Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Figs]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...o-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

 

[The End]

Take whatever the media says with a grain of salt because it seems every so often they like to throw out the global cooling claim.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

It's pretty conclusive when you look at the actual data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=48

Rising CO2 levels are the result of us humans burning fossil fuels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

Did someone say here there's no evidence that the rise in CO2 causes global warming? 'Cause there is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Take whatever the media says with a grain of salt because it seems every so often they like to throw out the global cooling claim.

Not just them. It was so pervasive in the 70s that the CIA actually did a report on global cooling. Of course there is an attempt to minimize that now. Quite inconvenient.

Of course....as usual....we were doomed. (no matter what happens...we are always doomed)

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.


Climate has not been a prime consideration of intelligence analysis because, until recently, it has not caused any significant perturbations to the status of major nations. This is so because during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century. An early twentieth century world food surplus hindered US efforts to maintain and equalise farm production and incomes.”

“The University of Wisconsin was the first accredited academic center to forecast that a major global climatic change was underway. Their analysis of the Icelandic temperature data, which they contend has historically been a bellwether for northern hemisphere climatic conditions, indicated that the world was returning to the type of climate which prevailed during the first part of the last century.” “Their “Food for Thought” chart (Figure 7) conveys some idea of the enormity of the problem and the precarious state in which most of the world’s nations could find themselves if the Wisconsin forecast is correct.”

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

AGW alarmists can use one part of that at least....they were calling it "climate change" back then too.

It was all over the place.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

Rising CO2 levels are the result of us humans burning fossil fuels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

Did someone say here there's no evidence that the rise in CO2 causes global warming? 'Cause there is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

One immediately has to wonder what caused CO2 levels to rise to well over 10,000ppm and why that never caused a "runaway global warming". Not only was the warming not "irreversible"....there were ice ages afterward. So much for that theory.

And isn't it interesting that the warming of the last 100 years has not correlated with our CO2 emissions? Prior to 1940 our emissions were tiny yet the same exact "rate of warming" occurred. And after 1940 when our emissions did rise dramatically...temps fell for over 20 years. The entire theory appears to only pay attention to 1980-1998....the only time in the record when there was correlation between CO2 emissions and rising temps. Nice cherry-picking there. Since the last 17 years have not correlated either...despite our emissions skyrocketing faster than ever before...some are finally trying to admit natural variability into the equation. Interesting how natural variability was never allowed before.



And here is another hole in the theory:

However if we look at the longer term trend shown in the very first graph at the start of this essay we find OLR has increased by 2.5 watts/sqM in the 30 years between 1980 and 2010 (30 years is the claimed interval necessary for reliable estimation of climate trends) . The global temperature
rise over this time is 0.4C according to UAH (satellite) and 0.5 according to NASA GISS (land sea surface measurements). That translates to an incremental sensitivity of between 6.25 watts/sqM/C and 5 watts/sqM/C. That is significantly higher than indicated by the above data (3.21 predicted and 2.39 actual). It means that the average emissivity of earth has increased over the last 30 years which is the exact opposite of what the CAGW theory would suggest. It should also be noted that even for the 10-30 degree bands where water vapour effects dominate, the phase shift is quite small (less than 2 months). That suggests the time constant of water vapour feedback is very short, which speaks against long time constants for CAGW supposedly dominated by positive feedback from water vapour..

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This is hilarious! Santa is being used as a propaganda tool!
[YT]wr2LCTdIzd4#t=93[/YT]

 

[The End]

Not just them. It was so pervasive in the 70s that the CIA actually did a report on global cooling. Of course there is an attempt to minimize that now. Quite inconvenient.

Before I even address any of this; you do acknowledge that science changes over time, right? Can we acknowledge that point before moving on? Because I mean, if there's a change in position over time, that doesn't lend support to the idea of a conspiracy, or information being conveniently minimized as you put it. Many scientific fields adjust their positions over time.

Science changes? How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!!

Of course....as usual....we were doomed. (no matter what happens...we are always doomed)

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

AGW alarmists can use one part of that at least....they were calling it "climate change" back then too.


