Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes

[dewi]

A few times over the past couple of months, threads have been derailed by the whole global warming debate... usually people touting the 97% of scientists agree its manmade line that is so popular with the media.

The latest was this...

My fact checking suggests you are wrong. It isn't a diminishing number of scientists. It was and remains the overwhelming majority of scientists who believe that increases in levels of CO2 and Methane are responsible for changes to global climate.

... in response to my statement that the science is flawed and the number of scientists agreeing with it is diminishing. So rather than derail another thread, I thought I'd start another to explain what I was on about.

For anyone who doesn't know, the media reported that the IPCC (an international group set up to tackle climate change) had surveyed scientists and 97% of the scientists agreed that CO2 was the driving force responsible for temperature increases and freak weather events. The IPCC hasn't argued with this and are happy now that the 97% myth is being trawled across the internet... its a favourite for anyone who wants to display their knowledge of the debate, because after all, how can 97% of all scientists be wrong?

It all begins with the survey that the 97% is quoted from. The IPCC decided to do a keyword search across the published scientific papers published for the 'global warming' and/or 'global climate change' to ascertain who to send a survey to, or more accurately, who should be involved in the debate. Immediately this falls into the category of selection bias, as it omits anyone in the scientific community that hasn't published a paper in a given time period with those keywords, but for the sake of moving this along, selection bias ignored.

The IPCC found 6550 international international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) and asked them to respond to a survey. Of those 6550, just 1868 responded. We haven't even got to the results of the survey and the 97% has been proven to be a myth already... simple maths... only 28.51% of the scientists asked responded, which by anybodies calculation isn't the majority of scientists, but for the sake of moving this along, 28.51% responding (so just over a quarter of the scientists) ignored.

So here is the first question and the results:



1868 respondents. The question "What percentage of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations"... and straight away you can see that 32.2% of the respondents replied it was between 76-100%. However, 22.4% said less than zero, no warming, unknown, I don't know or other. So in agreement that atmospheric gases are human induced, a total of 77.6% of the total respondents.

That means 1,449 scientists actually agree that human induced increases in gases effecting our atmosphere are contributing to global warming. But, originally the IPCC asked 6550 to respond to this survey... and if we're to believe the media reporting on how important an issue this is, why wouldn't they all respond? Either way, of the scientific community directly involved with climate-based sciences (or rather those who meet the narrow criteria set by the IPCC), just 22.15% have responded with agreement this is a manmade problem. But for the sake of moving this along, 22.15% (not 97%) ignored.

Onto the next question:



Rather than concentrate on the question or the answers, as I'd just be repeating myself near enough... this time look at the number of respondents to the question. Suddenly on the second question, the 1868 respondents have been reduced to 1,222 and 217 responding to 'more or less than 50%' respectively. Add those numbers together, that is a total of 1,439 respondents. 429 respondents have disappeared in the space of one question to the next.

Now a true conspiracy theorist at this point would probably come up with some bizarre reason for the 429 respondents not answering. They were attacked by polar bears halfway through the survey. They were abducted by an alien that resembles an ice popsicle. They were crushed by a melting ice cap.

I offer no such bizarre reasoning, but I stand by my original point elsewhere that its a diminishing group of scientists involved in this, the evidence to support my claim is right there. 429 of them disappeared half way through answering a survey! Where in those numbers the 97% figure comes from, I have no idea.... because at best the true number is 77.6%, but at worst its just 22.15%. Whatever... anyone who believes that 1,449 scientists constitutes a majority over a community of 6550 scientists needs to grab a GCE maths book and have a good read. Furthermore, if you can't see the selection bias before the survey has even begun, should you really express an opinion?

I've ignored some of the previous IPCC surveys that started out asking over 13,000 scientists because the IPCC decided to ignore those surveys as they didn't get the responses they wanted. If the IPCC don't want to include the numbers, no point critiquing them

Does any of this give any indication of temperature increases or who/what is actually responsible? Nope, but it proves that the majority of science are not in total agreement at all and the media reporting is, well, rubbish.

