Abbott government gives $4m to help climate contrarian set up Australian centre… “Lomborg uses cost-benefit analysis to advise governments what spending produces the best social value for money spent, concluding that climate change is not a top-priority problem. It says the seriousness of the issue has been overstated, that subsidies for renewable energy make no economic sense, that we should stop spending as much foreign aid on climate projects and that poor countries need continued access to cheap fossil fuels.”

Now the University of Western Australia (UWA) has decided to cancel the project and hand back $4m in federal government funding awarded for it. Christopher Pyne has vowed to find a new home for the Bjørn Lomborg centre.

“Lomborg would be using the name of the university, to put what are largely political opinions, rather than evidence-based statements, using the university’s name.”

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said UWA made the right decision…

“It was very clearly the Government’s design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn’t as significant an issue as it is,” Senator Siewert said.

“It was bad science, and I’m pleased that UWA has realised that.

“The Federal Government clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it.”

Barnaby Joyce (who is careful never to let the phrase “Climate Change” pass his lips) depores the decision saying, “ Universities are places where students can investigate and discuss ideas before reaching their own conclusions.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/climate-contrarian-bjrn-lomborgs-centre-dropped-by-wa-university

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708

>It was bad science, and I’m pleased that UWA has realised that.

That’s not what UWA is officially saying. The statement I read said it wasn’t possible to host this “consensus centre” due to a lack of consensus regarding its value and legitimacy at the uni.

From (not) the answer to everything:

“In April 2015 Lomborg gained further attention as a climate contrarian when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that “a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich”…making fossil fuel so “inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming”.”

which seems a fairly unusual statement for a climate “contrarian” to be making.

The Rev Dodgson said:

From (not) the answer to everything:

“In April 2015 Lomborg gained further attention as a climate contrarian when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that “a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich”…making fossil fuel so “inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming”.”

which seems a fairly unusual statement for a climate “contrarian” to be making.

I don’t think it is fair to say he a climate change skeptic or contrarian, whatever that might mean. Just that he is an economist and reckons we shouldn’t make any real attempts towards reducing emissions, rather should accept it is going to happen and direct our resources into trying to cope with it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

From (not) the answer to everything:

“In April 2015 Lomborg gained further attention as a climate contrarian when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that “a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich”…making fossil fuel so “inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming”.”

which seems a fairly unusual statement for a climate “contrarian” to be making.

AFAICS he is a political scientist with a limited understanding of AGW.
His books are riddled with errors but he is a very clever debater.

He is a confuser rather than a contrarian.

party_pants said:

I don’t think it is fair to say he a climate change skeptic or contrarian, whatever that might mean. Just that he is an economist and reckons we shouldn’t make any real attempts towards reducing emissions, rather should accept it is going to happen and direct our resources into trying to cope with it.

I’m not even sure that he is saying that (although what I know of what he says is all 2nd hand, at best). He seems to be strongly pro “free” market, and against central government directed subsidies of any sort.

So a strange person for our current government to be supporting, with that policy of doing the exact opposite.

Personally I am in favour of a market based approach, so long as hidden future costs are adequately recognised, which of course in a “free” market they are not.

Ian said:

Abbott government gives $4m to help climate contrarian set up Australian centre… “Lomborg uses cost-benefit analysis to advise governments what spending produces the best social value for money spent, concluding that climate change is not a top-priority problem. It says the seriousness of the issue has been overstated, that subsidies for renewable energy make no economic sense, that we should stop spending as much foreign aid on climate projects and that poor countries need continued access to cheap fossil fuels.”

Now the University of Western Australia (UWA) has decided to cancel the project and hand back $4m in federal government funding awarded for it. Christopher Pyne has vowed to find a new home for the Bjørn Lomborg centre.

“Lomborg would be using the name of the university, to put what are largely political opinions, rather than evidence-based statements, using the university’s name.”

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said UWA made the right decision…

“It was very clearly the Government’s design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn’t as significant an issue as it is,” Senator Siewert said.

“It was bad science, and I’m pleased that UWA has realised that.

“The Federal Government clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it.”

Barnaby Joyce (who is careful never to let the phrase “Climate Change” pass his lips) depores the decision saying, “ Universities are places where students can investigate and discuss ideas before reaching their own conclusions.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/climate-contrarian-bjrn-lomborgs-centre-dropped-by-wa-university

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708

So there really was a consensus about it.

>So there really was a consensus about it.

No. The boss of the university said he was all in favour of the centre, but couldn’t get enough enthusiasm from various departments.