It was all over the place.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

I read some of the PDFs and I legitimately have no idea why someone would use reports from the 70s as justification that global warming is false. It can be expected to be out of date in terms of its info, data, methods, technology. I don't get it. It reminds me of how creationists point to fossil hoaxes long in the past to say we can't rely on fossil evidence for evolution. It's a very alarmist tactic and is really quite nonsense and dismiss-able, its simply more likely that as the technology improves and longer periods of time can be assessed and methods are updated that a better approximation would be arrived at, rather than some vague deliberate conspiracy to withhold information. Also, when you look at it, there were contradictory reports at the time - there were scientists at the same time as those reports saying that there was global warming, not global cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

The rest of your post is assertions, misinformation, and flat out ignoring things I've posted previously; its a mess that would take me a long time to go through. Such as, your claim that global warming relies on a period between 1980-1998, when I've already posted info that shows the measurements have been over a much longer period of time. What are your sources, exactly? You make too many assertions without backing them up. Whereas, I've specifically posted info pertaining to LONG TERM trends, that you have not looked at.

There's even info that addresses specifically this myth that the data that backs global warming ends at 1998.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

It's all there. There's even an intermediate level with much more information.

I'm not sure if I want to waste my time with the rest of your post; I've a feeling it would be much like trying to argue with a creationist.

 

[The End]

The other thing is that its one thing for people to post on their blogs what they think the big holes are and its another thing to actually publish something in a journal that's reviewed by other experts in the field.

The vast majority of scientists have a consensus that global warming is real and caused by humans; so its unusual to me that people choose to listen to the vast minority posting on their blogs. Why take their word over other scientists who are actually out there collecting this data?

 

[The Question]

Sources:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

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

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Before I even address any of this; you do acknowledge that science changes over time, right? Can we acknowledge that point before moving on? Because I mean, if there's a change in position over time, that doesn't lend support to the idea of a conspiracy, or information being conveniently minimized as you put it. Many scientific fields adjust their positions over time.

Science changes? How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!!

So now we are dropping the "science is settled" mantra which has been bandied about since 1992? I 100% agree that science is never settled.

I read some of the PDFs and I legitimately have no idea why someone would use reports from the 70s as justification that global warming is false.

Who is claiming global warming is false?

It can be expected to be out of date in terms of its info, data, methods, technology. I don't get it. It reminds me of how creationists point to fossil hoaxes long in the past to say we can't rely on fossil evidence for evolution. It's a very alarmist tactic and is really quite nonsense and dismiss-able, its simply more likely that as the technology improves and longer periods of time can be assessed and methods are updated that a better approximation would be arrived at, rather than some vague deliberate conspiracy to withhold information.

Not helping me when you insert a fallacy into the conversation. I'm a Darwinist. Trying to connect me to creationists is not accurate or relevant. (I'm also not a member of "the tobacco lobby", "Nazis", or "the oil industry" before that trick pops up too)

We are in agreement that science is constantly evolving. The predictions were wrong in the 70s, they were wrong in 1988 when Hansen predicted future temps rises, they were wrong in 1989 when Noel Brown predicted "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos", they were wrong in 2000 when it was predicted that "winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event and children just aren't going to know what snow is", they were wrong in 2007 when it was predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. That's in addition to the failed predictions of more violent weather events.

So I agree with you here. Predictions of science are to be taken with a grain of salt....and are certainly no basis for dramatically altering the lifestyle of the human race.

Also, when you look at it, there were contradictory reports at the time - there were scientists at the same time as those reports saying that there was global warming, not global cooling.

Sounds like today as well:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/01/is-global-cooling-the-new-scientific-consensus/2/
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/31/lawrence-solomon-a-global-cooling-consensus/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...o-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

There are always contrary opinions in science. Which is why the claims of "the science is settled" and "consensus" have been so illogical all these years.

This was true in the 70s as well...but notice that only one position was prevalent enough for the CIA to do a report...the cooling....citing "the world's leading climatologists". Sounds like what some people do these days as well.

The rest of your post is assertions, misinformation, and flat out ignoring things I've posted previously; its a mess that would take me a long time to go through. Such as, your claim that global warming relies on a period between 1980-1998, when I've already posted info that shows the measurements have been over a much longer period of time. What are your sources, exactly? You make too many assertions without backing them up. Whereas, I've specifically posted info pertaining to LONG TERM trends, that you have not looked at.

Anyone who can read a chart can figure out that only one period in the entire modern warming has correlated with human emissions of CO2. That's 1980-1998. That's it. Everything prior to 1950 is natural since our emissions did not increase dramatically until that time. The world cooled for 20+ years after that. And of course the last 17 years has not warmed either. That leaves the one period of 1980-1998.

