NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

[Anti Federalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers ...

Lol. Winner.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

Covered.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If you are looking for "good flat earther numbers", then you should definitely avoid the place where you found the claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [anthropogenic global warming]" ...

The claim that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) comes from a paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". That paper reviewed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific articles - not the articles themselves, but just the abstracts of those articles (an abstract is a brief one-paragraph summary of an article). In fact, if you read the abstract of the paper itself (i.e., the one claiming that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming), it says the following (bold emphasis added):

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.​

So ... it turns out that 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent explicitly rejected it, and 0.3 percent explicitly expressed uncertainty - while 66.4 percent expressed no position on AGW at all.

IOW: Two-thirds of of the abstracts examined had no opinion on the matter.

So where does that 97 percent figure come from? They calculated it by counting only the abstracts that explicitly expressed a position (either acceptance, rejection or uncertainty). If you add up 32.6 + 0.7 + 0.3, you get 33.6. And 32.6 is 97 percent of 33.6.

IOW: In order to arrive at that 97 percent figure, they completely ignored the 66.4 percent that took no position at all

THIS is how you lie with statistics ... THIS deceitful bull$#@! is how you turn 32.6 percent (less than one-third) into 97 percent ... THIS is how you dupe useful idiots into thinking that you have some kind of overwhelming "consensus" when you don't actually have any such thing ...

And look at that statement I bolded in the abstract I quoted above. Notice how it doesn't say that AGW is the "consensus" position because 97 percent of abstracts endorse AGW. Rather, it says that AGW just is the "consensus" position - and that 97 percent of abstracts happen to endorse that supposedly already-existing "consensus". So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers ...

But what's really ironic here is the fact that your claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [AGW]" could instead be stated as "less than 1 percent [...]" - since according to the study your claim is based on, only 0.7 percent explicitly rejected AGW, But of course, putting it that way would leave you stuck with having to admit that only 32.6 percent explicitly accepted AGW - instead of the much more impressive-sounding 97 percent. And 32.6 percent (less than one-third) just doesn't sound like that much of a "consensus", now does it ... ?

Anyway, once you account for the two-thirds of abstracts they simply ignored because it didn't suit their purposes to count them, the only thing you can say about the "scientific consensus" on this issue is that it simply does not exist - 66.7 percent either take no position or express uncertainty. There's your only "consensus" ...



In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.

Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.



No, it is not. In fact, just the opposite has happened.

During the 20-year period around 1980 to 2000, the average global temperature increased by about 0.4°C - which was more or less in line with some of the models predicting "catastrophic" global warming. But in the two decades since then, the temperature stopped increasing while greenhouse gasses continued to increase steadily. According to the "catastrophe" models, the average global temperature was supposed to continue increasing by about 0.2°C per decade, precisely because of those steadily increasing greenhouse gasses. But is has not done so, and "The Pause" (as it is called) has yet to be adequately explained by any of the "catastrophe" models. The average global temperature has fallen below the levels predicted by 95 percent of the "catastrophic" climate model forecasts. In other words, almost all of those models have been falsified (only a few have not, and if global temperatures don't start increasing again in the next five to ten years or so, those remaining models will be falsified, too).

So ... the "climate change" alarmists make and use broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ... yet, we are told that the science is "settled" and that those who are skeptical of "climate change" alarmism are just crackpot "deniers" who are not to be given any "air time" ,,, and all because there is a "consensus" among the makes and users of those same broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ...





It has not been shown that that is how it stands. See all the above, just for starters.

You must spread some reputation around.......

 

[juleswin]

I d lived on or near the ocean for 33 of my 33 years. The sea level isn’t rising. I’ve seen the islands I lived on slowly move and change shapes, but that is what happens over time on low lying barrier islands made of shifting sand. But the actual water level has not changed even a little.

The earth is warming, the sea levels are rising, tide gauges show this and it has been happening since the last ice age. The increase is usually in the millimeters per year that most people do not notice it with their bare eyes. I don't think anything in nature stays constant.

