"100% Democrat" scientist comes out publicly against Obama on climate change

[StrongBad]

From an IT focused publication:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/11/freeman_dyson_interview/

Excerpt:

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

snip

Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.

[randys1]

1. First off, it is not 100% Democrat, it is 100% DemocratIC Scientist...second off

he is an idiot

[StrongBad]

2. It's a quote from the article from the scientist himself

So, you just outed yourself as having not read it.

[randys1]

5. No, I am correcting ANYONE who would use that terminology, including him.

[brooklynite]

33. Sorry, but he's right on that point...

You (and he) belong to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. But you (and he) are DEMOCRATS.

[ibegurpard]

51. Democrat is a noun

It's not an adjective.

[brooklynite]

69. ...and that's how he used it...

"Democrat" Scientist was the way the OP wrote the title

[Rex]

93. You are correct.

Then again, if you read the OPs article one thing that sticks out is how many typos the 'expert' makes. I guess writing is not one of their strong suits.

[demwing]

136. Obama is in the Democratic Party. He is a Democrat, 100%.

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I know the article is referring to the "scientist" but "Democrat" is a real word.

And yes, the "scientist" is an idiot (but he's not an idiotic).

[Blue_Tires]

3. So finding one scientist who disagrees with Obama's policy is worthy of a story?

You had to dig deep to find this, didn't you?

[StrongBad]

6. FYI, the consensus on global warming isn't the 97% figure often cited. It's much more complicated

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[randys1]

9. NO, it isnt. Why are you on a board of science believing adults?

[StrongBad]

10. I believe in science, just not manipulating statistics

From the WSJ article:

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

[truedelphi]

19. As someone who attempts to understand things from a scientific perspective,

I remain highly opposed to the idea that a certain number (or percentage) of published articles and studies PROVES anything.

All through the 1950's, 60's and even into the '70's, there were far more papers that were PROVING that cigarettes were totally safe for human consumption than papers showing the toxicity of cigarettes. (And in the fifties, there were even papers that showed that smoking cigarettes contributed to one's health!) Those many papers are now seen to be what they were - junk science brought about through the industry promoting the works of scientists willing to alter their results for the sake iof that industry.

In the mid-1990's, far more papers showed that the gas additive MTBE was safe, than the two papers that showed that it was very toxic, and should be removed from the gasoline. Around 1,100 papers showed tht MTBE was safe. Only the Calif. governor-appointed, Blue Ribbon Panel on MTBE and a paper from an Italian scientist showed that the substance was totally unacceptable. Luckily the governor listened to the Blue Ribbon Panel on the science, and the substance was eliminated (or significantly reduced) from the state's gasoline.

I do know that part of the reason for the spike in the temperature of cities across the globe starting in the mid-1980''s had to do with the fact that so many weather monitoring sites were moved from their historic locations to other locations. For instance, in the mid-1980's, the weather station that most reports from Chicago were based on was moved from a location near Lake Michigan to a point near O'Hare. This immediately jumped the stats in terms of Chicago's weather, making it appear as though Chicago's temps were suddenly radically higher. Yet if you try and point that out, you re denounced as being anti-science. (Traditionally, neighborhoods near Lake Michigan in Chicago had a much lower temperature than outlying neighborhoods. It is likely that temperatures in Illinois have been higher, but that doesn't mean we should not look into how much of an effect the removal of the weather stations from one location to another ended up causing.)

I want to go on record that I believe that Global Climate Change is being affected by human activities of both the present and the past, including the massive Black Op program that Scandinavian scientists say is currently contributing about 15% a year to the situation.

But like many of my friends, I don't want to have the government start to "help us" out with the situation - as industry controls our government. For instance, look at how Obama is credited with his sudden interest in banning coal. What a great environmentalist he is, say his supporters. Certainly banning coal is a good thing, but knowing how the system works, I would think that he did that due to his interest in promoting "natural gas" - despite the fact that fracking for natural gas is going to be the end of many eco systems inside the Continental USA. And Obama is highly connected with that industry, despite its hideous failures and its destruction of ur aquifers!

[StrongBad]

20. That's a fair and respectable opinion.

[edhopper]

66. A WSJ editorial? Really

did you not notice the words "Commentary"?
Did you not know how far right the WSJ editorial page is.
Did you not know that it is wrong about just about everything?


And your website is full of GCC denying articles.

Major fail!!

[StrongBad]

70. Egad man! It's citing a scientific study! That's what i'm referring to!

I could care less about the "commentary".

[edhopper]

94. No

but the bogus nature of that has already been demonstrated on this thread.

I have called out your sources.

I need to hear no further from you on this subject.

I don't debate with creationist, birthers or GCC deniers

[StrongBad]

102. Sigh. I usually don't engage pedants but here's a link to the legit scientific journal

Where the study was published:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

If the WSJ put together a commentary article citing a study claiming the world was round, would you reject that because the WSJ cited it within an opinion piece?

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. Bwahaha! An article by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley????