This is going by the global temp chart the IPCC uses. And...also assumes our reconstruction of global temps prior to 1980 are accurate since there are no global temp records for those times. Hansen has made it difficult to trust the temp records we do have since he routinely "adjusted" past US temp records to lower past ones and raise more recent ones. Quite interesting that.

And there are some scientists who even question the period of 1982-2006 (that darn "the science really isn't settled" thing again):

24 year of Meteosat hourly thermal infrared data have been used to study planetary surface temperature change. Thermal infrared radiation in the 10.5-12.5mm spectral window is not affected by CO2 and only slightly by atmospheric water vapor. Satellite thermal infrared data have been converted to brightness temperatures as prescribed by Eumetsat. Hourly brightness temperature images were then composed to corresponding noon and midnight temperature data fields. The resulting data fields were cloud filtered using 10, 20 and 30 day maximum temperature substitution. Filtered data were subsequently averaged for two 10 yearly periods: 1986-1995 and 1996-2005. Finally the change in brightness temperature was determined by subtraction. In addition nine locations were selected and data series were extracted and studied for the period 1982-2006. Our observations point to a decrease in planetary temperature over almost the entire hemisphere, most likely due to an increase of cloudiness. Two small areas are found where a considerable temperature increase has occurred. They are explained in terms of major human interventions in the hydrological balance at the earth surface.

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/8266p3740v0rnm77/

There's even info that addresses specifically this myth that the data that backs global warming ends at 1998.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Do climate scientists know the warming has not stopped? I wonder why there is now an attempt to claim the oceans ate the warming? (Where was that theory 10 years ago?)

If you look at the data empirically, there is a cooling tendency. We’re already seeing signs. The possibility of a colder climate ahead is a very real thing.-Willie Soon

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. -Richard Lindzen 2009

“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant” Dr. Phil Jones 2005

“No upward trend…has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,” Dr. Phil Jones 2009 This one is very interesting. What would he be "worried" about? Why is he concerned if facts don't support his theory? Notice that he previously said 15 years would "worry" him but now it's been 17 years and the climate science community instead went looking for excuses to explain the lack of warming?

“This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming” Dr. Judith L. Lean 2009

“At present, however, the warming is taking a break. There can be no argument about that,” Dr. Mojib Latif 2009

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community. We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point,” Dr. Jochem Marotzke 2009

“It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008...,” Dr Robert K. Kaufmann 2011

“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend" Dr. Gerald A. Meehl 2011

“Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period” Dr. Virginie Guemas 2013

"So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened." Hans von Storch 2013

Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period

thatindicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third woud.

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

I'm not sure if I want to waste my time with the rest of your post; I've a feeling it would be much like trying to argue with a creationist.

Really? This is why I question the motives of alarmists. The constant retreat to argumentative fallacies. The behavior is similar to what you get with any supporter of a religion.

The other thing is that its one thing for people to post on their blogs what they think the big holes are and its another thing to actually publish something in a journal that's reviewed by other experts in the field.

The vast majority of scientists have a consensus that global warming is real and caused by humans; so its unusual to me that people choose to listen to the vast minority posting on their blogs. Why take their word over other scientists who are actually out there collecting this data?

This "vast majority" the way you frame it is a myth. As an example, I also agree that global warming is real. What I don't believe is that we are doomed because of it. Here is a scientist who is a part of the "consensus" you just mentioned:
Yes, humans affect the climate. But no, there is no indication that the warming is so serious that we need to panic. -Lennart Bengtsson
http://translate.google.com/transla...par-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat

Ask different questions and you get percentages like this:

Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...teorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

Here is the opinion of Randy Schekman...who recently won the Nobel Prize for medicine. He will no longer submit his work to those journals due to the flaws in that system.

How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science
The incentives offered by top journals distort science, just as big bonuses distort banking

Most importantly of all, we scientists need to take action. Like many successful researchers, I have published in the big brands, including the papers that won me the Nobel prize for medicine, which I will be honoured to collect tomorrow.. But no longer. I have now committed my lab to avoiding luxury journals, and I encourage others to do likewise.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Here is how it works behind the scenes according to Judith Curry:
One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics.

