Ask Randall: Climate Change

Independent Scholar Randall Carlson takes time to answer a question from a facebook fan regarding climate change.

Elizabeth writes, “Randall Carlson, can you look at his data and still maintain our recent temperature increases are just an anomaly?”  Linking to the controversial New York Times article, “The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic”

Hello Elizabeth.

I am responding to the question you raised regarding my opinion of the New York Times article on the recent work of physicist Richard Muller on climate change.  You asked: “Can you look at his data and still maintain our recent temperature increases are just an anomaly?”  My first impression is that you have not understood my position on this issue.  To clarify that position, I would state that I do not consider the present warming of the climate to be an anomaly, rather I believe that the present scale and rate of climate change is well within the range of natural variability, and is, therefore, not anomalous at all.  This opinion is based upon nearly three decades of in-depth study into the matter of climate change over multiple time scales.  What has become apparent, from an ever growing body of evidence, from many diverse sources, is that the climate of the past has constantly changed, with a range of variability far exceeding anything experienced within recent history, say for example, since the inception of the Industrial Revolution.

Certainly you must be aware that our planet has undergone a series of glacial-interglacial ages, with the most recent great Ice Age ending only 10,000 years ago.  The termination of that ice age was truly a global warming event. From a variety of proxies, most especially isotopic studies of ice cores extracted from glacial ice in Antarctica, Greenland and numerous mountain glaciers, it has become apparent that the warming that accompanied the shift out of the most recent ice age was extreme in its severity and catastrophically fast, perhaps as much as 15 to 20 degrees C in less than a decade.  This is many times more intense than the .8 C degree warming of the last two centuries.  In fact there were two catastrophic warming episodes at the close of the ice age separated by a 1400 year, equally fast, return to full glacial cold.  As of this writing there is no agreed upon explanation for this climate change event.  I will not at this point digress into the subject of what that warming did to the 6 million cubic miles of glacial ice piled up over the North American and European continents, nor the consequences of a very rapid, 400 foot sea level rise (!!) resulting from the melting of that glacial ice, except to say that the ensuing floods could only be described as biblical in scale, causing environmental havoc on a scale almost impossible to visualize.  I will add that very few scientists are yet to be truly aware of the extraordinarily catastrophic nature of the events accompanying the planetary shift out of the last Ice Age.  Coming to grips with natural climate changes of a scale and intensity of that most recent glacial termination, constitutes, in my opinion, the paramount unresolved scientific question of our time.  It may, in fact, have led to the near extermination of the human race.

Additionally, ongoing studies of the palaeoclimate record are revealing numerous other extreme climate changes occurring over multiple time scales, none of which can be blamed on anthropogenic consumption of fossil fuels.  Throughout the 10,000 years of the Holocene (the current geological epoch in which we find ourselves) the natural variability of the global temperature appears to have ranged from about 2 to 4 degrees C over time scales ranging from decades to centuries.  From the ice core records it is apparent that at no time has there been any significant period of stable climate, rather it has been in a constant state of flux; and, human societies have frequently been the victims of the planets’ natural climate variability.

Read more at SacredGeometryInternational.com

 

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Martin Hayes

    at no time has there been any significant period of stable climate, rather it has been in a constant state of flux
    That’s a comma splice. Try not to do it again, you great big academic towering intellect to which we should all bow down.

    I cleave to Ran Prieur’s position: it’s just not credible that burning the accumulated carbon of millennia in the span of 200 years will have no effect. It’s about owning up to our momentous stupidity, rather than tweaking the figures to justify business as usual.

    Hazy Dazy.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

       Strawman.  Randall never said it will have “no effect”.  He even states that we are most likely affecting the climate, the question is to what degree. 

      So do you understand now that your comment does not relate to the information presented?

    • Kevin Leonard

      So your argument is that you don’t believe it.

      • Marklar_Prime

         Actually I think his argument is that  failure to adhere to the assertions of delusional 1920’s grammar Nazis is proof that global warming will kill us all very soon.  Or maybe that incorrect grammar increases the amount of CO2  expelled during human exhalation thereby melting global polar bears? It gets more and more difficult to follow the knee jerk rantings of these faith based climate cultists every day.

        • bobbiethejean

          You people are the cultists here. We’ve got 97% of the climate science community on our side. You’ve got Faux News and CEOs with clear pro-oil agendas they don’t even attempt to hide on your side.

