“The question is not whether we need to act. The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.” — President Obama
IN HIS WEEKLY RADIO ADDRESS TO THE NATION just prior to his recent trip to Africa, President Obama doubled down on man-caused global warming (MCGW) as the top issue facing the nation. These thoughts, echoed in his poorly received speech in Germany, were also seconded by renowned global warming alarmist Al Gore.
With Team Obama and the former MCGW doyen on board, what could possibly go wrong with this scenario? The MCGW crowd is giddy with excitement as years of efforts to wreak economic havoc may come to fruition — that is, if common sense does not prevail.
Fortunately, some level of common sense seems to be emanating from the New York Times, of all places.
In a editorial earlier this year the Times correctly pointed out that the carbon-fueled bus taking us down the highway to the apocalypse hit a 15-year snag. It seems that the “hockey stick” has turned into a pool cue — or, quoting from the Times piece, “temperature (increases) of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated … at a record pace.”
Wait a minute. I thought 97 percent of the world’s “distinguished scientists” were on board? These thousands of scientists cannot be mistaken, can they? Surely they understand the reality, as well as potential impact of their life’s work?
Perhaps the Times has some insight, given the magnitude of what is at stake:
“The practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not …”
That is more than just a tad disconcerting. Let’s look closer at the origination of the term “97 percent.”
In 2009 Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Chicago released a study that has been reported as saying that 97 percent of world scientific experts “believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
Let’s see if a “truth adjustment” to that statement may be in order:
It seems the survey, of more than 10,250 such “scientists,” was virtually exclusive to North America. So let’s rephrase: “Of the 10,250 North American scientists surveyed, 97 percent believe in MCGW.”
But wait, that was how many were asked the question; only about 30 percent (3,146) responded. Of those, only 5 percent were actually climate scientists (as the report actually states); the balance held Ph.d’s or master’s degrees in various scientific disciplines.
So let’s try again. Of the 3,146 people who actually responded to the survey, 157 of them were honest-to-goodness climate scientists, and 97 percent of them believe in MCGW.”
A bit more on Doran and Zimmerman. As it turns out, the survey was conducted as a master’s thesis project by Zimmerman, a student of Dr. Doran’s. It also turns out that not all of the recipients of the questionnaire were fully on board.
Let’s back up to look at the two key questions (of nine total) used in the survey:
1. When compared to pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
As it works out, to achieve the 97-percent “consensus,” the surveyor used the responses to some of the other questions to whittle away at the respondents. Thus, if the responses to selected questions did not fit the goal, their answers to questions 1 and 2 were not considered.
Here is a select sampling of some of those who refused participation:
• “I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey!”
• “Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.”
• “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”
This brings us to our final revision:
“Of the 10,250 people asked by a college student in a biased and poorly framed survey, 3,146 responded. Of those, only 157 were real climate scientists and only 77 of them were actually published. Out of the 77 remaining, 75 of them, or 97 percent, answered the questions the way we hoped and they believe that man causes global warming.”
Now doesn’t that make you feel more confident in the claims made by the global warming alarmists?
Why this deception has been perpetrated is subject to conjecture, since the original findings should have been satisfactory in making the argument in favor of MCGW. Those findings indicated that better than 80 percent of all respondents believed that human activity is a “significant” factor in global warming (though “significant” is a subjective term).
As one of those who refused participation in the biased study summed up:
“There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked … but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.”
Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.
Sharing is caring!
“The MCGW crowd is giddy with excitement as years of efforts to wreak economic havoc may come to fruition”
What a stupid statement.
Good article Dennis, it is nice to see another point of view on this matter, I look forward to the responses but not the name calling that is sure to follow.
Popcorn anyone?
Come on, that the best part!
NASA has released data from there findings that debunks the whole man made global warming myth.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2013/07/07/global-warming-debunked-nasa-report-verifies-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-atmosphere/
Wow, all 5 paragraphs of that article are very provocative indeed.
