Predicting the past

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. This is a fact, not a theory. The science is not favorable to your biased non science opinion.

Belief/consensus is not about science. These are political words used to make policy decisions.

But since you bring it up (again), this is the data (again) [1] from the Breitbart piece you referenced earlier in another thread as "proof". I don't know where you're getting your statement of fact, but if it's even more biased than Breitbart, I don't know what to tell you.

66% of respondents attribute >50% of global warming since the mid-20th century to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations.
- 97.6% of those respondents expressed at least "likely" confidence that anthropogenic GHG contribution to global warming was >50%
- 65.2% of those respondents expressed with an "extreme likelihood" of confidence that anthropogenic GHG contribution to global warming was >50%.
65% of respondents characterized greenhouse gases as a strong contributor to the 0.8 degrees of warming since pre-industrial times.
95% of respondents are concerned about climate change as a long term global problem.
3.1% of respondents attribute >50% of global warming since mid-20th century to the sun. (which is your theory, right?)
85% of respondents said that climate models are useful in allowing projections of future climate.

[1] http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Originally posted by wildgrass
Belief/consensus is not about science. These are political words used to make policy decisions.

But since you bring it up (again), this is the data (again) [1] from the Breitbart piece you referenced earlier in another thread as "proof". I don't know where you're getting your statement of fact, but if it's even more biased than Breitbart, I don't know w ...[text shortened]... /default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

You believe in a myth and don't want to be confused with facts.

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Originally posted by wildgrass
Belief/consensus is not about science. These are political words used to make policy decisions.

But since you bring it up (again), this is the data (again) [1] from the Breitbart piece you referenced earlier in another thread as "proof". I don't know where you're getting your statement of fact, but if it's even more biased than Breitbart, I don't know w ...[text shortened]... /default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

I looked at the PDF you posted.
17.1% said more than 100%

Since more than 100% is impossible that leaves less than 50%

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I looked at the PDF you posted.
17.1% said more than 100%

Since more than 100% is impossible that leaves less than 50%

I thought that "More than 100%" answer was a bit strange too. It seemed that for some reason they put that as an option in the questionnaire. Isn't it conspicuously convenient for your argument, though, that you just put the 17% aside so then 66% becomes 49%? If you didn't like that data point and want to eliminate that group, you should have recalculated the percentages based on a smaller number of respondents. But that wouldn't have fit your narrative.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You believe in a myth and don't want to be confused with facts.

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Ironically, the provided link is itself confusing. It presents a wide swath of data mixed with speculation and obvious bias, without much of a point. Why is this important? Which of the many myths are you accusing me of believing? All of them? Please reiterate what you are trying to say.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Ironically, the provided link is itself confusing. It presents a wide swath of data mixed with speculation and obvious bias, without much of a point. Why is this important? Which of the many myths are you accusing me of believing? All of them? Please reiterate what you are trying to say.

Go on the link and click on "consensus and skeptics". It is a PDF that I could not copy and paste.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Go on the link and click on "consensus and skeptics". It is a PDF that I could not copy and paste.

Ok, I followed your directions. This link (keeping in mind this is an admittedly fossil-fuel friendly website, not a scientific article) [1] says very specifically that "67% .... of [American Meteorological Society members] believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans." ? Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Based on this, can you revise your earlier statement regarding what most climate scientists "believe"?

[1] http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/

Originally posted by wildgrass
Ok, I followed your directions. This link (keeping in mind this is an admittedly fossil-fuel friendly website, not a scientific article) [1] says very specifically that "67% .... of [American Meteorological Society members] believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by humans." ? Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Based on this, can you revise y ...[text shortened]... /www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/

American Meteorological Society members are all climate scientists?

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/membership/

Anybody can join. Try again.

Originally posted by wildgrass
I thought that "More than 100%" answer was a bit strange too. It seemed that for some reason they put that as an option in the questionnaire. Isn't it conspicuously convenient for your argument, though, that you just put the 17% aside so then 66% becomes 49%? If you didn't like that data point and want to eliminate that group, you should have recalculated ...[text shortened]... percentages based on a smaller number of respondents. But that wouldn't have fit your narrative.

"More than 100%" implies that there would be cooling if it were not for anthropogenic climate change.

Hypothetically, suppose that there is a heating of 1°C over a certain time period, while it is expected that there should be a cooling of 0.1°C over the same period, and the difference is attributed to man. Then, man's actions would have resulted in a heating of 1.1°C, more than 100% of the actual heating (1°C) during this period. In the same vein, less than 100% implies that a natural heating was expected.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/membership/

Anybody can join. Try again.

Excuse me? Why should I try again? Are you asking me to defend your own argument? You started this thread and provoked me into a debate on the "facts" that you have yet to support. You need to try harder.

"Fact" #1: The climate models are wrong. You used this graph to prove your point [1]. It seemed to illustrate that climate models actually were impressively accurate. Since the graph/data were not labeled, and there was no information regarding their methodology, I asked several follow up questions. How does one categorize climate models as wrong vs. right? What value cutoff is considered reasonably acceptable for a climate model? What in this analysis swayed your judgement, compared to the 3 sources I provided that each conclude models are accurate? [I still have no answers. I await your convincing argument.]

"Fact" #2: Most climate scientists do NOT believe man is the primary cause of global warming. To make this point, you provided two datasets [1,2]. In each of these datasets, ~ 66% of respondents attribute more than half of global warming since the mid-20th century to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations. I didn't understand how you then concluded from the data that most climate scientists disagree when that number would be ~34%. When I ask you to clarify, you tear down the same data you were using to build your argument. Wacky.

Any more "facts" you'd like to share?

[1] http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
[2] http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
[3] http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"More than 100%" implies that there would be cooling if it were not for anthropogenic climate change.

Hypothetically, suppose that there is a heating of 1°C over a certain time period, while it is expected that there should be a cooling of 0.1°C over the same period, and the difference is attributed to man. Then, man's actions would have resulted in ...[text shortened]... uring this period. In the same vein, less than 100% implies that a natural heating was expected.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"More than 100%" implies that there would be cooling if it were not for anthropogenic climate change.

Hypothetically, suppose that there is a heating of 1°C over a certain time period, while it is expected that there should be a cooling of 0.1°C over the same period, and the difference is attributed to man. Then, man's actions would have resulted in ...[text shortened]... uring this period. In the same vein, less than 100% implies that a natural heating was expected.

The climate has been in a warming trend for over 300 years. Nobody that I know of has claimed there should be cooling.

More than 100% still does not make any sense.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Excuse me? Why should I try again? Are you asking me to defend your own argument? You started this thread and provoked me into a debate on the "facts" that you have yet to support. You need to try harder.

"Fact" #1: The climate models are wrong. You used this graph to prove your point [1]. It seemed to illustrate that climate models actually were impres ...[text shortened]... /www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/one-third-of-ams-members-dont-agree-with-climate-change-orthodoxy/

I don't even know who was asked those questions in the PDF you provided. Are they climate scientists? You thought the AMS were climate scientists and they were not. Lets start there.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The climate has been in a warming trend for over 300 years. Nobody that I know of has claimed there should be cooling.

More than 100% still does not make any sense.

You know of them now.