          • Kevin Leonard

            There was once a very strong consensus that the world was flat.

          • bobbiethejean

            That “consensus” was made by people who did not have the tools and knowledge we have today. Also, incidentally, quite a few people were able to calculate that the earth was round 2000 years ago. In fact, quite a few people seemed to know that, just FYI.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

             “Those who know that the consensus of many
            centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest
            in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard
            it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the
            earth moves.”
            Nicolaus Copernicus

          • Randel

            Majority does validate a farce. 

          • bobbiethejean

            There is a difference between a majority of fucktards who believe something stupid like magical people living in the sky and a majority of scientists who specialize in this field coming to the same conclusion independently, despite the rigorous peer review process in which they are all trying to disprove each other. 

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

             Your own behavior denotes a cultish fixation and need to believe whatever the imaginary consensus you have imagined tells you to believe.  Science is not majority rule for obvious reasons.

          • bobbiethejean

            My own behavior is to accept empirical evidence and there is plenty of empirical evidence on our side. What do you have? You have anti-science rhetoric and faux news talking points. Cultist? Yeah, that would be you ignorant toolbags. 

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            …….pointless to argue with the terminally stupid.  Enjoy your carbon taxes.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

             “Those who know that the consensus of many
            centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest
            in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard
            it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the
            earth moves.”
            Nicolaus Copernicus

          • Marklar_Prime

            Sorry, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the facts revealed by the data  were not required to conform themselves to popular opinion. Somebody should call the universe immediately and tell it to create a god of some sort  since most humans  believe in one in some form or another. Physics election 2012 – get out the vote!

            Most physicists once believed that two objects of the same size and shape but of differing masses and weights would fall at the same rate as supposedly supported by the famous experiment of Galileo that we all learned about in early science education.

            I proved that theory to be incorrect mathematically when I was 13 and didn’t need to be an expert or even particularly gifted in math to do so as simple arithmetic, a tiny bit of basic algebra and a bit of common sense is quite sufficient for the task. Several years later my math was validated by laboratory experiments conducted by physicists using laser based measuring devices. Granted the difference in the rate of descent is quite infinitesimal even if one object has many times as much mass as it’s counterpart so that Galileo could have never seen the difference with the technology available to him yet it does exist. It’s really not hard to figure out why this MUST be so if one is willing to use one’s own intellect rather than simply trusting in the priestly declarations of supposed authorities.

            Give it a real try and I’ll bet you can figure it out yourself. Unfortunately most people would never even think of making the attempt which is why experts who are wrong often go relatively unchallenged for generations at a time before somebody points out something that should have been relatively obvious.

          • bobbiethejean

            Popular opinion? You call global warming popular opinion? A majority of people DON’T believe and popular opinion seems to be that it’s not real so boy, didn’t you just shoot your own dumbass self in the foot. We’ve got the empirical evidence. You’ve got anti-science rhetoric and Faux News talking points. Therefore, we win. That simple.

          • ishmael2009

            Bobbie, This 97% figure you throw around – let me be blunt: I don’t believe it. The article acknowledges that the climate is warming but questions the causes of that warming and whether it will be catastrophic. Are you saying that 97% of climate scientists would disagree with this? If so – link to the study please? Not a blog, if you don’t mind. Or a magazine. I’m assuming you’ve checked this yourself so i’m sure you can fairly easily point me to it. Thanks a bunch,

        • bobbiethejean

          You people are the cultists here. We’ve got 97% of the climate science community on our side. You’ve got Faux News and CEOs with clear pro-oil agendas they don’t even attempt to hide on your side.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

           Hahaha!  Well stated Marklar as usual.

    • ishmael2009

      Martin: perhaps addressing your own grammar before criticizing someone else’s might be in order. Separating adjectives with a comma, for example (“you great, big, towering intellect”). Try not to do it again.

    • ishmael2009

      Martin: perhaps addressing your own grammar before criticizing someone else’s might be in order. Separating adjectives with a comma, for example (“you great, big, towering intellect”). Try not to do it again.

  • Anarchy Pony

    We get it Camron, you are into crankery.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      So he says because he doesn’t understand the material presented.

  • Marklar_Prime

     An excellent reply exhibiting a  clear, logical and common sense grasp of the available data.

  • okOkay

    I found this convincing. But then again, I’m a very impressionable person.