So there really was a consensus about it.

——

Ja. It will be Bjørn again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

I don’t think it is fair to say he a climate change skeptic or contrarian, whatever that might mean. Just that he is an economist and reckons we shouldn’t make any real attempts towards reducing emissions, rather should accept it is going to happen and direct our resources into trying to cope with it.

I’m not even sure that he is saying that (although what I know of what he says is all 2nd hand, at best). He seems to be strongly pro “free” market, and against central government directed subsidies of any sort.

So a strange person for our current government to be supporting, with that policy of doing the exact opposite.

Personally I am in favour of a market based approach, so long as hidden future costs are adequately recognised, which of course in a “free” market they are not.

I haven’t read any of his recent stuff, but I do have a copy The Skeptical Environmentalist hidden away on a box somewhere. Although that’s getting on a decade old now.

But anyhow, I think the university have made the right decision. There’s a hint of Orwellian newspeak about the whole thing, to name the body the Australian Consensus Centre and then appoint someone who seems to be a dissenter and an outlier as the head. Given that the purpose of the centre would have been to advise on public policy it is suggestive of a government setting up a body to provide the advice it wants to hear, and dressed up in the university’s reputation. I can see why they have decided to protect their reputation.

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

It is all a waste of time and money. One step forward two steps back.

it is suggestive of a government setting up a body to provide the advice it wants to hear, and dressed up in the university’s reputation.
——
And Lomborg will have the added prestige of gaining the title of Adjunct Professor to add to the kudos of being published by Cambridge University Press (which that uni belatedly regretted).

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

The underlying philosophy behind the Libs climate change policy is “business as usual” for big business interests. Hence their policy of shifting the financial burden for reducing emissions from the producers of those emissions to the taxpayer. That is what their Direct Action policy is all about.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

The underlying philosophy behind the Libs climate change policy is “business as usual” for big business interests. Hence their policy of shifting the financial burden for reducing emissions from the producers of those emissions to the taxpayer. That is what their Direct Action policy is all about.

Not really, the costs are passed on, so the money comes from tax payers anyway. If the Labs hadn’t got in there first they would have been perfectly happy to introduce some sort of carbon pricing scheme, as Howard was.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

The underlying philosophy behind the Libs climate change policy is “business as usual” for big business interests. Hence their policy of shifting the financial burden for reducing emissions from the producers of those emissions to the taxpayer. That is what their Direct Action policy is all about.

Not really, the costs are passed on, so the money comes from tax payers anyway. If the Labs hadn’t got in there first they would have been perfectly happy to introduce some sort of carbon pricing scheme, as Howard was.

So was Turnbull as leader, but it was the issue he was challenged on by Tony Abbott.

Under a carbon price, the cost is passed on to the consumers, not the taxpayer. But it is still the emitter’s problem to deal with and find ways to reduce. Under the Direct Action plan it is business as usual because coal is good for humanity, and the government pays somebody else to reduce carbon somewhere else. There is no incentive for big polluters to strive for reductions in their own operations.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Libs policies on climate change seem very strange unless viewed in the context that they will undo whatever the Labs did, and introduce policies that they can present as being different, even if these policies go totally against their underlying political philosophy.

From that context, taking money away from bodies that supported the actions of the previous government, and directing it towards bodies that are seen as being “contrarian” makes sense.

Even if the latter bodies are strongly against the sort of government controlled “direct action” subsidies that the Libs are introducing.

It is all a waste of time and money. One step forward two steps back.

Nitwit Christopher Pyne has vowed to find a new home for the Bjørn Lomborg centre

Ian said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From (not) the answer to everything:

“In April 2015 Lomborg gained further attention as a climate contrarian when he issued a call for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels on the basis that “a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich”…making fossil fuel so “inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming”.”

which seems a fairly unusual statement for a climate “contrarian” to be making.

AFAICS he is a political scientist with a limited understanding of AGW.
His books are riddled with errors but he is a very clever debater.

He is a confuser rather than a contrarian.

Thats what the Liberals and big business wanted all along and still do

to confuse the issue

bunch of hopeless morons

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

The underlying philosophy behind the Libs climate change policy is “business as usual” for big business interests. Hence their policy of shifting the financial burden for reducing emissions from the producers of those emissions to the taxpayer. That is what their Direct Action policy is all about.

Not really, the costs are passed on, so the money comes from tax payers anyway. If the Labs hadn’t got in there first they would have been perfectly happy to introduce some sort of carbon pricing scheme, as Howard was.

