Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

[John Boeman]

And yes you’re allowed to use science, by scientists like NASA, not quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms.

dr dre, so glad to hear you trust NASA scientists, or do you only distrust the word of those of them whose continued employment does not depend on ‘toeing the party line’?

You Tube

https://www.therightclimatestuff.com


And so, onto the ‘fossil-fuel funded shills’, the NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

Yep, definitely sounds like a bunch of ‘quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms’.

About the NIPCC ? Climate Change Reconsidered



Despite what you like to intimate, in order to denigrate me or anyone else who questions the climate change religion, I don’t claim to know a damn thing about climate change.

Instead I simply look at as many facts as I can cope with and I look at as much past and current evidence as I can.
​​​​​​​From those, I believe there is a massive con being perpetrated.

I put my trust in the people above and the aforementioned.

[20driver]

Originally Posted by dr dre

Really? Here’s a list of 200 worldwide bodies that hold it to be a fact that human caused climate change exists (almost every credible scientific organisation on earth):

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

When I looked at lists of scientists who deny human caused climate change I found no serious bodies prepared to deny it, scientists in other fields apart from climate science, a lot linked to the mining and oil industries and a lot connected to far right politics. And very few overall at that.

97% of scientific papers published recently find human caused climate change to be real. For the remaining 3% they were excluded because, like any good piece of science, their conclusions and methods were found, on peer review, to be flawed or contain significant errors. There’s no debate amongst the credible scientific community, only amongst special interests with agendas:

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

I would not put too much value on the so called consensus. Ask Barry Marshall!

[brak]

Originally Posted by John Boeman

And so, onto the ‘fossil-fuel funded shills’, the NIPCC:


Yep, definitely sounds like a bunch of ‘quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongov...Change_(NIPCC)

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a climate change denial advocacy organisation set up by S. Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project, and later supported by the Heartland Institute lobbying group, in opposition to the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.[1]

The NIPCC presents itself as an "international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming". Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are predisposed to dispute that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC claims to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the IPCC.[2] The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3][4] as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.[5][6]

[John Boeman]

How many times are we going to have to read:-
“The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3][4] as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.”

No kidding! WE KNOW!

The funny thing is that the people who have been utterly conned into believing that spending massive amounts of money (and making the rich vastly richer) will make a measurable difference to climate change, just do not get it.

it is governments and politicians that are doing this. So listing your government funded sources and ‘proofs’ is just counter-productive.

ANYBODY that says one sentence pointing out the lack of validity in any of the horror and scare stories published by the GOVERNMENT FUNDED IPCC or any one of the other, probably hundreds of thousands of businesses involved in the ‘WAR’ against climate-CHANGE,
can expect to see there name tarnished and vilified from a multitude of directions!

The NIPCC, they have no chance.....

However, here are comments on the book that people like the distinguished climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.have produced: (Btw, I haven’t checked but doubtless there has something wrong found with the mental state of each of those and they been banished somewhere in the meantime..)

‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial – Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously.
— Patrick J. Michaels, Director
Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute

[T]here are several chapters in the NIPCC report that are substantially more thorough and comprehensive than the IPCC treatment, including 5 (Solar variability and climate cycles), 7 (Biological effects of carbon dioxide enrichment), 8 (Species extinction) and 9 (Human health effects). Further, the NIPCC’s regional approach to analyzing extreme events and historical and paleo records of temperature, rainfall, streamflow, glaciers, sea ice, and sea-level rise is commendable and frankly more informative than the global analyses provided by the IPCC.
— Dr. Judith Curry, professor and chair School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology

NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.
— M.I. Bhat, formerly professor and head Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Kashmir, India

Climate Change Reconsidered is a comprehensive, authoritative, and definitive reply to the IPCC reports.
— Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen Christchurch, New Zealand

Now I fully appreciate that anything backed the ‘The Heartland Institute’ sends the ‘manmade climate change’ brigade running in the other direction shouting ‘fossil-fuel backed charlatans’ but me, I read the bloody book. (It’s not a big one!).
Couldn’t find anything in it that gave me a problem.

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus

This book and others can be found in here:
About the NIPCC ? Climate Change Reconsidered

[beardy]

. it is governments and politicians that are doing this. So listing your government funded sources and ‘proofs’ is just counter-productive.

That sounds suspiciously like a global conspiracy.