  • okOkay

    I found this convincing. But then again, I’m a very impressionable person.

  • bobbiethejean

    For me, the matter is really simple. 97 WHOPPING goddamned percent of climate scientists believe climate change is happening on a massive scale and humans are the prevalent driving entity. A significant number of the remaining opposition (3%) are being paid by oil and gas companies and barely even attempt to hide it. The problem there is fairly well self-explanatory but the real issue in this debate lies with the scientific illiteracy of the public.

    I am not a climate scientist. Chances are you’re not either. Randall Carlson doesn’t appear to be. So what does that mean? It means we’re really not qualified to even be having this debate because most of us (not being climate scientists) don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about. We’re just parroting information collected from other sources back and forth at each other. Half the time, we get into these yip-yip-nope-nope “debates” without even truly understanding the content or having any way of verifying whether the information we’re parroting is true, relevant, or properly buttressed by necessary context. If scientific-journalism in this country wasn’t so shoddy, I’d say we could just look there but it’s mostly sensationalist crap.

    That being the case, I’ll ~tentatively~ opt to side with the majority of scientists who specialize in this field rather than believing what Faux Snooze or some irrelevant, cherry-picking, Dear Abby columnist has to say.

    • geminihigh

       Is the common layperson qualified at least to go outside and notice that weather patterns have considerably changed over the course of a few decades? That storms are becoming more “extreme”, pervasive, and destructive? That record high temperatures are being topped with each passing summer? We are all part of that debate, because it affects everyone except cave dwellers. Scientific analysis provides detailed information about how and why things are the way they are. However, the scientists’ findings are for the eyes of other scientists, not commoners like us. Scientific illiteracy among the public is no doubt a widespread problem that leads to the dissemination of bad information, but scientists, and academia at large, deliberately speak in a language only others of their profession can decipher. This is much like attorneys who have repeatedly refused or evaded attempts to make the deliberately convoluted tongue of “legalese” into plain English, for fear of losing power and authority over their prospective clients. Too many academics and scientists have a neurosis where feel they are the sole keepers of knowledge, and that commoners have no right, let alone intellectual capacity to know their secrets. Their insecurity-based arrogance deludes them into thinking that not one single layperson could even begin to comprehend what their findings convey. Many quietly sneer when the public tries to decipher their work. Without their position of power as a keeper of knowledge, they are nothing more than the scared, insecure children they once were, last to be picked for a dodgeball team, doomed never to get laid until maybe late adulthood. This only leads to more confusion, more debate, more rebuttals, and ultimately more grants for scientists to investigate the climate change matter further.

      Science-illiteracy aside, I really don’t need a climatologist to see which way the wind blows. But then again, millions of people like myself must be wrong since we aren’t climate scientists, and our weather experiences are merely anecdotal.   

      • Andrew

         I’ve noticed both a change in climate and flora where I’ve lived for the past 30 years.

      • Andrew

         I’ve noticed both a change in climate and flora where I’ve lived for the past 30 years.

        • bobbiethejean

          I haven’t. I haven’t even been alive for 30 years! That’s only one of the reasons this is not a valid means of confirming global warming. It’s anecdotal, not properly derived from scientific study.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

             “Those who know that the consensus of many
            centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest
            in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard
            it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the
            earth moves.”
            Nicolaus Copernicus

          • bobbiethejean

            Yeah, great, wonderful, an irrelevant, anachronistic quote from a science-pioneer who’s been dead for centuries. Guess what, genius, this is not the time of good old Nicky C. This is a time when we have nearly perfected the scientific method and peer review processes. We’re not going to see too many… if any more “Sun goes around the Earth” issues.

          • bobbiethejean

            Yeah, great, wonderful, an irrelevant, anachronistic quote from a science-pioneer who’s been dead for centuries. Guess what, genius, this is not the time of good old Nicky C. This is a time when we have nearly perfected the scientific method and peer review processes. We’re not going to see too many… if any more “Sun goes around the Earth” issues.

          • moremisinformation

            Ahahahahahahahaha. Hubris, much?

          • bobbiethejean

            Nope. It’s called “truth.”

          • moremisinformation

            Prove it. If truth is on your side, prove that science isn’t flawed or that the peer review process isn’t subject to corruption. An easy startpage search for “scientific corruption” proves you are either ignorant or deluded.