So was Turnbull as leader, but it was the issue he was challenged on by Tony Abbott.

Under a carbon price, the cost is passed on to the consumers, not the taxpayer. But it is still the emitter’s problem to deal with and find ways to reduce. Under the Direct Action plan it is business as usual because coal is good for humanity, and the government pays somebody else to reduce carbon somewhere else. There is no incentive for big polluters to strive for reductions in their own operations.

There has to be incentives for power companies to find new ways to deliver energy with solar, wind, other renewables while cleaning up the current non renewables

and

there has has to be incentives for energy consumers to find new ways to reduce energy consumption

and

they has to be incentives for industry to find new ways to reduce energy consumption, building homes, cars, and other items etc

this is what drives new industries

The older industries need to change as well

I have replaced my older 18 watt fluros with 3 watt leds

so across the year I have made a significant reduction

all heaters should be fitted with digital thermostats rather than just low and high settings you see on a lot of electric heaters

why not spend the 4 million on a Energy Reduction Center to look for ways for all energy producers, and energy consumers to reduce energy usage

Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman

I wish Tony would get rid of his dumb-ass advisers

CrazyNeutrino said:

Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott’s business adviser Maurice Newman

I wish Tony would get rid of his dumb-ass advisers

Like attracts like.

party_pants said:

I don’t think it is fair to say he a climate change skeptic or contrarian, whatever that might mean. Just that he is an economist and reckons we shouldn’t make any real attempts towards reducing emissions, rather should accept it is going to happen and direct our resources into trying to cope with it.

Lomborg is a shill for “Big Oil”, but he is a shill more prone to subtle contrarian arguments rather than the usual obviously-wrong-if-you-just-think-about-it-a-bit arguments that are employed. Essentially, he is the personality designated to make the type of people who frequent science-based forums (or forum offshoots) wonder if they have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to climate change, rather than the usual twats that the likes of Andrew Bolt and his readers adore.

There is, in my opinion, a genuine debate to be had about whether proactive or reactive measures are the better response to AGW, but Lomborg is not the person to be listening to whilst forming ones opinion on that question.

I must hang out at conspiracy forums too much, it is usual form on those to claim that if someone has a contrary opinion it must be because they are a shill for big oil/pharma/banks/defence/government etc.

AwesomeO said:

I must hang out at conspiracy forums too much, it is usual form on those to claim that if someone has a contrary opinion it must be because they are a shill for big oil/pharma/banks/defence/government etc.

You only say that because you’re a shill for insert organisation of choice

AwesomeO said:

I must hang out at conspiracy forums too much, it is usual form on those to claim that if someone has a contrary opinion it must be because they are a shill for big oil/pharma/banks/defence/government etc.

I understand what you are saying. I have only researched Lomborg’s arguments, not his affiliations (or lack there-of) to those who benefit most from the creation of public doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change and the economic consensus on the optimal way to combat climate change. In calling him a “shill for Big Oil”, I’m simply employing a short-hand which most people will understand to categorize his arguments.

esselte said:

AwesomeO said:

I must hang out at conspiracy forums too much, it is usual form on those to claim that if someone has a contrary opinion it must be because they are a shill for big oil/pharma/banks/defence/government etc.

I understand what you are saying. I have only researched Lomborg’s arguments, not his affiliations (or lack there-of) to those who benefit most from the creation of public doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change and the economic consensus on the optimal way to combat climate change. In calling him a “shill for Big Oil”, I’m simply employing a short-hand which most people will understand to categorize his arguments.

Certainly helps me to categorise your argument.

esselte said:

In calling him a “shill for Big Oil”, I’m simply employing a short-hand, which most people will understand, to categorize his arguments.

Edited to add commas.

AwesomeO said:

Certainly helps me to categorise your argument.

I have not made an argument. I have stated an opinion. If you think you can categorize my argument from a few lines of text, you are welcome to think what you like.

if they had any brains they’d have already been researching and making diesel from coal

that way we wouldn’t be importing lots of oil from elsewhere

we would be paying off the national debt a lot faster if we were making diesel or a carbon based fuel for vehicles from coal

Interviewed by Andrew Bolt on Channel Ten on Sunday, Joyce, the agriculture minister, said the decision was a “disgrace” and suggested academics had been influenced by a lucrative web of climate change consultancies.

“Apparently, you’re not allowed to have fascists, Isis or Bjørn Lomborg speaking at the University of Western Australia. Obviously, they don’t believe in debate,” he said.

