,000 per year professorship and $1MM in grants but be scrupulously truthful when hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are at stake? Please do not make me laugh.

As for Professor Mann, multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrongdoing. He is in the process of suing some of his accusers for defamation. The defendants in that case seem to be busy trying to get the case dismissed and firing and hiring different legal representation. Apparently their latest argument is that the case should be dismissed because they were merely engaged in "exaggeration for the purpose of debate". Translation: they (the defendants, not Professor Mann) were lying.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (gets in the weeds but does make it pretty clear that the lying wasn't by scientists.

I absolutely agree that Lying to the public about the science repeatedly is evil. But I believe that the people doing the lying are the fossil fuel industry and their surrogates

Mr. Coffee, should you show some fuel industry lying about CC I would certainly agree with you for that person or company. I cannot vouch for them. So any actual evidence of a company lying would help with that agreement.

who have known about the risks of CO2-emissions causing climate change for forty years

I agree in principle that they indeed have known for decades, not sure how many now, but they did know. But what did they know...that a CO2 increase should cause a warming INFLUENCE. Influence. Not actual warming of the troposphere, but a warming influence. Agreed ? After all, they paid for and produced some of the corroborating research. We agree there. Right? They knew of its influence.

But you go further

and have spent decades buying elected officials and fake spokespeople who dispute the science.

Disputing science is not necessarily bad. Scientists dispute. They can dispute. Dispute what our agreed claim is after accepting the claim themselves? No. Now the dispute is about something different: "The science". Very broad, I don't know what evidence you have for any particular. Many claim guilt by association, say with politicians who have oil being big in their state economy. That isn't evidence we need to have of them denying what they already found out themselves decades earlier. So evidence it and I will readily agree.

Seriously, do you believe that people would lie to protect a $150,000 per year professorship

That is not all. LIfe's reputation and social standing and activism and shame for guiltiness can do a lot of things, but I didn't say WHY they lied and I'm not a mind reader. They repeatedly lied to the public about their work in the science, is all I can show. No mindreading involved in my claim.

As for Professor Mann, multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrongdoing.

I can tell you exactly why each is not a legitimate clearing. For example, his own university allowed him to not answer the critical question they asked of him. In other tactics, the NAS panel official whom was to judge the wrongdoing content of his emails refused to look at the emails, out of respect. That is not an inquiry to your mind, if true, is it? In fact he claimed exoneration in multiple inquiries some even in proceedings that had not been about him! Bizarre claims is what he has left

He is in the process of suing some of his accusers for defamation.

He just lost the first case up because he refused court order for long years to show his work. His backers are to pay all expenses of the defendant. Tim Ball aimed at one of his earlier misrepresentations and he caved by refusing to show his world famous workings to the court. Tim Ball learned about his r2 verification failure and went for that from a Mann early career episode with the truth. Tim Ball learned about that from McIntyre's work and Mann apparently took the risk of loss rather than show and take the loss for sure. The most vital research in the world ever, and he won't show his homework. Your information sources aren't very anxious to spread that word now that he's lost for refusing court order to show. He's now trying to not show his work some more.

The defendants in that case seem to be busy trying to get the case dismissed and firing and hiring different legal representation. Apparently their latest argument is that the case should be dismissed because they were merely engaged in "exaggeration for the purpose of debate". Translation: they (the defendants, not Professor Mann) were lying.

Not true. His court statements in that trial are what show his previous lies! He's all done after long years of punishing his accusers through lawfare paid by donors while refusing to give court ordered disclosure. Done. He's all out of gas but not money to fight disclosure.

But I have to prove some lies. Right? I have my duty to do that. You have yours. Agreed? Mine is more important because he is representing them all and you in this instance.

 

[Handlebars]

BTW, Are you suggesting that oil companies knew more back 40 years ago than IPCC did in 1990?

 

[Handlebars]

ok.

Here's Michael on the RealClimate website he shares with the NASA GISS Director Gavin Schmidt, exclaiming upon questioning by John Finn, that no researcher to their knowledge has ever grafted instrumental temperatures onto a proxy line. This was just after climategate broke and "hide the decline" was in the news. Many ordinary people assumed it meant a decline in real temperatures was happening and being hidden. The fawning media gloated over that and reviled them. This questioner on his website, however, knew what he was asking Mike. Wasn't it a dubious thing to do? Absolutely never happened, Mike answered haughtily and smeared the fuel industry as usual once again, for good measure.

Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

Here's the email that the questioner John Finn was referring to. It's from Phil Jones, in charge of global temperature records at CRU in England: He's emailing Mike and friends in order to do a version of "Mike's Nature trick" "to hide the decline". "Nature" refers to the scientific journal where Mike had published a paper cleverly hiding the fact that the proxy for temperature was going in the opposite direction of what it should if it's a proxy for temperature. A proxy so good that it can support the fantasy that they can tell the previous decade was the hottest in 1000 yrs! Pure fantasy. A lie.

The tree ring proxy line was spiking down at a time when everyone could see graphed instrumental temperatures spiking up, and that ruins the picture they wanted painted of treemometers being fully able to give them that microscope sight ability.

However, studies of the proxy were showing it isn't such a treemometer. Michael wasn't having that and performed a trick to hide the fact. Phil jumped on the bandwagon with glee after Mike's paper was published. How clever, Mike's trick to hide the decline. So after consulting with team, and told to hide the decline by chopping it off and splicing on something else, Phil got together online with Mike to get support and consultation on how he would emulate Mike's trickiness for the World Meteorological Organization's 50th anniversary journal cover story - millenium version.

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

"Keith's" is the tree ring proxy graph by Keith Briffa, which had a strong decline, going opposite direction to real temperatures thereby showing that it was not fit to do what they so desired to be able to claim. Phil decided to just chop off the uncooperative data from 1961
onward and illicitly replace the missing portion with an instrumental temperature line. Mike approved that and said it would help the claims he was planning to make in the next IPCC report.

The text looks good, and I agree w/ everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.

and

Just for comparison to what Tim is producing, I’m attaching the plot you may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we should discuss.

The hockey team is in action. Tim Osborn tells of the T-shirt they have created in celebration of their accomplishments. Mike wants a size medium.

Dear Tim,

No, I don't mind at all. thanks for letting me know,

mike

p.s. I wear a medium

At 01:05 PM 3/28/00 +0100, you wrote:
Mike
>
>How's things? I have a slightly unusual question for you. We're producing
>some CRU t-shirts/polo shirts in the next few weeks. Some will just have
>the CRU logo on, but some people want a picture on the back. The picture
>we've decided upon has three curves on it showing temperatures over the
>last 1000 yrs (I think it's based on the front cover of the WMO statement
>on 1999 climate). They're just curves, with nothing to identify what they
>are or where they come from (so it's slightly abstract), but in fact on of
>them is your 1000-yr NH temperature reconstruction. Do you mind if we put
>it on our t-shirts?
>
>Best regards
>
>Tim

So now everyone can see that Michael Mann was intimately involved with Phil Jones' effort to make the public and other professionals of various types believe that the tree rings are accurate to use as thermometers to tell a decade as hottest out of 1000yrs of the past although it can't tell what the temperature is now under their noses. When the hockey team told that lie they were cheating you and yours. They were instilling fear in the public for promotion value of their own work. It's destroyed prior confidence in scientific efforts, for many.
Below is a recreation of what became what under the hockey team.
But wait. There's more. He's still carrying on adding deceit to deceit.

 

[Handlebars]

After all the UK climate scientists were cleared in a comical political scene of self investigation, complete digestion of a ton of emails leading to absolution in a matter of a couple of hours by the British Petroleum BP Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon's already former top executive while the oil still gushed ... things returned to a facade of normality.

Phil Jones in retrospect concocts this reply regarding his infamous use of the term and what is meant by “hide the decline”:

“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?

It was central to a worldwide controversy and yet Phil wants you to think of it as if he had made an offhand remark of no consequence on a mundane matter.


Muir Russell of the Muir Russel investigation into the climategate graphs for WMO and then IPCC Third Report:

"In relation to “hide the decline”, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together."

Mann response from court pleadings

"The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous."

OK. So if it had absolutely nothing to do with Dr Mann, why is it in Dr. Mann's CV ?

Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Cover Figure for World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 50th Year Anniversary Publication: Temperature changes over the last Millennium, 2000.