Yet NASA still maintains this website:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Looks like folks at NASA can’t even agree.
Obama bad. Democrats bad. Republicans good. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. One-note-DDL strikes again. 97% of scientists are assuredly wrong. Only those paid for by the oil companies are right. Don’t you ever get bored writing the same ol’ debunked crap?
Dennis: As you are a stickler for details and accuracy, my reading was that 95%, not 97% of scientists were on board with MCGW. Its no big deal for me(the 2% difference), but your house keeping might be getting a bit “foot loose and fancy free”. On the bigger issue of temperature increase, the important issue is measuring the trending over the last 100-150 years (the Industrial Revolution and major fossil fuel use), not 10 or 20 year increments. The other issue of greater importance is the inordinate increase in CO2’s that interfere with atmosphere and cause an increase in carbonic acid levels that interfere with environmmental balances. We can agree that the main contributor to the above is the burning of fossil fuels. On the issue of fossil fuels as a negative, have we factored in the human, medical, and loss of productivity costs that have resulted from cancers and breathing malaldies that have resulted from fossil fuel use. Lets say that alternative energy may not be the big profit maker today and we have to subsidize it from the public coffer. We can cut out all fossil fuel subsidies and cut way back on the military spending and opput all those dollars back into alternative energy jobs and services and more quickly wind down fossil fuel production. Now those in the fossil fuel industry would not like that, but in the big picture America would be ahead. As far as the jobs arguement, alternative energy creates more jobs per dollarsv invested or sales than fossil fuels. The oil and gas industry has a low ratio of job creation per sales of many industry. Starting with Rockefeller America has been run by big oil for too long with little regard for the common man. Fossil fuel producers spend millions of dollars with think tanks and paid off researchers to try and debunk MCGW; if I were a big fosssil fuel investor I would probbaly do the same., but we cannot rely upon the morality and good conscience of fossil fuel producers to push public policy that benefits the masses while eroding the profits of big oil.
75 divided by 77 is 97.4% Harvey. I cited my source, you rarely do, even when using alt.net
Once again, an admirable strategy, Dennis. Pick out a defective piece of crap called a study and make patty cakes out of it. Then pretend that sinks the whole enterprise. NASA tells us, things are complex. You lot keep simplifying those you oppose down to claiming CO2 alone is the crux of the problem, which is patently false. Other things DO contribute to complex effects. Interpretations can differ when we try resorting to deductive reasoning alone without continual recourse to induction from circumspect observation of multiple factors. Merely because you can use logic to demolish one avenue, or range of avenues of interpretation, cannot prove your thesis than human activity has negligible effect on climate.
I would invite those of your view to look again at the topological ruin exerted on landform by tar-sands oil extraction and open pit coal mining that has razed the tops of several hundred, Appalachian mountains, and then say it’s okay just because it hasn’t happened yet in your back yard.
RMS stated: I would invite those of your view to look again at the topological ruin exerted on landform by tar-sands oil extraction and open pit coal mining
Let’s see now Robert, I have been to:
Ft. MacMurray, the heart of the Tar Sands region, it was a 90 minute flight, about the same as from San Diego to Oakland, almost 500 miles with a lot of pristine forest below me.
I have also been to open pit mines (or other mining operations) in: Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, Montana, Durango, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Jamaica, Chile, New Zealand, Germany and the Czech Republic.
I would invite you to know what you are talking about before you post further utterances which lack substance and a basis of knowledge beyond that which you have discerned from your limited grasp of life beyond text books and the internet.
“I would invite you to know what you are talking about before you post further utterances” – Hmmmmmm!