 

[RonW]

And we all know that a large part of today's science is seriously compromised by commercial interests.
So maybe the simple reason for the disappearance of the scientists might simply be their employer waving a checkbook.

 

[Robbi]

Another reason for their diminishing numbers may in-fact be a result of global warming....they are becoming an endangered species !

 

[andybysea]

The only thing i believe about climate change is that it is for reducing cash emisions from peoples wallets.

 

[mrcharly]

non-response to a survey is not proof of a negative opinion.

Stating there is no climate change caused by global warming is an insult to the people whose lives are already being massively disrupted by rises in sea levels, changes in weather patterns (islands such as Tuvalu).

It doesn't take much checking to see the changes.

 

[dewi]

non-response to a survey is not proof of a negative opinion.

Stating there is no climate change caused by global warming is an insult to the people whose lives are already being massively disrupted by rises in sea levels, changes in weather patterns (islands such as Tuvalu).

It doesn't take much checking to see the changes.

Non-response to a survey is not proof of a positive opinion either, but I see you lack an argument. Neither of our statements make the 97% lie a truth, but my argument above proves 97% is impossible.

Did I state there was no climate change? To argue against nature itself would be monumentally stupid, of course there is climate change.

Accusing me of insulting others is rich when you insult anyone who holds a differing opinion to yourself. And opinion it is unless you can prove otherwise. Actually it is quite insulting that you haven't thought that I may have researched this more than your cursory glance at the news every now and then where the IPPC or a politician spouts more rubbish.

What does take checking is the facts of the matter, which you obviously haven't done. Had you known anything about the facts, you'd have offered Cook as a rebutal. Rather silly to enter a debate without knowing the facts of the matter

 

[mrcharly]

Did I state there was no climate change? To argue against nature itself would be monumentally stupid, of course there is climate change.

The title of the thread suggests that you think that the climate is not warming up.

 

[dewi]

The title of the thread suggests that you think that the climate is not warming up.

No, the title of the thread is Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes... it was to squash the myth that the majority of science is in agreement with the IPCC that the Earth is warming due to man's activities. Its a play on words as the survey in question is about global warming.

However, I think you're confusing terms here. Global warming may arise from climate change, but climate change is not automatically global warming. It is simply the change of the climate, hence the name climate change. Only a fool would argue against climate change, but man-made global warming... that is a whole other kettle of fish.

But while you broach the subject of warming, I don't believe the Earth is warming up due to man's activities and the majority of scientists would agree given the overwhelming evidence.

If you disagree, please provide evidence that the Earth is warming up due to man's activities rather than just telling me it is easy to find.

 

[Blundstoned Love]

The title of the thread suggests that you think that the climate is not warming up.

Or trying to pick a fight.

 

[dewi]

Or trying to pick a fight.

Not at all... I've said things in other threads, and people have challenged me on my opinion. Rather than mess up a thread on another subject, I posted a new one with evidence to back up what I was being told was rubbish.

If you view that as picking a fight, that is up to you. But constantly being told you're either stupid or misinformed for holding a valid and true opinion is rather insulting, so a good natured debate should clear the whole thing up in no time at all

 

[mrcharly]

We have a difference of opinion and I think we should leave it at that.

 

[dewi]

We have a difference of opinion and I think we should leave it at that.

Okay, but it wasn't directed specifically to you. I used your last post as an example simply because it was easier than trawling through the threads finding the other occasions it has happened with people. Hence the reason I removed your name from the quote... I didn't want the thread directed at you in particular.

It is fine that we have differing opinions, but unless you can actually prove you assertion, it seems pretty pointless to tell someone else they are wrong and should 'go look it up'.

 

[demographic]

So I take it that the OP is a climate scientist and really knows his stuff?

Or not.

What does NASA have to say on the subject?

 

[dewi]

So I take it that the OP is a climate scientist and really knows his stuff?

