Climate of Doubt - PBS

[Wild Cobra]

You are a poorly educated service technician. Who cares what you think? At the end of the day 97% of surveyed scientists say that the Earth is warming and that it is primarily due to human emissions. Your napkin math and simpleminded models combined with a desired outcome cause you to come to your conclusion. You do this with everything. You try to will things to be as you want them rather than take them as they are.

Here is the transcript of the program. Please notice, the 97% number is the number of scientists who believe it's warming. It is the narrator that twists and says 97% of the scientists believe that AGW is the threat. There is no place otter than Hockenberry's words that apply the point you carried out as being the scientists saying "warming -and- AGW." He didn't get that from anything he cites.

Transcript: Climate of Doubt

Please show me the distribution of that 97% that agrees that the agreed warming, is primarily due to human activity. You may be interested to read what this points out as well:

The Myth of the 98%

That 97% to 98% number pointed out at the 18:35 time index does not contend the same meaning as what this Frontline piece says.

JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Against the backdrop of all the pressure from skeptic groups, Congress ordered a comprehensive review of climate change research by the National Academy of Sciences. The findings came back even stronger on human-caused climate change, and a subsequent study showed 97 percent of active climate scientists agreed.

Text in screenshot:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

That statement out of the study doesn't match well with what Hockenberry says now, does it? Where is the "and human caused" fit in? It only says "suggest striking agreement." Suggest is not fact!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin, I don't like epople that are intentionally deceptive. Mad is not really the right word. I guess there is a fine line between contempt and anger. I have never felt that stoicism is a virtue anyway even if it is fun to with people who do.

partschanger:

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

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These are the questions referred to verbatim. You are an idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

There you go again with your childish, pathetic, and wrong assumptions.

partschanger:

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

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These are the questions referred to verbatim. You are an idiot.

You are the ing idiot.

I know those are the questions, and like I said in an earlier post... I too, would say YES to both!

Don't you comprehend such simple stuff?

Question #1 only effectively asks if the the earth has warmed.

Question #2 specifies asks if the level cause via AGW is significant or not. Not a level of significance. I don't know about your world, but in my world when looking at multiple variable, anything that affects the largest significant digit in a calculation is significant. That means 10% is significant! How about other scientists that understand how significant digits in math affect calculations?

Can you really, in all honesty, extrapolate question 2 as meaning 97% of the scientists agree the warming is human caused?

You are falling for their game!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://heartland.org/sites/default/f...ate_change.pdf

Here is a copy of the study in question. From it:

Survey tampering through “ballot box stuffing”

The online survey administration site that was used for this survey has a security
feature that allows only one survey response (full survey) from a unique IP address.
o Survey tampering through uninvited participants

Potential participants were sent an email through QuestionPro.com that contained a
URL, which linked them directly to the online survey. A unique URL was assigned
to each invited respondent, and was logged on a response recorder when they
accessed the survey. No access could be gained to the survey without following the
invitation URL, and once a specific email had been logged on the survey site, it
could not access the survey again, even from other computers.

This survey was sent to many geoscientists, regardless of publication history. It
accounts for scientists that are and are not able to publish in refereed journals.
Publication history was accounted for in demographics, but did not preclude
respondents from participating. In fact, the list contained a number of known
climate change skeptics

Potential response rates not maximized
Using the largest accessible list of geoscientists available and sending email
invitations to all potential participants maximized the survey’s response rates.

The final number of survey participants was 3146, which is greater than a 30% response rate
when our target was greater than 10% (pers. comm. with Karen Retzer, 09/06/2007).

We see the percent of participants responding that, yes, human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing temperatures, go from 77 % in the group of participants who do not publish and
do not list their expertise as climate science, to 88 % among climate scientists and active publishers,
to 92 % among those who publish more than 50 % of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate science, all the way to 97.4 % among those participants who list their area of
expertise as climate science AND who publish more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers
on the subject of climate science. When these numbers are compared with the 2008 Gallup poll that
found only 58% of Americans think that human activities are a major factor in increasing
temperatures, the take home message from these data seems to be that the more of an authority you
are on the subject of climate change and the more active you are in climate change research, the more
you are likely to believe that humans are a significant factor in recent climate change. Interestingly,
among our survey participants the perception of a consensus on climate change issues in their own
professional communities also increases with expertise in the area of climate change.