Nothing that Monckton has a hand in is 'legitimate science'. You might as well link to something written by George W. Bush.

[edhopper]

149. A homophobic, climate change denier as a source,

and the hits just keep on coming.

I am sure the OP would get a great reception on the National Review boards.

[StrongBad]

150. Ad hominem argument. No relevance to actual article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. Actual article is only available with money, so we have to judge is by the authors

Monckton is a far right ideologue (with a classics degree), who used to right stuff for Thatcher, who has spent years lying about climate. Even the right wing UKIP party in the UK had to chuck him out because he always spouts nonsense.

There is literally no-one you could quote in the climate science world that would more quickly ruin your credibility. You are now a joke.

[Rex]

154. Now?

No the OP was a joke as soon as it was posted. One IT guy vs. NASA...erkay...

[randys1]

7. The Black president simply cant be right, you understand!

[StrongBad]

8. No, it's trending on Facebook so has legs and we should be aware.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. Link it from Facebook, please. nt

[StrongBad]

14. It's in the "trending section" that is in the top right of your news feed.

There is no "facebook" link as the trending topics only aggregate links from multiple sources covering the trend.

I posted the original article from the original publication.

If you have FB it's probably there for you to see.

[LanternWaste]

15. Many irrational mind believe that if something is trending, then that something is valid.

Many irrational mind believe that if something is trending, then that something is valid. No doubt though, we're all quite aware that the popularity and accuracy are often two wholly separate concepts... and popularity is merely shiny packaging.

[StrongBad]

16. I agree, which is why we need to really think about pushing the 97% scientific consensus on warming

The reality of the scientific community is much more nuanced:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

"Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work."

[ChisolmTrailDem]

31. No, it's not there. And there will be a link to a page with trending results. That's the link I

need you to post.

Currently trending on Facebook:

Facebook: Bug in Social Network's Mobile Site Allows Some People to See Number of Views for Posts
Wal-Mart: Retailer's Stock Falls 10 Percent After Company Reduces Growth Forecast
Barack Obama: President Says US Military Withdrawal From Afghanistan Will Be Delayed
Lamar Odom: Ex-NBA Player Found Unconscious at Nevada Brothel; Blood Being Tested, Officials Say
Tony Romo: Cowboys Quarterback Tells Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady, 'See You in February'
Social Security: Benefits Will Not Receive a Cost-of-Living Adjustment in 2016, Government Says
Oscar Pistorius: Former Olympian Jailed for Killing Girlfriend to Be Moved to House Arrest, Officials Say
Kepler Space Telescope: Scientists Trying to Determine Mysterious Objects in Deep Space
Kaley Cuoco: Actress Posts Instagram Photo with 'Big Bang Theory' Co-Star Johnny Galecki
El Niño: Forecasters Say Natural Weather Occurrence Will Be Strong This Year

[StrongBad]

34. Here you go:

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Freeman-Dyson/108230152539269?source=whrt&position=6&trqid=6205937717421449545

[ChisolmTrailDem]

41. Wow!!! Look at all those reich-wingers pushing that story! Why are you propagating...

...this bullshit to DU?

I think MIRT should have a look at you.

[StrongBad]

45. Because it's a scientific argument that originated from a non-biased source (a tech publication)

Unless your definition of science is "only data that supports my already formed opinion".

Which, hate to break it to you, isn't science.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

47. It's one rightwinger agains the entire global scientific community! What, they're going to take one

guy's word now over the entire climate science world because it happens to fit the right-wing agenda?

The data that already forms my opinion comes from a consensus of the ENTIRE global climate science community. I'm not going to change that for the sake of one rightwinger who's biggest champions are YOU and Breitbart!

[StrongBad]

50. Please read the rest of the thread. Consensus is nowhere near 97%

It probably is around 25%-35% given a fair review of the studies that were used to come up with the 97% number.

[jeff47]

52. Because the guy who gets his paycheck from Exxon says it's nowhere near 97%. (nt)

[StrongBad]

55. Please stick to the studies in question. I'm open to refutation but haven't found any.

The only rebuttal posted was a study that upon reading was easy to identify as flawed and statistical manipulation.

Being one who respects science, I'm open to being corrected by actual data.

[jeff47]

65. "Please stick to not talking about the guy who gets paid by Exxon

because that makes it harder for me to blindly quote this hack and be found believable"

As for "studies", 97% didn't come from studies. It came from polling.

Shockingly enough, 100% of climatologists are not currently studying climate change. Which means using papers published is an utterly inaccurate metric. Clearly only 1% of physicists believe in the big bang, because the rest aren't publishing papers about the big bang.

[StrongBad]

91. No, that 97% isn't from polling it's from a flawed analysis of climatology papers

In essence, I agree with everything you just said because using that methodology is flawed and can be manipulated for exactly the reason you cite:

"Shockingly enough, 100% of climatologists are not currently studying climate change. Which means using papers published is an utterly inaccurate metric. Clearly only 1% of physicists believe in the big bang, because the rest aren't publishing papers about the big bang."

