Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

I just went to the site that Fortune magazine gave as proof that most scientists are AGW skeptics. here is what " organization studies " actually said;

outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks”
FROM “ Organization studies” the site given in the Fortune article, that supposedly said that most scientists disagree with AGW
Either Fortune is a totally dishonest publication or they lack reading and comprehension skills.

Anyway, I am tired of refuting all the lies from the AGW denier cult. It takes up some of my valuable time.
Plus i have discovered that it is futile to convince a fanatic. One can refute ALL their claims ( as I have done, simply scroll back, I am not going to waste my time repeating myself). One can provide data and confirmation from EVERY accredited scientific organization in the world and the fanatic will remain unconvinced. he will claim conspiracy or some other nonsense.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. Right wing fanatics ( and those that have been fooled by them) that want America ruled by international corporations will NEVER listen to facts and/or reason. They have an agenda ( profit) and let the world be damned. I know that if i continue at this thread, I will be here forever because there will always be another lie to refute. From faked graphs to made up data, my opponents will NEVER stop spewing out nonsense and I do not want to spend more of my life refuting their silliness.

Such accounts of the deterioration of the oceans stemming from the scientific community run the risk of conveying the hopeless notion to managers and the public that we are confronted with an insurmountable environmental crisis of gigantic proportions. Although emphasizing problems may be intended to propel remedial action, it may achieve the contrary, because an overly negative message may lead society into pessimism or the belief that the ocean is beyond restoration. Indeed, recent media reports on problems in the ocean do not leave much room for optimism (table 1). However, an analysis of some of the calamities reported in doom and gloom media accounts (e.g., table 1) shows some—at times, severe—disconnect with actual observations. For instance, there is no evidence that ocean acidification has killed jellyfish predators, nor that jellyfish are taking over the ocean, and predictions that the killer algae, Caulerpa taxifolia, was going to devastate the Mediterranean ecosystem have not been realized, despite claims to the contrary from the media (table 1).

...

Moreover, human pressures are inherently patchy (Halpern et al. 2008), and no one calamity, even climate change, acts homogeneously at global scales.

...

There has been abundant discussion on the possible drivers of the perceived global increase in jellyfish blooms, one of the calamities of the ocean (Jackson et al. 2001, 2008). The putative drivers include human activities, including global warming, eutrophication, overfishing, and coastal sprawl (Purcell 2012, Duarte et al. 2013). However, the role of these pressures should be considered hypothetical, because there has been no attempt of a rigorous attribution of either global or local jellyfish blooms to any of these anthropogenic drivers (Purcell 2012). Therefore, even if jellyfish populations were increasing globally, this trend cannot be, as yet, attributed to anthropogenic pressures with any confidence.

...

The realized decline in pH attributable to ocean acidification is about 0.1 unit, compared with the 0.3 to 0.4 units expected by the end of this century, when experimental assessments indicate that ocean acidification is likely to reach levels sufficient to significantly affect marine calcifiers (Doney et al. 2009). Moreover, there are significant uncertainties in the severity of the decline of marine calcifiers due to ocean acidification even at the end of the century, as ocean-acidification experiments are considered to provide worst-case scenarios, becuase a range of mechanisms, including adaptation, evolution, facilitative interactions in the ecosystem (Hendriks et al. 2010), and physiological mechanisms to up-regulate pH (McCulloch et al. 2012) may buffer the impacts and cause differential responses among species (Pandolfi et al. 2011).

However, there have been a few claims for already realized impacts of ocean acidification on calcifiers, such as a decline in the number of oysters on the West Coast of North America (Barton et al. 2012) and in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011). However, the link between these declines and ocean acidification through anthropogenic CO2 is unclear. Corrosive waters affecting oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon coast were associated with upwelling (Barton et al. 2012), not anthropogenic CO2. The decline in pH affecting oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011) was not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 but was likely attributable to excess respiration associated with eutrophication. Therefore, there is, as yet, no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the level of pH change that would prompt such impacts.

...

However, once hypothetical problems have risen to the status of calamities in the literature, they seem to become self-perpetuating. Indeed, the marine research community seems much better endowed with the capacity to add new calamities to the list than they are to remove them following critical scrutiny. As an example, the newest calamity extends the problem of the expansion of coastal hypoxia to a concept of global ocean deoxygenation (Keeling et al. 2010). The possible explanation that the list of calamities only experiences growth because all calamities are real is inconsistent with the examples provided above that some of them may not withstand close scrutiny. The alternative explanation is that there are flaws in the processes in place to sanction scientific evidence, such as organized skepticism, that need to be addressed to help weed out robust from weak cases for ocean calamities.

We argue that there are mechanisms, embedded both within the social dynamics of the research process and external to the research community, that tend to perpetuate the perception of the occurrence of ocean calamities, even in cases in which the evidence for these is equivocal or weak. ...

...

In turn, the appetite of the media for particular headlines can influence the contents of top scientific journals. For instance, following a series of high-profile publications on overfishing and the collapse of the oceans, Hilborn (2006) became alarmed at the existence of what he termed a faith-based fisheries movement based on a faith-based acceptance of ideas and a search for data that support these ideas, rather than critical and skeptical analysis of the evidence. Hilborn (2006, p. 554) asserted that “the two journals with the highest profile, Science and Nature, clearly publish articles on fisheries not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity value… and their potential newsworthiness.” This issue continues to resonate in the scientific community, as, in a recent commentary in The Guardian, Nobel Laureate Randy Schekman (2013) asserted that the incentives offered by top journals—namely, Science, Nature, and Cell—can act to distort science. Schekman stated, “The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best.” Alternatively, it may be that the perception by the scientific community that top journals select for articles containing newsworthy messages drives a selective submission of articles on ocean calamities and collapse, which results in high academic rewards for authors of these type of papers in these journals.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. Right wing fanatics ( and those that have been fooled by them) that want America ruled by international corporations will NEVER listen to facts and/or reason. They have an agenda ( profit) and let the world be damned. I know that if i continue at this thread, I will be here forever because there will always be another lie to refute. From faked graphs to made up data, my opponents will NEVER stop spewing out nonsense and I do not want to spend more of my life refuting their silliness.

