There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:
A qualified geologist that thinks the earth is flat would be absurd, obviously.

A qualified scientist who believes in violations of physics, e.g. an atmospheric gas creating energy in violation of the 1st LoT or a planet that increases in temperature but somehow decreases in radiance, etc would be reason enough for his/her university to rescind his/her degree and disavow all association.


.

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Sorry DRKTS, but your facts are wrong. In the video you reference Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook et al 2013's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

spot wrote:You should contact these institutions and have something done about it then. If they actually believe what you say they believe. Shall we start with Steven Hawking?

"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change... There's a realization that we are changing our climate for the worse. That would have catastrophic effects. Although the threat is not as dire as that of nuclear weapons right now, in the long term we are looking at a serious threat."

Stephen Hawking's Quote from Press conference for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (1 January 2007)

spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

You need to show me where I said nuclear weapons are not dangerous.

You need to show me where I said nuclear winter would not be a bad thing. Did you notice he

You need to show me where I said that nuclear weapons somehow violate the laws of physics. I don't think I did.

Do you have a link to the transcript of his speech/words?


.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: Why would he say that if he knows its not a threat because it violates the laws of physics?

You need to show me where I said nuclear weapons are not dangerous.

You need to show me where I said nuclear winter would not be a bad thing. Did you notice he

You need to show me where I said that nuclear weapons somehow violate the laws of physics. I don't think I did.

Do you have a link to the transcript of his speech/words?


.

that's a direct quote of his statement he's clearly mentioning climate change It was in the news at the time, Google is your friend, I'm surprised you didn't do 10 seconds of fact checking before putting your foot in it again.

spot wrote:
I have done some fact cheaking, If he has had a rethink on this issue its off the record. In case I'm mistaken can you provide a quote or a link to back up your assertion?

Anyway it doesn't sound realistic to me. Are we to beleive that in 2007 he made this statement and about his concerns knowing that the greenhouse effect violated the laws of physics then changed his mind and no media reported on this?