Thus whether intentional or not, you agreed that the 97% stat is flawed and shouldn't be promoted.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

53. MIRT should keep their eyes on you. nt

[StrongBad]

56. Big brother is watching?

[jeff47]

63. Account's way too old for MIRT. Only Admin can do anything to him. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. The Register has a long history of climate change denial and lying

Here, for instance, is a bullshit story they posted earlier this month, and the co-author's demolished of their BS:

Factcheck: Aerosols research misinterpreted to ‘alarming extent’, says study author

Overall, the three media reports “misinterpret to an alarming extent” the findings of the study, co-author Dr Christian George from the University of Lyon tells Carbon Brief:

“We didn’t make any statement about cooling effects. We showed just a new small detail that might have an impact on the forming processes of clouds.”

It is unlikely that higher-than-thought levels of isoprene are a factor in the recent slowdown in global surface temperature rise, as Delingpole’s article claims.

In fact, as isoprene only hangs around in the atmosphere for less than a month, its impact is mostly limited to regional or continental-scale climates, George says.

Similarly, these new findings are unlikely to affect projections for global temperature rise in the future, says George, though they will contribute to fine-tuning estimates on smaller geographical scales:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-aerosols-research-misinterpreted-to-alarming-extent-says-study-author/

The Register is more biased about climate change than the Wall Street Journal. It's been doing it for years: http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/oct/11/2

[villager]

4. Poor ol' Dyson has lost the knack for "observing" things accurately right here on Earth, hasn't he?

A shame, really.

[hatrack]

11. Dr. Dyson is a climatologist?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

[StrongBad]

12. FYI, the real climatolgist consensus around human made warming is about 1%

From the WSJ article linked below:

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[geek tragedy]

21. FYI, you're lying and citing a rightwing publication doesn't change the fact you're lying

David Legates is a well-known anti-climate change quack who gets payola from Exxon-Mobil.

Cindy Baxter of Greenpeace US’s Research Department believes that the University’s decision to replace Legates as Delaware State Climatologist likely involved his close ties to the controversial Soon. “When we were investigating Willie Soon, it became clear that David Legates was deeply involved in many of his fossil fuel industry-funded attempts to undermine climate science,” said Baxter. “It’s heartening to see that the University of Delaware has finally seen the light.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates-asked-step-down-delaware-state-climatologist

[StrongBad]

22. Doesn't change the validity of his study.

The words are right there to analyze. Nobody has refuted it even though it would be easy to do if the study was false.

[geek tragedy]

25. Did you do an academic search to verify no one has refuted his work?

Or are you, as is your crowd's way, just making shit up?

Wait, I can google stuff, so the answer is that you're making shit up, as you anti-science shills for Big Petroleum do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change#John_Cook_et_al..2C_2013

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"

Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [27]

I have yet to encounter a denialist who isn't a goddamn liar.

[StrongBad]

26. Did you read what you posted?

It basically says that 25%-75% think that warming might be human made, but don't know if it is detrimental to the environment.

You basically refuted your own 97% claim twice!

First by admitting that the max would be 75% which is way off from 97% (and also admitting that it could be as low as 25%, even further from 97%), and then by further admitting that of that group, they don't even know if it has any negative effects to the environment!!

Thanks for the assist buddy!

[geek tragedy]

30. You are lying again. Please stop lying.

What it says is that 24% explicitly support the proposition, and another 73% implicitly support it.

You are LYING when you characterize them as saying "warming might be human made." No, they are implicitly saying that humans DO cause global warming.

And, you just made up the "don't know if its' detrimental to the environment" talking point up.

"detrimental to the environment" is a normative judgment, not a scientific one.

[StrongBad]

37. See my other post - "implicit" merely means thinking warming will continue indefinitely

No value judgements regarding the negative effects of said warming or whether humans are the cause.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt given your link that up to 25% of climate scientists believe warming is human made and has negative consequences, but again it's way off from the 97% that is usually pushed.

[geek tragedy]

42. No, that's a lie on your part. A complete fabrication you pulled out of your ass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=79C0E71D8F381CFD5963059264CE3062.c1

(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

You are simply lying when you state that only 25% of scientists think that human activity is causing global warming.

Lying. Lying. Lying.

Not expressing a contrary opinion.

Just lying.

The numbers are 96-97%. 25% explicitly stating it, and another 75% implying it. You are simply lying about what "implicit endorsement" means. Lying.

Anyone who reads this thread, who understands the English language, and who can do basic math, can easily see that you're lying in order to carry water for the Koch Brothers et al.

Not expressing a contrary opinion.

Lying.

[StrongBad]

43. More manipulation of statistics

In both cases, the self rated papers and the abstract ratings, papers were counted as endorsing that humans are causing global warming if they fell in the first three categories of the following seven that were used:

“Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
“Explicit endorsement without quantification”
“Implicit endorsement”
“No opinion or uncertain”
“Implicit rejection”
“Explicit rejection without quantification”
“Explicit rejection with quantification”

All these comparisons made to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology. It's merely a trick used to keep the percentage of "skeptics" low.

