500 scientists send a letter to the UN claiming there is no climate emergency

[Chowboy]

I didn't say you can't research the papers and form your own opinion without being a climate scientist.

However parading the letter in the OP around as if it some kind of rebuttal to to the literature showing consensus among climate scientists is peak charlatanry.

Almost everyone in that letter has no relation to climate science research at all. Even the ones that do, for most the link is very tenuous. And there are a bunch of people who aren't even scientists - I saw economists, philosophy professors and media reps in there too.

What exactly the people frothing at the mouth over it think it is supposed to prove, I have no idea.

So you agree, Skeptical Science's paper on 97% consensus is BS...

[numberguy12]

Dr James Hansen, retired director of the NOAA and godfather the climate hysteria - Astrophysicist.

Current director whose name I forget - mathematician .

What are you even trying to say? Speak, man! How is this relevant to my post at all?

If that last comment was a dig at me (unclear what you are attempting to say, so who knows)....I never claimed to be a scientist in the climate field. I'm not (and I'm sure you aren't either). This has nothing to do with anything lol. I do acknowledge what the actual scientists in the field are saying though.....

Hilariously, it appears there are mathematicians listed in the signatories, took me about 3 seconds to find one:

Ulrich H. Gerlach, Professor of Mathematics, Ohio State University, USA

Smh.

[numberguy12]

bassline8 with the epic thread backfire.

Sorry bro, I don't care what pharmacologists are saying about climate change.....

[ooph]

Funny how that works. If you've ever worked for or been involved with "Big Oil" everyone disregards anything you have to say. But if you are involved with the trillion dollar "Big Green" industry everyone takes anything you say at face value without any evidence.

bassline8 with the epic thread backfire.

Sorry bro, I don't care what pharmacologists are saying about climate change.....

But we should agree with everything people involved in Big Green industries are saying? The ones paid significant amounts of $ to push a "Green" narrative?

[numberguy12]

But we should agree with everything people involved in Big Green industries are saying? The ones paid significant amounts of $ to push a "Green" narrative?

Not sure why you are addressing me:

I will repeat: I don't care what pharmacologists are saying about climate change.....

[knightofday]

bassline8 with the epic thread backfire.

Sorry bro, I don't care what pharmacologists are saying about climate change.....

numberguy12 post epic backfire. Majority ITT understand what the climate religion pushers are doing, more people are waking up to the scam everyday

[Chowboy]

What are you even trying to say? Speak, man! How is this relevant to my post at all?

If that last comment was a dig at me (unclear what you are attempting to say, so who knows)....I never claimed to be a scientist in the climate field. I'm not (and I'm sure you aren't either). This has nothing to do with anything lol. I do acknowledge what the actual scientists in the field are saying though.....

Hilariously, it appears there are mathematicians listed in the signatories, took me about 3 seconds to find one:

Ulrich H. Gerlach, Professor of Mathematics, Ohio State University, USA

Smh.

It wasn't directed at you personally. Rather, it was meant to highlight the false notion that you need to be into climate science to have a valid opinion.

[numberguy12]

It wasn't directed at you personally. Rather, it was meant to highlight the false notion that you need to be into climate science to have a valid opinion.

This is missing the point. These people are being referenced to give the premise of the letter more "official" backing- from people who are supposedly involved in the relevant field (the actual words from the letter: 'more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields.'). This backing goes right out the window when you learn that the signee is an audio engineer instead of an actual scientist in the climate field.

I will argue that someone like a pharmacologist or audio engineer is almost certainly not an expert in atmospheric physics etc (tell me they are well versed in say, the differential equations of fluid mechanics considered in atmospheric physics). But this is besides the point: the letter- and essentially, this thread- is attempting to pass these people off as expert scientists in the field, laughably.

[isingmodel]

So you agree, Skeptical Science's paper on 97% consensus is BS...

Skeptical science wrote a simple article summarising the existing consensus literature (they reference 7 research papers if I remember) which all found consensus of between 90-100%.

What's the problem exactly?

[numberguy12]

numberguy12 post epic backfire. Majority ITT understand what the climate religion pushers are doing, more people are waking up to the scam everyday

I guess when you cant argue actual points being raised, just post this, eh?

No evidence of post backfire, whatever that means, was seen that day.

[Chowboy]

Skeptical science wrote a simple article summarising the existing consensus literature (they reference 7 research papers if I remember) which all found consensus of between 90-100%.

What's the problem exactly?

They published a paper. You need to look a little harder.

[isingmodel]

They published a paper. You need to look a little harder.

