Guest Post by Scott Adams
I recently stumbled upon a way to nudge anti-Trump zombies off the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with each other and Trump is on the wrong side. I’m not arguing about the accuracy of the estimate because I have nothing to compare it to. I’m only concerned that people are trusting the fate of the planet to that estimate without knowing how it was derived.
I started with a quote from this article by Lawrence Solomon. He says…
“…a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.”
I assume the student discarded from the study the scientists who were least-involved with climate science. That seems entirely sensible, right? But I don’t know that to be the case.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
But then I asked my test subject if it would be important to know the opinions of scientists in general, even if they were not directly involved in climate science. If, for example, 60% of scientists in general were skeptical of climate science, wouldn’t you want to know that? I assume scientists are better-equipped to judge other scientists, even in unrelated fields, at least compared to the public at large.
Next, I asked my test subject if he agreed with the following statement:
“The claim that 97% of scientists agree on climate science MIGHT be true, but I would need to know more about how it was derived to judge its credibility.”
He agreed it was fair.
And keep in mind that the question that generated the 97% figure was limited to whether human activity contributes to warming. Even the critics agree with that statement. Where they differ is on the predictive accuracy of the models.
Summarizing, the problems with the 97% estimate are:
1. Human-caused warming is the part upon which both sides AGREE. Humans “contribute” to warming. The disagreement is on how much, and whether it matters. That wasn’t asked.
2. We don’t know what non-climate-scientists think of the climate models. That would add to our understanding of the topic in a big way.
3. We don’t know how reliable the 97% estimate is because we don’t know enough about the methodology. And it hasn’t been repeated as far as I know.
Try this approach with climate science zombies near you and see if you can nudge them off the 97% figure. Let me know how it goes.
‘Consensus’ is not a scientific term, it is political. Thus, a ‘real’ scientist doesn’t consider consensus. Science is based on data, and scientific theories have to have reproducible results.
We DO know what non-climate-scientists think of the climate models. Just look at the spaghetti charts of the 100+ IPCC models along with the satellite temps plotted from UAH and RSS.
We DO know how UNreliable the 97% estimate is because we DO know enough about the methodology in the studies. All you have to do is read the few studies that claim the 97% and any reasonable person will call it BS.
Nice Try, Scott.
“Climate change” is a religion, not a science. It meets all the standards of being a religion and none of the standards of being a science.
Scientific arguments and logic will not change the views of those believing in it.
You are correct! It is the proverbial political wolf dressed in scientific garb pressing for social engineering. Just another arrow in the quiver of the globalist agenda.
When someone makes a claim to me about man-made global warming being fact, I ask them to explain to me in their own words the thermodynamics used to justify the claim. So far, I haven’t met anyone who can do that but it sure shuts them up fast.
What do you mean? Maybe they are intimidated by the word “thermodynamics”, but I have heard global warming explained in those terms my whole life. By the way don’t shoot the messenger here; I am a skeptic. But it goes like this:
The earth receives its energy from the sun. The atmosphere retains some fraction of the sun’s heat energy. Changing the composition of the atmosphere via human activity increases the amount of heat retained.
Since thermodynamics is just the study of heat energy flow and temperature, doesn’t that capture what you are looking for?
Specifically, we are talking about CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere (.04%). Even so, the atmosphere has very little heat capacity compared to the ocean – multiple orders of magnitude less. In the atmosphere, only water vapor has meaningful heat capacity.
The claim is based on CO2 having a greenhouse effect, absorbing long wave radiation in the IR band and then re-emitting it. There is truth to this assertion. The problem is one of magnitude, particularly when you have a massive heat sink below for insolation, the ocean, and an infinite one above – space – for re-emittance.
We know that the ocean is also a massive sink for carbon dioxide, in which solubility is dependent on temperature (the cooler the ocean the more it solvates – the warmer, the more it degasses). (There are also many factors influencing ocean temperature change besides solar heat, such as volcanic activity, currents, upwelling, downwelling, etc). We also have CO2 absorption and release from natural processes on land ie. photosynthesis and decay.
The atmosphere concentration of CO2 is a small fraction of the amount in the ocean and in land sources. So the claim that the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is only due to human activity is unknowable and unmeasurable.
Climate is a chaotic system that has many interdependent variables making it impossible to model for predicting outcomes. So while we can assume there is some impact from human induced CO2 emissions, is it too uncertain and certainly too small to socially re-engineer society around this claim.
Indeed. I don’t think scientists have even identified all of the heat input & output variables, let alone how much energy each of them represent. Hell, they cant even properly model cloud cover! It takes some SERIOUS hubris to think these stupid computer models can even come close to modeling long-term climate. Liberalism is a metal disorder, and global warming is their religion.
Worried about a half a degree celsius over fifty years. How exactly do you intend to measure that little acurately across a planet. Nonsense.
FYI, it is my belief that Scott Adams is a believer in Global Warming. He happens to use his writing skills to appear as a neutral, but the underbelly of his writing is mischief.
Just my opinion.
Don’t know if anyone else is tuned in.
I enjoy his “Trump The Persuader” series.
His other stuff? Not so much.
Climate change that allowed the glaciers to retreat from Manhattan so people can gather there and discuss why it’s bad?
Good.
Anything else?
Bad.
See how easy that is?
I can’t think of anything I would rather do less than to try and convince someone of something they do not believe in (or visa versa).
What is the point?
All of my efforts combined- and I am as close to an activist in my beliefs and behaviors as they come- amount to nothing. Why would I want to try and consign on more person to my particular corner of hell?
Let people believe what they like, beliefs aren’t going to change anything on a human scale. You think it has an effect on the climate of a planet?
LOL
If everyone had your attitude, Hillary would have been our Pres.
Look another opinion I won’t try and change.
Don’t doubt the cumulative effect of people that appear to have no power simply by themselves alone.
HSF, the problem is the numbers of the collective, the hive so to speak, are working to make their religion our religion. It would be fine to take a laissez faire attitude except that these people won’t just leave us the F&*k alone.
When I hear someone say that global temperatures have risen by X degrees Celsius, I know instantly that the person is an ignoramus.
X degrees Celsius is a temperature. The difference between X degrees Celsius and Y degrees Celsius is (X-Y) Celsius degrees. If the average temperature has in fact risen, it has risen by some number of Celsius degrees – not degrees Celsius.
The difference between 7PM and 9PM is two hours – not 2AM.
Also, if the world’s average temperature has changed from about 10C to 10.5C that’s an increase of .17668% because it should be measured in Kelvin.
There are facts, scientific hypothesis and moral judgement.
– CO2 has increased because of human activity. This is a fact.
– Models predicts warming. These are hyphotesis (albeit founded in good science) that had not been fully verified.
– Should we avoid this warming? Should we impose this to everyone? Should we force every third world inhabitant to never achieve the energy usage and comfort of first world people? This is a moral judgment.
We keep discusing about the validity of scientific hyphotesis when all the discussion is on the moral side.
Greetings,
CO2 is plant food. Deserts are in retreat as the warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and the extra CO2 provides the food.
My other point would be this: you could throw 1,300,000 Earths inside of our sun. We are but a speck of dust in comparison. One second of the Sun’s energy output would power the United States for the next 9,000,000 years. That big heat source in the sky has more influence than anything we could ever possibly do here on our little bit of landmass floating atop molten rock and molten iron.
There is no morality without God.
Moral relativism has closed the door on that particular discussion.
Now it is simply a case of who can be made to accept a particular world view through superior force.