What data? I don't see any data in there. I see vague projections and doomsday warnings, but I don't see any data.
1. Proof of 97%... http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf http://www.skepticalscience.com/Consensus-Project-self-rating-data-now-available.html your turn show your proof. 2. Please provide us the names of these scientists and their publications.
He didn't make that claim (he may or may not believe it). He said: and he posted the chart because somebody responded: The chart Commodore posted contradicts GR's claim about lack of information.
all of those things reference the same thing; climatologists who published articles. There is a huge incentive to publish papers preaching gloom and doom. Its called money. Very few people will subsidize studying something proven to not be an issue. That does not equate to 97% of scientists. It equates to 97% of published articles on the subject. You just disproved the claim.
What it points to is an overwhelming of evidence, studies, proof of man made climate change by a huge majority of scientists studying the issue. It also points to an incredibly small minority of scientists providing proof against it.
Here's another web site prominently displaying this chart: http://heartland.org/issues/environment And it was created by Christopher Monckton, loony rich English guy who does a bunch of repulsive stuff. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/ Here's a chart that shows the real data from the same sources: RSS MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Full History graph. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html And here's the global trend map based on the data: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?type=trend&channel=2 In fact, the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximately 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade. This video shows why deniers always only start in the late 1990's (The first 2/3 is methodology... wait for the last part for the payoff): <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/GhJR3ywIijo?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/GhJR3ywIijo?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
haha. people who think climatologists get into their field for the MONEY of all things just automatically lose arguments on this. Besides, oil companies pay a lot better. http://www.skepticalscience.com/bigoil.html
You and FV Santiago claim or discount the 97%. Then you go by showing no evidence of your claim. Or you agree to the 97% but claim it's bogus because somehow all the studies are due to incentive in favor of climate change. Is that right? 1- You fully discount that these are PEER REVIEWED. 2- You think the incentive is not there for the OIL industry to not provide such money for studies in their favor? Really? Their pocket is deep. If I'm them and I mostly only care about my financial performance in the short term, I already know the science is not behind me and it would be useless to go that route. Instead, I would place my bet on where it would be more effective. It's not in Science.
You can't prove something doesn't exist. Its not complicated; bongman showed what the 97% is in reference to. Its not 97% of scientists believe in AGW. It is 97% of papers published on AGW, support it.
Exactly how much money are we talking about? This is what's interesting about these claims, they all seem to claim some form of conspiracy without backing up their claims. Please provide yearly profit margins for these publishers. In a world where news agencies focus on missing planes all day long, reality TV's getting higher ratings, gossip newspapers and radio shock jocks making the most profits...what makes you think there is a lot to be made in publishing scientific articles? Out of all the people you know in this universe, what percentage of these folks read these articles?
It saddens me to see people try to debunk this fact for strictly political reasons. The science community has spoken and they have nothing to gain, other than a possible cooler planet for their children.
You posted a link that had pretty weak points. I skimmed over the 44 page report and it didn't have much to say other than trying to alarm people with questionable projections from what I saw. Also, I'm not sure why you want a markedly cooler planet. We are already in a cool period. Lastly, CO2 levels are not highly correlated to short term temperature spikes. This is coming from a guy who drives an electric car, and has solar panels on his house and business, and who is thinking about converting his pool into a rainwater collection tank. I think we should do everything possible to move away from fossil fuels and practice conservation, but I just can't get on this global warming doomsday hype train.
Here is how I summarize the climate change debate: "You're either with us or you're against us" - George W. Bush
what conspiracy are you referring to? Nobody will give you money to study something that isn't useful. That's not a conspiracy, that's logic. As to your first question about how much money it is; tons. many of these departments/institutions survive on subsidies.
97% of paper published on AGW support it = it doesn't exists? You completely ignored your money argument. You think the oil and related co is not spending money on dis-proving AGW? Really? Here is one data point for you to consider. Here in the US, over half a TRILLION dollar has been granted to organizations on denial of climate change in just 7 years from 03-10. Compare that to ~210 Billion in grant by NIH to ALL research (not just climate) over the same period. Of that, ~14 Billion went to climate studies. 560 Billion vs 14 Billion and yet 97% agree on AGW. If you just want to talk money, that speak volume.
Actually it would be very easy to prove the 97% doesn't exist if there were proof out there. Simply cite proof of a different percentage. For instance if you claimed 97% of something was a correct number, but I posted evidence that showed it was really only 13%, then I would have proved the 97% number didn't exist. Now please show what percent of scientists don't believe in man made global warming.
This post speaks volumes to same anti-global warming arguments we get time and time again. Nicely done.
If a scientist wanted to make the big money, he would deny climate change and work for Exxon. But that's not how scientist think. They are sort of in it for the truth.
