80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:16 am

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/80-charts-that-show-global-warming-hysteria-is-a-fraud.php Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that today’s warming isn’t global, unprecedented, or remarkable.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
***
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:47 am

Why are you afraid of stating your own beliefs about climate change openly? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

Did "58 more papers" sound like really impressive evidence? That's how the partisan writer (who is a lawyer, not a scientist) interpreted it. But it means absolutely nothing without the context of how many total articles were published in that period on the question.

Now let us see what scientists do say. From NASA:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud 1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px

80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud 1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px

Finally, here is a 2016 study on this very question of what percentage of papers in peer-reviewed journals support the idea of human-caused climate change. It concludes that 97% of papers on the subject support the idea of human-caused climate change.

Here is how that consensus has changed over time.

Table 1. Estimates of consensus on human-caused global warming among climate experts.

		Total sample (including non-publishing climatologists)			Sub-sample of publishing climatologists
Source	Year(s)	Consensus	N	Description	Consensus	N	Description	Definition of consensus
Gallup (1991)	1991	66%	400	AMS/AGU members	67%	97	Currently Performing Research in Area Global Warming	In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?
Oreskes (2004)	1993–2003				100%	928	Peer-reviewed papers on 'global climate change'	'[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'
Bray and von Storch (2007)	1996	40%	539	1997: 5 countries (US, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Italy)				Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes

Bray and von Storch (2007)	2003	53%	530	2003: 30 countries				Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes
Doran and Zimmerman (2009)	2009	82%	3146	Earth scientists	97%	77	Climatologists who are active publishers of climate research	Human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures
Anderegg et al (2010)	2010	66%	1372	Signatories of public statements about climate change	97%	200	Top 200 most published authors (of climate-related papers)	Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century
Bray (2010)	2008				83.5%	370	Authors of climate journals, authors from Oreskes' (2004) sample, scientists from relevant institutes (NCAR, AMS, etc)	How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
Rosenberg et al (2010)	2005				88.5%	433	US climate scientists authoring articles in scientific journals that highlight climate change research	Scientists can say with great certainty that human activities are accelerating global warming
Farnsworth and Lichter (2012)	2007	84%	489	AMS/AGU members				In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?
Cook et al (2013)	1991–2011				97.1%	4014 abstracts	Published peer-reviewed papers on 'global climate change' or 'global	1. Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
					97.2%	1381 self-rated papers	warming' that state a position on AGW	2. Explicitly states humans are causing global warming
								3. Implies humans are causing global warming.
								4a. Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
								4b. Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
								5. Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly
								6. Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
								7. Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming
Stenhouse et al (2014)	2013	73%	1821	AMS members	93%	124	Self-reported expertise is climate science, publication focus is mostly climate	Humans are a contributing cause of global warming over the past 150 years
Verheggen et al (2014)	2012	84%	1461 (Q1)		89% (Q1)	623 (Q1)	Published more than 10 climate-related papers (self-reported)	Q1. Over half of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human-induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations
		86%	1682 (Q3)		91% (Q3)	729 (Q3)		Q3. Greenhouse gases have made the strongest or tied-strongest contribution (out of different factors considered) to the reported global warming of ~0.8 °C since preindustrial times
Pew Research Center (2015)	2015	87%	3748	AAAS members	93%	132	Working PhD Earth scientist	Climate change is mostly due to human activity
Carlton et al (2015)	2014	91.9%	698	Survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference	96.7%	306	Those who indicated that 'The majority of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change.'	Response to the following: (1) When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant, and (2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:14 am

I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:19 am

silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.

Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

by garam_kuta Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:21 am

silvermani wrote:[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Bitstream Charter, serif][size=25][i]http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/06/80-charts-that-show-global-warming-hysteria-is-a-fraud.php

so, who are the fake scientists ?..which one to believe?...which set you believe in?

by garam_kuta Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:26 am

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

Agbell...while at it, please include:

garam_kuta wrote:
silvermani wrote:Yup - even CNN finally woke up to the fact that Obummer is all about himself. I said this at the time of his first Presidential campaign itself.

whoa! must have missed that post then, hmm......what's your handle in 2007-2008?