          • bobbiethejean

            The vast overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet believe that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. If you distrust 97% of the planets scientists (incidentally, a lot of the other 3% are unashamedly purchased by big oil companies and don’t even try to hide it), then get the fuck of the internet and go live in a cave.

          • bobbiethejean

            The vast overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet believe that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. If you distrust 97% of the planets scientists (incidentally, a lot of the other 3% are unashamedly purchased by big oil companies and don’t even try to hide it), then get the fuck of the internet and go live in a cave.

          • moremisinformation

            You need another superlative – “vast”, “overwhelming”, “majority”, can’t you think of another? I see below that you talked about “tens of millions of scientists”. What a joke, tens of millions of climate scientists? Hahahahahaha!

            Oh, and be assured, there’s no money involved with towing the APG line. No scientists are receiving any money for that line of thinking.

            “get the fuck of the internet and go live in a cave” – I can almost feel your intellect seeping through my monitor.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

          • bobbiethejean

            You can almost feel my intellect seeping through your computer? That’s interesting because I’m pretty sure your stupidity just reached out and slapped me across the face.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

            http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

            I could keep going but I won’t waste my time. People like you cannot be swayed by facts or logic. You have some kind of bizarre emotional investment in global climate change not being true, perhaps because you don’t want to admit that human beings are having such an adverse effect on the planet. Personally, if I found out for certain that global climate change was false, I would spin on a dime and it wouldn’t bother me at all.

          • bobbiethejean

            You can almost feel my intellect seeping through your computer? That’s interesting because I’m pretty sure your stupidity just reached out and slapped me across the face.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

            http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

            I could keep going but I won’t waste my time. People like you cannot be swayed by facts or logic. You have some kind of bizarre emotional investment in global climate change not being true, perhaps because you don’t want to admit that human beings are having such an adverse effect on the planet. Personally, if I found out for certain that global climate change was false, I would spin on a dime and it wouldn’t bother me at all.

          • moremisinformation

            You can’t even keep up with your own intellectual inconsistencies: “global climate change not being true”, “you don’t want to admit that human beings are having such an adverse effect on the planet”, “if I found out for certain that global climate change was false”…You realize that global climate change and human induced climate change are not necessarily mutually inclusive? That’s rhetorical. You clearly don’t.

            I’d challenge you to go back and point to where I “denied”, that the climate is changing. It is, after all, the earth’s climate. Only a moron (read: shortsighted human) would assume that it has some sort of “normal”. The ecosystem has plenty of human-caused stresses to deal with. Consider spending your energy on those and not wasting it on the control paradigm.

          • bobbiethejean

            I really don’t give a flying fart what you say. I mean, you can keep blathering on like an idiot if that makes you happy but you’re not going to change my mind. Science is on my side- global climate change is happening, it is largely anthropogenic, and it is wreaking havoc on the environment.

            Feel free to keep making a dumbass out of yourself if yo like. I’ll be busy doing grownup things like…. not being the jerkoff who rekindles several month-old conversations because I’m bored and have nothing better to do with my life.

          • bobbiethejean

            I really don’t give a flying fart what you say. I mean, you can keep blathering on like an idiot if that makes you happy but you’re not going to change my mind. Science is on my side- global climate change is happening, it is largely anthropogenic, and it is wreaking havoc on the environment.

            Feel free to keep making a dumbass out of yourself if yo like. I’ll be busy doing grownup things like…. not being the jerkoff who rekindles several month-old conversations because I’m bored and have nothing better to do with my life.

          • moremisinformation

            “Feel free to keep making a dumbass out of yourself if [yo] like” – You’re a genius.

          • bobbiethejean

            Five points shy actually. Incidentally, typos are not indicative of intelligence. Thought you might like to know. ;)

          • Andrew

            Is it a valid reason for me to believe the scientists are right and global warming isn’t a scam?

          • Andrew

            Is it a valid reason for me to believe the scientists are right and global warming isn’t a scam?

      • bobbiethejean

        1.) Is the common layperson qualified at least to go outside and notice
        that weather patterns have considerably changed over the course of a few
        decades?

        No. Just as many people could say “I haven’t noticed any change, there for there is no climate change.” I personally haven’t noticed any changes- probably because I’m not old enough to have a decent sense of context. 

        2.) but scientists, and academia at large, deliberately speak in a language only others of their profession can decipher.

        That’s why we need good science journalism which we DO NOT have. You’re placing too much blame on the scientists and not enough on the lazy, sensationalist media.