It seems that the debate, whatever its origins, on the authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who are most able to understand
the nuances and scientific basis of the issue.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you really, in all honesty, extrapolate question 2 as meaning 97% of the scientists agree the warming is human caused?

You are falling for their game!

Yeah I can 'extrapolate' cause from that. If you are going to call me stupid at least do not fail completely at 4th grade vocabulary.

Question 2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

By all means continue. It's amusing in a Jerry Lewis kind of way.

[Borat Sagyidev]

WC is a loser-moron who will die alone, probably from a heart attack initiated from masturbation.

Stop wasting your time people. He only does it for attention.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah I can 'extrapolate' cause from that. If you are going to call me stupid at least do not fail completely at 4th grade vocabulary.

Question 2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

By all means continue. It's amusing in a Jerry Lewis kind of way.

OK, then I see you are retracting past statements of yours. I no longer need to continue. I won this argument.

[Borat Sagyidev]

[FuzzyLumpkins]

OK, then I see you are retracting past statements of yours. I no longer need to continue. I won this argument.

If you mean 'winning' means an admission that over 90% of earth scientists believe humans are causing climate change then you have won, Jerry. It's not my fault you don't understand the meaning of simple words.

[Wild Cobra]

If you mean 'winning' means an admission that over 90% of earth scientists believe humans are causing climate change then you have won, Jerry. It's not my fault you don't understand the meaning of simple words.

But that is not what was said. You are once again changing the argument because you cannot win the actual argument.

1) 97% of climate scientists believe the world is warming.

2) A very high percentage, number i forget, believes humans are a "significant contributor."

"Significant contributor" is not the same as saying they believe humans are changing the climate!

One significant digit is about 10%. 10% is a significant contribution. If the human contribution to climate change was only 10%, does that mean humans are causing climate change?

[Wild Cobra]

So Fuzzy.

Would you say that 88% is scientific consensus, when stated as AGW is the primary cause for warming, when it only says "significant contribution" in a poll to get that number?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

contributing present participle of con·trib·ute (Verb)
Verb:
Give (something, esp. money) in order to help achieve or provide something.
Help to cause or bring about.

Continue on with your vapid strawman

10%

thanks for the laugh about significant digits. keep making up. go look up those charts manny has posted about 50 times describing the contributing factors and teh degrees of error.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Fuzzy.

Would you say that 88% is scientific consensus, when stated as AGW is the primary cause for warming, when it only says "significant contribution" in a poll to get that number?

When you consider that 7% say they are not sure and the experts in te field are at 97% I would say that's a consensus no matter how you look at it. Excuse me how people that are not idiots look at it.

Flat Earth Society folks are out there so there must not be a scientific consensus of gravity or geometry either huh?

[Wild Cobra]

You are twisting their words.

97% of the Climate experts that had peer reviewed papers only said yes to the earth warming. The number who was on record of saying the cause is anthropogenic was not 97%, nor did the question reflect a certainty level. As it stands, the published material that states humans as being the primary contributing factor is only at an 80% certainty level, and it does not say how many scientists agree with that assessment. If you take the second view of text on the "Climate of Doubt" film at the 19:20 mark, this is a more complete viewing of the text:

Over the past several decades, the international and national research communities have developed a progressively clearer picture of how and why Earth’s climate is changing and of the impacts of climate change on a wide range of human and environmental systems. Research has also evaluated actions that could be taken—and in some cases are already being taken—to limit the magnitude of future climate change and adapt to its impacts. In the United States, a series of reports by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, also known as the Climate Change Science Program from 2001 to 2008) have synthesized the information specific to the nation, culminating in the report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (USGCRP, 2009a). Internationally, scientific information about climate change is periodically assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently in 2007. Much has been learned, and this knowledge base is continuously being updated and expanded with new research results.