The field is not nearly as unanimous as some suggest and there are real ethical issues going on. Part of this is due to the reason a lot of climate scientists join the field in the first place. Here is the reason Tamsin Edwards became a climate scientist:
I became a climate scientist because I've always cared about the environment
That's a reason for becoming a scientist? The likelyhood a person would be biased in their approach to this field is increased with that mindset. Imagine a scientist from a different field citing that as a motive.

At least Edwards resists the urge to bias her research..unlike many of her colleagues. She explains:

As a climate scientist, I'm under pressure to be a political advocate. This comes mainly from environmentalists. Dan Cass, wind-farm director and solar advocate, preferred me not to waste my time debating "denialist morons" but to use political advocacy to "prevent climate catastrophe".

Jeremy Grantham, environmental philanthropist, urged climate scientists to sound a "more desperate note … Be arrested if necessary." A concerned member of the public judged my efforts at public engagement successful only if they showed "evidence of persuasion".

Others ask "what should we do?" At my Cheltenham Science Festival event Can we trust climate models? one of the audience asked what we thought of carbon taxes. I refused to answer, despite the chair's repeated requests and joke (patronisingly; his aim was to entertain) that I "shouldn't be embarrassed at my lack of knowledge".

Even some of my colleagues think I should be clearer about my political beliefs. In a Twitter debate last month Gavin Schmidt, climate scientist and blogger, argued we should state our preferences to avoid accusations of having a hidden agenda.

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/climate-scientists-policies

This is the little trick that AGW alarmists use.

Here are the questions that "97%" of scientists agree with:

1. When compared with 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 contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I mostly agree with these questions too.

Question 1 is easy. Since the Little Ice Age ended, the globe has probably generally warmed. (though we can't know for sure since we have no global records earlier than the 1980s) Warming is not disputed by many.

Question 2 is less easy. Like with many of the scientists asked these questions (and only 30% of them bothered to answer), I wonder what they mean by "significant". Does that mean "measurable"? "Most"? "Some"? Really vague question. Interesting that only 5% of the respondents were climate scientists when we usually hear "he's not a climate scientist" whenever a scientist from a field which does not get the funding benefits of AGW theory expresses skepticism. In this case, those opinions are welcome. t:

Note this: "the authors noted that the survey included participantswith well- documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory". So that tells you all you need to know about the broad brush they used to claim "consensus". Similar to the Cooks et all paper that used a tiny percentage of papers to claim another "97% consensus"....and actually mis-classified some of the papers in the process. The deception and downright dishonesty here raises red flags about the intent.

Now...when an alarmist cites "97%"...they change this to, "97% of scientists agree that we are causing catastrophic global warming". That idea is what AGW alarmists are claiming. Let's ask scientists that particular question and see if you get a "97% consensus".

 

[JeetKuneDo]

There is some thick irony going on in the Antarctic.

Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat... because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship's crew will be rescued by helicopter
Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the pole
In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition
MV Akademik Schokalskiy still stuck among thick ice sheet 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, the Tasmanian capital
Called for help at 5am Christmas morning after becoming submerged in ice
Australia's back-up ship, Aurora Australis could not break through
By MIA DE GRAAF and HAYLEY O'KEEFFE

They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.
The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.
Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-i ce-helipad-help-rescuers.html

The irony getting even more spectacular. Anthony Watts ended up being called in to help.

WUWT and WeatherBell help KUSI-TV with a weather forecasting request from ice-trapped ship in Antarctica Akademik Shokalskiy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...pped-ship-in-antarcti ca-akademik-shokalskiy/

Here is how the media in Australia is reporting it. A good example of bias in the media and they spin the climate issue. Two very different ways to report the Antarctic expedition....

Before they got stuck in the ice:

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: A modern-day scientist adventurer is about to undertake one of the largest Australian science expeditions to the Antarctic. Professor Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales and an 85-person team will spend two months trying to answer questions about how climate change in the frozen continent might already be shifting weather patterns in Australia…

MARGOT O’NEILL [reporter]: The research stakes are high. Antarctica is one of the great engines driving the world’s oceans, winds and weather, especially in Australia. But there’s ominous signs of climate change…

CHRIS TURNEY, CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH CENTRE, UNSW: So we’ve got a really good team and hopefully they won’t go psycho on us. (laughs)…

MARGOT O’NEILL: Professor Turney and his co-leader Dr Chris Fogwell are selecting PhD students for the expedition to help record thousands of measurements, assessing signs of climate change on the frozen continent… The expedition sails south tomorrow on a mission to revive the spirit of one of Australia’s greatest scientific explorations for a new generation grappling with climate change.