        3.) scientists have a neurosis where feel they are the sole keepers of knowledge

        If that were true, we wouldn’t be living in such a scientifically modern society.

        4.) Many quietly sneer when the public tries to decipher their work.

        How do you know that? Have you seen this happen? I for one have seen a great number of science popularizers criticized and harassed for their attempts to make the fucktarded masses understand even basic science (Google Bill Nye heckled for suggesting the earth goes around the sun). There is only so far you can dumb certain concepts down before they completely lose meaning and unfortunately, the American public is pretty fricking dumb, too dumb it seems to grasp such simple concepts as “dumping shitloads of pollutive CO2 into the air PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING.” Their response? but CO2 is good for plants! HURKADURRRR.

        5.) and our weather experiences are merely anecdotal

        If you need me to explain why this is not a valid argument….. you’re not even worth discussing this with.

      • bobbiethejean

        1.) Is the common layperson qualified at least to go outside and notice
        that weather patterns have considerably changed over the course of a few
        decades?

        No. Just as many people could say “I haven’t noticed any change, there for there is no climate change.” I personally haven’t noticed any changes- probably because I’m not old enough to have a decent sense of context. 

        2.) but scientists, and academia at large, deliberately speak in a language only others of their profession can decipher.

        That’s why we need good science journalism which we DO NOT have. You’re placing too much blame on the scientists and not enough on the lazy, sensationalist media.

        3.) scientists have a neurosis where feel they are the sole keepers of knowledge

        If that were true, we wouldn’t be living in such a scientifically modern society.

        4.) Many quietly sneer when the public tries to decipher their work.

        How do you know that? Have you seen this happen? I for one have seen a great number of science popularizers criticized and harassed for their attempts to make the fucktarded masses understand even basic science (Google Bill Nye heckled for suggesting the earth goes around the sun). There is only so far you can dumb certain concepts down before they completely lose meaning and unfortunately, the American public is pretty fricking dumb, too dumb it seems to grasp such simple concepts as “dumping shitloads of pollutive CO2 into the air PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING.” Their response? but CO2 is good for plants! HURKADURRRR.

        5.) and our weather experiences are merely anecdotal

        If you need me to explain why this is not a valid argument….. you’re not even worth discussing this with.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      So in other words you are content to let the “authorites” do all of the thinking in this regard.
      It
      doesn’t matter what the journalism is like if people refuse to think
      for themselves.  Also their is in reality a massive upswing in
      independent scholarship and journalism taking over where the
      journalistic gap of integrity has presented itself.  Feel free to flex
      your grey matter and consider the experience and position of climate
      scientists who exist outside of your fantasy dialectic.  The 97% you
      speak of versus the 3% you speak of is just a little too convenient but
      regardless feel free to challenge your perspective (though I can’t say
      that I imagine you honestly will given your rhetoric so far) and visit
      wattsupwiththat.com and then do the independent and sometimes laborous
      task of comparitive study, investigation and analysis. 

      Otherwise
      your not really doing anything except presenting an uneducated opinion
      and expecting to be taken seriously in spite of it.

      To give you an idea of where I am coming from I will quote Max Heindel.

      “The
      bond of concord is only discovered by the open mind, however and though
      the present work may be found to differ from others, the writer would
      bespeak an impartial hearing as the basis of subsequent judgement.  If
      the book is “weighed and found wanting,” the writer will have no
      complaint.  He only fears a hasty judgement based upon lack of knowledge
      of the system he advocates — a hearing wherein the judgement is
      “wanting” in consequence of having been denied an impartial “weighing.” 
      He would further submit, that the only opinion worthy of the one who
      expresses it must be based upon knowledge.  As a further reason for care
      in judgement we suggest that to many it is exceedingly difficult to
      retract a hastily expressed opinion.  Therefore it is urged that the
      reader withhold all expressions of either praise or blame until study of
      the work has reasonably satisfied him of its merit or demerit”  -Max
      Heindel, Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception pg. 7

      • bobbiethejean

        1.) So in other words you are content to let the “authorites”

        No I did not let the “authorities” do my thinking for me. I merely let them do all that climate sciencey shit that we can’t do for ourselves… ya know…..like all of it. Because we wouldn’t know what the fuck we were looking at if we saw the raw data. Would you know how to extract a CO2 core? Would you know what to do with it if you did? Would you now how to interpret the data in a meaningful way? No, you wouldn’t. You are so very arrogant to think you know more than the people…. a HUGE collective body of scientists, who spend their lives doing this shit.

