Rama

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

iceman49

2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record, by a Stunning Margin - Bloomberg Business

CanoePilot

Not based off satellite data, in fact satellite data shows there has been no warming in almost 20 years.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...mmit-in-paris/

FDXLAG

Who are you going to trust some stupid satellite are a long haired dope smoking climate scientist working on a new grant?

Flytolive

Climate depot? Here are the credentials of its founder and publisher.


Marc Morano
Born 1968
Nationality American
Alma mater George Mason University (B.A.)
Occupation Former U.S. congressional staffer, founder and executive editor of ClimateDepot.org

Marc Morano is a former Republican political aide who founded and runs the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com. ClimateDepot is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues.

Morano was born in Washington, D.C. and raised in McLean, Virginia. He has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science.

He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996. After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly exaggerated his military service record.

Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe. He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration. In 2007, Morano produced a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work, according to Morano, questions whether global warming is caused by human activity.

In April 2009, Morano founded and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. In November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the Climatic Research Unit email controversy story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story was subsequently picked up by James Delingpole.




http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

CanoePilot

And? The data is sound.

Climate is always "changing" the issue here is if humans are causing it and the science says no time and time again. Only 77 out of 3000 scientists surveys believe that humans cause climate change and you only need to look at where they get their funding from to understand why.

When you enable their nonsense it allows people like bernie sanders to call for a "meat tax" among other things.

Flytolive

Not according to 97% of peer-reviewed scientists.


It is the rate of change that is the problem.

http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

Who contributed to The Consensus Project?
The Consensus Project was a citizen-science effort that took over a year from beginning of the project until submission of the paper to the journal Environmental Research Letters. 24 volunteers contributed to the rating of the papers. Half of the raters completed 97.4% of the ratings. All of the major contributors to the project are named as co-authors or thanked by name in the Acknowledgements of the full paper.
In order to invite scientists to self-rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, 40 volunteers helped collect over 8,000 scientists’ emails. A total of 1,200 scientists responded to the invitation with over 2,000 papers each receiving a rating from the paper’s author.
It was very important to the volunteers at The Consensus Project that our published paper be freely available to the public (unfortunately, many peer-reviewed papers are hidden behind a pay-wall). For this reason, we chose the high-impact journal Environmental Research Letters, which charged a $1,600 fee to enable the paper to be open-access. This fee was crowd-funded by donations from Skeptical Science readers. The funds were raised in 9 hours.
The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97%. To help “close the consensus gap”, the website TheConsensusProject.com was created pro-bono by the New York-based design and advertising agency, SJI Associates.

How did you independently check your results?
Nobody is more qualified to judge a paper’s intent than the actual scientists who authored the paper. To provide an independent measure of the level of consensus, we asked the scientists who authored the climate papers to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers. Among all papers that were self-rated as expressing a position on human-caused warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. This result is consistent with our abstract ratings, which found a 97.1% consensus.
We adopted several methodologies to eliminate the potential of bias in our abstract ratings. We developed a strict methodology (see the Supplementary Material for more details) specifying how to categorise each abstract. In addition, each abstract was rated by at least two separate raters, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.
The entire database of 12,464 papers is available in the Supplementary Data. We have also published all our abstract ratings, which are available via a search form. You can also download an anonymised set of the self-ratings from the authors of the papers.
We have also created an Interactive Rating System, encouraging people to rate the papers themselves and compare their ratings to ours. We welcome criticism of our work and we expect that further scrutiny will improve the reliability of our results. By encourage more interaction, we hope people will come to appreciate the diversity and richness of climate research.

What is the significance of the papers that express no position on human-caused global warming?
Naomi Oreskes predicted in 2007 that as human-caused global warming became settled science, fewer papers would see the need to explicitly endorse the consensus. For example, no research papers on geography currently need to state that the Earth is round. Our results confirm this prediction: As the field progresses, scientists feel less and less need to waste the valuable real estate of the paper’s abstract with an affirmation of settled science.
Moreover, most of papers that expressed "no position" in the abstract went on to endorse the consensus in the full paper. We determined this by asking scientists to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers - a way of rating the full paper rather than just the abstract. More than half of the papers that were rated as "no position" based on their abstract were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.

Did your paper include all climate papers?
Our analysis of 12,464 abstracts is the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date. Nevertheless, a common comment we received from the scientists who rated their own papers was that we didn’t include all their climate research. Some even sent us their publication record and CV!
It’s certainly true that there is a great deal more published climate research than the 12,464 abstracts matching the search terms “global climate change” or “global warming”. For example, a search of the Web of Science for “climate change” articles from 1991 to 2011 yields 43,650 papers while a search for “climate” results in over 128,656 papers.
It is possible that a broader search would find more papers rejecting human-caused global warming. However, it is expected that an expanded search would also produce a great deal more papers endorsing the consensus. This is an interesting area for future research. A broader search would allow analysis of how consensus has evolved going further back into the past, to examine when the consensus formed in the scientific literature.

