Global warming/climate change discussion

[ken_sylvania]

The trend you are pointing to is papers that don't take any position on global warming. Uncertain is taking a position. Lots of papers are not about global warming.

You're right, lots of papers are not about global warming, but the papers analyzed in this study were only papers that matched the climate change topic and the majority were explicitly about climate change. More than 48% of the papers fell under category (1) Impacts, "Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity."

Of the papers that were specifically about the effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity, less than 22% expressed or implied any opinion whatsoever about whether humans have any responsibility for climate change. 88% of them either took no position, or state or implied that we can't tell. Of the papers that expressly stated an opinion other than neutral, 25% stated humans are not more than 50% responsible, 75% stated that they are. So yes, there certainly is a majority viewpoint that humans are at fault for global warming, but I don't think the data supports a conclusion that 97% of scientists believe that humans are the major cause of global warming.

[Bootstrap]

So yes, there certainly is a majority viewpoint that humans are at fault for global warming, but I don't think the data supports a conclusion that 97% of scientists believe that humans are the major cause of global warming.

Whatever the exact number, it often does feel like the only three climate scientists who publicly disagree with that statement are Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry. Lindzen accuses climate scientists of groupthink because he thinks their consensus is so strong.

The IPCC uses a consensus-driven approach, and their claim is bolder than Cook's:

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Their definition of "extremely likely" is a 95% probability or more. As far as I can tell, a strong majority of scientists with relevant expertise would agree with the above statement.

Does anyone know of a solid scientific article in which someone like Christy directly addresses the scientific papers that look at the fingerprints of various kinds of global warming? The articles I've read say that man-made causes leave different fingerprints than natural causes, and recent warming has human fingerprints on it. I know that Christy disagrees with this. I do not know how he would address what other scientists have said about this evidence.

[Robert]

Whatever the exact number, it often does feel like the only three climate scientists who publicly disagree with that statement are Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry.

Interesting. I presented multiple examples. They were immediately discredited, I feel unfairly.

[Bootstrap]

Whatever the exact number, it often does feel like the only three climate scientists who publicly disagree with that statement are Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Judith Curry.

Interesting. I presented multiple examples. They were immediately discredited, I feel unfairly.

Please don't give vague references like this. Please give concrete examples of published, credible climate scientists other than these three. (I could give many, many examples of data I've given that was ignored without any indication that it had been read, including graphs of just exactly this point, but rehashing our memory of history probably isn't a helpful way forward.)

Ideally, show me something that directly addresses the fingerprints of recent global warming, why some people disagree with the mainstream position, which says that we can distinguish naturally caused global warming from man-made global warming, and man-made is the majority. Not just "I don't believe this" or "there are lots of things that can cause temperatures to vary", but "mainstream scientists are missing something when they say they can tell, and here's what they got wrong and why I believe they are wrong". I haven't seen that. That's what I mean by addressing what mainstream scientists are saying.

[Robert]

Please give concrete examples of published, credible climate scientists other than these three.

So you want me to go back though all those pages of links I posted and compile them?

I will add it to my to do list.

[Josh]

The main effect I see of this myopic focus on climate change is to generally give conservative leaning people a distrust of science and scientific consensus overall.

I wish some people could see the damage they're doing. And also realise the liberal worldview might not always be in the majority and win elections. Instead they are just doubling down, calling everyone who disagrees with them delusional, fringe, and adding more nonsense to the pot like gender.

Honestly, Boot, all your well cited articles and sources simply aren't going to stack up when someone can point to scientific consensus on nonsense like gender or demanding a carbon tax. It doesn't really matter if you're "right", at some point the messaging does matter. And the messaging I see is that those in charge of the "scientific consensus" hate conservative Christianity, and in particular really hate plain Christianity. If they could take our kids away from us and force them to be taught and to hold mainstream views about evolution, gender, etc. they would.

[PeterG]

Do not question or denigrate the qualifications, character, or motives of any individual or group.

[appleman2006]

Kerry Emanuel is very close to my position in most aspects of this, fwiw.

I recognized that and for what it is worth I do not think of you as a radical based on what you have said here or compared with most of the people I am familiar with that take a strong position on this side of the border.

OK. FWIW, I would see Kerry Emanuel as very much in the mainstream. I just don't know the kind of radicals you describe. When I see talk of people talking about global warming eliminating life on this planet - those aren't claims I see scientists making, and I'm really not sure who is actually making that kind of claim.

You and Kerry may fit into the mainstream for the US. I cannot speak to that. You certainly would not here in Canada and I am thinking a good part of Europe.

[Bootstrap]

You and Kerry may fit into the mainstream for the US. I cannot speak to that. You certainly would not here in Canada and I am thinking a good part of Europe.

One of the distortions of the mainstream media - including the right-wing mainstream media - is to portray the most extreme sides of any debate. Look at the worst stereotypes you've seen of your position. That's what the media does to the other side too. Usually, we prefer media that does this to the other guy but not to us. That's what's behind a lot of the polarization in America.

That's why discussions like the one between Christy and Emanuel are so helpful. Many people have been up in arms about this issue for years without ever paying attention to what reasonable people who disagree with them are saying.

[appleman2006]

Media may colour my experience somewhat. I will grant you that. But I would add that my experience is as much coloured by my day to day talk with those I come in contact with.