Our assessment of the current state of knowledge about global climate change, which is summarized in this chapter and described in detail in Part II of the report, leads to the following conclusion.

Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.

This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007a-d), recent assessments by the USGCRP (e.g., USGRP, 2009a), and other recent assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change. Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence1 in the following findings: (next page)

footnote:

1


As discussed in Appendix D, high confidence indicates an estimated 8 out of 10 or better chance of a statement being correct, while very high confidence (or a statement than an ourcome is “very likely”) indicates a 9 out of 10 or better chance.

from next page:



Earth is warming. Detailed observations of surface temperature assembled and analyzed by several different research groups show that the planet’s average surface temperature was 1.4°F (0.8°C) warmer during the first decade of the 21st century than during the first decade of the 20th century, with the most pronounced warming over the past three decades. These data are corroborated by a variety of independent observations that indicate warming in other parts of the Earth system, including the cryosphere (the frozen portions of Earth’s surface), the lower atmosphere, and the oceans.

Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—for energy is the single largest human driver of climate change, but agriculture, forest clearing, and certain industrial activities also make significant contributions.

Natural climate variability leads to year-to-year and decade-to-decade fluctuations in temperature and other climate variables, as well as substantial regional differences, but cannot explain or offset the long-term warming trend.

Global warming is closely associated with a broad spectrum of other changes, such as increases in the frequency of intense rainfall, decreases in Northern Hemisphere snow cover and Arctic sea ice, warmer and more frequent hot days and nights, rising sea levels, and widespread ocean acidification.

Human-induced climate change and its impacts will continue for many decades, and in some cases for many centuries. Individually and collectively, and in combination with the effects of other human activities, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems, including freshwater resources, the coastal environment, ecosystems, agriculture, fisheries, human health, and national security, among others.

The ultimate magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts depend strongly on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks.

Please not it effectively says climate change is "largely by humans" with an 80% certainty. What number would you apply to "largely?" It most certainly isn't saying 100%. Would you say 90%? 80%? 75%? What number is "largely?"

Would you say the military budget is a large part of the US budget?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not twisting their words. I am not going by the Frontline piece. i am going by the survey they are referring to.

i linked it from above. For the whole of the surveyed participants. This is the quote from the study itself:

89.5% of survey participants thought
temperatures had risen, while 0.5% thought temperatures had fallen, 5.7% thought it had remained
relatively constant, and 4.2% had no opinion or were unsure. To our second question, Q2: “Do you
think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 82% of survey
participants said yes, while 6.7% said no, and 11% said they were not sure.

We see the percent of participants responding that, yes, human activity is a significant contributing
factor in changing temperatures, go from 77 % in the group of participants who do not publish and
do not list their expertise as climate science, to 88 % among climate scientists and active publishers,
to 92 % among those who publish more than 50 % of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate science, all the way to 97.4 % among those participants who list their area of
expertise as climate science AND who publish more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers
on the subject of climate science.

Thats not twisting their words. Those were their words. Now go diaf.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You suck at English. Keep trying though.

largely
adverb
1
for the most part <the earth's surface is largely composed of water>
Synonyms altogether, basically, by and large, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially
Related Words about, more or less, most, much, near, nearly, next to, nigh, practically, some, virtually, well-nigh; approximately, broadly, plus or minus, roughly; commonly, frequently, generally, normally, ordinarily, typically, usually; incompletely, partially, partly, rather, somewhat
Near Antonyms completely, entirely, fully, perfectly, thoroughly, totally, wholly; barely, hardly, just, marginally, minimally, scarcely; absolutely, categorically, unqualifiedly
2
to a large extent or degree <with this land purchase, the corporation largely increases its holdings in the area>
Synonyms astronomically, big-time, broadly, colossally, considerably, enormously, extensively, highly, hugely, largely, massively, monstrously, monumentally, much, sizably, staggeringly, stupendously, tremendously, utterly, vastly
Related Words appreciably, noticeably, significantly; abundantly, amply, copiously, healthily, plentifully
Near Antonyms modestly; fractionally; imperceptibly, infinitesimally, insignificantly, invisibly, microscopically, minutely; barely, hardly, just, minimally, scarcely
Antonyms little, negligibly, nominally, slightly

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Still saying things i don't agree with as if I disagree with them

You clearly fail to understand my points. Because of that, you completely fail at arguing against my points.