Lots of emphasis on "climate change".
Now:

TRACY BOWDEN, PRESENTER: Since Christmas Eve, 74 people, including 26 tourists, have been stuck in the Antarctic ice on board a scientific expedition ship…

CHRIS TURNEY, EXPEDITION LEADER: Things happen sometimes that you just can’t plan for. You try and mitigate them and, unfortunately, we’re extremely unlucky. Bad location, bad time.

LISA WHITEHEAD, REPORTER: Professor Chris Turney’s luck ran out on Christmas Eve.

Now Turney is an "expedition leader" instead of a "climate change research centre" employee. And instead of an "85 person team", it's now "74 people, including 26 tourists".

And:

After 16 days exploring the frozen continent conducting scientific tests and taking samples, his team of 22 scientists aboard the Russian-flagged ship the Akademik Shokalskiy found themselves trapped in sea ice… The $1.5 million Australasian Antarctic Expedition left New Zealand on 8th December. Its mission was to repeat the scientific measurements made by explorer Sir Douglas Mawson and his team 100 years ago.

That "85 person team" shrank down to "22 scientists" conducting unspecified "scientific tests and taking samples". Now the mission is no longer "assessing signs of climate change"....it's "to repeat the scientific measurements of Sir Douglas Mawson".

They finally get around to mentioning...."changes". They still can't seem to mention "climate change" or "global warming" though. Those words certainly rolled off the tongue easily before!

LISA WHITEHEAD: A century ago, Sir Douglas Mawson and his men spent three years making observations, keeping meticulous records. The current Australasian expedition is using this unique scientific archive to compare to the changes seen today.

CHRIS TURNEY (on Skype): One of the things that they absolutely adored were the local Adelie penguins, which are about 30 centimetres tall, wonderfully inquisitive creatures. And some of the early reports talk about almost not being able to hear yourself speak because of the noise and the chatter. And the census of the birds 100 years ago estimated more than 10,000 rookery - 10,000 of them breeding there. But one of the immediate things that was apparent was just how silent it was. There are penguins there, but the population is crashing and it’s a fifth of what it was a century ago.

LISA WHITEHEAD: Professor Chris Turney says the impacts over the next century are likely to be some of the most significant anywhere on our planet and could have global consequences.

CHRIS TURNEY (on Skype): And one of the arguments we’ve had, which is one we’ve come to test, is the idea that as the westerly winds are shifting away from Australia in those mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, they’re driving pole-wards and they’re changing the ocean circulation across - around the Southern Ocean, bringing up warmer water down below. ... And it’s a very complicated system, but effectively, these are big changes taking place.

Naturally Turney can't resist inserting some "doom" into it. Penguins are doomed now! After all, someone years ago said they were really loud and the ones they heard in their ice-bound ship weren't. (nice "science")

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The irony is getting weird. You can't write this stuff:

Eco-sailors rescued by oil tanker

The Fleur crew were rescued by the Overseas Yellowstone in strong winds
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile (8,000km)carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Raoul Surcouf, Richard Spink and skipper Ben Stoddart sent a mayday because they feared for their safety amid winds of 68mph (109km/h).
All three are reportedly exhausted but safe on board the Overseas Yellowstone.
Mr Surcouf, 40, from Jersey, Mr Spink, 31, and Mr Stoddart, 43, from Bristol, are due to arrive in the USA on 8 May.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8034027.stm

 

[The End]

Good grief I can't believe there are people that swallowed the Fox News narrative on that one.

There is ice. They got stuck in ice. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

There are no words, for how dumb that reasoning is.

Basically why I'm not wasting my time scouring through your posts.

Like seriously, "look how much they use the term climate change! I am going to bold the words climate change!"

Forget it. You're viewing this whole thing through the lens of conspiracy theory. I cannot reason with you.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Good grief I can't believe there are people that swallowed the Fox News narrative on that one.

There is ice. They got stuck in ice. Therefore global warming doesn't exist.

There are no words, for how dumb that reasoning is.

Basically why I'm not wasting my time scouring through your posts.

Like seriously, "look how much they use the term climate change! I am going to bold the words climate change!"

Forget it. You're viewing this whole thing through the lens of conspiracy theory. I cannot reason with you.