        2.) The 97% you speak of versus the 3% you speak of is just a little too convenient

        You can tapdance all you like, that number is a fact. 97% of climate scientists accept that climate change is real and humans are a major driving force. Hm? If Climate scientists are so unnecessary, why do we even have them? Why does NASA employ them? Hm. Curious.

        3.) your not really doing anything except presenting an uneducated

        I AM PRESENTING AN UNEDUCATED OPINION!? LOLOLOL OH MY GOD. You can’t really be this stupid…. wow. I’m the one saying that we should consider the massive body of informed, educated climate scientists who specialize in this field and independently came to the same conclusion despite the rigorous peer-review process in which they are all trying to disprove climate change….. while you’re basically saying “Me smart, me knows more than entire PLANET of climate scientists” …. and I’m the one positing an uneducated opinion. Whoo! Thanks. I needed a good laugh for the day.

        4.) Max Heindel.

        Anyone can post a quote from someone else. I do not find that impressive. Do you often let other people do your thinking for you? Incidentally, that quote was referring to literary work, not massive, worldwide, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Apples, oranges.

        Peace out. 

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          1.) So in other words you are content to let the “authorites”

          No I did not let the “authorities” do my thinking for me. I merely
          let them do all that climate sciencey shit that we can’t do for
          ourselves… ya know…..like all of it. Because we wouldn’t know what
          the fuck we were looking at if we saw the raw data. Would you know how
          to extract a CO2 core? Would you know what to do with it if you did?
          Would you now how to interpret the data in a meaningful way? No, you
          wouldn’t. You are so very arrogant to think you know more than the
          people…. a HUGE collective body of scientists, who spend their lives
          doing this shit.

          Bobbie Jean.  That is exactly what you are doing.  You are using the appeal to authority fallacy and presuming that science is run by majority rule.  Also the 97% figure.  Where do you get it from?  What is your source?  You are arguing as though it is an apriori fact and building your house of card “logic” on top of it.  Let’s bring you down to size.  Provide the source for your belief in the 97% figure you have based all of your assumptions upon.  

          And for the record.
          Via Andrew Harding at Wattsupwiththat.com (I dare you to take your troll show over there by the way)

          From the Business Dictionary: Consensus:
          Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total
          disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and
          goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall
          direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the
          decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective
          responsibility.
          Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consensus.html#ixzz27qzw36Wk
          From Wikipedia:Consensus decision-making is a group decision making
          process that seeks the consent, not necessarily agreement about the
          “favorite” choice of all participants. Consensus may be defined
          professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported,
          even if not the “favorite” of each individual. Consensus is defined by
          Merriam-Webster as, first, general agreement, and second, group
          solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word
          cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel
          together.[1] It is used to describe both the decision and the process of
          reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with
          the process of reaching a consensus decision, and the social and
          political effects of using this process.
          In neither of these two definitions are the adjectives “correct” or
          “true” used, implying that the term; consensus, cannot be applied to
          scientific fact.

          AGW proponents are constantly banging on about the consensus of
          scientific opinion, implying that AGW is real. It would appear that
          their grasp of English vocabulary is as tenuous as their grasp of
          scientific reality.

          • bobbiethejean

            My nonexistent god, you’re completely whacked. Not wasting any more of my time. Peace out.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            By
            the way your cherished 97% statisic is meaningless. Please stop
            clinging to it like a fundamentalist preaching the second coming.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

            What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

            Guest Post by Barry Woods

            I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’
            (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give
            weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have
            any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.

            Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the
            most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’
            phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the
            actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.

            “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

            (‘Doran Survey’ participant)

            In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a
            ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I
            wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the
            need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were
            aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite
            actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper
            cites?

            Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that
            actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc
            thesis:

            “..scientific
            issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not,
            at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually
            resides..”

            “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

            “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will
            undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey!
            I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

            I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or
            scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have
            actually read the original source of the cited survey.

            “Climate is a very complex system with many variables
            including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other
            factors that we are not even aware of.

