3 ms·

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=2e0910fe3f9f https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/0

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=2e0910fe3f9f https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-cl... Reminds me of this: The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

woodruffw 5y ago
That article was written in 2015, and the claims about a climate plateau have not aged well[1]. [1]: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/c...
- refurb 5y ago
  What happened to the global warming "pause"? The one that Nature devoted an entire edition of their journal to? We went from significant consensus that a pause or at least slowdown happened to "there was no pause". It's now being "debunked" as a myth which is amazing because that means some climate scientists are actively "debunking" other ones. And maybe someone can explain why we don't have a reliable way to measure the temperature change? Apparently the new models say there was no pause, but why is that model correct and the old one wrong?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > What happened to the global warming "pause"? The one that Nature devoted an entire edition of their journal to? It seems to have received attention and was entertained seriously by climate scientists. Ultimately, confidence in the models that predict a sustained pause diminished, and all current research shows that the data from that period fits into our improved climate models[1]. In other words, science "worked" exactly the way it was supposed to. There was no "debunking" -- climate scientists took the best models and information they had at the time and drew conclusions from them, and those conclusions have been (and will continue to be) revised as the data and models improve. And, for what it's worth: the new models don't say that there wasn't a pause. They account for the pause using our improved understanding of global weather patterns. The page I linked about goes into some detail about it. [1]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear...
    - refurb 5y ago
      There was no pause? But look at the grandparent NOAA data. It’s not that “the pause was accounted for”, it’s “there is no pause now”.
yongjik 5y ago
Lol, if you carefully look at the "temperature anomaly" graph in the middle of the article, you will find that the light blue line is not a moving average (like any honest scientist would do), but several piecewise linear segments made by linking a few convenient extreme points. Like, choose an unusually hot year (1998?) and then draw a straight line after that to give a false impression that the curve is flat. Now that we're in 2021, we can see more data - turns out 1998, an unusually hot year (and the hottest in record since 1880), would be an unusually cold year if it happened right now.
- Sebguer 5y ago
  Yeah, the author of that opinion piece is a fossil fuel shill. He even openly admits in the article: "Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Richard Tol is a professor of economics, not climate science. "Craig D. Idso is the founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a group which receives funding from ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy and which promotes climate change denial." Shaviv is an astrophysicist who claims that passing through the arms of the milky way are what caused climate change in the past. As far as I can tell, he's merely generated theory after theory, with no experimental evidence to support his claims. He's also the darling of the Heartland Institute. If you haven't heard of them, they are a conservative "think tank" whose two purposes are denying climate change and disputing that smoking causing cancer. Nicola Scafetta is a statistician who has never produced the code used to generate the models he's touted as evidence of the same milky way-induced-climate-change nonsense. Try again.

woodruffw 5y ago

That article was written in 2015, and the claims about a climate plateau have not aged well[1]. [1]: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/c...

refurb 5y ago
What happened to the global warming "pause"? The one that Nature devoted an entire edition of their journal to? We went from significant consensus that a pause or at least slowdown happened to "there was no pause". It's now being "debunked" as a myth which is amazing because that means some climate scientists are actively "debunking" other ones. And maybe someone can explain why we don't have a reliable way to measure the temperature change? Apparently the new models say there was no pause, but why is that model correct and the old one wrong?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > What happened to the global warming "pause"? The one that Nature devoted an entire edition of their journal to? It seems to have received attention and was entertained seriously by climate scientists. Ultimately, confidence in the models that predict a sustained pause diminished, and all current research shows that the data from that period fits into our improved climate models[1]. In other words, science "worked" exactly the way it was supposed to. There was no "debunking" -- climate scientists took the best models and information they had at the time and drew conclusions from them, and those conclusions have been (and will continue to be) revised as the data and models improve. And, for what it's worth: the new models don't say that there wasn't a pause. They account for the pause using our improved understanding of global weather patterns. The page I linked about goes into some detail about it. [1]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-ear...
  - refurb 5y ago
    There was no pause? But look at the grandparent NOAA data. It’s not that “the pause was accounted for”, it’s “there is no pause now”.

yongjik 5y ago

Lol, if you carefully look at the "temperature anomaly" graph in the middle of the article, you will find that the light blue line is not a moving average (like any honest scientist would do), but several piecewise linear segments made by linking a few convenient extreme points. Like, choose an unusually hot year (1998?) and then draw a straight line after that to give a false impression that the curve is flat. Now that we're in 2021, we can see more data - turns out 1998, an unusually hot year (and the hottest in record since 1880), would be an unusually cold year if it happened right now.

Sebguer 5y ago
Yeah, the author of that opinion piece is a fossil fuel shill. He even openly admits in the article: "Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Richard Tol is a professor of economics, not climate science. "Craig D. Idso is the founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a group which receives funding from ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy and which promotes climate change denial." Shaviv is an astrophysicist who claims that passing through the arms of the milky way are what caused climate change in the past. As far as I can tell, he's merely generated theory after theory, with no experimental evidence to support his claims. He's also the darling of the Heartland Institute. If you haven't heard of them, they are a conservative "think tank" whose two purposes are denying climate change and disputing that smoking causing cancer. Nicola Scafetta is a statistician who has never produced the code used to generate the models he's touted as evidence of the same milky way-induced-climate-change nonsense. Try again.