“Don’t stand between a bureaucrat and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of consultancy fees, and that’s the biggest threat that Bjørn Lomborg is to them, that he might actually question this unparalleled commitment to reporting about reporting about reporting for reporters’ sake,” he said.

Joyce also rejected the idea that climate change had an impact on the incidence of drought conditions in Australia, as the government announced a $333mn “top up” package of drought assistance for farmers and rural communities.

“Barnaby, the weather – let’s talk about it, then. Parts of western Queensland are now in drought. Do you blame global warming?” Bolt asked.

“No. This just – this is part and parcel of it … since Dorothea Mackellar talked about, you know, droughts and flooding rains … It will rain. It will rain again and those people will be back in production. We’ve got record prices in beef and sheep for them to enjoy. We’ve got to look after them until they get to that point because then they’ll deliver bucket-loads of money back into our economy,” he said.

“There’s a logic behind this. It’s not a permanent removal of rain … You’ll have wet periods. You’ll have dry periods. Our job is to look after people, to make sure that they get back into production and we’re doing that.”

——-
But asked by Bolt about his confidence in the BoM and CSIRO and other “warmist institutions”, Joyce said they were part of a system of climate “guilt piracy” to justify new taxes.

“Well, it’s not too warm here, I can assure you,” he said. “But, look, I just – I’m always sceptical of the idea that the way that anybody is going to change the climate … with bureaucrats and taxes. All that does is – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. I make you feel guilty so I can get your money and put it in my pocket and send reports backwards and forwards to one another. I want to make sure that we’re effective in delivering outcomes. I’m absolutely certain that single-handedly Australia will do nothing to change any temperatures in the future … There is an ebb and flow in temperatures all the time.”

———

I think his hat is on too tight

Warmist…. Fuck me….

Mr buffy is cooking cold roast chook stirfry. Otherwise known as cooking up the leftover stuff in the fridge.

Sorry.

>>>I understand what you are saying.
I have only researched Lomborg’s arguments, not his affiliations
(or lack there-of) to those who benefit most from the
creation of public doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change
and the economic consensus on the optimal way to combat climate change.<<<

.
.
.
Frontline of the battle against cglobal warming

It’s all a plot by the UN to overthrow democracy and let the illumanti run the place…

poikilotherm said:

It’s all a plot by the UN to overthrow democracy capitalism and let the illumanti run the place…

•fixed•

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

It’s all a plot by the UN to overthrow democracy capitalism and let the illumanti run the place…

•fixed•

It’s all a plot by the UN to overthrow the 1 percent rich and let the illumanti run the place…

Really fixed

Bjørn Lomborg’s assessment of climate change isn’t just a ‘contrarian’ take. It’s at odds with peer-reviewed science and isn’t entitled to a platform at taxpayer expense

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

Bubblecar said:

Bjørn Lomborg’s assessment of climate change isn’t just a ‘contrarian’ take. It’s at odds with peer-reviewed science and isn’t entitled to a platform at taxpayer expense

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

.

An article by Will Grant, writer of personal opinion pieces in left wing Guardian & The Conversation. An academic whose income is not only tax payer funded, but relies heavily on the imagined ‘climate crisis’ meme. A parasite living off the climate crisis industry.

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

Bjørn Lomborg’s assessment of climate change isn’t just a ‘contrarian’ take. It’s at odds with peer-reviewed science and isn’t entitled to a platform at taxpayer expense

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

.

An article by Will Grant, writer of personal opinion pieces in left wing Guardian & The Conversation. An academic whose income is not only tax payer funded, but relies heavily on the imagined ‘climate crisis’ meme. A parasite living off the climate crisis industry.

>>So the academics and students at the University of Western Australia had every right to defend their reputation as a place that values actual scholarship – to defend their platform to be heard by students and the wider community – from the muckraking of the Abbott government and climate change action sceptics.

Lomborg’s assessment of the potential impact of climate change isn’t just a lighthearted contrarian take. It stands at odds with what the peer-reviewed science says, and Lomborg has presented insufficient evidence to sway such thinking.<<

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

Sounds right to me.

PermeateFree said:

Lomborg’s assessment of the potential impact of climate change isn’t just a lighthearted contrarian take. It stands at odds with what the peer-reviewed science says, and Lomborg has presented insufficient evidence to sway such thinking.<<

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

Sounds right to me.