1-the whole thing is ironic

2-if the media is going to be that obviously biased, there is nothing wrong with pointing it out

3-who watches news shows? (Not just FoxNews) None of them are unbiased. I've gotten my views from scientists. The "news" pushes the alarmist side.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

What's wrong with clean air?

Even if you don't buy into global warming, you can't be in favor of just gutting the EPA and letting corporations just pump dangerous emissions into the air without control.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

What's wrong with clean air?

Even if you don't buy into global warming, you can't be in favor of just gutting the EPA and letting corporations just pump dangerous emissions into the air without control.

I don't see anything wrong with clean air. But that doesn't have anything to do with this subject.

CO2 is colorless, odorless, and essential to life on this planet. You may be fooled by all those photos you see in the media of steam coming out of electrical plants when they talk about this subject. They usually photograph them with the sun behind the steam to make it look "dirty". Highly effective propaganda that. Pretty dishonest though. It's just steam...not even CO2.

So on what you were talking about, I also would not be in favor of gutting the EPA. They do overstep their bounds at times (declaring CO2 a "pollutant" is ridiculous), but they are necessary for a lot of things.

 

[Hobgoblin]

An explanation of why the polar vortex does not invalidate global warming.

http://grist.org/news/white-house-s...ook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow

 

[redhawk23]

I don't see anything wrong with clean air. But that doesn't have anything to do with this subject.

CO2 is colorless, odorless, and essential to life on this planet. You may be fooled by all those photos you see in the media of steam coming out of electrical plants when they talk about this subject. They usually photograph them with the sun behind the steam to make it look "dirty". Highly effective propaganda that. Pretty dishonest though. It's just steam...not even CO2.

So on what you were talking about, I also would not be in favor of gutting the EPA. They do overstep their bounds at times (declaring CO2 a "pollutant" is ridiculous), but they are necessary for a lot of things.

You seem to forget that the steam is created most often by burning things, usually coal, the burning of which releases a hell of a lot more than just CO2.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

An explanation of why the polar vortex does not invalidate global warming.

http://grist.org/news/white-house-s...ook&utm_medium=update&utm_campaign=socialflow

One wonders exactly what can invalidate global warming at this point. What is a "normal" winter now? A warm winter would obviously be a "red flag for global warming", right? Now a cold winter is too! Falsifiability is certainly not a part of this theory. No falsifiability in Christianity either....can't prove god doesn't exist no matter what happens. (You would think war, disease, and testicles would prove god either doesn't exist or is very stupid)

Can't blame people for wondering after hearing how global warming is supposed to warm the climate. (and doom us all) Not like any CAGW believers were predicting the winters to get colder 10 years ago.

Remember when this theory meant less snowfall in the winter?

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is-Dr David Viner (CRU) of the University of East Anglia

"He (Al Gore) also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what's happening." -Barbara Boxer, October 29th, 2007, on the Senate floor

Average winter snowfall may drop by as much as 1 foot by 2100 as more winter precip falls as rain in a warmer winter environment. -Peter Snyder, University of Minnesota

less snow, smaller glaciers, thinner ice-Greenpeace

Our conclusion that these models predict a significant decrease in snow extent over North America during the 21st century is robust, in the sense that all available models agree for two different yet realistic SRES future emissions scenarios, while no model predicts such a decrease for the unrealistic COMMIT scenario. -AGU

“As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in autumn and spring at the beginning and end of the snow season, and in areas where temperatures are near freezing. Such changes are observed in many places, especially over land in middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to increased rains but reduced snowpacks.” (IPCC)

BOULDER, Colo. -- The hard-pressed American ski resort industry could be facing a serious problem in coming years if European researchers are correct: less snow because of global climate change.-Dan Whipple UPI Science News

CSIRO climate change expert Dr Penny Whetton says Australia's mountain snow cover could be reduced by up to 54 per cent by 2020. "The probability of any precipitation falling as snow rather than rain is going to decrease, and any snow lying on the ground is going to melt

Like those who rely on the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian ski industry sees itself as a frontline victim of global warming. A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, October 4, 2006 (ENS) - Global warming will cause major changes to the climate of the U.S. Northeast if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, scientists said today. Warmer annual temperatures, less snow, more frequent droughts and more extreme rainstorms are expected if current warming trends continue, the scientists said in a new study, and time is running out for action to avoid such changes to the climate.

