Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field agree we did i t

Expand Messages
  • Jay Hanson
    97% of the scientists are in on the conspiracy!! ;-) http://tinyurl.com/35jed2s Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys
    Message 1 of 22 , Sep 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      97% of the scientists are in on the conspiracy!! ;-)

      http://tinyurl.com/35jed2s

      Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert
      surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the
      tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public
      expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the
      level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the
      climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of
      dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level
      of agreementamong top climate experts has not been conducted and would
      inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of
      1,372 climate
      researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
      97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field
      support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
      Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific
      prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below
      that of the convinced researchers
    • htraite
      Perhaps you ve both helped provide one of skeptics major tools. How many truths are there?* When THE truth is part of a comparison, perhaps any comparison,
      Message 2 of 22 , Oct 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps you've both helped provide one of skeptics major tools. How many truths are there?*

        When THE truth is part of a comparison, perhaps any comparison, truth itself .... Well, it could be predetermined the loser (note that in the NYT article "truth" is mystified, has no context), or, more innocently, during the diatribe it could be determined that "THE" truth has no known substance. Either way truth itself suffers.

        *Answer - More than one.

        The omission is not an isolated event. This is, according to my understanding, just how the philosophy/school of post-modernism forms. Two or more parties each have their own THE truth. Logical progression goes on to comparison(s) in attempt to determine which is the truer truth, with the conclusion being that there is no truth.


        Howard

        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:
        >
        > Jay
        > I agree entirely with your argument below. However, skeptics still have an influence on attitudes in society. I will simply stating that arguments aimed at convincing the masses that the skeptics are wrong should be based on sound terminology. Humans have only made decisions about using technology and it is the resultant processes using fossil fuels that have caused climate change. Skeptics would find it harder to argue against this logical framework. Saying humans have caused climate change invites skepticism as it suggests humans have wondrous powers when, in reality, it is the technology that has these powers.
        >
        > Denis
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...>
        > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012 2:50 AM
        > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Essay with Links to Research on Natural Forcing of Climate Change
        >
        >
        >  
        > Denis,
        > A scientific consensus on climate change does indeed exist. Here is a
        > study about the consensus itself: *http://tinyurl.com/35jed2s *
        > *http://tinyurl.com/2d7f3ft*
        >
        > At this point, no skeptic is likely to change their position via
        > rational debate -- with me or anyone else -- because their skepticism is
        > based on ideology and/or belief in conspiracies. Here are two studies
        > about those skeptics: *http://tinyurl.com/9q4xw6o and
        > **http://tinyurl.com/bl52u57*
        >
        > This gets back to the "human nature" discussions we have had in the
        > past. Biology tells us that the human mind was primary designed to win
        > arguments instead of discovering the truth. For example, see
        > *http://tinyurl.com/8ossqd6*
        >
        > Jay
        >
        > On 9/26/2012 4:03 PM, Denis Frith wrote:
        > > Jay
        > > I do not suggest that you caused the debate. I just suggest that you use more accurate terminology as a means of countering the hype of skeptics.
        > > Denis
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
        Jay, I agree that an interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the dynamic systems that are leading to collapse., I have to say, on behalf of
        Message 3 of 22 , Oct 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Jay,
          I agree that an interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the dynamic systems that are leading to collapse.,

          I have to say, on behalf of Harvard, that they tried. They attempted to integrate at least the social sciences and primatology in Social Relations. It was a 40-year experiment, ended shortly after I received my degree inn 1979. In the end, one of the "wise old men" said that interdisciplinary work happens within one skull. People have to be predisposed to think in integrative ways, or no formal instruction works.

          I added history and economics from my prep school and college days to what Harvard taught me, plus and MBA later, while I was on the Vanderbilt faculty. A person has to want to think this way, so I think that being self-taught can work well.