Again, if I answered the same questions, I would say yes to both. I suggest you try to understand what you are arguing against. It most certainly isn't the points I am making.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are twisting their words.

97% of the Climate experts that had peer reviewed papers only said yes to the earth warming. The number who was on record of saying the cause is anthropogenic was not 97%, nor did the question reflect a certainty level. As it stands, the published material that states humans as being the primary contributing factor is only at an 80% certainty level, and it does not say how many scientists agree with that assessment.

i·ro·ny
1   [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry if I don't place much value in a 4 of 5 chance. 20% is plenty of room to be wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Still saying things i don't agree with as if I disagree with them

You clearly fail to understand my points. Because of that, you completely fail at arguing against my points.

Again, if I answered the same questions, I would say yes to both. I suggest you try to understand what you are arguing against. It most certainly isn't the points I am making.

I don't misunderstand your point. Frontline and I are going by what the survey I am citing and quoting. The climate scientists were asked a simple straightforward question. They gave a straightfoward answer. I am not rising to the bait of your typical simpleminded thought on what you think climate scientists think or your poor understanding of their science.

if you want to tak about something else than what the Frontline piece was referring to then keep on and I will keep on ignoring it. You'll just move the goalposts again anyway.

[Wild Cobra]

if you want to tak about something else than what the Frontline piece was referring to then keep on and I will keep on ignoring it. You'll just move the goalposts again anyway.

If I recall, my original point after I watched the video was that they were presenting the case with the presumed assumption that the skeptics were flat out wrong. That AGW is real to the extent the Alarmists claim.

I have since only been responding to those attacking my viewpoint.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I recall, my original point after I watched the video was that they were presenting the case with the presumed assumption that the skeptics were flat out wrong. That AGW is real to the extent the Alarmists claim.

I have since only been responding to those attacking my viewpoint.

Where in the piece do they say the skeptics are flatass wrong? With your latest 80% nonsense I would again point out that they never even addressed the science. They just said all the climate scientists agree because they do. Well at least 97% of them do.

[Wild Cobra]

Where in the piece do they say the skeptics are flatass wrong? With your latest 80% nonsense I would again point out that they never even addressed the science. They just said all the climate scientists agree because they do. Well at least 97% of them do.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell it was edited with a one sided perspective.

There were several instances of bias in the piece. Not just the 97% nonsense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyone with two braincells to rub together can tell it was edited with a one sided perspective.

There were several instances of bias in the piece. Not just the 97% nonsense.

So you cannot name one. Do you retract your statement?

[Wild Cobra]

A few selected quotes from the Heartlands response:

OCTOBER 24 — On October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program broadcast a special led “Climate of Doubt.” The Heartland Ins ute had circulated a commentary prior to the program’s broadcast, which appears below, which said in part, “We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither.” We offered some “facts to keep in mind when watching this program.”

So what did we think of the actual show? It wasn’t as bad as we had feared, but it wasn’t as good as it should have been. The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Ins ute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, please contact Tammy Nash at [email protected] and 312/377-4000. After regular business hours, contact Jim Lakely at [email protected] and 312/731-9364.

t appears host John Hockenberry spent enough time with global warming “skeptics” to know we are sincere, honest, and effective, but not enough time to learn we are right on the science. Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Ins ute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.

The quality of the program starts to deteriorate at about the 20-minute mark. Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not. Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all.

A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate. This technique, typical of propaganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” cheapens and discredits an otherwise thoughtful program.

“Climate of Doubt” gives some deserved recognition to the men and women who have sought to bring truth to the debate over climate change and have succeeded despite the odds. But its errors and omissions make it another missed opportunity to tell the true story of the debate over climate change.

Link: Heartland Ins ute's Comments on October 23 PBS Frontline Special ‘Climate of Doubt’