http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/21/third-becomes-97-percent-bald-faced-lie-changed-western-world/

Don't forget that carbon trading can be very profitable if you know how to game the system (that you invent?)

Your subject header confused me. I initially thought you were talking about a third world scientist.

Your subject header confused me. I initially thought you were talking about a third world scientist.

LOL but maybe that is true also.

I will edit it.

Your subject header confused me. I initially thought you were talking about a third world scientist.

I had the same thought so I didn't reply.

Now I read it and it begs a couple of questions. 66% of the papers seemed to contain no stance on whether global warming was influenced by man. 32% contained the stance the man was causing global warming. Less than 1% rejected man made global warming. These numbers still push me to believe that man is having an effect on the climate. Not as definitive as 97% of course but from all that I have seen and read on the subject, I tend to believe the position that man is affecting global warming at some rate.

The problem is when the science enters the political world. We have interest groups, businesses, and politicians who spin science to their own side. Companies actually hire professionals, who aren't even scientists but are good public speakers to cast doubt in the average person's mind. The scientists themselves tend to be more interested in the actual data than to pushing issues.

While breitbart is obviously a politically slanted media, it is good that they show the falsehood in the number the left frequently cited.

Misrepresenting an article about the misrepresentation of other articles... meta-misrepresentation?

Things to consider:
1. When authors were asked to evaluate the position of their own papers, the percentage of papers endorsing man-made climate change gets as high as 80%, compared to a peak of 40% as reported by the self-appointed analysts of this paper;
2. As the report itself indicates, "a large proportion of the abstracts that state no position.... generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees";
3. Although the abstract claims that the paper only used peer-reviewed sources, there are several references within the text to having non-peer-reviewed sources in the data set.  Since they neglected to publish the names of the 1980 peer-reviewed journals they ostensibly ended up using, this is a "grain of salt" point.

So, what we have is an article that: may or may not have used good science; ignores the views authors have of their own original works; and includes content which did not investigate the question they are asking. 

Climate change is man made

I used to think surely it is man-made. But when I see videos like this following one, where the CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE tells me NO, I have to question the theory.



And here's one by an atmospheric physicist:

The scientists themselves tend to be more interested in the actual data than to pushing issues.

The scientists themselves tend to be more interested in acquiring funding so they can pay their bills. The funding available to "scientists" who are more likely (based upon past research, institutional affiliations, etc.) to "find" that "global warming"/"climate change" is anthropogenic is many many many times that available to "scientists" who are more likely to find that 1. there is no "global warming"/"climate change" out side normal random or cyclical variation, or 2. that if there is any "change" it is "natural" and not anthropogenic. If they want to earn a decent living and receive regular substantial funding, they know what the money wants to see happen in their "research".

Riddle me this, Why did they have to change it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?     Sound familiar....  "assault weapons ban" to "common sense gun reform"

Riddle me this, Why did they have to change it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?     Sound familiar....  "assault weapons ban" to "common sense gun reform"

Same reason they had to change the "scientific consensus" of "Coming Ice Age" in the 1970s to "Global Warming" in the 1990s. The government controls the majority of the grant money and the politicians' agendas dictate what they want the "research" to document. Sorry, I meant: the data changed.

Why there is climate change...without it we wouldn't have anything to worry/study about

How to make the world hotter then it really is.........

They used to take measurements from around 12000 locations in 1990 (and the surrounding years) the shut down almost 1/2 the stations, these site showed little to no data changes and as such did not fit the narative of climate change, They then went back and removed this data from pre existing charts and data fields turning the global cooling that was believed in the 70's into the global warming of the 90's

ORIGINAL


MODIFIED


Both made using the same data, but both different by eliminating data that does not go with their narrative

"But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

Climate change is real.  I'm sorry folks its true.  Most scientists agree.  Those who don't are paid by fuel companies and pro oil rich folk.

Climate change is real.  I'm sorry folks its true.  Most scientists agree.  Those who don't are paid by fuel companies and pro oil rich folk.

The term used to be global cooling (we are going into an ice age) when the data no longer fit that pa tern they changed it.
The term was then global warming (the temperature is going to keep raising at an alarming rate) when the data no longer fit that pattern they changed it to "climate chnage"

The new term allows them to look at any data and see any kind of variation and blame it on "Climate Change".  Data is being manipulated time and time again by private organisations and government agency to fit the narrative of the time. Earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming it has through out time earth has gone through many periods of cooling and warming,  archaeological samples and research show all of this but that data is ignored because it does not fit the narrative,

Now you might be wondering why ? why would they do all this ?. well that simple Control, Global government are using global warming to expert control over private industry via laws and regulations.