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:11 pm

garam_kuta wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

Agbell...while at it, please include:
garam_kuta wrote:
silvermani wrote:Yup - even CNN finally woke up to the fact that Obummer is all about himself. I said this at the time of his first Presidential campaign itself.

whoa! must have missed that post then, hmm......what's your handle in 2007-2008?

I spent some time trying to dig up the post from old CH but it is a mess and I couldn't find it. Years ago I was using the handle $tarbuxx.
I had said at that time that Obama's audacity of hope is all about him standing on the shoulders of others to realize HIS dreams and his "we are the ones we have been waiting for" statement didn't make any sense whatsoever.

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:17 pm

Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

You didn't perhaps anything. Just go back and re-read what I had posted to figure out my opinion on this. What is this, a court house where people should testify under oath?

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:19 pm

silvermani wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

You didn't perhaps anything. Just go back and re-read what I had posted to figure out my opinion on this. What is this, a court house where people should testify under oath?

He is Perry Mason.

by garam_kuta Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:40 pm

silvermani wrote:
garam_kuta wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

Agbell...while at it, please include:
garam_kuta wrote:
silvermani wrote:Yup - even CNN finally woke up to the fact that Obummer is all about himself. I said this at the time of his first Presidential campaign itself.

whoa! must have missed that post then, hmm......what's your handle in 2007-2008?

I spent some time trying to dig up the post from old CH but it is a mess and I couldn't find it. Years ago I was using the handle $tarbuxx.
I had said at that time that Obama's audacity of hope is all about him standing on the shoulders of others to realize HIS dreams and his "we are the ones we have been waiting for" statement didn't make any sense whatsoever.

old CH means, sulekha... ?? perhaps the admin may be able to help out on my curiosity...

aside - I totally agree...it's still raw underneath....both the pale and dark shades of amrika weren't actually ready for it; hence the messy 8 years of impasse, and more tragically, this tumultuous aftermath; and IMO, this can be extrapolated to your women presidential candidates as well...

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:11 pm

garam_kuta wrote:
silvermani wrote:
garam_kuta wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
silvermani wrote:I made my position clear a few posts ago. But you can have fun asking this question again and again - no need to be ashamed of it.
Perhaps I missed the post where you made your position clear. Would you please post a link to where you clearly and affirmatively stated your own position?

I note that you have no response to the detailed evidence from actual scientists regarding a scientific question.

Agbell...while at it, please include:
garam_kuta wrote:
silvermani wrote:Yup - even CNN finally woke up to the fact that Obummer is all about himself. I said this at the time of his first Presidential campaign itself.

whoa! must have missed that post then, hmm......what's your handle in 2007-2008?

I spent some time trying to dig up the post from old CH but it is a mess and I couldn't find it. Years ago I was using the handle $tarbuxx.
I had said at that time that Obama's audacity of hope is all about him standing on the shoulders of others to realize HIS dreams and his "we are the ones we have been waiting for" statement didn't make any sense whatsoever.

old CH means, sulekha... ?? perhaps the admin may be able to help out on my curiosity...

aside - I totally agree...it's still raw underneath....both the pale and dark shades of amrika weren't actually ready for it; hence the messy 8 years of impasse, and more tragically, this tumultuous aftermath; and IMO, this can be extrapolated to your women presidential candidates as well...

Yeah, Sulekha. This CH has been in existence since only 2010 IIRC.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:16 pm

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

Thanks for Jonathan Swift for summing up this situation nicely.

by silvermani Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:54 pm

FF is not here, so let me say this - "thanks to" is correct usage.

by Idéfix Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:39 pm

silvermani wrote:FF is not here, so let me say this - "thanks to" is correct usage.

Thank you for the correction.

by Sponsored content

80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud

Re: 80 charts that show global warming hysteria is a fraud