Take for example a literature search on HIV to answer the question if HIV causes AIDS. When you do this you won’t only get papers that talk about this link, the majority will talk about something entirely different. For example how HIV is being tested as a possible carrier of genetic material in gene therapy (don’t worry, it doesn’t contain the RNA of HIV so it can’t cause AIDS). A very interesting topic and very promising for helping people with genetic disorders, but it doesn’t tell you if HIV causes AIDS. This simple analogy shows how asinine the reasoning is.

[randys1]

104. I admire you ability to deal with them, I refuse to acknowledge them other than what they

are.

I consider anyone who promotes the denial argument to be guilty of murder.

And I am not kidding.

Good thing for them I am not in charge, and I REALLY mean that

[randys1]

107. Dictator? Dont we indict people for murder?

You are advocating on behalf of mass murderers, why should you escape responsibility?

[StrongBad]

109. Because man made global warming and its potential negative effects is not a 100% settled issue.

Still waiting for an argument addressing the facts within this thread and not some emotional "MURDERER!!!@1!!" response.

[Rex]

127. The trash bin of woo just called and it wants its IT quack back!

http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

A link the OP will ignore at all costs.

[randys1]

133. Realizing the only motivation for denial is either profit or whining

The whiners are the cons who hate liberals and hate that we are always, and I do mean always, right.

[Rex]

137. I agree it must cause a level of self-loathing no progressive or liberal can ever experience.

It makes me pity them. It's not our fault the evidence falls squarely in our lap. Life just seems to have a liberal slant to it. IOW, they blame us for the natural order of things! No wonder they are all such cave dwellers. They go against the natural order!

[StrongBad]

138. Again, he's a physicist, not an IT guy

And for equal time, a legit scientific journal not a biased source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

[Rex]

58. The OP was desperate to smear Obama and found a way.

And got his/her ass handed to them in the process!

[StrongBad]

62. Read the thread. Still no refutation. You're welcome to try as I go where the data tells me.

And if you come up with a plausible argument I certainly will concede. This isn't about party lines it's about science.

But I'm sorry emoticons and emotionalism don't cut it.

[Rex]

64. NASA vs. some IT guy...you are living in denial and lost before you started.

This is about science and you have none on your side. You won't concede anything, you just crave negative attention and are giddy getting all of this 'concern'.

You fool no one here, science says you are wrong and will remain wrong. If you want to not pay any attention to climate scientists and what they say...then that is on you and reflects more about your character than anything else.

[StrongBad]

67. Correction. 35% max of climate scientists say humans for sure influence warming.

The proof is all over this thread.

You've provided no proof or refutation of my argument showing that in reality the consensus is around 25-35%.

Science doesn't work by saying "But NASA said so!"

[Rex]

72. I handed you a link that showed you are wrong and now you are doubling down

with the wrongness. You pretend some IT guy has made some kind of argument for you! LOL! AN IT GUY!

I am glad you exposed yourself as a climate change denier.

You proved you have nothing, no data or facts on your side. I have NASA on my said so YES...it does work that way!

Have a sadz all you want to...nobody cares.

[StrongBad]

74. I saw your link. If you read the thread you would recognize I addressed the same stat and refuted it

In fact, it was addressed and refuted before you even posted! Further proving you didn't even read the thread and my links/studies and refutations of rebuttals!

Please get back to me on my critique of the methodology and how a more accurate representation is 25-35%.

[Rex]

75. Why? You are wrong and the scientific community agrees with me.

Seriously, you failed and can't admit to it. I understand, that probably is your personality type to a T.

[StrongBad]

77. No they don't

The whole point of this deconstruction is to show you that 97% consensus number is grossly inflated.

Nobody has made a compelling argument saying that is incorrect.

If you see one, please reply with said argument and stats.

You won't though, despite your Spock avatar.

[Rex]

79. Yes they do.

[StrongBad]

81. Not an argument. Thanks for playing.

[Rex]

84. NP I won and you lost.

But you knew that before posting.

[StrongBad]

87. Spock would be ashamed of your rampant emotionalism.

[Rex]

89. Cry me a river.

You have nothing and know it so go to another subject to distract. Spock would see through your childish taunting and laugh.

[randys1]

105. What is it like to argue with someone who is working for the death of all living things?

Must be kind of creepy, please shower after.

[Rex]

110. It is weird seeing a climate change denier here on DU and in full bloom.

I wore a hazmat suit, I will burn it later in a burn barrel. It is amusing, that someone would believe all of us would just believe without any proof - that an IT expert knows more than NASA or the other thousands of scientists that say CC is being caused by human beings.

Spock finds it to be an insult to his intelligence, but his human side cannot help but be bemused by their pathetic attempts.