I used to think surely it is man-made. But when I see videos like this following one, where the CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE tells me NO, I have to question the theory.

Patrick Moore, the man in the video, is discredited as a scientist in my eyes. In a 2015 interview he was defending Monsanto and the use of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and he said that you could drink a whole quart of it with no ill effect. The interviewer poured him a cup of the stuff and asked him to take a sip. Moore refused to and abruptly left the interview. He has also been a spokesperson for other businesses with questionable activities. His credibility is shot. Is what some or most of what he says in the video accurate? Maybe, but it is hard to trust him.

The scientists themselves tend to be more interested in acquiring funding so they can pay their bills. The funding available to "scientists" who are more likely (based upon past research, institutional affiliations, etc.) to "find" that "global warming"/"climate change" is anthropogenic is many many many times that available to "scientists" who are more likely to find that 1. there is no "global warming"/"climate change" out side normal random or cyclical variation, or 2. that if there is any "change" it is "natural" and not anthropogenic. If they want to earn a decent living and receive regular substantial funding, they know what the money wants to see happen in their "research".

I have heard that theory before but it just doesn't hold much water with me. As noted in the Breitbart article referenced at the beginning of this thread, 66% of the studies they looked at didn't have any stance on anthropogenic global warming.

Now sure, there will always be bias to deal with in science but having the peer review system attempt to mitigate the effects of bias. I would certainly expect the bias of scientists funded by energy companies to be equal or greater than that of those funded by government grants or private organizations. If a scientist gets a grant to perform a specific study, that is a one time contract and his payment is not dependent on whether his study points to one conclusion or the other. Additionally I think a scientist is unlikely to knowingly mess up his studies because it ruins their name professionally. Their studies are peer reviewed and if others say them doing shotty science their reputation would be tarnished.

Not to say that scientists have never been dishonest before, but I find this a far reaching attempt to try and discredit science people don't like. Not you per se, but the people and industries who stand to lose from environmental concerns being given more importance.

Climate change is real.  I'm sorry folks its true.  Most scientists agree.  Those who don't are paid by fuel companies and pro oil rich folk.

That's actually not the question. The question is what is causing climate change?

I think many agree the climate IS changing.

Not everyone agrees it is caused by humankind.

Patrick Moore, the man in the video, is discredited as a scientist in my eyes. In a 2015 interview he was defending Monsanto and the use of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and he said that you could drink a whole quart of it with no ill effect. The interviewer poured him a cup of the stuff and asked him to take a sip. Moore refused to and abruptly left the interview. He has also been a spokesperson for other businesses with questionable activities. His credibility is shot. Is what some or most of what he says in the video accurate? Maybe, but it is hard to trust him.

Interesting what you wrote, didn't know that about him.

But essentially, over the years, I have heard from and read so much dissenting opinion from smart people, that I have to conclude this is not anywhere cut and dried an issue.

Should we reduce pollution, yes, that seems a no brainer. But going beyond that to restrict other energy usage activities (with cost to those restrictions) is another matter.

I have had some seriously smart friends dig up the climate data themselves and read all the various papers, reports, etc. and tell me they are not convinced it's man-made. They just did it as a hobby, so they have nothing to gain either way, except figuring out the truth.

You know this climate change thing is also related to the "peak oil" issue, which is another whole can of worms.

Above and beyond it all, we must remember there are heavily monied interests involved. This is not a purely scientific and environmental /health issue.

That's actually not the question. The question is what is causing climate change?

I think many agree the climate IS changing.

Not everyone agrees it is caused by humankind.

The fact the humankind has pumped out more Co2 then ever before and the climate is changing quicker in the last 100 years than 10,000 years. Its quite obvious we are part of the cause.

The fact the humankind has pumped out more Co2 then ever before and the climate is changing quicker in the last 100 years than 10,000 years. Its quite obvious we are part of the cause.

Then explain why Co2 was 10-12 times higher (~4400ppm) than it is today (~412ppm) during the Ordovician period and the temperature was similar as it is today? There is just much science out there to disprove anything you want to claim. The fact is no one has been able to prove yet that man is a big enough influence on our environment that we can cause it to get hotter or colder. It has also been proven that CO2 does not initiate the cooling or warming, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. Google is your best friend.