Which was a literature review of other papers. The actual data does not come from skeptical science. What relevance this has to anything I'm still not sure.

[SWDeath]

Skeptical science wrote a simple article summarising the existing consensus literature (they reference 7 research papers if I remember) which all found consensus of between 90-100%.

What's the problem exactly?

Another lie.. Skeptical science.. John cook specifically misquoted papers from scientists who said he even lied about what their paper represented.

Are you saying cook knows more about the findings of those studies than the people who wrote them?

Respond.

[Chowboy]

This is missing the point. These people are being referenced to give the premise of the letter more "official" backing- from people who are supposedly involved in the relevant field (the actual words from the letter: 'more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields.'). This backing goes right out the window when you learn that the signee is an audio engineer instead of an actual scientist in the climate field.

I will argue that someone like a pharmacologist or audio engineer is almost certainly not an expert in atmospheric physics etc (tell me they are well versed in say, the differential equations of fluid mechanics considered in atmospheric physics). But this is besides the point: the letter- and essentially, this thread- is attempting to pass these people off as expert scientists in the field, laughably.

There are many people who have taken up climate science as a sort of hobby. Stephen McIntyre, eg, a retired statistician found something funny looking in Mann's Hockey Stick. He proceeded to do his own analysis and debunked the whole thing. Here is his website: https://climateaudit.org/ You will find on this website, a bunch of hobbyists reviewing and analyzing various climate scare papers. Since you're a numbers guy, you may be able to contribute yourself, if your statistics game is strong.

I don't know all the people who signed off on this nor do I know their interests. I do know it real easy to broad brush someone as inconsequential.

[numberguy12]

There are many people who have taken up climate science as a sort of hobby. Stephen McIntyre, eg, a retired statistician found something funny looking in Mann's Hockey Stick. He proceeded to do his own analysis and debunked the whole thing. Here is his website: https://climateaudit.org/ You will find on this website, a bunch of hobbyists reviewing and analyzing various climate scare papers. Since you're a numbers guy, you may be able to contribute yourself, if your statistics game is strong.

I don't know all the people who signed off on this nor do I know their interests. I do know it real easy to broad brush someone as inconsequential.

This is not really responding to the point of my post. The intent of the letter is to demonstrate a backing of scientists relevant to a climate related field. When it's quoted ''more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields.", one's first thought isn't...."wow, imagine all those hobbyists backing up the premise of this letter". No, the idea is that a significant portion of climate scientists is questioning climate change. It is this reason why the letter, and this thread, are both laughable. All it takes is a glance at the signees (and for that matter, the person writing the letter) to see what's going on.

[IawI]

Anyone who believes global warming is a fking idiot.

[Aesthetical]

So one side says its a big issue and needs to be dealt with sooner than later

The other side says its not an issue and we should do nothing and let corporations pollute everything in sight

Another side who says its natural and good for the earth

I think every one is just braindead. It isnt hard to not pollute the earth, and if you find it hard, then it means you arent doing your job properly and should be replaced by someone capable.

[Chowboy]

So one side says its a big issue and needs to be dealt with sooner than later

The other side says its not an issue and we should do nothing and let corporations pollute everything in sight

Another side who says its natural and good for the earth

I think every one is just braindead. It isnt hard to not pollute the earth, and if you find it hard, then it means you arent doing your job properly and should be replaced by someone capable.

The real brain dead are the one's thinking this is about pollution.

[Aesthetical]

The real brain dead are the one's thinking this is about pollution.

It is about pollution, because if it wasnt, then theres no agenda to push.

[isingmodel]

Another lie.. Skeptical science.. John cook specifically misquoted papers from scientists who said he even lied about what their paper represented.

Are you saying cook knows more about the findings of those studies than the people who wrote them?

Respond.

Cook et. al is one paper out of several consensus surveys on man's effect on climate. It is not the only one that finds 90%+ consensus among climate scientists - in fact they pretty much all do. Several independent papers find consensus of 97%+ - Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010 to name some.

[Chowboy]

It is about pollution, because if it wasnt, then theres no agenda to push.

No, it's about C02 concentrations which happens to be life giving gas without which we would all be dead.

[SWDeath]

Cook et. al is one paper out of several consensus surveys on man's effect on climate. It is not the only one that finds 90%+ consensus among climate scientists - in fact they pretty much all do. Several independent papers find consensus of 97%+ - Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010 to name some.

You quoted skeptical science, that was created by john cook.. Its not just some random survey.

[isingmodel]

You quoted skeptical science, that was created by john cook.. Its not just some random survey.