[randys1]

112. It was a twofer for him, he got to attack Obama at the same time.

[Rex]

115. Yeah I called it, just a sad attempt at smearing Obama

while also spitting into the eyes of the scientific community.

[scrabblequeen40]

100. if you went where the data goes you wouldn't be here. eom

[yardwork]

17. An IT guy thinks he's an expert on climate change?

I have a master's degree in science too. That doesn't make me an expert on brain surgery.

[StrongBad]

18. Fine, let's truly analyze the climatologist opinion.

As it turns out, the number actually believing that warming is man made is about 1%:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

This was done by actually reviewing the publications used to come up with the original 97% consensus:

"Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work."

[geek tragedy]

23. you are spamming a lie from the WSJ, you are outing yourself as an anti-science troll.

Instead of the Murdoch Street Journal and a hack who suckles at Exxon-Mobil's teat, those of us who aren't wingnuts will rely on places like, let's take NASA for example.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Stop trolling.

[StrongBad]

24. I don't doubt that those organizations believe warming is human made at all.

All I'm saying is that looking at the scientific community as a whole, the number that do is not anywhere near 97%.

FYI, NASA is a shell of its former self and not really impressive anymore.

[geek tragedy]

28. Again, you are lying. Lying, lying, lying, lying,

In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

The unquantified definition: "The consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)"

To recap:

1.0% explicitly endorsed the quantified definition.
22.97% explicitly endorsed the unquantified definition
72.50% implicitly endorsed either the quantified or the unquantified defintion.

1+22.97+72.50=96.47%

You believe the petroleum industry and the WSJ over not only NASA, but 18 different scientific associations, which are all listed at the link I provided.

Your agenda is crystal clear, and it is not an honest one.

[StrongBad]

29. Thanks again for the assist!

To recap: You admitted that the 97% consensus is a bunch of bollocks!

First by admitting that the max would be 75% according to the cited study which is way off from 97% (and also admitting that it could be as low as 25%, even further from 97%), and then by further admitting that of that group, they don't even know if it has any negative effects to the environment!!

[geek tragedy]

32. No, you're just lying your ass off about what I quoted.

Of those who took an implicit or explicit position:

24% took an explicit position that humans are causing climate change
72.5% took an implicit position that humans are causing climate change

Those numbers add up to 96.5%.

96.50% of scientific papers either implicitly or explicitly support the theory that human beings are causing climate change.

That is math. You are lying about basic math.

Are you getting paid for this, or are you just a bored Republican troll?

[StrongBad]

36. If you actually read the literature

You would know classifying something as "implicit" merely means a scientist thinking that warming is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

It has no bearing on whether the author thinks humans are the exclusive cause or whether the effects of said warming are detrimental.

So in reality, assuming that the scientists in your citation think the effects are detrimental, a maximum of 25% is the consensus.

Still way off from 97%, which is the entire point I'm making.

[geek tragedy]

38. So now you're tripling down on the lying.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=79C0E71D8F381CFD5963059264CE3062.c1

(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'

So, you lied when you said it meant merely that warming would continue.

96-97% of scientifically published papers either expressly state or imply that humans cause global warming. That is a fucking fact and you continue to lie about that basic fact.

And you are continuing to throw in the 'detrimental' nonsense in there as if that's relevant to a scientific debate.

[StrongBad]

44. That study is little more than a statistical sleight of hand

All these comparisons made to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology. It's merely a trick used to keep the percentage of "skeptics" low.

[pintobean]

40. Jury results

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Thanks again for the assist!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7260831

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Blatantly dishonest climate change troll. Repeatedly lying about fact that 97% of scientific papers implicitly or explicitly endorse theory that human activity causes climate change, and then doubles down on the lies when shown to be lying. this is classic trolling.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:19 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think this is a troll
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it. Refute with more facts, not censorship.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Climate change is a matter of science, not a political tool to be used as a litmus test by our purity trolls.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole OP seems to verge on trolling, but I don't think this particular reply meets the standard of "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Juries are for civility, not policing truthiness.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

35. "Hello, IT. Did you try turning the climate off and back on again?"

[randys1]

108. LOVE that show! LOVE that line! and guess what, it WORKS

[Tommy_Carcetti]

113. It actually has worked on more than one occasion for me.

And it is quite possibly the funniest television show I've ever seen.

[randys1]

116. I am a fan of the lead actor....as well as the creator,Graham

check this out on HULU



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2319283/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6


and also on HULU same creator

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04xwh7r

[Tommy_Carcetti]

118. His delivery of lines is perfect. Loved him on Bridesmaids.

[randys1]

119. watch

same creator, Graham Linehan

[Tommy_Carcetti]

123. Funny stuff.

I wonder if it's on Netflix.

I knocked IT Crowd out in about 2 weeks, no lie.

[randys1]

130. HULU only , season one, I am waiting for season 2

ON Netflix is a great Aussie sitcom, forget the name at the moment

no i dont it is DREAMLAND

[LittleBlue]

27. I've also wondered whether climate change will be a net positive

After reading the article about vast regions of land in Russia and Canada that will be thawed and fertile, it made me wonder if climate change won't be so bad.

