**I think we are putting a lot of money and resources into this, which could be put into environmental issues we can control, like industrial waste, spraying cancer causing poisons, islands of rubbish, pollution, developing countries using practices we would not use any more etc. It's like climate change has become a proxy for all environmental issues and people are like, yep, reduced my carbon footprint, all good now, and forget about everything else.**
The trouble is there is no rational debate in governments about this because of the misinformation. One does not preclude the rest. People are selfish, if they are shown how it will affect them they will want changes.
**All I ask is people respect that we have different philosophies that motivate our thinking and decision making. My main motivator is that we should do whatever we need to, to get off this planet and colonise others, I'd rather not wreck the planet, but if we destroy it in the process, so be it, it will recover eventually. That's very long term of course, so we need to maintain some sort of balance, but this means I'm completely opposed to living a simple/anti tech/hippie/one with nature lifestyle.**
I am a lot older than you, in my life, well i don't think it's been that long, i have already seen drastic changes, i have seen things my daughter will never see, what about my grandchildren? Do you have children? Want grandchildren, the cycle of our lives are nothing in time.
I am rather shocked at this:
"I'd rather not wreck the planet, but if we destroy it in the process, so be it, it will recover eventually."
Rather damming i find, though i also think you maybe did not think it through too muc before posting it.
My generation has failed, the one before mine failed, will yours?
**I also totally agree with everything Dan said.**
This can and does happen, i am interested in acts, verifiable facts, peer reviewed facts. I will not get into a mud slinging match even though i am passionate about this, if someone wants to post scurrilous lies and so called facts without sources I reserve the right demand them, if the refuse i will ignore them, i think that is fair and reasonable.
It's hard to get any facts out there when 99% of news/media cycle the same shit over and over. TV stations and faux radio journalists pick up "news" from papers and run it as gospel and vica versa.
Papers are also all about opinions these days with whoever signing up the big name columnists to set their paper apart from other outlets. The problem is when these columnists and the bile they spew out get taken on board as if they are SMEs. It's one big flaming, opinionated incestuous joke.
This kind of disaster is a perfect example of what's wrong with opinion and news being mixed up and passed on (without being verified). What started out as social media gone wrong/unchecked snowballed when "traditional" news sources ran with it...
Note: the Australian media had a field day with this and most never bothered to correct their mistakes. Nothing new there.
Getting back to topic. All I can say is props to you for standing up for something and not giving up. The key thing here is regardless of whichever side you're on, its important to not let misinformation (deliberate or otherwise) go unchecked.
Tim, they are there to sell papers to sell advertising space and products
i remember the crap about wmd's, it is not a trivial thing, this sort of thing kills our soldiers and soaks up billions of our taxes in, one instance anyway, an illegal war
i do understand the saturation point and cynicism, that is only natural
what i trying to do here is gets some facts past the rubbish
if one person feels so motivated that they will join in the struggle against the lies then i am happy
my main point is how this is the new lobbyist mentality to change public opinion using chat sites and blogs, insidious and worth fighting against
it is so easy to just throw your hands up and say all too hard, ask yourselves this
in years time, and if what the forecast happens, and your grandchild sits on your knee sobbing because he/she has just been told at school about swamped islands and how the rising seas and climate change is devastating the world and so much natural beauty has gone and so many peoples lives are in disarray, and asks
"why didn't your generation do anything to at least try to stop it"
This is part of the problem. All looks very reputable. But it looks like a press release in the news section to me, anyone can release a press release. The report seems biased in it's language and seems to be trying to have it's cake and eat it too, by making a grand claim of 97% but discounting 2/3 of the papers surveyed.
The 97% you quote is 97% of papers that endorse global warming say it is caused by humans in the abstract. Not 97% of climate scientist. Only 32.6% of papers from the same study endorse AGW. On the other hand, only 1% reject or are uncertain of AGW. Whereas 66.4% have no position.
As to John Cook, I've looked him up before, he's former webmaster who made a global warming twitterbot. He might be a member here given his background in design and dev.
I did think before I posted about leaving the planet, if we don't we will die out, but as I said, that is a long time away, but it is a big job. That's my world view, you can think what you like of it, it doesn't bother me.
I'm busy settling back into the country, but I will get back to your points and future ones you post, but I'll leave it on this for now, people have been shown what 'will' happen, but the story keeps changing or the catastrophes don't happen. It's not surprising people are starting to turn off. I think you're lucky to have found one person interested enough to argue about it.
**The 97% you quote is 97% of papers that endorse global warming say it is caused by humans in the abstract. Not 97% of climate scientist. Only 32.6% of papers from the same study endorse AGW. On the other hand, only 1% reject or are uncertain of AGW. Whereas 66.4% have no position.**
Did you go to their conclusion?
The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).
A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).
Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies.
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus:
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
I think you do a disservice to John Cook:
John Cook is currently the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He also runs skepticalscience.com, a website that makes climate science accessible to the general public and examines the arguments of global warming skeptics. He co-authored the book “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand” with environmental scientist Haydn Washington and the popular booklet “The Debunking Handbook” with Stephan Lewandowsky. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Western Australia.
Adjunct Researcher, University of Queensland 2011–present
Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland 2011–present
Adjunct Lecturer, University of Western Australia 2011–present
The conclusion is the authors interpretation of the facts. Look at the report, that's where the facts are, they are right there in the report.
I know that about John Cook, he has no relevant qualifications, not a masters, not a phd, not that that precludes him from debate. It is interesting that you link to articles excluding 'crank' climate scientists, but value his opinion.
When I have time, I will present primary research for you to consider. I'm not trying to change your mind, just show you there is plenty of reason to doubt. Presenting Climateskeptic is like me presenting wattsupwiththat, plenty of evidence, but both are probably biased.