Alarmists have sunk so low, that the best talking point they can come up with is :
There is no way that 97% of scientists would say global warming is an imminent threat, if it weren’t true.
It is difficult to imagine that any human being could pack so much stupid into one sentence, yet that is the standard talking point of Congressional Democrats.
 | gelcarrion0t on “You Can’t Hide Yo… |
| gelcarrion0t on Doubling Energy Costs |
| gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
 | Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live |
| gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
99% of physicists thought that theoretical physics was over as a science in 1897.
100% of intelligent people, know the “scientists”, (not anywhere near 97%), that spew such nonsense, have a “political agenda” behind their reason for doing so. The alarmists might have more credibility, if they would move on, and stop flogging this dead horse.
Back around 2003 the Global Warming movement switched to Anthropogenic Climate Change because Mother Earth failed to cooperate. “Temperatures are rapidly rising”–except on Planet Earth. “Drought” became floods, “Extreme weather” turned up mild. Predictions were wrong because the models suffered from the Garbage In–Garbage Out syndrome.
And of course, those relying on real-world evidence were “unscientific.” If you look at the climate change record and disagree with the artificial world of the “computer models” because the data doesn’t line up with predictions, you are a “denier.”
Ain’t it grand how a bunch of politicians (without scientific backgrounds) and a handful of administrators become “97% of all scientists?”
Sorry, it is not a case of GIGO. The algorithms used by the models are seriously inadequate and fatally flawed.
The “movement” may well have changed, but the term “climate change” was current among scientists by the turn of the century. Look through issues of Science for the years 2000 and 2001, and you’ll see this.
It was a lot earlier than that. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by the USA 21/03/94 (signed 12/06/92)
Here’s the official definition:
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.
The IPCC mandate is similar:
The IPCC’s ROLE
Under Mussolini, the trains ran on time 97% of the time. 97% of Germans were in the Nazi party and Sex Panther cologne is 97% effective 62% of the time! We know that science is not based on consensus and people that use that line do not respect or understand the scientific method.
Such statements are attractive to those who spend their days watching the “idiot box” and consuming drugs to relief their discomfort with life.
relieve
relief is the noun form.
You are right!
Relieved to hear it.
Except 97% do not say that. The actual questions to arrive at 97% is: Is man causing SOME (the percent is never quantified) Global Warming. The threat part never enters the survey.
If you scratch beneath the surface you find snake oil as usual
Doran-Zimmerman poll:
10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions were surveyed. 3146 of them responded of that 3146 all but 79 of the respondents were excluded.
July 18, 2012 About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
An oopsie in the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus claim
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?
Has some bitting comments from the scientist surveyed such as:
The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey
“Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause….”
97% of CAGW cult members are so ignorant of both science and statistics that they believe fraudulent studies to be accurate.
+1
Obama is slightly more emphatic: “There is no way that 97% of scientists would say global warming is an imminent threat, if it weren’t true. Period.”
/sarc
Obummer just forgot the rest of the sentence.
“There is no way that 97% of scientists would say global warming is an imminent threat, if it weren’t true, unless they were bribed or threatened.”
http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz282/mjc26250/obamaphis.jpg
He he he. Where’s MacGyver when you need him. SG-1 time to deploy. You have Goa’uld to slay.
Just to emphasize what Phil Jordan mentions; the issue is not whether there is some AGW, the issue is how much. There are some spectral bands for CO2 that do contribute to AGW; just not many. So the argument has to move away from the 97% of scientists say humans are causing warming. It should be 100%.
The question for the scientists has to be “how many of you believe that we are headed for Catastrophic warming?” And the answer will be damned few. That’s because Mann’s hockey stick is a fraud. If our planet has ever been warmer in the past then positive feedbacks will not kick in.
The argument has to be better defined in the press and in public. We, as skeptics of CAGW, have to do a better job of defining the argument to stay away from the 97% misdirection.
+1
Here is a couple of explanations of what is really going on that kilsl the idea of ‘Run away global warming’ dead. The Trenberth energy cartoon is murdered AGAIN. The first time John Kehr, a chem engineer showed the climastrologists IGNORE the difference between energy transfers and radiative flux.