“lighthearted contrarian”

“at odds with what the peer-reviewed science”

The author is an out-right liar as this article from Lomborg proves.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

No wonder you agree with the left wing liar.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Lomborg’s assessment of the potential impact of climate change isn’t just a lighthearted contrarian take. It stands at odds with what the peer-reviewed science says, and Lomborg has presented insufficient evidence to sway such thinking.<<

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

Sounds right to me.

“lighthearted contrarian”

“at odds with what the peer-reviewed science”

The author is an out-right liar as this article from Lomborg proves.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

No wonder you agree with the left wing liar.

Silly boy!

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Lomborg’s assessment of the potential impact of climate change isn’t just a lighthearted contrarian take. It stands at odds with what the peer-reviewed science says, and Lomborg has presented insufficient evidence to sway such thinking.<<

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/universities-censor-bad-ideas-all-the-time-tim-wilson-its-called-learning

Sounds right to me.

“lighthearted contrarian”

“at odds with what the peer-reviewed science”

The author is an out-right liar as this article from Lomborg proves.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

No wonder you agree with the left wing liar.

Silly boy!

I like how easy it is for Lomborg to show what ignorant lying idealogues people like you & Will Grant are, using peer reviewed science.

Something I don’t understand about climate change skeptics is lets say the entire thing is a conspiracy made up by thousands of independent scientists, doesn’t it still make sense to shift away from non-renewable energy. It still pollutes our planet, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population who can hold the world to ransom, funds terrorists and starts wars by those that want to steal it from others. Those that control energy production control the planet

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

“lighthearted contrarian”

“at odds with what the peer-reviewed science”

The author is an out-right liar as this article from Lomborg proves.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

No wonder you agree with the left wing liar.

Silly boy!

I like how easy it is for Lomborg to show what ignorant lying idealogues people like you & Will Grant are, using peer reviewed science.

:))))))
No hope for you Observer.

Cymek said:

>>> Something I don’t understand about climate change skeptics is… <<<

Something I don’t get is how people can stare at the facts in their faces & ignore it.

Don’t mark me as skeptic or a booster, but it is frequently said in these debates, (just recently on the Drum) that 97% of scientists support ummmm something, (what they support seems to vary) what is the source of this reference, who are the 97% and what was the question that they all agreed with?

AwesomeO said:

Don’t mark me as skeptic or a booster, but it is frequently said in these debates, (just recently on the Drum) that 97% of scientists support ummmm something, (what they support seems to vary) what is the source of this reference, who are the 97% and what was the question that they all agreed with?

89% of dietitians support that statement.

AwesomeO said:

Don’t mark me as skeptic or a booster, but it is frequently said in these debates, (just recently on the Drum) that 97% of scientists support ummmm something, (what they support seems to vary) what is the source of this reference, who are the 97% and what was the question that they all agreed with?

that’s all crap.

97% of alarmists cannot even agree on how much warming they expect from 2 x co2 equivalent.

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=what+do+97%25+climate+scientists+actually+agree+on%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

take you pick from these results awesomeO

97% of universities looking for grant money,

and 97% of climate researches looking to get some of that funding

agree not to disagree

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=what+do+97%25+climate+scientists+actually+agree+on%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

take you pick from these results awesomeO

I have gone down the google route before, no help. That lists multiple statements, by multiple agents and I am expected to believe that 97% of climate scientists agree with each and everyone? And no sample size? Are climate scientists scientist meteorologists or model makers or what?

I am trying to find the source and something tangible behinds the usual forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists do you?” Which is usually how this meme is framed.

PS that same Google search brings up “ the myth of the climate change 97%”.

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=what+do+97%25+climate+scientists+actually+agree+on%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

take you pick from these results awesomeO

I have gone down the google route before, no help. That lists multiple statements, by multiple agents and I am expected to believe that 97% of climate scientists agree with each and everyone? And no sample size? Are climate scientists scientist meteorologists or model makers or what?

I am trying to find the source and something tangible behinds the usual forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists do you?” Which is usually how this meme is framed.

don’t waste your time.

i think the main agreement is the earth is warming and the humans are responsible for a goodly proportion. i would say there would be fairly close agreement on how much. future predictions would vary with what models different groups use.

well i do try to do searches that will bring up a variety. though if i want a specific outcome i will do more precise search terms.

ChrispenEvan said:

well i do try to do searches that will bring up a variety. though if i want a specific outcome i will do more precise search terms.

I have done the search before, it seems to me to be a more of a meme used as a generic put down and applicable to just about any statement, which is why I say 97% of scientists agree on something… with loose parameters as to what scientists of which dsciplines, how many, and to what question.