 

[elect]

Yes, it is very much a case of trust. And I'm not at all recommending a that you do not follow that good ethical path.
What if It could be proved to you in short order that the public has been lied to by the most famous of the climate scientists. The topmost in fame.
What if you saw that and knew it was true that they lie, because you can read it in short order in their own contradictory self-promotions?
What would you know about the increase in catastrophic events if you knew for 100% sure that they had lied repeatedly to you?

I trust experts because they studied hard, nowadays science is very advanced, we have a lot of technology to help us and because the process to publish papers is rigorous and logic-based.

Unless you consider most famous the 97% of scientists, than fame and promotions doesn't have anything to do with the matter.

Also, given the unanimous scientific consensus, from a probabilistic point of view the possibility that this is a big hoax is close to zero.

 

[Handlebars]

Sadly. that doesn't work in this "science". You can know it's not science because it's the only one that has never had a paper retracted even though lots of substandard garbage is produced yearly.
Let's take a look at the study "Quantifying the Consensus" produced to show that world famous headline 97% consensus in the climate science literature.
We can actually see the absurd amount of cheating for ourselves if we only look. It doesn't take a scientist to know it's a lie. You CAN know things about the science without being a scientist. We have seen the lying by the most famous. For the most part they all know about the lying but are part of an activist group takeover that is very very powerful and controls enormous wealth distribution. It gives huge gifts to friends, and destroys opposition careers. So you get an almost perfect fear-based unanimity of cowards in chorus at the trough. It is not science.

Here is the study claim:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

After they began their politically motivated stunt, they quickly realized that almost no papers state explicit agreement with the scientific quantified consensus. In truth, less than half of 1% do, according to their own data WHICH YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF in a 2 minute scan of the titles. Right here: https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

So they quickly found out they couldn't produce the expected 97% consensus. They convened a meeting to fix that. Here's the fix: secretly rule out their own definition they said they are using for "AGW" and make it something almost meaningless. Humans contribute. That is not the scientific quantified amount consensus they claim to be finding.

OK, so we've ruled out a definition on AGW being (...) "more than 50% human influence

When you go to their data sheet, and you look for such agreement signs, after each title they have two numerals, and the second numeral is for agreement that humans caused over half of recent warming, like IPCC says. Easy to scan some for yourself and after 200 titles in the list scanned, you realize that it's all a lie. You didn't even find one category 1 paper, category 1 means that it explicitly agreed with IPCC type of AGW that humans are mostly the cause, or over half, or over 50% the cause.


Here you can see that a numeral 1 of the two numerals after each title, means they agreed with IPCC, that over half is human-caused. this is what they say they are out to find, but never again mention it.


"Endorsement 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% "


https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

But if you look at the titles there, you'll be unable to see ANY without diligent searching, forget 97 % of them. You can scan through 2 hundred and not find one. It was all a lie ...and NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the propaganda group known as climate science said anything over a world wide hit in headlines that was a lie that they clearly had to know was without doubt a lie.

Anyone can understand that it's ridiculous to think all papers parrot the same thing. Scientists would know immediately that it's a false claim and that they cheated.

Their claimed definition:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. .... Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations) .

Secret meeting to rule out the definition they say they are using:

Okay, so we’ve ruled out a definition of AGW being ‘any amount of human influence’ or ‘more than 50% human influence’. We’re basically going with Ari’s porno approach (I probably should stop calling it that) which is AGW = ‘humans are causing global warming’. e.g. – no specific quantification which is the only way we can do it considering the breadth of papers we’re surveying.

They ruled out the definition they claim to be using and never again mention that type of endorsement, which is what the the paper and the title says they are to show.

And it's got nothing at all to do with the "breadth of papers". It's got to do with producing the familiar bogus 97% figure headlines when the facts do not support their propaganda.


As well as quietly dropping the required "scientific" quantification element, they kicked out 2/3 of the papers. So actually not based on 11,944 papers. Now look at their data sheet for level 1 endorsement. It's very rare.

To believe that junk is just sad. Go look for yourself for 3 minutes. See their classification given. See the 2 numerals after each title. Look for the second numeral being a "1".

That people give up their own wits and depend on this kind of propaganda, is not a good sign.

 

[Ebiker01]

Space , the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship Ebiker01.... to explore strange new worlds ...to boldly go where no man has gone....

Yep, and we already have the tricorder (iphone), the Ipads and lots of other tech. Tools presented 20-40 years ago by Data, Capt. Picard and his crew
Waiting for that dilithium rocket engine..,.