Sure some of our cities will be underwater, but we will innovate or rebuild. Just like we've always done.

[yellowcanine]

39. Unfortunately you forget unintended/unknown consequences.

The truth is, the earth is too complex for anyone to be sure about how everything is going to turn out. For example, take the argument that more carbon dioxide is good for plant growth. That is only true if carbon dioxide is limiting. If something else is limiting, say nitrogen or, in many cases, water - then it is not true. Also, some plants will benefit from the extra carbon dioxide than others. In some cases these plants are/will be weeds competing with crop plants.

Your dismissal of the dangers of sea level rise is ill advised. For one thing, most of our populations are on the coasts. Yes, we can mitigate, adapt, but at what cost? We have flooding now some places every time there is a higher tide than normal, never mind storms. Also, on the unintended/unknown consequences front, there is the question of what effect melting glaciers will have on ocean currents? Ocean currents are what make many places habitable. If there is a major disturbance on the ocean current system, we can't even imagine what the effects might be in terms of storms, drastic changes in mean temperatures, whatever. How much of the earth do you think we can afford to make uninhabitable before the poop really hits the fan?

[jeff47]

48. Uh, no.

See, the Earth's surface doesn't get a uniform quantity of sunlight. So yes, tundra in Canada and Russia could become farmland. But it won't get as much sunlight as the old farmland that will become deserts.

So even if we pretend it's an equal land area (not remotely close to true), the longer winters at higher latitudes mean less sunlight and thus less food.

Also, you're kinda ignoring the enormous number of people who don't live in those areas, and won't be allowed to relocate to them.

[LittleBlue]

156. Look at this proportional map

Land around the equator is much smaller than land in the north. Look at Eurasia and North America.



Even if these areas are only partially utilized, it dwarfs whatever land we've lost. Imagine if parts of Europe or North America gained another planting season. We could potentially have more food than we can eat.

[jeff47]

160. And if we were only talking about desertification around the equator, that would be relevant.

Problem is, we're talking about desertification that reaches much of the US plains if we do nothing. As in, farming will not be viable in Kansas.

[Red Mountain]

147. Don't forget ocean acidification

What it's impact on our fisheries will be is unknown. A lot of the worst impacts of climate change on land won't be felt for decades, at least. The oceans are changing much more quickly.

[blogslut]

46. ¬_¬

[jeff47]

49. Syria, and their climate-change-induced civil war say "Hi".

They also say, "This Dyson guy is a fucking idiot"

[Bradical79]

54. He won't be the first physicist wrong on climate change

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

Maybe he needs more intensive study.

[Rex]

57. Scientists are almost in 100% agreement that man has helped caused climate change.

And these are REAL Climate experts! NOT Information Technology experts (like the one you place all your hopes on)! You failed miserably and it was enjoyable watching it! Post some more drivel, this is fun!

[StrongBad]

59. Please read the rest of the thread. Consensus is nowhere near 97%

A fair review of the study reporting the 97% number brings the actual consensus number around 25-35%.

[Rex]

60. You can make up whatever number you want to, however you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

Number hovers around 100%...sorry if that gives you a sadz, but reality doesn't care much what we want. It just is.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So hmmm...believe YOU and some IT guy or all the NASA experts!?!?

Gee...which one should I go with.

[StrongBad]

61. Great argument. Full of links, studies and logic.

I'm not going to spoon feed you the reality of the situation. All of the links, arguments and refutations are here in this thread showing that consensus is realistically around 25-35%.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and not engage rationally, go for it. Have a nice day.

[Rex]

68. I just proved you are lying and wrong and you flee...good idea.

I knew you had no intention of being objective. Have fun living in denial of climate change with the idiotic republicans...that is really pathetic, but your call.

[StrongBad]

71. Dude did you read any part of this thread other than the op?

The entire thread deals with an analysis and refutation of the 97% claim. Read it and get back to me.

[Rex]

73. Dude. I did and everyone in this thread told you are wrong and proved it.

Are you going to stay this far in denial of that fact? Wow.

[StrongBad]

76. For someone with a Spock avatar, you sure do love appealing to authority.

Again, nobody has refuted the deconstruction of the 97% number effectively.

The only one that attempted was easily debunked as statistical manipulation.

Please show me where the 97% deconstruction was debunked.

For the record, I'm undecided concerning the danger of climate change. This whole argument is solely focused on whether the real number of consensus is 97%.

[Rex]

78. Sure you are, keep pretending.

The real number is 97%. Your IT expert is way out of his league, sorry sport but you lost this one and cannot win with just a need to win alone.

Better luck next time, maybe not bring up RWing crap about climate change next time?


Goodluck, now it is time for someone else to come along and feed you. I find you to be redundant and boring now.

[StrongBad]

80. Not an argument. Thanks for playing.

[Rex]

82. NP. I played and won and you lost.

Goodluck getting over it.