 

[kpitcher]

Obviously this is one of those issues that we have no consensus on within these forums. Heathy debate is always good, some of the posted info has been interesting to look through, but it fails to show any change in the underlying science.

I've found that the skeptical inquirer has always had a good read into a variety of topics. They have addressed global warming a number of times, nothing really recent but their skeptical views are still applicable.
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/disinformation_about_global_warming

A non related site, basically a Wiki for climate change, has excellent links to resources, including 7 links to studies on climate science studies to show current consensus numbers. These range from 91% - 100%
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

One rebuttal on "the pause" is found at https://skepticalscience.com/study-drives-sixth-nail-into-pause-myth.html
Sample size and small time periods of less than a decade appear to be the cause for that.


I did look for the many serious people who dispute the info. I found this list..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Easier to find people in support : This has links to various scientific organizations that have given statements
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
or
https://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics


Obviously just jumping into following whomever has the most names on a list isn't the right approach or we wouldn't be on a Ron Paul website

 

[fisharmor]

Obviously this is one of those issues that we have no consensus on within these forums.

1. Except there *IS* consensus on this site by your definition. There's literally every other poster here on the "denier" side, and then there's you. By your own fallacious logic, that subscribes to the position that popularity equals truth, you are wrong.

2. Everyone here has read skepticalscience, at least a decade ago. It is a site of strawman arguments and if anything demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the agw movement.

3. I also owe Occam's Banana a rep. He demonstrated quite expertly the aforementioned intellectually bankrupt chicanery in play.

 

[kpitcher]

1. Except there *IS* consensus on this site by your definition. There's literally every other poster here on the "denier" side, and then there's you. By your own fallacious logic, that subscribes to the position that popularity equals truth, you are wrong.

My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

I'm definitely an outlier in these forums on this topic, my attempt at a pun appears to have fallen flat. Although I'm sure that in time and a few more years of continued research some of you will come around... It's not like things are going to be getting any better.

 

[Swordsmyth]

My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

I'm definitely an outlier in these forums on this topic, my attempt at a pun appears to have fallen flat. Although I'm sure that in time and a few more years of continued research some of you will come around... It's not like things are going to be getting any better.

And they call our side the science deniers?

 

[Slave Mentality]

Where is the hysterical mainstream concern about industrial chemicals, drugs, hormone mimicking chemicals and other pollutants in our water?

What? No money and power in that for the crony corporatists and big brother?

Indeed. The fact that they have people whipped up over something harmless like CO2 when some very nasty stuff is being pumped into the air and water without the same scrutiny and fear mongering is quite telling.

 

[Influenza]

And they call our side the science deniers?

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

 

[dannno]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

How much has the sea level risen in the last 100 years?

 

[CaptUSA]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

Ok. So, we know that humans can affect the global climate and we know that the global climate can change from natural occurrences. Can you tell me who is responsible for what percentage?? I can never get a straight answer on this - and there is certainly no consensus. Are humans 20% responsible? 80%? .0002%?

And once we get that number, it would seem logical to discuss whether our resources should be spent on correction or adaptation, right?

In any case, the discussions shouldn't be concluded.

 

[fisharmor]

My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

If science "works" by taking a vote and then refusing to listen to anything that the minority opinion says, then science is wrong.
That is not how truth works.
You're buckling down on that answer despite the fact that Occam's Banana obliterated it already. If our 20-year internet argumentation history on this topic is any guide, you're not even going to understand, despite the fact that I am clearly pointing it out to you here and now, that we are simply years ahead of you on this topic.

It's bloody obvious to the rest of us why that is - it's because there has never been any actual debate on this topic. If there is truth to this claim then the claim can withstand serious scrutiny, let alone scrutiny from laymen. The fact that information is only accepted from one source is telling - besides being evidence that this is actually a religion, it has also forced those of us interested in truth (whose bullshit alarms went off the second it became obvious that only officially sanctioned arguments are accepted) to do the homework ourselves, go outside the norm, and listen to some actual counterarguments - not just the strawmen at skepticalscience.com.