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=what+do+97%25+climate+scientists+actually+agree+on%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

take you pick from these results awesomeO

I have gone down the google route before, no help. That lists multiple statements, by multiple agents and I am expected to believe that 97% of climate scientists agree with each and everyone? And no sample size? Are climate scientists scientist meteorologists or model makers or what?

I am trying to find the source and something tangible behinds the usual forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists do you?” Which is usually how this meme is framed.

If you are really interested in Global Warming and whether it is real or not, then spend a few hours reading through the following link, which is loaded with scientific information. Unfortunately it is not a subject that can be explained in a few statements.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

AwesomeO said:

PS that same Google search brings up “ the myth of the climate change 97%”.

in the last IPCC report, AwesomeO, was the models average result for a doubling of co2.

Its lower limit was lower than the last assessment – 1.5C to 4.5C,,,

what the last report didn’t provide > last report < was a ‘best guess of warming for the 2 x co2 scenario,

because of disagreement between model predictions AND THE DATA over the last twenty years.

No warming!

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=what+do+97%25+climate+scientists+actually+agree+on%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

take you pick from these results awesomeO

I have gone down the google route before, no help. That lists multiple statements, by multiple agents and I am expected to believe that 97% of climate scientists agree with each and everyone? And no sample size? Are climate scientists scientist meteorologists or model makers or what?

I am trying to find the source and something tangible behinds the usual forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists do you?” Which is usually how this meme is framed.

If you are really interested in Global Warming and whether it is real or not, then spend a few hours reading through the following link, which is loaded with scientific information. Unfortunately it is not a subject that can be explained in a few statements.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I was only interested in the one statement that is regularly trotted out. Seems to me the people who say it have no more knowledge of its truthiness than me.

it comes from a study looking at papers about climate change submitted/published, and what they say.

PermeateFree said:

If you are really interested in Global Warming and whether it is real or not, then spend a few hours reading through the following link, which is loaded with scientific information. Unfortunately it is not a subject that can be explained in a few statements.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

LOL sceptical science

LOL

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

‘ere you are Awesome)

Link

from the NASA link which is the first one using those google results actually explain what those 97% agree with.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

-) +O

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

PS that same Google search brings up “ the myth of the climate change 97%”.

in the last IPCC report, AwesomeO, was the models average result for a doubling of co2.

Its lower limit was lower than the last assessment – 1.5C to 4.5C,,,

what the last report didn’t provide > last report < was a ‘best guess of warming for the 2 x co2 scenario,

because of disagreement between model predictions AND THE DATA over the last twenty years.

No warming!

The Deniers are very well organised with many being sponsored by major co2 producers and although relatively small in number, they yell very loudly because they have vested interests. Just read the science and not their distorted opinions.

Seems to me the people who say it have no more knowledge of its truthiness than me.

logical fallacy, personal incredulity.

And then there’s here even got references n stuff.

ChrispenEvan said:

from the NASA link which is the first one using those google results actually explain what those 97% agree with.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

we’ve been through that site a hundred times.

It lists organisations who have statements endorsing, written by the boards of organisations, not surveys of scientists.

In some cases the majority of members of organisations have vehemently protested and utterly disagreed with the boards statements

poikilotherm said:

‘ere you are Awesome)

Link

Cheers, best one yet.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

PS that same Google search brings up “ the myth of the climate change 97%”.

in the last IPCC report, AwesomeO, was the models average result for a doubling of co2.

Its lower limit was lower than the last assessment – 1.5C to 4.5C,,,

what the last report didn’t provide > last report < was a ‘best guess of warming for the 2 x co2 scenario,

because of disagreement between model predictions AND THE DATA over the last twenty years.

No warming!

The Deniers are very well organised with many being sponsored by major co2 producers and although relatively small in number, they yell very loudly because they have vested interests. Just read the science and not their distorted opinions.

the alarmists are part of the climate crisis industry, & big renewable energy industry.

It is in their interest to ignore the facts.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I have gone down the google route before, no help. That lists multiple statements, by multiple agents and I am expected to believe that 97% of climate scientists agree with each and everyone? And no sample size? Are climate scientists scientist meteorologists or model makers or what?

I am trying to find the source and something tangible behinds the usual forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists do you?” Which is usually how this meme is framed.

If you are really interested in Global Warming and whether it is real or not, then spend a few hours reading through the following link, which is loaded with scientific information. Unfortunately it is not a subject that can be explained in a few statements.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I was only interested in the one statement that is regularly trotted out. Seems to me the people who say it have no more knowledge of its truthiness than me.