[StrongBad]

85. Protip: Proclaiming you "won" is a sure sign you didn't and revealing of a childish nature

[Rex]

88. You a pro?

Now that is just funny/sad coming from the like of you!

[joeybee12]

83. This guy was on Faux, he questions evolution also...

Sometimes people want attention and this guy seems to want it. The link doesn't really explain why he thinks climate change isn't real, or what's wrong with the methodology.

[Rex]

86. Plus he is an IT expert, his degree is not in climatology.

The OP is a real charmer.

[StrongBad]

96. He's actually a physicist

The publication is an IT publication.

Reading comprehension is important.

[joeybee12]

159. You linked to a newspaper sweetie...nt

[bananas]

158. No, Freeman Dyson doesn't question evolution. nt

[tenderfoot]

90. I am so sure...

[guillaumeb]

92. Remember when the tobacco companies purchased Doctors to explain

that there was no causal relationship between tobacco use and the many diseases that are related to tobacco use?

Remember when the tobacco company memos were exposed that showed that the companies actually were well aware of the dangers posed by tobacco consumption?

I would not say that right wing fossil fuel companies are behind climate change denial. I do not have to say that, because it has already been exposed.

The Koch Brothers have sent at least $79,048,951 to groups denying climate change science since 1997.

The Koch brothers continue to finance campaigns to make Americans doubt the seriousness of global warming, increasingly hiding money through nonprofits like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.

Why focus on Charles Koch and David Koch? Many large foundations associated with corporate fortunes are active in financing climate denial groups – Anschutz, Bradley, Coors, DeVos, Dunn, Howard, Pope, Scaife, Searle, and Seid, to name a few.

Unlike Koch, most of those fortunes did not come from owning a corporation like Koch Industries, historically rooted in fossil fuel operations. And none come as close as the Kochs in terms of decades-long focus on actively building a political influence network and coordinating other wealthy executives, corporations and families to dump amounts money into politics that not even the Koch brothers could afford.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

[randys1]

111. Also murderers. This isnt complicated folks, if we were willing to call denial what it is.

We know the denial is based in known lies, this is therefore not just civil negligence but criminal murder.

[guillaumeb]

114. Agreed. eom

[ProfessorGAC]

95. He's Not Disputing Anything Factual

He's merely calling into question the accuracy of some of the models. And, the models are going to be inherently flawed (with the full knowledge of the experts) because we didn't have satellite imaging to get the mean temperature of the earth 80 years ago, so the earlier data is more estimated.

I think if one looks at the models in a more granular fashion, and look at smaller intervals where the technology of the measurement is more broad based and more accurate, the models tend to look better and better.

So, the models don't do a good job of predicting 2020 when looking at 1910 to 2015, ok. I believe that.

But, how do the models compare when looking at overlapping 5 year slices since around 1975 when we did have infrared imaging satellites and electronic transmitters accurate to less than 0.1 degrees? Quite a bit better.

This is a silly argument. Besides, if the whole point is that the models aren't perfect, that's hardly the issue. I don't even believe that the models will accurately predict the temperature rise 10 or 20 years from now, to the degree or tenth of a degree. But, since the thermodynamics is irrefutable, the trends indicate that what should be happening is happening. It doesn't matter whether the models are spot on.

[spanone]

97. who cares...one guy.

[Rex]

98. The OP is 'concerned' about this one guy over the other thousands that say he is wrong!

[spanone]

99. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Rex]

101. Yep.

[StrongBad]

117. Sorry, only 25%-35% are settled in their thinking that it's man made.

If you actually appreciate science, read this study from an actual scientific journal:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

[Rex]

120. The study has nothing to do with climate change. Wow. You are really desperate now.

Did you think people would not click on your link? Spectacular fail!

Here try this link, it proves all your woo talk is just that.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Goodluck!

[StrongBad]

121. It's regarding the supposed 97% consensus, which is what we were talking about

Try to keep up old buddy.

[Rex]

122. Here again, try a link that is truthful.

However you will just ignore the facts, but I will try anyway.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

[StrongBad]

125. Yes, and I refuted this in another post in this thread

That link is pure manipulation of statistics:

In both cases, the self rated papers and the abstract ratings, papers were counted as endorsing that humans are causing global warming if they fell in the first three categories of the following seven that were used:

“Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
“Explicit endorsement without quantification”
“Implicit endorsement”
“No opinion or uncertain”
“Implicit rejection”
“Explicit rejection without quantification”
“Explicit rejection with quantification”

All these comparisons made to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology. It's merely a trick used to keep the percentage of "skeptics" low.

Take for example a literature search on HIV to answer the question if HIV causes AIDS. When you do this you won’t only get papers that talk about this link, the majority will talk about something entirely different. For example how HIV is being tested as a possible carrier of genetic material in gene therapy (don’t worry, it doesn’t contain the RNA of HIV so it can’t cause AIDS). A very interesting topic and very promising for helping people with genetic disorders, but it doesn’t tell you if HIV causes AIDS. This simple analogy shows how asinine the reasoning is.