But instead we get:

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum

Ad hominem,

think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions

red herring,

than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

and circular reasoning.

FFS, agw cultists... go to the effort of learning how to formulate a valid argument before calling people stupid.

It's easy:
Given
1. Scientific claims require evidence
2. Evidence that shows AGW is easy to undermine
3. No counterevidence is entertained in public discourse
4. Public policy has a real potential to seriously reduce standards of living
Therefore
the burden of proof still rests with the AGW proponents before any discussion of public policy can rightly take place.

 

[Ender]

The Science we never hear about actually says we are approaching a mini ice-age & this is from the sun cycle not mankind's doing.

According to the Royal Astronomical Society:

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.[/I]

A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.

Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.

Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12...are-heading-according-to-multiple-scientists/

There are multiple articles on this if people would actually do some research.

 

[AuH20]

It's always been a hysteria based hoax, instead of initiating an adult conversation about our consumption habits.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

 

[Influenza]

Ad hominem,

red herring,

and circular reasoning.

FFS, agw cultists... go to the effort of learning how to formulate a valid argument before calling people stupid.

It's easy:
Given
1. Scientific claims require evidence
2. Evidence that shows AGW is easy to undermine
3. No counterevidence is entertained in public discourse
4. Public policy has a real potential to seriously reduce standards of living
Therefore
the burden of proof still rests with the AGW proponents before any discussion of public policy can rightly take place.

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum, that, thankfully, have very little power in the real world? Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine, or it would have already been done and accepted within the scientific community. The fact that it hasn't been, tells me that you are suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to silence the truth regarding climate change. Please provide evidence for this vast conspiracy. Or do you think all the scientists are just too stupid to properly interpet their own observations?

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

 

[AuH20]

The Science we never hear about actually says we are approaching a mini ice-age & this is from the sun cycle not mankind's doing.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12...are-heading-according-to-multiple-scientists/

There are multiple articles on this if people would actually do some research.

They hate it when you bring up solar cycles.

 

[AuH20]

I understand what the AGW cultists want (cleaner energy, less habitat destruction, etc.) and I want the same without oppressive regulation and a totalitarian world government.

 

[CaptUSA]

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum,

Care to respond to my post, then? #52??

I do none of the things that you're complaining about.

 

[Influenza]

Ok. So, we know that humans can affect the global climate and we know that the global climate can change from natural occurrences. Can you tell me who is responsible for what percentage?? I can never get a straight answer on this - and there is certainly no consensus. Are humans 20% responsible? 80%? .0002%?

And once we get that number, it would seem logical to discuss whether our resources should be spent on correction or adaptation, right?

In any case, the discussions shouldn't be concluded.

I don't know if anyone can address what exact percentage humans are responsible for climate change, but ultimately, the question is actually not even important, let me explain why. It is known that the temperature of the planet is greatly correlated with the quantity of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. They are able to estimate the CO2 from all those years ago from samples of air bubbles trapped in ice in the arctic and Antarctica. One of quite a few ways that they can estimate the temperature from all those years ago from the ratio of Oxygen isotopes found in shells from the same period.

In the last 400,000 years, the CO2 in the atmosphere has not exceeded ~300 PPM. Right now the CO2 is estimated to be about ~400 PPM. According to the data, the temperature of the planet lags behind the CO2 concentration by a few hundred years. So we won't see the effects of all the CO2 in the atmosphere right now, but the planet will gradually warm corresponding to the CO2 concentration.

So, it's not even important if we are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 levels or it's caused by aliens pumping CO2 from their planet's atmosphere to our own. What is important is that the levels are limited so that the temperature does not deviate too much from the range in which humans have thrived. So if there is something that can be done to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, (there is) then it should be done.