onsdag 24. januar 2018

Klimarealistene og amatørfornekternes siste PR-stunt




Klimarealistene og amatørfornekternes siste PR-stunt er gamle forslitte forlengst debunkede fossil brensel-sponsete frontgruppe / tankesmie ekkokammer-blog propaganda-løgner resirkulert enda en gang. Gjesp. I dag er det Olga 69 som er tema.

 


Poenget med dette er at alle artikler i klimaområdet ikke nødvendigvis handler om klimaendringer, og hvorvidt de er menneskeskapte eller ikke. Da er det jo ikke naturlig å telle med dem. Svært liten andel av forskning innen fysikk bekrefter tyngdekraften. Dette betyr ikke at  tyngdekraften står svakt blant fysikere.

The point of this is that all articles in the climate area are not necessarily about climate change, and whether or not its man-made. Then it is not natural to count them in in a survey on how many papers supports the AGW theory.

Also, very few papers in physics research confirms gravity. This does not mean that gravity theory is weak among physicists.

Just because a paper on natural science does not mention or “confirm” the planet is a globe, this does not mean very few natural scientists thinks the planet is a globe.

Det såkalte 97% konsensus er bare tull skriver Einar R. Bordewich i en artikkel i Avisa Nordland. Javel. Har han funnet noe nytt som er blitt oversett tidligere?

Nei!

Hele artikkelen stinker lang vei og refererer til den konspiratoriske fornekterbloggen Popular Technology (bla a. kjent for å sverte Skeptikal Science) og den velkjente fornekterbloggen WUWT, som er selve edderkoppen i klimafornekter ekkokammer nettverket. Argumentene i artikkelen er forslitte resirkulerte løgner som har vært i omløp i åresvis.

Det handler ikke om å informere, bare om å så tvil og lage støy. I dette tilfellet er det og en del av den eviggående svertekampanjen mot nettstedet Skeptikal Science, som i mange år har vært en hovedfiende for de oljeindustri-sponsede tankesmiene og frontgruppene som utgjør de "proffe" klimafornektere (Climatedepot/CFACT, WUWT), som forer amatørfornekterne med artikler som disse skal spre videre i sosiale medier. Og det er jo påfallende at det er Cooks studie som igjen blir angrepet, selv om en rekke nyere studier bekrefter denne, ja til og med kommer frem til et enda høyere konsensus. Kommentarfeltet under artikkelen er selvsagt et ekkokammer av Klimakreasjonister..ehh...realister.


Det skrives:

"Hva er det så de faktisk finner? Jo at 66,4% av forskerrapportene ikke tar stilling til om klimaendringene er menneskeskapt eller ikke. (Antropogen Global Warming- AGW). Kun 32,6% av rapportene mener at AGW er en faktor - men faktoren kvantifiseres ikke, mens 0,7 % avviser AGW og 0,3% er usikker om den globale oppvarmingen er menneskeskapt i følge Cook et al."
 
Jeg har sett litt nærmere på tallene i artikkelen (32.6 %  og  66.4%) og visste jeg hadde sett resonnementet før. Jeg måtte bare komme på navnet....Richard Tol!!

https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-tol 

(Følger du linken til den bedritne fornekter-konspira bloggen Popular Technology (sic), dukker han jaggu opp i artikkelen.)

Tol, som tidligere har bidratt i Klimapanelet, og som nå jobber for fossil brensel klimafornekter tankesmien Global Warming Policy Foundation, skrev et papir som kritiserte Cook. Artikkelforfatteren resirkulerer bare Tols allerede avviste kritikk, (Tol 2014), som inneholder hele 24 til dels grove feil.

I motsetning til hva Richard postulerte, var det ikke et stort skifte fra AGW-godkjenning eller "tok ingen stilling til / nøytral" til avvisning av AGW.

Her er en forenklet illustrasjon for å vise hva Richards blunder resulterte i. Også den kvalitetssikrede bloggen HotWobber avkler beskyldningene og dette latterlige regnestykket her.




Med andre ord, hvor det var et skifte av kategori for et abstrakt, skiftet det bare litt i kategoriseringen (hovedsakelig fra eksplisitt til implisitt påtegning, eller implisitt til nøytral eller omvendt) - og om noe hadde forskerne en tendens til å lene til den konservative siden hvis det var en marginal beslutning. Det var knapt noen abstrakter som ble omklassifisert fra "nøytal" til avvisning, og ingen fra godkjenning til avvisning. Diagrammene viser at ut av 595 omklassifiserte abstrakter, ville bare fem papirer ha gått fra "nøytral" til "avvisning av AGW" og bare ett papir fra godkjent til å avvise.


Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003747

Her er gjennomgangen av alle 24 feil i angrepet på 97% konsensus.



Det ironiske er at Tol selv kom fram til tallet 91%, og han er jo egentlig enig i at det er et sterkt konsensus. Han sier:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.” and “It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration.”.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html








En annen debunk:


Claims #1–4
"That [97% consensus] survey has of course been substantially discredited ... 35 percent of the abstracts were misclassified, and they were classified to the pro-global warming side. Professor Richard Tol ... has disassociated himself from that and said it's not reliable."
Verdict: False on all counts.
All of Neil's claims here refer to comments economist Richard Tol has made about our paper on his personal blog. He submitted those comments to the journal that published our paper, Environmental Research Letters, whose editor promptly rejected his submission. The editor noted that in addition to being "written in a rather opinionated style" and reading "more like a blog post than a scientific comment," most importantly,

"I do not see that the submission has identified any clear errors in the Cook et al. paper that would call its conclusions into question."
The claim that we "misclassified" 35 percent of abstracts is simply based on Tol's preference that our survey be less precise and make more sweeping generalizations. Our team read and categorized every abstract based on what they said about the causes of global warming, whereas Tol believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category. We classified these abstracts correctly based on the categories established in our study. Let's just take one quick example, from (Soulé 1992):
"Humans are engaged in an uncontrolled experiment in planetary heating. Each decade, the concentration of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing by about 4%. All signs point toward unprecedented rates of warming and climate change."
We categorized that as an explicit endorsement of human-caused global warming. Tol would call it "no opinion". You be the judge as to who's misclassified it.
Additionally, when we compared our abstract ratings to the authors' self-ratings based on their full papers, contrary to Neil's claim, we found that we had classified them more in the 'no opinion' category and less in the pro-human caused global warming categories than the authors themselves.









Histogram of Abstract Rating (expressed in percentages) minus Self-Rating. 1 = Explicit endorsement with quantification, 4 = No Expressed Position, 7 = Explicit rejection with quantification. Green bars are where self-ratings have a higher level of endorsement of AGW than the abstract rating. Red bars are where self-ratings have a lower level of endorsement of AGW than the abstract rating.
 Histogram of Abstract Rating (expressed in percentages) minus Self-Rating. 1–3 = endorsed human-caused global warming, 4 = no expressed position, 5–7 = rejected human-caused global warming. Green bars are where self-ratings have a higher level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating. Red bars are where self-ratings have a lower level of endorsement of human-caused global warming than the abstract rating.

Regarding Neil's claim that Tol has disassociated himself from our study: Tol has never been associated with the analysis of our study. He was one of 29,083 authors of studies that we examined, and one of 1,200 authors who participated in the self-rating phase. So the statement that he has disassociated himself is meaningless. His opinions about how his own papers should be categorized are included in the 97 percent consensus in self-rated papers.
Those author self-ratings are a key component of our study and conclusions. In both the abstract ratings and author self-ratings, we found the same 97 percent consensus result. Tol has only criticized the abstract ratings survey; even if you disregard those results, the 97 percent self-ratings consensus remains.
This is why our results remain widely accepted. Neil's assertion that they have been "widely discredited" is simply a repetition of baseless claims made on climate contrarian blogs. If Neil relies on contrarian blogs for his climate information, that may explain why he is woefully misinformed on the subject.
________________
For gøy, tenkte jeg å teste påstanden om at bare 0.3% av forskerne har en oppfatning at mer enn 50% av den globale oppfatningen er menneskeskapt, noe som påstås i https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9. Dataene til Coock et all er på nettet, og en rask gjennomgang av dem med noen linjer i R gir......... trommehvirvel!..... 98%! Hvordan disse klimaskeptikerne teller, er et studium i seg selv. (Rasmus Benestad)

Cooks data er offentlig tilgjengelig her og her.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.

Den norske faktasjekkeren Faktisk.no debunker angrepet på 97% ganske lett:

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/gK2/66-prosent-av-verdens-klimaforskere-konkluderer-ikke-med-at-mennesker-kan-pavirke-klimaet

Værmelderen Anthony Watts er ikke spesielt god i matte. Han øker faktisk konsensus til 99.6%. Den kvalitetssikrete bloggen HotWhopper forklarer:

Anthony Watts has kindly pointed out that the scientific consensus on climate change is changing. He wrote the very strange headline: "‘The 97% climate consensus’starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it". Apparently some drongo (who does this every year IIRC) has only managed to dig up 485 "papers" that he claims " in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future."