I quoted SS's review article that summarised several different papers on consensus (6 of which were published by independent researchers, not Cook) and only because that other poster brought up SS.

The 90%+ consensus on AGW is thoroughly supported in the literature, and there are even multiple papers outside of Cook's that found a 97%+ consensus. Sorry if this upsets you but facts don't care about conservitard feelings.

[wings_unhinged]

brb floods are a good thing because we need water to survive

[SWDeath]

I quoted SS's review article that summarised several different papers on consensus (6 of which were published by independent researchers, not Cook) and only because that other poster brought up SS.

The 90%+ consensus on AGW is thoroughly supported in the literature, and there are even multiple papers outside of Cook's that found a 97%+ consensus. Sorry if this upsets you but facts don't care about conservitard feelings.

Wrong again.

The people who are in the "90% consensus" you keep quoting never said any such thing.










LOL at using papers on carbon taxes as evidence of global warming........

[isingmodel]

Wrong again.

The people who are in the "90% consensus" you keep quoting never said any such thing.

Sorry, but I cited you three independent papers above that replicate Cook's findings of 97%+ (even if there were some errors in Cook's methodology) and there are many more that arrive at figures in the 90%+ camp, and exactly zero papers that find a high level of skepticism. That's a comprehensive data set that you can't just wish away because it contradicts your dumbass opinions.

No one is taking Cook's study itself as gospel - but all of the rest of the data on the subject find similar results, which means the issue of whether climate scientists generally find the evidence for AGW compelling or not, isn't up for debate at this point.

[SWDeath]

Sorry, but I cited you three independent papers above that replicate Cook's findings of 97%+ (even if there were some errors in Cook's methodology) and there are many more that arrive at figures in the 90%+ camp, and exactly zero papers that find a high level of skepticism. That's a comprehensive data set that you can't just wish away because it contradicts your dumbass opinions.

No one is taking Cook's study itself as gospel - but all of the rest of the data on the subject find similar results, which means the issue of whether climate scientists generally find the evidence for AGW compelling or not, isn't up for debate at this point

Actually the "97%" number came from him since it was his team of 'reviewers' that miscategorized thousands of papers.

Funny you cant deny where the 'consensus' comes from and is completely fake but you keep quoting it as real.

If you even remotely read the report you would realize that 2/3 of the papers out of the 12,000 were relabeled as 'pro man made climate change' when the researches who wrote the papers said otherwise.

Sorry if you think you know more than the people who wrote the studies but you don't... You cant quote their studies as proof of climate change and then deny them when they say the quote was wrong... Doesn't work like that son.

[isingmodel]

Actually the "97%" number came from him since it was his team of 'reviewers' that miscategorized thousands of papers.

Funny you cant deny where the 'consensus' comes from and is completely fake but you keep quoting it as real.

If you even remotely read the report you would realize that 2/3 of the papers out of the 12,000 were relabeled as 'pro man made climate change' when the researches who wrote the papers said otherwise.

Sorry if you think you know more than the people who wrote the studies but you don't... You cant quote their studies as proof of climate change and then deny them when they say the quote was wrong... Doesn't work like that son.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Here is another paper that comes to the exact same 97-98% figure as Cook's paper - and this was a direct analysis of actively publishing climate researchers with a minimum of 20 published papers in the field, and their explicit support/rejection of IPCC conclusions on climate change.

There are numerous other papers that find consensus in the 90+% range.

There are zero papers that demonstrate a high level of skepticism among climate scientists, and certainly not the garbage in the OP.

Take your L and move on.

[SWDeath]

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Here is another paper that comes to the exact same 97-98% figure as Cook's paper - and this was a direct analysis of actively publishing climate researchers with a minimum of 20 published papers in the field, and their explicit support/rejection of IPCC conclusions on climate change.

There are numerous other papers that find consensus in the 90+% range.

There are zero papers that demonstrate a high level of skepticism among climate scientists, and certainly not the garbage in the OP.

Take your L and move on.

Maybe you cant read son.

2/3 papers from 12,000 showed skepticism in man made climate change.

Are you illiterate or did you skip over what i posted?

[Sakeoe]

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

Here is another paper that comes to the exact same 97-98% figure as Cook's paper - and this was a direct analysis of actively publishing climate researchers with a minimum of 20 published papers in the field, and their explicit support/rejection of IPCC conclusions on climate change.

There are numerous other papers that find consensus in the 90+% range.

There are zero papers that demonstrate a high level of skepticism among climate scientists, and certainly not the garbage in the OP.

Take your L and move on.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...191-013-9647-9

Only 0.3%, not 97%.

Time to take the L.