[John Boeman]

Dang it! I meant to say ‘I wonder how long it will take for this to be dismissed as a ‘global conspiracy’. It occurred to me as I wrote that phrase so I certainly cannot blame you for thinking of it! ! Although it does make you sound as though you possibly believe that all of our goverments decisions are made for the good of the health of their populations - you know, so they will live longer and collect their state pensions for longer...... Yeah, right!

A ‘(insert your own word here)’ conspiracy, a phrase so beloved by those hiding behind confusion. This ‘conspiracy’ is hiding ‘in plain sght’ and it is certainly global!

[John Boeman]

Another very enlightened individual, imho.:

Dr Bjorn Lomberg

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle24950894/

An interesting article from him on the cost of ‘the war on climate’:

https://nypost.com/2018/08/26/how-th...e-worlds-poor/


And the almost immediate standard rebuttal and denigration from an ‘interested party’:

Bjorn Lomborg?s lukewarmer misinformation about climate change and poverty - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

It was obviously reported in ‘The Australian’ as well, so it’s editor had to be included in the attack:

“A new article in ‘The Australian’ exposes once again the hypocrisy of the newspaper’s editor, John Lehmann, and the shameless myth-making about climate change carried out by Dr Bjorn Lomborg.”

?The Australian? promotes Bjorn Lomborg?s lukewarmer propaganda - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

Here’s that same ‘shameless’ charlatan giving a Ted talk way back in 2005(?) I believe, using a relatively small number of dollars as an eg. and askinging the question - “Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming?”

https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomb...rities/up-next

This is him speaking more recently. I guess it is slightly problematical (for those that need to slander him), that he is not actually a denier.

You Tube

[beardy]

Originally Posted by John Boeman

Dang it! I meant to say ‘I wonder how long it will take for this to be dismissed as a ‘global conspiracy’. It occurred to me as I wrote that phrase so I certainly cannot blame you for thinking of it! ! Although it does make you sound as though you possibly believe that all of our goverments decisions are made for the good of the health of their populations - you know, so they will live longer and collect their state pensions for longer...... Yeah, right!

A ‘(insert your own word here)’ conspiracy, a phrase so beloved by those hiding behind confusion. This ‘conspiracy’ is hiding ‘in plain sght’ and it is certainly global!

So it is a (global) conspiracy?
Against whom?

[John Boeman]

Try reading that again beardy. I’m not calling it a conspiracy. Hence the ‘ ‘ when I typed the word.
I am saying that those people inventing new ways to tax us to make themselves and their friends rich would love for comfortably off people (like you?) to shout ‘Aw jeez, here we go, another conspiracy theory!’

In other words, it’s a great distraction.

Try ignoring it and actually watch and read the links and find something in there to fault.

The ‘ball not the man’ beardy.....

(Unless of course you are an ‘at war’ environmentalist, then I would expect nothing less!)

[beardy]

Thank you for reminding me of the science. It was part of my degree course more than 40 years ago. The 'ball' has been kicked around a lot since then. I still remain convinced that to misconstrue collected evidence which supports scientific theory is to willfully misguide not just oneself but to drag others into continuing what is demonstrably reckless behaviour.
I realise and understand that change is difficult, but it is vital. Sustainable behaviour is not difficult, but it does mean sacrificing some luxuries.

[John Boeman]

Not sure where I reminded you of the science and it wasn’t ‘part of my degree course’ 43 years ago.

Can I assume that like most people of a certain mindset, you just refuse to go through the detail in the links I have posted?

If you have, please, tell me where they are going wrong...

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by John Boeman

Another very enlightened individual, imho.:

Dr Bjorn Lomberg

A politcial lecturer with no science training. Not a denier but thinks climate change is a minor problem now and money should be spent elsewhere, whereas most scientists say it will be catastrophic in a few generations if we don’t act now.

As you’ve been constantly throughout this thread saying climate change science is a fake hoax Bjorn Lomberg’s unqualified opinion doesn’t even really back up yours, now does he?

And for your info in recent years it looks like even he wants research into renewable energy increased and a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies, which most deniers will oppose (from his wiki):

Lomborg's approach evolved in directions more compatible with action to restrain climate change. In April 2015 he gained further attention 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". In publications such as the Wall Street Journal he argued that the most productive use of resources would be a massive increase in funding for research to make renewable energy economically competitive with fossil fuels.