How did the level of consensus differ across different research areas?
The 12,464 climate papers we analysed covered a diverse range of topics (readers are strongly encouraged to use our Interactive Rating System to experience first hand the breadth and depth of climate research). Scientists were categorised as writing research on Impacts, Paleoclimate, Mitigation or Methods. The consensus levels among the scientists across these different categories of research were all 97% or higher:
The issue of consensus across different areas of research is something we plan to investigate further in future research. A 2009 survey of Earth scientists by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman found that as the expertise in climate research increased, agreement that humans were causing global warming grew stronger. An interesting research question is how the level of consensus changes among published research that is more relevant to climate science (as opposed, for instance, to papers focusing on mitigation technologies).

How broad is the consensus?
The crowd-sourcing nature of The Consensus Project enabled us to perform an analysis an order of magnitude greater than previous analyses. We identified 10,188 scientists who had authored climate abstracts endorsing human-caused global warming. These scientists came from at least 74 different countries. We identified nationality from email addresses and given that emails were not obtained for all scientists, it is expected that the number of countries is an underestimate. This indicates the scientific consensus involves a large community of scientists scattered all over the world.

Philosophical Questions

Why does consensus matter?
When a representative sample of the US public are asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer is around 50%. There is a significant gap between public perception and the reality of 97% consensus. This “consensus gap” has real-world consequences. People who think that climate experts disagree about human-caused global warming are less likely to support policies that address climate change.
The consensus gap has persisted for over two decades due to deliberate efforts to cast doubt on the consensus. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen. Similarly, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans:
“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
Closing the consensus gap in the public perception of a scientific consensus is an important step towards meaningful climate action. For this reason, opponents to climate action has sought to widen the consensus gap for over two decades.

Isn’t science decided by evidence?
Absolutely! There is a quote by John Reisman that aptly sums up this sentiment:
“Science isn’t a democracy. It’s a dictatorship. Evidence does the dictating.”
That humans are causing global warming has already been established by many lines of evidence. A number of independent measurements all find a human fingerprint in climate change. Our study establishes that the scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and that their agreement is expressed in the most robust venue for scientific debate – in the peer-reviewed literature.
Consensus doesn’t prove human-caused global warming. Instead, the body of evidence supporting human-caused global warming has led to a scientific consensus.

What other indicators of consensus are there?
The seminal study in this area was done by Naomi Oreskes who surveyed 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003 whose abstracts matched the search term “global climate change”. She found zero papers rejecting the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. We expanded her search by adding another decade of papers and including the search term “global warming”, which swelled the number of papers to over 12,000. Our analysis confirmed Oreskes' result - among the papers matching her search parameters, zero rejected the consensus.
There have also been two surveys of climate scientists in recent years. One study by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman found that the greater the expertise in climate research, the higher the agreement that humans were causing global warming. The other study led by William Anderegg surveyed public statements on climate change by 908 climate scientists. Both of these studies found a 97% consensus. Our paper mirrors the methodology of Anderegg’s study by examining published statements of climate scientists. We found that among scientists publishing climate papers that state a position on human-caused global warming, over 97% endorse the consensus.
Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009. This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent global warming. Our analysis also finds that the consensus is strengthening with an accelerating number of scientists endorsing human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature.
A non-peer-reviewed analysis also examines the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature, examining “global warming” or “global climate change” papers published from 1991 to 9 November 2012. This analysis was actually the first stage of The Consensus Project, conducted by Jim Powell in collaboration with John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Powell’s analysis found 24 explicit rejections of human-caused global warming among 13,950 articles. This is consistent with the results in our paper, which provides peer-reviewed confirmation of Powell’s analysis.

CanoePilot

Your level of wilful ignorance is dangerous and people who subscribe to your line of thinking are dangerous to our country and to the west.

It's Another fabrication.

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?

Flytolive

I think you must be describing yourself.

Connection with Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? Watts has appeared as a paid speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change the Heartland Institute have sponsored since 2008.

Watts says that he approached Heartland in 2011 to ask for help finding a donor to set up a website devoted to presenting NOAA's data as graphs that are easily accessible to the public. Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute in February 2012 revealed that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 for his project.The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest. Watts has written that, aside from the help in funding this project, the Heartland Institute does not pay him a regular salary or fund his blog.



The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet and that human activity is driving it, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.

CanoePilot

Again you attack sources but not the arguments. Typical liberal, must be a sanders voter.