(It really is snake oil all the way down!)
More at
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Dr. Robert Brown of Duke wrote, a for me, more understandable comment over at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/quote-of-the-week-howler-from-the-world-meteorological-organization-what-warming/#comment-1648000
If I read this correctly, CO2 WILL absorb the IR photons in the correct wavebands but the overwhelming ‘reaction’** is for the energy to be transfered to the rest of the atmospheric molecules warming them. At that point, since hot air rises the energy is carried up. Of the small number of CO2 molecules that do emit a photon instead of transferring energy via a collision, a second ‘reaction’ is for the excited CO2 to emit at frequencies “in the wings” half of that energy escapes through the emission-wing “hole”. Therefore the “Downwelling radiation” from CO2 is a tiny fraction of the amount the Climastrologists are claiming AND since “LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule,” additional CO2 in the atmosphere means diddly squat.
‘reaction’** I am a chemist and that is the only term close to what I mean that I can think of.
……
If you get Grant Petty’s book, you will see a plot showing the SB *intensity* form as well as the flux form and the misleading equal area forms. While the relative percentage of the sun’s power in the far IR is small, the intensity compared to a 300K emitter is not. Thus, ‘greenhouse’ gases clip the peak skin temperatures and the trough skin temperatures, relative to a body lacking an atmosphere, period, with or without ‘greenhouse’ gases.
It should not be forgotten that the SB equation is a limit and applies to the case where the only way energy transfer takes place is via radiation. For the Earth as a whole, all energy transfer out in the end is radiative. Within the Earth system, though, there are other paths for energy transfer.
Worse, in my mind, is the improper averaging of intensive properties. If they were doing this with extensive properties, and doing it correctly, I’d be more willing to accept what’s been said. Since they aren’t, I can’t. It is a form of making vast conclusions from half-vast data. You simply can’t do that scientifically, if you’re honest.
I still think that using area averaged power inputs and improper forms of the SB equation are not only bad science, they’re pure propaganda in the hands of power-mad politicians.
I always preferred this chart of solar vs earth energy compared to this chart which I consider very misleading.
……
“…Worse, in my mind, is the improper averaging of intensive properties….”
That is a practice that makes most [honest] physics savvy people run screaming.
I am by no means physics savvy and it has ME grinding my teeth.
Temperature (intensive property) is only half the story. You have to add in the latent heat of water vapor to get a decent estimate of the energy content of a chunk of air.
And since the amount of water vapor in the air is NOT constant, nor very uniform…you need to do a lot of calculating to do that (add the latent heat). They probably assume it would ‘average out’ or ‘doesn’t make that big a difference’ or something equally stupid in orfer to ignore it.
mjc says:
And since the amount of water vapor in the air is NOT constant, nor very uniform…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why I say they are using a sample size of ONE and therefore can not use the statistics of large samples.
Krigging is fraud.
And a Global ‘temperature’ is good to about 5C at best…. since many of the US stations are only good to 5C link and the US stations are the best fo the liter supposedly.
One other thing about water. It is strongly hydrogen bonded. When you first melt ice, it gets denser because the water molecules can pack closer together at first. Later, as you add energy, the clusters become more mobile and decrease in size, accompanied by thermal expansion.
For most substances, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and evaporation happen at the surface and involve single atoms or molecules. The highly hydrogen bonded water does not necessarily work that way. This increases the energy required to sublime or evaporate water (effectively dimers or even higher clusters of water molecules) and when you get deposition or condensation, you get that extra energy, relative to single molecule phase changes, back. Dimers and higher clusters of water will have different properties for quantum interactions such as IR absorption, compared to single molecules. Water’s complicated and then add surface effects when adsorbed onto dust grains, even when the full water cloud aerosol hasn’t been made yet. Then add to that the effects of solvation in the water cloud. Until these kinds of basic research questions have been done and thorough analysis has been done, hand-waving this away saying that it is noise and averages out to zero is akin to argument from ignorance.