Well unless you take the trouble to read the information, then you will never know and be easily hoodwinked by unscrupulous people with vested interests.

ChrispenEvan said:

Seems to me the people who say it have no more knowledge of its truthiness than me.

logical fallacy, personal incredulity.

Nope, I would estimate those most people who say things on forums like “do you disagree with 97% of scientists” as a put down, don’t actually know what they are saying. I am looking at Pioks reference though, which was miles better than your offering of a Google search. I can do a Google search. Your Google search also came up with 97% being a myth so maybe you are just googling and learning the same as me?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

If you are really interested in Global Warming and whether it is real or not, then spend a few hours reading through the following link, which is loaded with scientific information. Unfortunately it is not a subject that can be explained in a few statements.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

LOL sceptical science

LOL

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal. Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,. The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms, with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

The only stance deniers can take to combat science and those who present it, is to discredit it. They are just empty vessels.

fuck off curve. i don’t spoon feed dicks.

the reason i give fuckwits like you google results is so you can pick your own bias.

poikilotherm said:

‘ere you are Awesome)

Link

From that, it would be find that from all the papers on AGW, 97% agreed with 32% of the abstracts endorsing AGW? That’s a bit different to the forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists then?”

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

in the last IPCC report, AwesomeO, was the models average result for a doubling of co2.

Its lower limit was lower than the last assessment – 1.5C to 4.5C,,,

what the last report didn’t provide > last report < was a ‘best guess of warming for the 2 x co2 scenario,

because of disagreement between model predictions AND THE DATA over the last twenty years.

No warming!

The Deniers are very well organised with many being sponsored by major co2 producers and although relatively small in number, they yell very loudly because they have vested interests. Just read the science and not their distorted opinions.

the alarmists are part of the climate crisis industry, & big renewable energy industry.

It is in their interest to ignore the facts.

Just read the science.

ChrispenEvan said:

fuck off curve. i don’t spoon feed dicks.

You are right, the best you could manage was a link to Google.

reread it.

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.

doesn’t say what you claim.

ChrispenEvan said:

the reason i give fuckwits like you google results is so you can pick your own bias.

Ahhh that’s the reason is it? Not cos you didn’t know yourself? You would have been better off saying nothing rather than just pointing at Google.

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

but wait, there’s more

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

poikilotherm said:

more

but wait, there’s more

FAIL fix

ChrispenEvan said:

reread it.

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.

doesn’t say what you claim.

I read it as 66.4% expressed no position. Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed that position that humans are causing global warming.

To me that is a different thing to saying, as is usually declared 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

Emphasis on those that did express a position, which is not, I suspect 97% of scientists.

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. Some one always trots out that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, or words like, “so 97% of scientists are wrong are they?”

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

Global warming is not even occuring; you fuckwit

AwesomeO said:

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. “

Yes, by the people who can’t account for the ending of a warm trend, twenty years ago.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. Some one always trots out that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, or words like, “so 97% of scientists are wrong are they?”

Well I have given you scientific information, so has poikilotherm that support that claim, so do you still thing it is wrong. Perhaps you would rather be guided by the Observer?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

Global warming is not even occuring; you fuckwit

Just read the science!

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. “

Yes, by the people who can’t account for the ending of a warm trend, twenty years ago.

Just read the science surrounding that claim to find it is totally worthless.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

Global warming is not even occuring; you fuckwit

Just read the science!

yep, I’ve posted the science from both satellite temperature data sets

on this thread

the most accurate temperature data we have

and they both agree that there has been NO warming for near twenty years.

That’s the science.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. “

Yes, by the people who can’t account for the ending of a warm trend, twenty years ago.

Just read the science surrounding that claim to find it is totally worthless.

that claim comes in the form of temperature data.

No warming near twenty years fuckwit

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Yes, by the people who can’t account for the ending of a warm trend, twenty years ago.

Just read the science surrounding that claim to find it is totally worthless.

that claim comes in the form of temperature data.

No warming near twenty years fuckwit

and yoiu know it… That’s why you’re hanging for a super strong El Nino

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve, Global Warming and its consequences is NOT a debate between alarmists and deniers, but about science and vested interests.

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. Some one always trots out that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, or words like, “so 97% of scientists are wrong are they?”

Well I have given you scientific information, so has poikilotherm that support that claim, so do you still thing it is wrong. Perhaps you would rather be guided by the Observer?