 

[indianajo]

Who are this Mike & Phil?
They caught one guy from India making up numbers in his climate paper about a decade ago. Who else?
I take the idea of "consensus" from reports in Nature as reported on bbcnews.com and PBS. PBS ran a 3 parts series on the numbers of climate change 2 years ago. Worth watching IMHO.
Little things like CO2 levels in ice core samples going back 40000 years, mud core samples going back further than that. Sea temperature logs from 150 years.
Some neighbor with a physics degree last month tried to tell me the whole thing could blamed on volcanoes. Except all the volcanos have been measured, and they are doing nothing like the event 500000 years ago when 5 states were covered in lava from the one under yellowstone park. That one caused a global climate change, the scientists say.
You can hear what you want on Fox news, that is why you have to pay a subscription for it. UPI is dead, API is a private subscription service that you have to subscribe to a sports/lifestyle paper like the Indi Star to see. NY Times puts all our national secrets on the front page as soon as they can pay for them. Good reporting, vile editorial practice. WSJ belongs to Murdoch who got caught spying on crime victims with News of the World and had to close it. Most people get their "news" from facebook, which is not peer reviewed IMHO.
Most of my friends don't bother to dispute the numbers. They just drive their 5000 lb super cab pickups around in circles 500 miles a month, drive 40 miles r.t. to Wal-mart to save $1 on an item, air condition their houses to 68 in summer, heat to 72 in winter, race their 4 wheelers down the road at 50 mph without license plates (they're ag equipment). Typical Americans.
The good news is I'll be dead before the Gulf Stream stops. The rest of you, good luck.
As far as wide-eyed SF solutions, I wish they would find a way to live in the asteroid belt before they pollute mars with our *****y bacteria. The resources are right there on the surface, no mining required. Even H2, O2, CH4.

 

[Handlebars]

Who are this Mike & Phil?
They caught one guy from India making up numbers in his climate paper about a decade ago. Who else?
I take the idea of "consensus" from reports in Nature as reported on bbcnews.com and PBS. PBS ran a 3 parts series on the numbers of climate change 2 years ago. Worth watching IMHO.
Little things like CO2 levels in ice core samples going back 40000 years, mud core samples going back further than that. Sea temperature logs from 150 years.
Some neighbor with a physics degree last month tried to tell me the whole thing could blamed on volcanoes. Except all the volcanos have been measured, and they are doing nothing like the event 500000 years ago when 5 states were covered in lava from the one under yellowstone park. That one caused a global climate change, the scientists say.
You can hear what you want on Fox news, that is why you have to pay a subscription for it. UPI is dead, API is a private subscription service that you have to subscribe to a sports/lifestyle paper like the Indi Star to see. NY Times puts all our national secrets on the front page as soon as they can pay for them. Good reporting, vile editorial practice. WSJ belongs to Murdoch who got caught spying on crime victims with News of the World and had to close it. Most people get their "news" from facebook, which is not peer reviewed IMHO.
Most of my friends don't bother to dispute the numbers. They just drive their 5000 lb super cab pickups around in circles 500 miles a month, drive 40 miles r.t. to Wal-mart to save $1 on an item, air condition their houses to 68 in summer, heat to 72 in winter, race their 4 wheelers down the road at 50 mph without license plates (they're ag equipment). Typical Americans.
The good news is I'll be dead before the Gulf Stream stops. The rest of you, good luck.
As far as wide-eyed SF solutions, I wish they would find a way to live in the asteroid belt before they pollute mars with our *****y bacteria. The resources are right there on the surface, no mining required. Even H2, O2, CH4.

"Mike" is Michael Mann, the most famous climate scientist on earth, the "inventor" of the hockey stick graph, he got there by learning how to hide failures of the data in how he wanted it to look, through use of a neat "trick", and make it look great.

Phil Jones, he did a clumsy version of the trick simply removing data that went a way that he didn't want it to for their story to be told, and replaced it with some from a dataset he did like and falsely named it. And...got caught.
Former Director of CRU Climatic Research Unit in England, which produces one of the 2 most influential global temperature records.
He talked about destroying the whole historical temperature record of the globe in order to evade an incoming FOIA request.

2 of the 3 most famous climate scientists.