          It worked for Montesquieu, eh what? [Excuse spelling!]
          Virginia

          ________________________________
          From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of htraite [htraite@...]
          Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:54 AM
          To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [energyresources] Re: Essay with Links to Research on Natural Forcing of Climate Change



          Thanks, guys. I could nitpick, perhaps with attempt to establish some direction on whether formal education is even necessary (ooops),

          but that you both care about the results of your work is distinction worth noting. In my opinion.

          Howard

          --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>, Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...> wrote:
          >
          > In order to discuss the climate issue rationally, one must analyze three
          > different systems simultaneously:
          >
          > #1 the political system (realpolitik, both domestic and international).
          > #2 the energy system (esp. oil and net energy).
          > #3 the economic system.
          >
          > Moreover, one must be familiar with evolutionary psychology to
          > anticipate how Americans will behave in novel environments. The
          > question quickly becomes incredibly complex.
          >
          > Even though our economic system is based on deliberate lies, and is
          > destroying the ability of our planet to support higher life forms, it's
          > still the basis of our military power and must be preserved. Although I
          > believe we can mitigate the suffering of Americans through explicit
          > legislation ( http://www.jayhanson.us/america.htm ), no humane,
          > long-term "solutions" are possible because our underlying problems are
          > inherent in human nature.
          >
          > The future is bleak because human nature and system dynamics will
          > ultimately FORCE humanity to fight to the death over the remaining
          > natural resources. The same environmental dynamics that drove the world
          > to two world wars are reasserting themselves again. If those upcoming
          > wars cause humanity to go extinct, then humanity will go extinct.
          >
          > Some possible scenarios could improve the likelihood that of this planet
          > could continue supporting higher life forms, but ALL scenarios will
          > reduce global human population to a small fraction of its present
          > numbers over the next 80 years or less -- possibly much less.
          >
          > As I have said on many occasions, the main reason that academics cannot
          > see the same future that I do, is because of our "post hole" style
          > university system. No student is taught the range of disciplines that I
          > have taught myself over the last 20 years.
          >
          > Jay

          --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:
          >
          > I believe that one of the major factors in the widespread misunderstanding of what civilization is doing wrong is the failure of the education system to spell out that the process to use natural material wealth to provide the population with goods and services is unsustainable. The present generation have been taught to believe in material progress without taking into account the ecological cost. These fallacious beliefs have been reinforced by past developments and the hype expressed by vested interests. Realistically coping with the inevitable powering down will only occur with the exertion of people power. That will only come about with more informed education.
          >
          > I provide comments on many facets of what is going wrong in my blogspot
          >
          > Growth and senescence of civilization
          >
          > as one means of contributing to understanding.
          >
          > Denis Frith

          >
          > On 9/26/2012 3:33 AM, htraite wrote:
          > > Whether it is anthropogenic greenhouse gasses or over-fishing or oil reserves etc. , those with vested interests in ignoring limits immediately jump on the issue. Should we allow them to frame the questions and therefore frame the debate?
          > >
          > > The battlefield IS in the streets, IS for "the public mind":
          > >
          > > http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/203430-the-conscious-and-intelligent-manipulation-of-the-organized-habits-and
          > >
          > > IMO any opportunity to add detail to otherwise simplistic bias should be taken. And if one can fit it into one sentence (I know, it is sometimes difficult) more the better.
          > >
          > > So I agree with Denis as this is an important distinction. Jay is technically correct however there is massive calculated campaign to cloud the issues of anthropogenic climate effect, and has been for years. The cloud has spread; as long as there is millions and millions of USD channeled specifically to raise doubts, as long as there are gullible children and people who invariably choose the simple over the more complex as better, the biased noise wont be silenced.
          > >
          > > One way to discern propaganda seems that it allows no real feedback, however then we need to get into the definition of real. I prefer to keep debate at a personal level, to meet challenges as they arise. It's the only way I've found effective.
          > >
          > >
          > > 09/26/2012
          > >
          > > Howard
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • brent_ns
          Francisco s acute diagnosis: It’s true that the discussion from the alarmist side has long ceased to be about science and has become mostly PR based. But I
          Message 4 of 22 , Oct 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Francisco's acute diagnosis:

            It’s true that the discussion from the alarmist side has long ceased to be about science and has become mostly PR based.