You're so misunderstood. It must really suck to be you.

I am not misunderstood. People know the facts they just choose to not believe them.* Anyway, I will still agree with the ENTIRE scientific community and not those that make up graphs, falsify data ( see the second post at the top of this page) and think that NASA NOAA and EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data and lying.
Limbaugh , Beck, and that Taylor guy from the post at the top of the page, 3 posters here at WP VS the entire scientific community? I choose science and not uninformed speculation/intuition.
* What would be more interesting is to find out why a few people think such silly things ( that the entire scientific community is part of a conspiracy and that the solar power industry has more clout than the petro-chemical industry....etc).
1. it is partly because of a massive propaganda and disinformation campaign ( for just one example see the second post at the top of this page) supported by the oil industry.
2. Because people fear global warming ( people fear the increase and intensity of hurricanes , tornadoes and blizzards) and prefer to put their heads in the sand.
To be a AGW denier means that,
1. You believe that the entire world's scientific community is lying.
2. That it is lying because it is supported by massive dollars from the solar power industry that dwarfs the clout of the oil companies.
To believe in 1 and/or 2 is too be a very silly person.

Are you aware of the method by which this 97% agreement by scientists was determined?

A small number of scientists read the abstracts of a number of papers on climate change and interpreted 97% of them as meaning the author thought that human activity plays at least some part in Global Warming. (I never have learned whether one author could be counted twice by virtue of having two or more papers in the collection studied.)

They did not find that 97% of the scientists think that Global Warming is a great calamity that is a serious threat to mankind. Only that at least a part of Global Warming is due to human activity which I think is entirely reasonable.

The non-scientific Global Warming Panickers, including you, seem to interpret that result as meaning something far different than what was actually found -- that Global Warming is a threat that must be countered for the good of mankind.

All that 97% agreed on was that Global Warming is at least partly the result of human activity.

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

This view annoys some sceptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk. My middle-of-the-road position is considered not just wrong, but disgraceful, shameful, verging on scandalous. I am subjected to torrents of online abuse for holding it, very little of it from sceptics.

About as close as we’ve got to an attempted justification is this piece by Zeke Hausfather – Understanding Adjustments To Temperature Data – at the website of lukewarmer Judith Curry.

The explanations he offers for the basic principles of temperature adjustments are plausible enough. They include things like the Urban Heat Island effect; weather stations which have moved locations; weather stations which appear to give false readings which need to be adjusted in line with their neighbours; changes in measuring equipment; changes in the time of day measurements are taken (formerly in the afternoon, now more usually in the morning,) and so on.

In other words it’s a case of “move along. Nothing to see here” and “trust the Experts. They know best.”

The problem with Hausfather’s explanations is that though they’re fine on the theory they don’t seem to bear much relation to the actuality of the adjustments that have been made around the world.

Take, for example, the Urban Heat Island effect. This is where weather stations, over time, have become surrounded by buildings or other heat sources and which therefore record hotter temperatures than they used to. You’d expect, as a result of this, that recent (ie late 20th century) raw temperature readings from urban areas would be adjusted downwards in order to make them more accurate. Rarely though, is this the case. More usually, the adjustments appear to have been made in the other direction, so that the late twentieth century readings are made hotter still – while the early twentieth century readings have been adjusted to make them look cooler.

And this isn’t just an issue with the adjustments to the Paraguay stations by the way. It has happened all over the world.

As Paul Homewood reminds us here, it has been happening everywhere from Iceland, Greenland and Russia to Alice Springs in Australia. Also, it has been reported on, at least in the climate sceptical blogosphere, for quite some time. Among the first to spot the problem was Steve McIntyre who back in 2007 observed the curious fact that where NASA’s James Hansen had once acknowledged that the 1930s was the hottest decade in the US, he subsequently amended it – with the help of some conveniently adjusted records – to the 1990s. Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? has been reporting on this for years; as have bloggers including Steven Goddard and journalists like Christopher Booker.

Brietbart????
PLEASE legitimate sites only!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
They were the ones that created the ACORN "scandal" .
James O'Keefe dressed up like huggy bear ( a pimp from a 70's TV show http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/ ... 34-418.jpg ) and pretended to be an actual pimp.
Here is his actual "disguise" http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/201 ... keefe.jpeg . *
He then asked ACORN employees about starting a prostitution ring. He filmed them listening and then after he left the ACORN employees called the FBI. However, he used the tape as proof of wrong doing and fox "news" picked up on the "story".
SERIOUSLY, quoting from sites that lie and are known for extreme dishonesty does not do your case any good.
*
People with an urban background would think he was an actual pimp?
I must admit you are a constant source for humor and amusement!! !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009 ... ontroversy
PS; It is also funny how you do not give the NASA site. Probably because your graphs are taken out of context and/or have nothing to do with what you are talking about.
So that article came from Brietbart? What next http://www.alexxcast.com/wp-content/upl ... y-WWN.jpeg
Anyway, you can trust http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/06 ... ide/201026 and I will trust THE ENTIRE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!! !