The bottom line is that we are wasting money and talent in the long term by trying to stay on the fossil fuel route. In addition we are destroying our environment between, acid rain, global warming, fracking contamination of the aquafir, pulmonary diseases, oil spills, destruction of animal habitats from pipeline infrastructure, increased pollution caused by the transportation of fossil fuels, wasted investment in non renewable resources, poor job creation in oil industry compared to alternative energy, increased health care costs from air and water pollution, introduction of carcinegenic compounds from fossil fuels, etc. The bottom line is if were not for the influence of “Big oil, gas, coal” on government we would be on a better course of energy creation like Germany.
We need wealthy entrepreneurs to develop Big Green on a massive scale and then Big Oil can naturally wither away like the horse and buggy.
Can you say “limited grasp”?
“The practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not …” – Yet somehow, as if by magic, Dennis Lund does..
Let’s just face it, climate change, global warming or what ever label you want to give it today is a money grabbing hoax of a solution looking for a problem. When nothing else makes sense, follow the money. Some people can be so naive! It’s been debunked so many times it’s pathetic!
Exactly what money are they grubbing? OTOH…the only scientists who refute climate change are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, which has a clear financial interest in the bunk their ‘scientists’ peddle.
Give me a list of who these paid for scientists are. I would like to see who pays them and how much.
NASA is bought and paid for by the fuel industry? That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing.
“Let face it,”? You’ve got nothing. Talk about naive.
I did not say I had anything. Benician did. All I asked for was an answer. Maybe you have it.
Sorry, you’ve got the wrong number.
Are you environmentalpro? Is Thomas Petersen the same person as environmentalpro? I got the right numver Gunter
should be number
Let’s clarify. My original comment was not directed at you. Follow the bouncing ball.
Well, I’d really like to know who did the “debunking.” Not sure if this heated series of exchanges is really the proper platform for it or not. But, being curious sort, not unlike yourself probably JLB, I’d certainly be curious to see a citation or two that’s reputable so that we readers could see for ourselves your view that all the climate change/global warming adherents are positioned on poor data and research.
Seriously: can you direct me to your basis for that?
ROB
Rob,
I know the comment was directed at JLB, and I do not speak for him, but here is one widely accepted source that cannot explain why temperature increases have not followed the expected predictions.
Global Temperature Update Through 2012 15 January 2013 J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
Look above. I provided a link.
No, JLB, it’s you who is pathetic. If the Koch brothers gave a s__t about the world the rest of us live in, they might pick up the challenge. But, they’re content with themselves living on top of the food chain. They think they are elegant folks who outclass everyone else, and don’t need anyone else or general good opinion. They are too full of themselves to strive beyond themselves creatively for the good of all. The main thing they are at the top of, is the inside of the Right-eous opinion bubble of self-fulfillment. It’s imaginary. Their daddy did most of it for them and they followed along.
As for you, Dennis, the funniest thing to happen on the way to apocalypse is you, but you are also nearly the saddest thing on that way.
RMS Stated: you (Dennis) are also nearly the saddest thing on that way.
No Robert, what is sad is that you find yourself alone at the computer at all hours of the night, lashing out at people whom you do not know (JLB, RKJ) and people you have only a passing acquaintance with (me, Jim Pugh, Bob Livesay). You have a very deep need to feel important, I imagine reading your poetry to small groups of people gives you some level of self-importance, but obviously not enough. So instead you need to remind yourself of your self-proclaimed superiority by belittle strangers via an internet blog.
But does that really make you feel better? Or does it remind you have how shallow you really are and how empty your life must be?
My thoughts exactly. Sad really that someone lowers themselves to becoming well known as nothing more than a nasty name calling old fart on an internet forum. He must struggle terribly with feelings of inadequacy, lack of self-worth and loneliness. What happened to him that made him so angry at people he doesn’t even know. If he were to have an occasion to actually sit down with us over a cup of coffee, he would come to learn that we are actually just really nice ordinary people despite the fact that we disagree on topics that we all feel strongly about. Isn’t that really what makes the world go round at the end of the day? Get over yourself Robert Shelby and try to have some reasons in your life to smile. You’re such a downer!