I expect that, as in past collections, many of findings of those 485 don't dispute climate change, and many probably support the fact that human activity is causing global warming, but I haven't bothered checking (because that's not the point of this little article). What struck me was that 485 was a pretty small number given the vast number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change these days.

If you go to Google Scholar and search for the term "climate change" and select "2017-2017", you'll find there were "About 115,000 results". Now 485 is 0.4% of 115,000, so even if all those 485 papers disputed the greenhouse effect (which they don't), it would still mean that one could argue that 97% has become 99.6% :D

Now that even beats the 98.4% of WUWT-ers who deny straightforward science. Who'd have thought!


VIDERE:

Det pussige med kronikken er at den linker til fornekterbloggen WUWT og til en studie fra 2013 som tilsynelatende skal støtte artikkelforfatterens argument.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

Dette er en studie der American Meteorological Society sine medlemmer uttaler seg om de tror at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte eller ikke. Ifølge den fossil brensel sponsete Heartland Institute lobbyisten og værmelderen Anthony Watts, er det kun 52% av disse som tror på AGW.



BONUS: Se hvordan den fossil brensel sponete tankesmien Heartland Institute jobber med å undergrave vitenskap:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate


Men denne studien viser at over 90% av AMS-medlemmer, som faktisk driver med klimarelatert forskning, mener oppvarmingen skyldes mennesker (en oppdatert versjon av studien fra 2016 viser enda større oppslutning).

https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

Kronikkforfatterens egne kilder motsier altså påstandene hans.

HER ER NEMLIG HVA FORFATTERE AV DENNE STUDIEN SELV SIER OM SIN EGEN STUDIE:

Statement by Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Paul Croft, Keith Seitter, and Anthony Leiserowitz:

"James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change."

"We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced."

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions."


https://www.denialism.com/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/ 

Dette får altså Watts til å bli bare 52%. Forstå det den som kan. Tallene i studeier ER faktisk i samsvar med hva den fagfellevurderte literaturen mener om AGW. Husk at konsensus er ikke en meningsmåling, men et tall på hvor mye av den fagfellevurderte literaturen som faktisk støtter teorien om AGW.

Bloggen HotWopper debunker Watts uærlighet veldig brutalt. Her er de korrekte tallene:

New survey shows more AMS members accept global warming 
There was a report of a survey of American Meteorological Society (AMS) members published a couple of years ago, which deniers touted quite a bit. It showed that the least well-informed about climate science were also the least likely to accept that humans are causing global warming. Just released are the initial results of another survey of AMS members by some of the same researchers. It's not exactly a repeat, but the questions are not dissimilar. They are close enough for a comparison I believe. There's been a shift toward understanding climate science among AMS members since the first survey was conducted.

The first thing I noticed was that participation in the survey more than doubled this time around. There was a very good response rate from AMS members with 4,092 responding to this years' survey compared to 1,854 in 2014:



The actual questions and responses for the 2016 survey are shown below. The big improvement is that the question is timebound, not open to many and varied interpretations, which was one of the concerns with the previous survey:



There are more nuanced and detailed questions in the survey, which you can download here. This includes questions about mitigation, and questions on the shift in thinking of AMS members over the past couple of years. Eighty seven per cent (87%) of the 17% who had changed their thinking said they were now more convinced that human-caused climate change is happening. Thirteen per cent were less convinced.

The next time some denier quotes the old AMS survey results at you, you can now point them to this latest one showing that a not insignificant number of AMS members have learnt something more about climate change in the past couple of years.

Stenhouse, Neil, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein, Paul Croft, Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and Anthony Leiserowitz. "Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 95, no. 7 (2014): 1029-1040. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (open access)

Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016) A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication. (pdf here)

The America Meteorological Society er 100% bak teorien om de menneskeskapte klimaendringene og senest i oktober 2018 skrev de dette brevet til President Trump:

"There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust."

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-president-trump-on-climate-change/

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/


MEN HVA ER SANNHETEN OM KONSENSUS NÅ?

Vi trenger ikke engang Cook for å finne et konsensus over 97%. En rekke nyere studier bekrefter en konsensus på over 99%. Nå er også de fleste oljeselskapenes egne forskere og eksperter enige om AGW!
 