And in 20 years the same people will be saying “It wasn’t science but the overzealous media that made it seem like there was this big scientific consensus on AGW. Very few, if any, scientists actually bought into the politics and the hype and the doomsday scenarios.”
Does “Lysenkoism” ever cross their minds?
The problem is obvious of course – most scientists simply accept what has been published as fact, and then build assumptions from there.
An easy example of a similar situation in the past is that 97 percent scientists believed that humans had 48 chromosomes, and this belief lasted for more than 25 years. It was widely published and fully accepted as fact. Anyone who said otherwise was simply a fool
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome
I have long argued that back-radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is very small, that the Khiel-Trenberth Earth Energy Budgets and various NASA versions as well violated Energy Conservation, that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation provides a maximum radiating limit for a surface in vacuum, that the loss of energy in the atmospheric window is more important than usually stated, that the short mean free path for CO2 and water vapor IR emissions is critical, yet rarely discussed, and that there is a general neglect of the ways the IR-active gases in the lower troposphere contribute to cooling by absorption of solar insolation in the atmosphere above the surface and by slightly speeding up the transfer of heat emitted by the surface through the lower atmosphere in an upward direction. The effects of CO2 are very small and it may well be that the net effect is not a warming effect. The net effect of water vapor is a cooling effect on the surface temperature. That of CO2 is less clear as yet, but it is so small that doubling its concentration in the atmosphere is certainly no catastrophe.
Khiel-Trenberth Earth Energy Budgets and the use of Stefan-Boltzmann equation are for modeled hypothetical BS. At no time do they allow for the FACT that nature on this planet acts to try and retain, for as long as possible, all energy that enters the planet’s system. Thus the idea that overly simplistic energy in=energy out is total, and absolute, BullHockey from the demented grant-maintained-parasites, with low intelligence and no imagination.
If nature in all it’s ways did act this way then there would never have been fossils, oil, coal, peat, methane clathrate, (radiant sunlight/thermal energy to chemical energy), etc., etc. No ocean cyclic currents (thermal to kenetic energy), no jet stream (thermal to kenetic energy), no forest, crops, or erosion (thermal to chemical energy) as these all TAKE energy and lock energy away for some time. Energy that’s ultimately from where?
How does the Khiel-Trenberth Earth Energy Budgets and Stefan-Boltzmann equation account for a non-black body that delays it’s return of energy by multi-level, variable delay time? Answer it doesn’t and so far the IPCC does not, so its CO2 hypothesis is ALL BS.
Well stated, Charles!
tom0mason says:
“..so its CO2 hypothesis is ALL BS.”
>>>>
EXACTLY!
There is no way that 97% of scientists would say global warming is an imminent threat, if it weren’t true, unless doing this increased their funding.
97% of doctors once believed that washing one’s hands between patients was so wrong, they blackballed the guy (Semmelweiss) who proposed it. 97% of doctors also believed that pellagra was contagious, the result of germ transfer from victim to victim.
A used car sales convention has more truth and validity than the 97% consensus paper…
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
If energy transfer from collisions is far more common, is it not just as likely for a non GHG to conduct to a GHG molecule, at altitude, thus accelerating energy loss to space? (cooling)
There are certainly some who think so.
cdquarles says: …“One other thing about water….”
>>>>>>>>>
Thanks my chemistry and physics is over 4 decades old and some is rather out dated.
Most of mine is about that old, too; but I keep on reading :).
Hey! We had to learn 9 planets. These young kids only have to learn about 8. 😉
Maybe, but the kids have to follow bureaucratic squabbles whether or not Pluto is a plutoid.
We had it easy.
Well, we did have 30 years less history to learn as well. 😉
I never thought of that angle. The history of the last 30 years is also changing every couple of years. We were lucky.
Yea, I have some pointy heads trying to tell me about the Vietnam War error and what I lived through did not happen.
Back in time, “scientists” determined that Man would never break the 4 minute mile or exceed 7 feet in the high jump. Also at one time, Congress tried to pass a bill that would have abolished the U.S. Patent office because it was thought that everything worth inventing was already invented, thereby making the patent office obsolete.