I'm not a Republican (I think they are correct accidentally on this one), but here is a great clip to keep handy. The first guy is very quick to point to the lack of snow and warm winter as proof of global warming:
[YT]Srsw9XOOBcU[/YT]

You won't hear these claims anymore. Now when a huge snowstorm hits.... the story changes to "See? This proves global warming too!"

 

[JeetKuneDo]

You seem to forget that the steam is created most often by burning things, usually coal, the burning of which releases a hell of a lot more than just CO2.

So you are justifying the deceptive use of photos of steam to make it look like CO2?

Can skeptics get away with using deceptive tactics or will you insist on complete honesty?

 

[The End]

http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell Pie Chart 2.png

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.

I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.



My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards.

One wonders what could actually change the minds of the deniers.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

http://desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell Pie Chart 2.png

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming



One wonders what could actually change the minds of the deniers.

Sounds like all those other claims of "consensus" which were proven false when you actually look close at the claim. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

So "he is judging" what these papers say, eh? Sounds like what Cook did.

I again ask what the exact wording of this "agreement" is. Are all those papers agreeing that the globe has warmed in the last 150 years? That is the "consensus" we've seen used to mean "They all agree warming is going to doom us all" in the past. Do they agree that human emissions have some effect? That's another one many skeptics accept too. (not "deniers"...sheesh...)

What we continue to see is the insistence that we ignore the flaws in the theory and in real data and instead bow to "consensus" (appeal to popularity) of "scientists" (appeal to authority). We are supposed to ignore the scientists who do not agree and the fact that the models are failing to match real world results...indicating they have grossly exaggerated climate sensitivity?

Appeal to authority can work both ways.

The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. For instance, Stephen Schneider [a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University], says that skeptics sell garbage and that we are playing games with science. He compares it to selling drugs and believes that we are criminals who should go to jail. Guess what? You don’t pull that sort of thing on people who know something about science.-Willie Soon

"The greenhouse effect, which is connected to the anthropogenic factor, which are four to five percent of the natural emission. The eruption of a volcano gives much more. A real contribution to the greenhouse effect is the ordinary steam. Thank God that no one comes to the thought of having to also regulate it. -Vladimir Bashkin

Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. -Hans von Storch

The warming earth experienced the last hundred years is so small that it had recorded unless meteorologists and climatologists informed about it. It indicates that the climate sensitivity is probably lower than the climate models, at least initially adopted-Lennart Bengtsson

It should be noted that the fact that I believe at least some of recent warming is human-caused places me in the 97% of researchers recently claimed to support the global warming consensus-Roy Spencer

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. -Richard Lindzen

"The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement ['it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years'] is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers [of IPCC report] just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis."-John McLean

"The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."-Vincent Gray

“The Kyoto protocol was a political agreement. It was not based on science.”Harlan Watson

“The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming.”-Kirill Kondratyev

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Micheal Mann comes right out and admits he is an activist.

And he attacked a scientist who disagrees with him as usual. Judith Curry is no shrinking violet though...she is willing to take up the challenge. Let's see if he is willing to respond to her.

I see a scientist (Michael Mann) making an accusation against another scientist (me) that I am ‘anti-science,’ with respect to my EPW testimony. This is a serious accusation, particularly since my testimony is part of the Congressional record.
If Mann is a responsible scientist, he will respond to my challenge:
.
JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.
.
During the Hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked me a question about why people refer to me as a ‘contrarian.’ I said something like the following:
.
Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Very interesting article from Prof. Garth Paltridge.

All of the above is background to one of the great mysteries of the climate change issue. Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. How then is it that those of them involved in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can put their hands on their hearts and maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades?

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of water vapour, which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide—on average over most of the models—by a factor of about three. In other words, two-thirds of the forecast rise in temperature derives from this particular model characteristic. Despite what the models are telling us—and perhaps because it is models that are telling us—no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say that he is 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If he is not sure that clouds amplify global warming, he cannot be sure that most of the global warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide.

Bear in mind too that no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say there is only a very small possibility (that is, less than 5 per cent) that internal ocean behaviour could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century. He would be particularly careful not to make such a statement now that there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years. In the mad scurry to find reasons for the pause, and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to simulate the pause, suddenly we are hearing that perhaps the heat of global warming is being “hidden” in the deep ocean. In other words we are being told that some internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature. It is therefore more than a little strange that we are not hearing from the IPCC (or at any rate not hearing very loudly) that some natural internal fluctuation of the system may have given rise to most of the earlier upward trend.