Again, try to keep up!

[Rex]

128. Translation: I don't like facts so I pretend it is manipulation of statistics.

Again you fail. Try harder next time.

[StrongBad]

131. Nope, here is the scientific article with the real facts that you haven't refuted

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

By the way, what you posted is not a scientific journal. Please try again.

[Rex]

132. Again you post nothing but a link about another discipline.

Fail.

[StrongBad]

134. Keep moving those goalposts!

[Rex]

139. From the guy that had to bring up Spock.

Seriously you should look in the mirror sometimes. I kid, that would probably cause some self-reflection, which in your case might be bad for you. Nevermind. Just keep pretending to understand what you are talking about, it is funny and sad at the same time.

[StrongBad]

140. Not an argument.

[Rex]

141. True, you never had one.

Thanks for finally admitting I was right and you are clueless. Took you long enough.

[StrongBad]

143. Also not an argument. Deflecting from the fact you can't refute my study shown.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

Still waiting on an argument against this or a journal study showing otherwise.

Ironic that I'm the one accused of not having an argument. You keep dodging the issue and not addressing my argument!

[Rex]

144. Burp?

[dembotoz]

103. i am sure the by suppertime the goons on facebook will say he won the nobel prize

and has 32 degrees in water science and hell just froze over....

we will be seeing this bozo for the next few years...perhaps inhoff is have him
pack snowballs for the senate floor.

[Rex]

124. Just in case anyone here feels like the OP might be truthful, check out this site.

http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

Helps to put the OP in the place it deserves to be, the trashcan of woo.

[StrongBad]

126. Nope, here's the reality of this claim

In both cases, the self rated papers and the abstract ratings, papers were counted as endorsing that humans are causing global warming if they fell in the first three categories of the following seven that were used:

“Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
“Explicit endorsement without quantification”
“Implicit endorsement”
“No opinion or uncertain”
“Implicit rejection”
“Explicit rejection without quantification”
“Explicit rejection with quantification”

All these comparisons made to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology. It's merely a trick used to keep the percentage of "skeptics" low.

Take for example a literature search on HIV to answer the question if HIV causes AIDS. When you do this you won’t only get papers that talk about this link, the majority will talk about something entirely different. For example how HIV is being tested as a possible carrier of genetic material in gene therapy (don’t worry, it doesn’t contain the RNA of HIV so it can’t cause AIDS). A very interesting topic and very promising for helping people with genetic disorders, but it doesn’t tell you if HIV causes AIDS. This simple analogy shows how asinine the reasoning is.

[Rex]

129. Your scientific woo has been noted.

[StrongBad]

135. Woo from a legit scientific journal?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

Particularly ironic since the only source you presented was a biased page and no link to an established scientific journal!!!

[Rex]

142. And yours have nothing to do with the fact that almost all scientist agree on climate change.

This is too easy.

[StrongBad]

145. Can you read?

That is EXACTLY what the link addresses:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#/page-1

It addresses the fact that the claim that 97% of the scientific community is agreement about warming is FALSE.

I'm done here. You either can't read properly (again demonstrated by the fact that you multiple times referred to the physicist in the op as an "IT Guy" despite it plain as day labels him a physicist) or don't know what a proper argument (premises/conclusions/evidence) entails so just spout emotional bile like a child.

Have a nice day.

[Rex]

146. Your IT guy knows nothing about climate change so yes...run away...

No doubt that is what you always do when you lose an argument.

[Squinch]

152. This thread is just one more brick in the wall of proof that DU has jumped the shark.

This is actually a discussion here, and the OP hasn't been locked.

Hey, kids! Didn't the New York Post say something about how SUV's are good for the environment? If Rupert says it, then it MUST be true!!!l~!!

Very sad indeed.

[Warpy]

155. The reporter is a stupid ass

His next question should have been "What are some of the discrepancies you've been seeing?" That would have been enlightening. Without that question, this article is just an oil company puff piece.

[B Calm]

157. I hear those supposedly democrats calling into CSpan every morning. Fucking right-wingers

will say anything.

[Gore1FL]

161. Jury Results

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"100% Democrat" scientist comes out publicly against Obama on climate change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027260667

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

limate Change denial should not be allowed on DU. This isn't about left or right. This is about survival of the species and denying the obvious will only get the entire species killed.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 06:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is not denial. It's exposing denial.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Its a news article. The scientist thinks God is real too. He's full of shit.
That said. Posting an article isn't hurtful or disruptive. The proper thing to do is to use Google and argue against the scientist in question using logical arguments and scholarly links.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If it's wrong, show how. Censorship is undemocratic.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[edhopper]

162. Clear and unambiguous

refutation of non-climate scientist Dyson;


http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman...lishment/2151/

https://patjsheppard.wordpress.com/2...mate-skeptics/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/200...mate-crackpot/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-re...b_7259170.html