Well that claim as expressed that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming does seem to be still up in the air. I am happy to accept that of a percentage of scientists who responded to a percentage of papers which took the position that climate change was caused by humans 97% agreed with that position in those papers.

I have made no claims about global warming, just trying to drill down to that claim that is constantly repeated re 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I am just trying to figure out a claim that is almost always trotted out during debates. Some one always trots out that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, or words like, “so 97% of scientists are wrong are they?”

Well I have given you scientific information, so has poikilotherm that support that claim, so do you still thing it is wrong. Perhaps you would rather be guided by the Observer?

Well that claim as expressed that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming does seem to be still up in the air. I am happy to accept that of a percentage of scientists who responded to a percentage of papers which took the position that climate change was caused by humans 97% agreed with that position in those papers.

I have made no claims about global warming, just trying to drill down to that claim that is constantly repeated re 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

Well The Observer is still after your soul, so don’t walk down any dark allies without a book on global warming under your arm.

Argument about the fact of AGW has been going around in circles for the last 10 years, which is just what the deniers want… means no action.

Time to call out Abbott, Joyce and the rest of flat-earthers. And time to talk about the solutions and to act.

Much as I shouldn’t…..did anyone come up with an answer on the source of the 97% of scientists thing? Just to save me reading the whole thread?

(I have a feeling I knew the answer once. But it might have been a long time ago)

ask curve he’s all over it now.

This might be it. There is a link within the Scientific American piece:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

But it would appear to be something you have to log into. Anyway, that’s Quite Interesting.

buffy said:

Much as I shouldn’t…..did anyone come up with an answer on the source of the 97% of scientists thing? Just to save me reading the whole thread?

(I have a feeling I knew the answer once. But it might have been a long time ago)

Click on the only useful posts buffy…mine ;)

they looked at over 11 000 papers on climate. out of those about 32% mentioned, or were concerned with, agw. of those 97% agreed that humans are responsible for a % of the effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

ChrispenEvan said:

they looked at over 11 000 papers on climate. out of those about 32% mentioned, or were concerned with, agw. of those 97% agreed that humans are responsible for a % of the effects.

Why so angry at me then? That was a conclusion that I made and you objected to.

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

reread it.

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.

doesn’t say what you claim.

I read it as 66.4% expressed no position. Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed that position that humans are causing global warming.

To me that is a different thing to saying, as is usually declared 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

Emphasis on those that did express a position, which is not, I suspect 97% of scientists.

ChrispenEvan said:

they looked at over 11 000 papers on climate. out of those about 32% mentioned, or were concerned with, agw. of those 97% agreed that humans are responsible for a % of the effects.

Or to put it another way, what I said,

AwesomeO said:

poikilotherm said:

‘ere you are Awesome)

Link

From that, it would be find that from all the papers on AGW, 97% agreed with 32% of the abstracts endorsing AGW? That’s a bit different to the forum put down of “so you disagree with 97% of scientists then?”

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

reread it.

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.

doesn’t say what you claim.

I read it as 66.4% expressed no position. Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed that position that humans are causing global warming.

To me that is a different thing to saying, as is usually declared 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

Emphasis on those that did express a position, which is not, I suspect 97% of scientists.

I think I agree with this understanding of the bit quoted. Of the ones who offered a position (less than 50%), most of them felt humans are making a contribution.

Good refs poik. Thanks.

buffy said:

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

reread it.

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.

doesn’t say what you claim.

I read it as 66.4% expressed no position. Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed that position that humans are causing global warming.

To me that is a different thing to saying, as is usually declared 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

Emphasis on those that did express a position, which is not, I suspect 97% of scientists.

I think I agree with this understanding of the bit quoted. Of the ones who offered a position (less than 50%), most of them felt humans are making a contribution.

They from memory were comparing published papers on Climate Science. A scientific paper confirming global warming is happening, is surely not required to actual state that fact, as the results of their paper speak for themselves, plus the view is generally accepted in scientific communities. However, their work may not be directly involved, as to whether human activity is responsible and they are then expressing an opinion, or again some may be actually stated in their published results.

The_observer said:

>>>I understand what you are saying.
I have only researched Lomborg’s arguments, not his affiliations
(or lack there-of) to those who benefit most from the
creation of public doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change
and the economic consensus on the optimal way to combat climate change.<<<

Hey, you’ve eventually managed to post graphs which actually have labelled axes! Good for you. Baby steps, sir. Keep taking them and a whole new world will open up.