            There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the
            IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not,
            but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is
            interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

            The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past,
            where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75
            out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97%
            figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even
            the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of
            many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

            A closer look at ‘The Consensus on the Consensus’

            Yet, I’m not aware of anyone having a detailed look at the actual
            reference
            for the ’97%’ quotation cited in the Doran EoS paper – (link and press
            release), this was a students MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the
            Consensus” – M Zimmermann (download here for £1.25 / ~$2), who was
            Peter Doran’s graduate student (and the EoS paper’s co-author)

            “..and I do not think that a consensus has anything
            to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of
            science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by
            ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Just a bit more refuting this completely fallacious 97% consensus bullshit.

            “.. The Trenberth letter states: “Research shows that
            more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that
            climate
            change is real and human caused.” However, the claim of 97% support is
            deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we
            would agree with.
            Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures
            have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

            But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To
            claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this
            constitutes “extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other
            climate expert” is peculiar indeed.” (Wall Steet Journal)

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claim. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

      Just sharing information.  You could always choose to read and understand it before you choose to ignore it, you know, in a scientific manner. 

      Condemnation without investigation is still the height of ignorance after all.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claim. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

      Just sharing information.  You could always choose to read and understand it before you choose to ignore it, you know, in a scientific manner. 

      Condemnation without investigation is still the height of ignorance after all.

      • bobbiethejean

        Nice cherry pick. Unfortunately for you, that 97% quote is not a cherry pick. 97% of climate scientists are on my side. You’ve got a 1000 out of literally tens of millions of scientists. By the way, a lot of the scientists on your side are not even CLIMATE scientists and yes, that makes a difference.

  • geminihigh

    A lucid, well wrought explanation of his findings, spiced with a tolerable (and amusing) hint of passive aggressive wit toward the person asking the initial question  (“Certainly you must be aware that our planet has undergone a series of glacial-interglacial ages..”.)

    I feel that the Earth is in a warming period that is a natural process, but carbon emissions certainly are adding to the equation to a degree yet to be determined, or at least officially established.

    What escapes many people with whom I’ve discussed this matter is that the whole global warming “scare,” if you will, is one of the best things ever to happen to big business polluters. So many companies claim that they manufacture products in accordance with “green”, “sustainable” principles, and that they are doing “their part” to lower carbon emissions, etc. Fighting global warming is at the forefront of these corporations’ agendas.

    What a great distraction from the fact these entities are still poisoning our air and water, burning holes in the ozone layer (last time I heard about ozone damage was in 2003, circa my sophomore high school days. Doesn’t solar radiation add to the warming effect?), ripping down ancient forests, and exhibiting a general disregard for the natural world. And what better way to develop, manufacture, and market new “green products” that every one will have to buy in order not look like a environmentally ignorant asshole. Ka-Ching!

    In the 90’s it was a “save the rainforests, the manatees, the whales, our oceans, our biodiversity” awareness blitz, at least when I was in grade school. The environmentalists had an attentive audience then,and I believe they actually made decent progress in advancing environmental awareness (way to go tree huggers!) Global warming and going “green” are now the buzz words that steal the stage from any and all other environmental issues that global enterprise negatively affects, and will be for some time until the whole issue is resolved.  True conservationists, as in people who truly care and know a thing or two about nature, are marginalized and ignored while Al Gore and a whole generation of hipster twits who go to a city park once in awhile are now the authority on the greatest threat ever, ever, ever to humanity, global warming, Thermo-nuclear annihilation I guess, takes second, maybe third place in the running for imminent threats to our survival.

    (maybe the reason we stopped hearing about that huge ozone hole over the poles is that enough ice has melted so that the entrance to our hollow Earth is now wide enough to send a sizable expeditionary force to annihilate the remaining Nazi forces hold up down there, this time once and for all : )

    Green is a fad, Conservation is forever!

  • Minglewood65

    So, Mr. Wiltshire’s claim of Michael Manns imminent arrest by a D.A. fell through, his ascertains of Climate Gate being a true conspiracy being ripped apart by debunkers, offers this as his latest attempt to prop up his denialism. Basically all this say’s is that humans and their cultures have been ripped apart by disaster, and as a repeating cycle, will happen again.

  • Minglewood65

    So, Mr. Wiltshire’s claim of Michael Manns imminent arrest by a D.A. fell through, his ascertains of Climate Gate being a true conspiracy being ripped apart by debunkers, offers this as his latest attempt to prop up his denialism. Basically all this say’s is that humans and their cultures have been ripped apart by disaster, and as a repeating cycle, will happen again.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Michael Mann’s “exoneration” actually lends credit to a conspiracy theory. 