Or not.

What does NASA have to say on the subject?

Do I have to be a climate scientist to have read the data available and formed an opinion? Doesn't seem to matter when its someone telling everyone that there is definitely man-made warming going on, or confusing the term climate change with the term global warming... is the prerequisite for being a climate scientist only reserved for those classified as 'deniers'?

If you want to know what NASA has to to say on the subject, I'm sure you can pop over to NASA and have a look. I do have copies of the satellite records from NASA that tell a story all of their own, but not being a climate scientist, I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to post them up

Edit: Just occurred to me, does one have to be a climate scientist to do the maths on a survey? Surely a masters in mathematics would be more appropriate?

 

[RonW]

I came across an article explaining what Dewi is trying to say.
A woman, called Margaret Zimmerman from the University of Illinois sent out an enquiry via email to 10.257 "environmental specialists" in 2008.
She received 3146 replies.
Of those 96,2% came from the US, mostly California and 6,2% from Canada.
Zimmerman then proceded by excluding and eradicating the list of experts until she had 79 left and of those 79, 97% felt that human carbon dioxide emissions were the cause for climate change.

Source in Swedish; http://www.vaken.se/97-av-alla-klimatforskare-ar-inte-overens-om-att-klimathotet-beror-pa-manniskan/

But I also agree with the others. Your tone of voice and your statements do come across as if you are trying to pick a fight.

 

[dewi]

But I also agree with the others. Your tone of voice and your statements do come across as if you are trying to pick a fight.

I thought I was approaching it in a good humoured way.... if I wanted to pick a fight there are far easier ways.

All a bit pointless really as has been illustrated... believe in the bs, everything fine.... don't believe and question... are you a climate scientist?

Forget it... in future if anyone decides to tells me I'm wrong on the subject, calls me an idiot or instructs me to go 'look up the facts', I won't politely start a new thread and explain myself with logical argument... I'll tell them to f*** right off. Much more mature way to deal with people

 

[RonW]

It is just an observation.
Your arguments seem to be quite well thought out and based on a lot of facts/information. If you want to discuss or debate certain issues, it might help watching the tone in which they are brought forward. People might tend to take you less serious otherwise and focus on the person, not the subject.
Obviously many do not share your sense of humor and online we miss that vital piece of information, called body language.

As I said, only an observation without any intention of sounding belittling or preachy. Do with it as you please.

 

[Willcurrie]

An interesting thread. While the OP questions the integrity or validity of the IPCC findings they don't offer alternative scientific viewpoint from a similar sized sample group of scientists. I'd like to thank Dewi for making me look into the report and I've read the summary http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. My personal view is that the climate science in this report is not bs as Dewi states, but all science and politics must always be questioned to ensure balance.

 

[Nomad64]

It may be a less comprehensive survey but when I asked my siblings "whether global warming real and is CO2 really the cause?" 100% of them who are internationally respected climate change scientists working at the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton responded with a rather pitying "Duh yeah!"

As ever there are (at least) two schools of thought on this and although I caught the end of Dr J Clarkson's thought provoking documentary on the impact of climate change in the Arctic on Dave last night (apparently pimped Hiluxes are better than huskies and its still very cold there so global warming is a myth) her rather less entertaining analysis of ocean and atmospheric data from sensors in the Antacrtic Ocean concluded that while things down south are still cold they are not as cold as they used to be and CO2 emissions are driving the problem. I think its fair to say that they are poles apart on this issue - can you see what I did there?

I will ask her whether she was one of the 10,257 "environmental specialists" surveyed by Ms Zimmerman and what she thinks of this analysis of the survey but communications are a bit tricky at the moment as she is bobbing around somewhere mid-Atlantic on a survey ship monitoring ocean and air temperatures and will miss the family Xmas get together.

Now there is of course a risk that scientists earning a living researching global warming will have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth but as I understand it, there are far more lucrative career opportunities for those with relevant qualifications.