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour. Trading reputational capital for short-term political gain isn’t the most sensible way of going about things.

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.

Somewhere along the line it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evil—evil, that is, in the shape of “big oil” and its supposedly unlimited money. The delusion was more than a little attractive.

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster. It can no longer use the environmental movement as a scapegoat if it should turn out that the threat of global warming has no real substance. It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity. The current redirection of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day. And in the future, to quote US Senator Everett Dirksen, “a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we’ll be talking about real money”.

More details about the science here:

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

 

[:eek:]

Oil sands pollution two to three times higher than thought

http://news.yahoo.com/oil-sands-pollution-two-three-times-higher-thought-210153802.html

 

[Sun_Down]

Sources:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

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

This image bears re-emphasizing. 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming caused by man. Yes, science gets refined over time, but our best minds overwhelmingly agree on this issue.

"Climate skeptics" are not skeptics at all. The word skeptic implies honest open-mindedness. The term for people like JeetKuneDo is "climate denier."

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This image bears re-emphasizing. 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming caused by man. Yes, science gets refined over time, but our best minds overwhelmingly agree on this issue.

"Climate skeptics" are not skeptics at all. The word skeptic implies honest open-mindedness. The term for people like JeetKuneDo is "climate denier."

Amazing! You are actually still buying into that survey even after finding out the details about it? Wow...no wonder politicians get away with constantly lying to people. Also no wonder why alarmists are compared to religious fanatics so often. Facts are discarded the instant they don't support your beliefs.


Read it and actually pay attention to what they did: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

The "consensus" as they construct it includes skeptics. It has to...because the 'consensus" is a myth. Here is one of the scientists who "agrees" according to that survey:

Yes, humans affect the climate. But no, there is no indication that the warming is so serious that we need to panic. -Lennart Bengtsson
http://translate.google.com/transla...par-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat

And yes...I too mostly agree with the questions they asked. That makes me a part of the "consensus" as well. If you can't see the flaws now you are as far from "open-minded" as it gets. Do you think I agree with the alarmist view? I answered "yes" to one question and "somewhat agree" with the second question.

This is the little trick that AGW alarmists use.

Here are the questions that "97%" of scientists agree with:

1. When compared with 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 contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I mostly agree with these questions too.

Question 1 is easy. Since the Little Ice Age ended, the globe has probably generally warmed. (though we can't know for sure since we have no global records earlier than the 1980s) Warming is not disputed by many.

Question 2 is less easy. Like with many of the scientists asked these questions (and only 30% of them bothered to answer), I wonder what they mean by "significant". Does that mean "measurable"? "Most"? "Some"? Really vague question.

Interesting that only 5% of the respondents in the survey were climate scientists. Ever notice how alarmists quickly discount the opinion of any scientist who doesn't identify as a "climate scientist"? (i.e. the scientists who do not receive the benefit of AGW alarmism) The authors of the survey did exactly that....they were careful to give more weight to those who get the most benefit from AGW theory.

As I mentioned....the survey is so flawed it manages to include skeptics: "the authors noted that the survey included participants with well- documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory". This is your "consensus".

But the deception occurs when that "97%" is morphed into "97% of scientists agree that we are causing catastrophic global warming". That idea is what AGW alarmists are claiming. Let's ask scientists that particular question and see if you get a "97% consensus".

Ask different questions and you get percentages like this:

Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...teorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

Here is the opinion of Randy Schekman...who recently won the Nobel Prize for medicine. He will no longer submit his work to those journals due to the flaws in that system.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Here is how it works behind the scenes according to Judith Curry:
One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics.

The field is not nearly as unanimous as some suggest and there are real ethical issues going on. Part of this is due to the reason a lot of climate scientists join the field in the first place. Here is the reason Tamsin Edwards became a climate scientist:
I became a climate scientist because I've always cared about the environment
That's a reason for becoming a scientist? The likelyhood a person would be biased in their approach to this field is increased with that mindset. Imagine a scientist from a different field citing that as a motive.

At least Edwards resists the urge to bias her research..unlike many of her colleagues. She explains:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/climate-scientists-policies