Well when someone claims 97% agreement on a topic of such widespread controversy how am I not supposed to question it?

Especially so when all of the searches I have done as deliberately unbiased as I can make them consistently keep coming back to the problem there being a sizable percentage of people being in the same skeptical boat for the same reason as me wanting exactly what I want which is to simply see the raw data and how it was collected and handled from start to finish including every stages honest percentages of error that had to be accounted for each step of the way.

As of the moment others here have been pointing out the same problem. How can we define it as a confirmed and proven fact when there is no solid credible accountable data trails to look at being presented from any side?

If someone tells me that the whole planet warming up a few degrees is going to kill off everyone and everything, yet when it has happened in the past historical and geological records it clearly, didn't I want to know their logic and reasoning behind their claims. otherwise the rational part of me starts screaming BS on their claim.

As I said, the US makes up about 4% of the worlds population. Even if 50% of Americans are skeptical (not nearly that high) if you would travel outside of the US, you will see that not only does everyone essentially accepted it as fact, but about 40% of those people think it is the biggest problem facing humanity. Down as the number one concern for a bunch of people since ISIS became a concern and since Russia took over Crimea and economic stability. Either way, those people who do not view global warming as a number one concern still believe it is a concern. So, just because people tend to surround themselves with like-thinking individuals does not mean a large percentage of the population thinks like them.

 

...if you would travel outside of the US, you will see that not only does everyone essentially accepted it as fact, but about 40% of those people think it is the biggest problem facing humanity....

Of course they do. How else are they going to connive us out of our wealth? It's not like they are going to engage in capitalism or anything.

 

Does the rest of the world take into account or care that things improved other places?

If not I have no reasons to change my life to make theirs any different because my area just happend to improve with the latest changes.

Just out of curiosity how exactly does adding an extra degree or two C to every day of the year anywhere make that area suddenly miserable to near uninhabitable whereas having been 2 degrees C lower made the location perfectly tolerable before?

What I am saying is places that are now miserably hot were also miserably hot too much of the time 10, 20, 50 and 100+ years before.

 

Just for fun, here's some late breaking research:

http://www.kaltesonne.de/zyklenanalyse-von-klimadaten/

Google translate does a relatively good job.

 

I just check the dock by the bar in the bayou. Sixteen years ago it was only a foot above high tide. It still is.

 

I just check the dock by the bar in the bayou. Sixteen years ago it was only a foot above high tide. It still is.

Yebbut any day now it'll be under water. Keep an eye on it.

 

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/agreement-manmade-global-warming-20130516

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

The research, the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date, finds that 97.1% of the studies published between 1991 to 2011 that expressed a position on manmade climate change agreed that it was happening, and that it was due to human activity.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/agreement-manmade-global-warming-20130516

Aside from the fact that that was written two years ago, reviewing papers from 4 years ago and older, it proves nothing except that a) there is a financial incentive to write papers in favor of AGW and b) that there is a disincentive to write papers opposed to AGW (self censorship).

Besides, one can agree that the climate is warming without a) subscribing to AGW, b) subscribing the CAGW, or c) that there is anything that can be done to prevent or mitigate any of the above.

Edit: Oh, and here's the headline: "97% of AGW Alarmists Believe in AGW".

 

Aside from the fact that that was written two years ago, reviewing papers from 4 years ago and older, it proves nothing except that a) there is a financial incentive to write papers in favor of AGW and b) that there is a disincentive to write papers opposed to AGW (self censorship).

Nobody has ever shown any proof or any evidence that these positions were due to financial incentives. And so, there's no proof, either in this or any other publications. That's a common and never supported charge.

Besides, one can agree that the climate is warming without a) subscribing to AGW, b) subscribing the CAGW, or c) that there is anything that can be done to prevent or mitigate any of the above.

But the 97% of papers that took a position agree with AGW.

Edit: Oh, and here's the headline: "97% of AGW Alarmists Believe in AGW".

Name calling, now that's a really convincing argument

 

The skeptical group seems to have no problem providing information as to why they are skeptical and have doubts

Ok, then prove the veracity of the following statement

no one can agree on any part of it or if and or what it will affect for good or bad

Where is your proof that nobody can agree? Where is your data? Or prove this statement:

Which BTW you have never ever let on to whom they are after having been called out on it countless times which rather leads most everyone else to think they are just figments of your imagination.

How do you know what most everyone thinks? Where is your data? Where is your analysis? Do you have an error propagation analysis? Can you qualify the data on what most everyone thinks? If you have no problem providing information, then you should have no problem providing the data you based this statement on.

And, for that matter, prove I've been called out countless times on the 97% figure. Then prove I've never let on to who they are.