Having seen the dubious methodology of most of the surveys I've ever participated in, I take a pretty sceptical view of any survey results but if global warming either isn't happening or is just part of the normal cycles of the planet, those who have managed to convince world leaders otherwise and to get them (a) to pretty much universally acknowledge there is a problem and (b) to agree to do something about it (despite the immense commercial and strategic problems that it will cause) have pulled off an astonishing coup. *** half the people in the world responsible for the administration of football still think that Sepp Blatter is a positive influence on the game.

There are always going to be people (whether scientists, those with vested interests or just those who take a perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow) who refuse to accept mainstream views and I'm sure there were those who opposed the Clean Air legislation in the 1950s, regulations to ban leaded petrol in the 1990s, smoking in public places in the noughties and now the restriction on using older diesel engines in London in this decade. The jury may still be out on the ban on old diesels in London (I can understand why owners of older Land Rovers within the LEZ are grumpy about this) but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the other measures have not significantly improved the environment and health of those affected.

Subjectively you can regard all of these as assaults on civil liberties and/or cynical devices to make people spend money on new equipment but objectively since the industrial revolution and the rapid increase in human population and consumption of the earth's resources, we have been busy fouling our own nests and while we might resent someone playing the responsible adult making us to sort our lives/world out, it needs to be done.

 

[dewi]

If the argument was to conserve resources, or even clean the polluted rivers and streams around the world... I'd give it a thumbs up, but frankly the 'scientific' approach and the selected flawed data used to perpetuate the argument for manmade global warming is rather insulting.

I do take exception to "There are always going to be people (whether scientists, those with vested interests or just those who take a perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow) who refuse to accept mainstream views" though. When this all first started being mentioned as a concept, I looked at both sides of the argument without a view one way or the other. More recently I've read through hundreds of papers, looked at the way data is collected and analysed and listened to respected scientists from both sides.

The 'debate' has been framed as 'believers' and 'deniers', so immediately it is no longer scientific. The inference is that if you don't believe this 'mainstream' view based on the evidence presented, you're a 'denier' much in the same way as those who claim the holocaust didn't happen. It sets one side against the other, allowing one side to call the other side idiots without considering their argument.

Notice in my initial post, I didn't say whether I believed one argument or another... I just broke down the survey logically and arrived at a different conclusion to the IPCC. So far I haven't said the Earth isn't warming, nor have I said that environmental issues aren't a concern... but almost immediately I'm 'picking a fight'.... 'is the OP a climate scientist'... and the only constructive response has been anecdotal or citing an entertainer who is paid to have controversial views and wind people up.

Pretty pointless listing any evidence, mentioning Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever (or the many other qualified voices who no longer publish papers due to the bullying and bs) or showing the obvious bias in data release (or non-data release) that happens time and time again... after all, I'm no climate scientist, I'm a 'denier' (automatically presumed may I add simply for broaching a debate) and the latest... I either have a vested interest or take perverse delight in ploughing an alternative furrow.

Meanwhile those who haven't bothered to take more than a cursory glance at the evidence, choose strawman arguments and anecdotes... they carry on with this 'universally acknowledged' line without accepting that every survey conducted with scientists in the field completely ignore those who disagree with the prescribed 'truth' and take on the views of the minority, whilst reporting the opposite to the worlds media. All of a sudden, politicians who would usually be judged as liars before they even opened their mouths are held up as some sort of freedom fighters, hoisted onto a pedestal... again, ignoring the fact that global warming is now a business.

Science? Yeah right... science by its very nature is debating and not ignoring evidence or data. There is no debate and evidence & data is routinely ignored, so you're right... it is an assault on civil liberties, its a joke. An expensive joke, but a joke all the same. I do wish people would stop calling it climate change though. Climate change is nature itself, it has nothing to do with this pseudo-science or the fraudsters who have hijacked real science.

As for 'picking a fight'... I've better things to do with my time frankly. I revert to my last post... I shall be rather more blunt in my future approach.