      The truth is, it is good business for scientists to be on the man-made global warming bandwagon, with 68.4 billion between 2008 and 2012 in Federal money going out to scientists who join the “consensus”. If you are a scientist who is receiving this grant money, any legitimate inquiry which deduces an opposing theory is considered a threat to your livelihood, and must be dealt with in whatever means are available. Those scientist have only recourse to ridicule opposing views. Ridicule, coincidentally, is the first stage truth must pass through, followed by violent opposition (Schopenhauer).

      So the government is investing in this theory, while subsides to oil companies continue. Yet, Federal subsidies for renewable energy are threatened. It does not follow.

      If the crisis were really so great that 100 million could be dead by 2030 if we don’t act, what would the best course of action truly be? A carbon tax? Cap and trade? Those things will likely do nothing to curb carbon emissions -certainly not enough to 
      end the upward movement on the pie charts. If the governments of the world REALLY wanted to REDUCE carbon emissions and not just slow their growth, they would have to end high profits for oil and gas companies, sending the bulk of their profit toward implementing strategies for renewable energy. We also would have to change our farming practices drastically, but that would take away the profits of Big Agra. 

      But these things will not happen.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Michael Mann’s “exoneration” actually lends credit to a conspiracy theory. 

      The truth is, it is good business for scientists to be on the man-made global warming bandwagon, with 68.4 billion between 2008 and 2012 in Federal money going out to scientists who join the “consensus”. If you are a scientist who is receiving this grant money, any legitimate inquiry which deduces an opposing theory is considered a threat to your livelihood, and must be dealt with in whatever means are available. Those scientist have only recourse to ridicule opposing views. Ridicule, coincidentally, is the first stage truth must pass through, followed by violent opposition (Schopenhauer).

      So the government is investing in this theory, while subsides to oil companies continue. Yet, Federal subsidies for renewable energy are threatened. It does not follow.

      If the crisis were really so great that 100 million could be dead by 2030 if we don’t act, what would the best course of action truly be? A carbon tax? Cap and trade? Those things will likely do nothing to curb carbon emissions -certainly not enough to 
      end the upward movement on the pie charts. If the governments of the world REALLY wanted to REDUCE carbon emissions and not just slow their growth, they would have to end high profits for oil and gas companies, sending the bulk of their profit toward implementing strategies for renewable energy. We also would have to change our farming practices drastically, but that would take away the profits of Big Agra. 

      But these things will not happen.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Michael Mann’s “exoneration” actually lends credit to a conspiracy theory. 

      The truth is, it is good business for scientists to be on the man-made global warming bandwagon, with 68.4 billion between 2008 and 2012 in Federal money going out to scientists who join the “consensus”. If you are a scientist who is receiving this grant money, any legitimate inquiry which deduces an opposing theory is considered a threat to your livelihood, and must be dealt with in whatever means are available. Those scientist have only recourse to ridicule opposing views. Ridicule, coincidentally, is the first stage truth must pass through, followed by violent opposition (Schopenhauer).

      So the government is investing in this theory, while subsides to oil companies continue. Yet, Federal subsidies for renewable energy are threatened. It does not follow.

      If the crisis were really so great that 100 million could be dead by 2030 if we don’t act, what would the best course of action truly be? A carbon tax? Cap and trade? Those things will likely do nothing to curb carbon emissions -certainly not enough to 
      end the upward movement on the pie charts. If the governments of the world REALLY wanted to REDUCE carbon emissions and not just slow their growth, they would have to end high profits for oil and gas companies, sending the bulk of their profit toward implementing strategies for renewable energy. We also would have to change our farming practices drastically, but that would take away the profits of Big Agra. 

      But these things will not happen.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Thank you Kevin. Razor sharp refutation of the faux sympathies being emitted (increasing CO2 all the while) by the natural predators of mankind, the psychopathic, solipsistic so-called-elite.

21
More in ask randall, BEST, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Holocene, IPCC, LIA, MWP, Paleoclimate, Randall Carlson, Richard Muller, sacred geometry international, Solar Cycles
Global Warming May Shrink Size Of Fish 24% By 2050

Should we expect fishermen to try to find ways to stop greenhouse gas emissions from their boats? Doubtful, but if the warming trend continues, the average size of their catch...

Close