The consensus among publishing scientists is demonstrably not 97%. Instead, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0270467617707079

During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity.[...] The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Powell-2015.pdf





The consensus did not arise from a vote or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. Scientists come to a consensus after a convergence of evidence leaves no significant doubt about a result. It happens a lot in science. There is a consensus that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. Scientists didn't vote on that or gather to agree and find evidence to support that agreement. They came to consensus after the research from multiple independent lines of evidence converged.The same process has taken place in climate science. Scientists didn't vote on the validity of AGW or come together and agree before the evidence came in. They came to consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW.

Konsensusen oppsto ikke ved en avstemming eller i en forsamling. Det er en direkte konsekvens av bevisene. Forskere kommer til enighet etter at en konvergens av bevis ikke gir noen vesentlig tvil om et resultat. Det skjer ofte i vitenskapen. Det er enighet om at lysets hastighet er universets fartsgrense. Forskere stemte ikke på det eller samlet seg for å bli enige og finne bevis for å støtte denne avtalen. De kom til konsensus etter at forskningen fra flere uavhengige beviser ble samlet. Den samme prosessen har skjedd i klimavitenskap. Forskere stemte ikke for AGWs gyldighet eller kom sammen og var enige før bevisene kom inn. De kom til konsensus basert på flere uavhengige bevislinjer som konvergeres for å støtte AGW.

Det finnes ikke en eneste vitenskapelig institutt, akademi eller organisasjon internasjonalt som ikke støtter teorien om at mennesker bidrar nå mest til klimaendringer. Nærmere 200 av klodens nasjoner har erklært at de vil bidra til å bekjempe oppvarmingen. USA står faktisk helt alene utenfor. 




Hvorfor?








https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/14/trumps-epa-chief-scott-pruitt-calls-for-an-exit-to-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.aa979f55f642

https://mic.com/articles/178727/paris-climate-deal-senators-who-urged-trump-to-leave-took-millions-from-oil-companies#.TQjtfQ2ek

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/scott-pruitt-emails-oklahoma-fossil-fuels-koch-brothers


Hva sier oljeselskapene?:

BP :

"As scientists and engineers, BP recognizes the urgency of the climate challenge - and we intend to be part of the solution. We are calling for a price on carbon, increasing gas in our upstream portfolio, investing in renewables and low carbon innovation, and pursuing energy efficiency."

STATOIL:

At Statoil we believe that you can put a price on carbon. In fact we have to because it is one of the most effective ways to combat climate change. The impact of climate change is becoming more severe and noticeable: ice caps are melting, water is becoming scarce in some places, many fish and animal species face extinction, and heat waves are becoming the norm.

SHELL

 
We recognise the significance of climate change, along with the role energy plays in helping people achieve and maintain a good quality of life. A key role for society – and for Shell – is to find ways to provide much more energy with less carbon dioxide. Our lives depend on energy wherever we live. But in order to prosper while tackling climate change, society needs to provide much more energy for a growing global population while finding ways to emit much less CO2.

SINOPEC, from China

Climate change is a major global issue for all humankind. As a responsible energy and petrochemical company, Sinopec regards it as its due responsibility to fight against climate change. We make efforts to shift the pattern of growth, optimize energy structure, develop and utilize low-carbon energy resources and promote energy saving and consumption reduction. We are speeding up study on commercial test of CO2 recovering, in order to reduce GHG emissions and better prepare to combat climate change.


EXXON-MOBIL:

Our position on climate change:
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

PETROBAS (Brazil)

Several studies indicate that increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated to the energy and transport sectors is a consequence of the surging consumption of energy, especially coming from fossil fuels. Therefore, we are committed to understand the impact our activity has on climatic conditions and to deploying measures to mitigate them.

https://rogerfjellstadolsen.blogspot.no/2017/07/hva-er-de-strste-oljeselskapenes.html




https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/28/17152804/climate-change-federal-court-chevron

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-trial-california_us_5ab53d0ce4b054d118e2a0d9

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial?CMP=share_btn_fb


BONUS: Hvorfor konsensus har økt fra 97% og opp til over 99%:

For hva med den fagfellevurderte klimavitenskapen som går imot konsensus? Blir disse studiene hørt? Ja. Forskerne ser også på disse, men det viser seg at de ikke holder mål. Her er 38 studier fra de siste 10 årene. 

Alle disse 38 studiene hadde alvorlige feil og mangler. 
Les om dette her:

 

































Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...