 

I just check the dock by the bar in the bayou. Sixteen years ago it was only a foot above high tide. It still is.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.7 mm per year. I doubt you would see that as it is buried within the normal wave action. I mean a sea state of FAC will hide 1.7 mm even if someone paddling a kayak were to transit the area.

Let's see, we appear to have lost all the Artic ice and the sea hasn't risen much. I wonder why?

Does anyone know how much evaporation occurs over a year?

 

Let's see, we appear to have lost all the Artic ice and the sea hasn't risen much. I wonder why?

Are you serious? Who is concerned with floating ice melting to sink islands? It is the ice on continents and Greenland that is concerning and will sink islands. I thought you were joking earlier when you mentioned ice cubes in a glass. Are you joking or serious with this argument?

 

How do you know what most everyone thinks? Where is your data? Where is your analysis? Do you have an error propagation analysis? Can you qualify the data on what most everyone thinks? If you have no problem providing information, then you should have no problem providing the data you based this statement on.

Wait a minute isn't that basically what JoeJester has been calling you out on in these sort of threads for some time now?

And, for that matter, prove I've been called out countless times on the 97% figure. Then prove I've never let on to who they are.

Okay fine. you're better known for pulling data out of your butt and referring to it as an irrefutable fact.

My mistake.

Actually for a very localized and direct hands on example of people's views I say refer to this threads own census at the very beginning. The members here represent people from all over the world and from many different political views and affiliations which to me seems like as fair of random cross section of world wide people as any of us can get ahold of. As of this post 57.7% of those who have bothered to vote apparently feel that climate change is of no threat or concern to them.

Given that our own forums sampling suggests that the majority of people in the know have little concern about climate change being a threat to them. So how exactly does your 97% number come about and whom does that represent that is not potentially a part of some group our own forums random cross section would represent?

 

Just out of curiosity how exactly does adding an extra degree or two C to every day of the year anywhere make that area suddenly miserable to near uninhabitable whereas having been 2 degrees C lower made the location perfectly tolerable before?

I don't think anyone said #12 was going to be under water next year.
The issue is where does the positive feedback from the greenhouse gasses overcome the natural cooling cycles.[/QUOTE]

Let's see, we appear to have lost all the Artic ice and the sea hasn't risen much. I wonder why?

Does anyone know how much evaporation occurs over a year?

No, but it's a greenhouse gas.

When it comes to payola it seems to me the money for a climatologists is on the skeptic side and from the oil companies. Fewer people to split it with.

 

 

Wait a minute isn't that basically what JoeJester has been calling you out on in these sort of threads for some time now?

I asked for your data and analysis. How does that prove I've been called out countless times? How does that prove I haven't provided any information? How does that prove anything you're every written on the subject? Hint: You jumped straight to a conclusion without data, analysis or anything remotely similar to the kind of proof you demand form everyone else. Nothing significant to see here, folks. Keep it moving.

Okay fine. you're better known for pulling data out of your butt and referring to it as an irrefutable fact.

Known by whom? Can you prove what I'm better known for? Can you prove my data comes from my butt? Can you provide any data, analysis, or anything besides childish gibberish? I don't think so.

Actually for a very localized and direct hands on example of people's views I say refer to this threads own census at the very beginning. The members here represent people from all over the world and from many different political views and affiliations which to me seems like as fair of random cross section of world wide people as any of us can get ahold of. As of this post 57.7% of those who have bothered to vote apparently feel that climate change is of no threat or concern to them.

And you would think 26 people are stastistically significant. Here is your error analysis, 26 people don't mean squat. And the question was "Is climate change a threat that concerns you" Not is it real or not. People can be unconcerned for various reasons. Until an analysis is done with a statistically significant sample size, which shows the reasons why people are or are not concerned, this poll is pretty meaningless.

So how exactly does your 97% number come about and whom does that represent that is not potentially a part of some group our own forums random cross section would represent?

I linked the study. Try reading it.

 

I'm not concerned about any of it myself.

I've seen a $hitload of snow melting from a snow covered island in late May. Sure it washed out a road because the three three foot diameter culverts couldn't handle the amount of water.

The creeks changed shape because of the water flow. It created new fishing holes almost weekly. The bay had no appreciable rise.

 

just for general consumption,

I went to the noaa links above to retrieve the data, and it wanted a username and password to access it. Now that the DOD declared climate change a national security issue, does anyone think we can get the data?

 

a $hitload of snow

Now there's a specific, scientific and verifiable measure.

Now that the DOD declared climate change a national security issue, does anyone think we can get the data?

They did that years ago.

 

Years ago? are you kidding me. The announced it within the last six months, right after the President considered it a National Security issue.