Is Climate Change/Global Warming man made?

[weg]

Because of the current thread on Climate Change could we keep this one limited to stats, or commentary associated with public sentiment.

In other words, please refrain from challenging peoples views on this thread.

I will try to make it an anonymous poll too, so people concerned that others might judged them on their beliefs can safely express themselves.

My interest is purely numbers.

 

[Hoffy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiEquity
"Wow TF, from that comment it appears you have an issue with more than just the science of meteorology..."

I like meteorology and it's scientists. Seems that nearly half of them are deniers though with only 52% believing that climate change is happening and humans are mostly the cause.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...S-D-13-00091.1

The discussion at line 406 is interesting:

We found that perceived scientific consensus was the factor most strongly associated
407 with AMS members? views about global warming. This suggests that scientists? thinking on
408 scientific topics may be subject to the same kinds of social normative influences that affect the
409 general public. Rather than rationally weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves, as
410 would be expected under more traditional ideas of scientific judgment, scientists may also use
411 the views of a relevant peer group as a social cue for forming their own views.

The science isn't settled for these guys apparently.

 

[Piston Broke]

Was climate change caused by Dinosaurs?
Could it have been the methane rich farts?

 

[Aaron_C]

Was climate change caused by Dinosaurs?

Yeah I think it caused the Asteroid to hit and kill them all. Damn them.

 

[geoffw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiEquity
"Wow TF, from that comment it appears you have an issue with more than just the science of meteorology..."

I like meteorology and it's scientists. Seems that nearly half of them are deniers though with only 52% believing that climate change is happening and humans are mostly the cause.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...S-D-13-00091.1

The discussion at line 406 is interesting:

We found that perceived scientific consensus was the factor most strongly associated
407 with AMS members? views about global warming. This suggests that scientists? thinking on
408 scientific topics may be subject to the same kinds of social normative influences that affect the
409 general public. Rather than rationally weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves, as
410 would be expected under more traditional ideas of scientific judgment, scientists may also use
411 the views of a relevant peer group as a social cue for forming their own views.

The science isn't settled for these guys apparently.

You posted the same on the other thread.

That's still 52% who believe that it is happening.

Meanwhile, 87% of Australians in a poll released today said that a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 is about enough or too little.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says "Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities."

 

[Hoffy]

You posted the same on the other thread.

That's still 52% who believe that it is happening.

Meanwhile, 87% of Australians in a poll released today said that a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 is about enough or too little.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says "Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement) due to human activities."

Sure did. Pretty interesting don't you think? Just doesn't seem to reconcile with the "science is settled" meme.

I thought the IPCC increased their confidence to 95% in the most recent report. From '07 they increased it from 90%.

 

[geoffw]

Sure did. Pretty interesting don't you think? Just doesn't seem to reconcile with the "science is settled" meme.

I thought the IPCC increased their confidence to 95% in the most recent report. From '07 they increased it from 90%.

Yes, I quoted the last one released. The report quoting 95% has been pre released.

I studied climatology as a minor part of my meteorology degree. Climate and weather are two different disciplines. A meteorologist who looks at the weather is mostly concerned with what is going to happen today and for the next short period of time.

It's interesting but certainly not enough there to convince me that the science is wrong. I'd need a lot more evidence than that.

 

[Hoffy]

Yes, I quoted the last one released. The report quoting 95% has been pre released.

I studied climatology as a minor part of my meteorology degree. Climate and weather are two different disciplines. A meteorologist who looks at the weather is mostly concerned with what is going to happen today and for the next short period of time.

It's interesting but certainly not enough there to convince me that the science is wrong. I'd need a lot more evidence than that.

My reason for posting is not to change a view on climate change. It was to add further evidence against the consensus claim. Additionally it was to highlight the quoted section which shows that scientists, like all humans are influenced by a range of inputs with peer group views being important and significantly influential.

Is this why the alarmists continue to push the 97% claim? Because they understand the herd mentality? they've just cleverly renamed it "peer review"?

 

[geoffw]

We have been asked to keep opinions away from this thread. Can I move these posts to the other thread?

 

[NedKelly]

This poll is a stupid poll because there is no such thing as global warming.

 

[geoffw]

This poll is a stupid poll because there is no such thing as global warming.

You have your opportunity to comment on the reasons why you think this in another thread. But please try intelligent logic backed up with citations.

 

[Hoffy]

We have been asked to keep opinions away from this thread. Can I move these posts to the other thread?

My post has complied with the request of Weg. Stats, commentary associated with public (scientist) sentiment and no effort to change views.

 

[BayView]

Where is the option in the poll for "do you think GW does not exist?"

Add CC to that as well.

It's a biased poll - a love-in for the believers. I can't cast my vote.

Oh well.

 

[weg]

This poll is a stupid poll because there is no such thing as global warming.

I took into account the 'pause' but then decided that we should assume the pause is only a blip in an upward warming trend for the sake of keeping things simple and so we can get an idea of how many believe the science.

Warsaw was interesting. Imo, what is happening is the majority of people in western nations are Q the science (and motives) hence their governments responding the way they have to proposals set by the UN.

And we are not talking about a few conspiracy theorist here, the numbers are huge and the majority of those who are speaking out and accused of being crackpots are far from it.

 

[eKwatee]

It's a scam that enriches those who benefit from the fear....Nothing more.

If we all were a little dumber they would be selling us the masks that prevent us from breathing in the Carbon.

 

[weg]

It's a scam that enriches those who benefit from the fear....Nothing more.

If we all were a little dumber they would be selling us the masks that prevent us from breathing in the Carbon.

So you believe Global Warming is man made...... up .

 

[The Fence]

Pointless poll. There is no GW.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

The climate has been changing for as long as the earth has been here. People are probably influencing that in certain ways.

The obsession is carbon dioxide is pretty superficial and silly, though. There's a lot more to the story.

 

[tobe]

who cares what we think anyway? If we all agreed the earth was flat what diference would it make?

 

[weg]

who cares what we think anyway? If we all agreed the earth was flat what diference would it make?

But we don't all agree and a lot of individuals and organizations care a lot about what they and everyone else thinks.

The significance is that the numbers will, one way or another, dictate what proposed 'actions' are or aren't taken.