            But I also think the majority of those foot soldiers who comment at SkS do not really know that. They have never looked into the matter closely, in many cases because they don’t understand it. They have been thoroughly brainwashed by the massive flood of alarmism in the news for the last decade or so. The reason they act the way they do is that they are completely convinced they are on a mission to save the world from the ravages of CO2. Their behaviour makes sense only from that assumption. Feelings of heroism are extremely exhilarating, and if they perceive their mission as sufficiently noble, its accomplishment will override all ethical considerations. You need to keep in mind they view themselves as saviors. What mission can be more noble than saving the world?

            The professional purveyors of this these ideas are probably not so innocent, but even they can easily find ways to justify their behavior. When your livelihood is on the line, ethical considerations become very elastic. Even if the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of skepticism, once these things get institutionalized, they are extremely hard to erradicate. This may well continue for decades. As climate change professor and professional alarmist Mike Hulme has so candidly said, climate change from their perspective is not primarily about science at all; he views it as an inexhaustible source of useful “narratives” to promote whatever you want. Paraphrasing Kennedy, Hulme writes quite casually: “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate
            change can do for us.”
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/#comment-1079776

            In the secret SkS forum, a member of the SkS squadron stated that “McIntyre must go down”. In another post, another SkS squadron member fantasized about ripping out Watts’ throat as follows:

            “Sometimes you just want to let loose and scream about how you want to take those motherfucking arseholes, those closed-minded bigotted genocidal pieces of regurgitated dog shit and do unspeakable violence to their bodies and souls for what they are doing to the safety of what and who we all hold dear. (Ain’t a lack of a moderation policy a cleansing and liberating thing?)”

            “Work out what you are best suited too and do that. But be able to distance yourself enough from your personal reactions to also see the bigger picture of the entire war and contribute to framing that broad campaign – “We need to focus on this and this and this. But my personal contribution will be to ripe Anthony Watts’ throat out – metaphorically of course.”
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/#comment-1079292

            Denis,

            About a year ago, I read this book.
            http://www.amazon.ca/Rainbow-Six-Tom-Clancy/dp/0425170349
            It was actually written in 1998 but I was unaware of it. I'd never read any of Tom Clancy's novels, but once I heard mention of the topic I had to read it.
            It's a great read. I really enjoyed it. But what struck me singularly was how spot on and acute was his characterization/psychology of the "Gaia botherers". He understands them better than they understand themselves.
            Some view Orwell and Aldous Huxley as fiction writers. Others view them as "futurists".
            I certainly hope Clancy's work never comes to pass, but it's all too potentially real to me, given the "Gaia botherer"/anti-human comments I've heard on these discussion groups over the past many years.

            One environmentalist I respect for what he did is Patrick Moore. He broke with Greenpeace because of their anti-human ideology. He did exactly the right thing in this regard.


            The Rise of Eco-Extremism

            These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
            • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a "cancer" on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be "good" if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population
            http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/issues/12/printable.cfm

            You should think a little more about what you are contributing to by your "Denis the Gaian Baptist act".

            People often think they don't contribute support, when they join a group even while maintaining that they don't agree with the most radical ideas of the leaders.
            They are IMO fooling themselves (wrt contributing support). Let me suggest that it is a different dynamic in play.
            Almost axiomatically, it is the most radical leaders that define the agenda.
            In the end all there are are leaders and followers.
            If one cannot become a leader and convert a movement to more moderate views, then all one is is a follower.
            One cannot in the end maintain a stance that one disagrees with the elite leadership of a movement of which one is a part. Either one goes ones own way(as Patrick Moore very correctly did) and withdraws support, or one is defined by the leadership views.


            all the best
            brent




            --- On Sat, 9/29/12, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:

            > From: Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...>
            > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Essay with Links to Research on Natural Forcing of Climate Change
            > To: "energyresources@yahoogroups.com" <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
            > Cc: "Google IPP Group" <senescence-of-civilization@...>
            > Date: Saturday, September 29, 2012, 9:43 PM
            > Jay
            > I agree entirely with your argument below. However, skeptics
            > still have an influence on attitudes in society. I will
            > simply stating that arguments aimed at convincing the masses
            > that the skeptics are wrong should be based on sound
            > terminology. Humans have only made decisions about using
            > technology and it is the resultant processes using fossil
            > fuels that have caused climate change. Skeptics would find
            > it harder to argue against this logical framework. Saying
            > humans have caused climate change invites skepticism as it
            > suggests humans have wondrous powers when, in reality, it is
            > the technology that has these powers.
            >
            > Denis
            >
          • Jay Hanson
            Virginia, It s a terrible shame that more people don t teach themselves. It s ridiculously easy with the Internet. Learning is like exercise. Once a person
            Message 5 of 22 , Oct 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Virginia,

              It's a terrible shame that more people don't teach themselves. It's
              ridiculously easy with the Internet.

              Learning is like exercise. Once a person get's a taste for it, they will
              want to keep it up throughout their lives.

              Jay

              On 10/1/2012 12:54 PM, Abernethy, Virginia Deane wrote:
              > Jay,
              > I agree that an interdisciplinary approach is essential to understanding the dynamic systems that are leading to collapse.,
              >
              > I have to say, on behalf of Harvard, that they tried. They attempted to integrate at least the social sciences and primatology in Social Relations. It was a 40-year experiment, ended shortly after I received my degree inn 1979. In the end, one of the "wise old men" said that interdisciplinary work happens within one skull. People have to be predisposed to think in integrative ways, or no formal instruction works.
              >
              > I added history and economics from my prep school and college days to what Harvard taught me, plus and MBA later, while I was on the Vanderbilt faculty. A person has to want to think this way, so I think that being self-taught can work well.
              >
              > It worked for Montesquieu, eh what? [Excuse spelling!]
              > Virginia
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com [energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of htraite [htraite@...]
              > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 3:54 AM
              > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Essay with Links to Research on Natural Forcing of Climate Change
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks, guys. I could nitpick, perhaps with attempt to establish some direction on whether formal education is even necessary (ooops),
              >
              > but that you both care about the results of your work is distinction worth noting. In my opinion.
              >
              > Howard
              >
              > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com<mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>, Jay Hanson <JayHanson@...> wrote:
              >> In order to discuss the climate issue rationally, one must analyze three
              >> different systems simultaneously:
              >>
              >> #1 the political system (realpolitik, both domestic and international).
              >> #2 the energy system (esp. oil and net energy).
              >> #3 the economic system.
              >>
              >> Moreover, one must be familiar with evolutionary psychology to
              >> anticipate how Americans will behave in novel environments. The
              >> question quickly becomes incredibly complex.
              >>
              >> Even though our economic system is based on deliberate lies, and is
              >> destroying the ability of our planet to support higher life forms, it's
              >> still the basis of our military power and must be preserved. Although I
              >> believe we can mitigate the suffering of Americans through explicit
              >> legislation ( http://www.jayhanson.us/america.htm ), no humane,
              >> long-term "solutions" are possible because our underlying problems are
              >> inherent in human nature.
              >>
              >> The future is bleak because human nature and system dynamics will
              >> ultimately FORCE humanity to fight to the death over the remaining
              >> natural resources. The same environmental dynamics that drove the world
              >> to two world wars are reasserting themselves again. If those upcoming
              >> wars cause humanity to go extinct, then humanity will go extinct.
              >>
              >> Some possible scenarios could improve the likelihood that of this planet
              >> could continue supporting higher life forms, but ALL scenarios will
              >> reduce global human population to a small fraction of its present
              >> numbers over the next 80 years or less -- possibly much less.
              >>
              >> As I have said on many occasions, the main reason that academics cannot
              >> see the same future that I do, is because of our "post hole" style
              >> university system. No student is taught the range of disciplines that I
              >> have taught myself over the last 20 years.
              >>
              >> Jay
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.