[beardy]

This is an article concerning the consensus of the scientific credibility of the NIPCC and its publication:

Fossil fuel funded report denies the expert global warming consensus

The infamous Heartland Institute has distributed to elected officials a nonsense, non-science report full of denial



245
John Abraham
Published:11:00 Mon 22 February 2016
Follow John AbrahamWe all know about the various organizations that fund or support the climate-change denial industry. Perhaps the best known is the Heartland Institute, which actually puts on climate “conferences” and publishes materials that appear at first glance to be scientifically sound. We who work and follow the climate change science and public discussions know enough to be skeptical about anything produced by groups like the Heartland Institute – their veneer of scientific credibility is very thin.


On the other hand, perhaps the intended audience isn’t scientists are even people who closely follow the science. Perhaps their intended audience is legislators, teachers, and others who have influence over society?

With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report from an elected official in the USA. The report was entitled “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming,” published by Heartland. Since elected officials have too much going on to do a thorough debunking, I looked into this report to see what substance was there.
As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions. Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field? When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? How do these conclusions fit into prior work in the field? Is the new study confirming prior work or in conflict with it? If there is conflict, why?

The authors of this manuscript are Craig Idso, the late Robert Carter, and Fred Singer. These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of reputable climate scientists. According to a literature search performed using the search engine SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global climate change or its implications in years.

One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of people who have cited them is shockingly low. To put their impact in perspective, a scientist like Kevin Trenberth receives three times more citations each year than the combined citations of Singer and Idso in their entire careers. So, having these guys be lead author on a climate change document is a bit like hiring retired scientists or op-ed writers to do your research.


But just because they are not active and reputable scientists, could they be correct? Sure, they could be. So let’s look at the content.

The central theme of this manuscript is an attack against the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The consensus refers to the very strong and repeatable measure of what scientists think about climate change. What do the best scientists say?

It turns out multiple groups have measured the consensus. The measurements have been done many different ways, all leading to the same conclusion – the consensus is strong. Not only is the consensus strong, contrarian scientists are less talented than those in the consensus. They publish less on the subject, and peer review has found the work of most high-profile contrarians to be faulty. So, on the one hand, you have approximately 97% of the best scientists in agreement, and on the other hand, you have about 3% of the less-talented scientists in dissent.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes conducted the first major study that looked at consensus more than a decade ago. Dr. Oreskes examined the abstracts of hundreds of papers and found that they strongly confirmed the human influence on climate. In fact, she found no papers that dissented. The Heartland publication falsely calls Dr. Oreskes a “non-scientist.” In fact her scientific impact measured by citations is approximately four times that of the combination of Idso and Singer. Instead, they try to refute her with references to think-tank non-reviewed publications and websites.

Peter Doran and Margaret Zimmerman performed the second major consensus study in 2009. This was the first peer-reviewed study that quantified that 97% agreement among climate scientists. The authors accessed a large database of Earth scientists and created a secure polling system to ask about their level of agreement.


The authors broke the scientists into groups based on whether climate change was their field of study and whether they published a majority of their papers in that field. Approximately 10% of the respondents were in the most expert category. There were a series of questions for the respondents and a very strong consensus that temperatures had increased and humans were the cause. The Heartland Institute falsely claimed that the survey was only two questions, and their sole reference used to rebut the paper was an article in the National Post.

William Anderegg and his colleagues completed the third major measure of consensus in 2010. They created a database of the most prominent climate scientists by searching the scientific literature for papers and citations. They found that only 2% of the experts were unconvinced on the extent of human impact. Importantly, the contrarian scientists were found to publish less and publish less impactful studies – simply put, the best scientists agreed.


How does the Heartland document counter this study? They claimed that the mainstream scientists are “hyper productive.” They even accuse these scientists by saying “It is unlikely these scientists actually participated in most of the experiments or research contain in the articles bearing their name.” Next, they point out that the contrarians tend to be older and retired. I wouldn’t disagree with either of their conclusions. The 97% of scientists that agree are more productive and younger than those who disagree. The references that the Heartland uses to support its conclusions are from its own website, from the Wall Street Journal, and other non-scientific outlets. Not very convincing.


The Heartland document finally attacks the 2013 study by John Cook and colleaguesof the scientific literature. The authors examined over 12,000 abstracts and found that among those taking a position, less than 3% rejected or minimized human-induced climate change. Among the abstracts that gave a position, 97% were in agreement. Just like before, in response to this the Heartland document cites no peer-reviewed scientific sources — just think-tank literature, websites, and blog posts.

What was surprising was that the Heartland report actually cited a consensus in favor of their viewpoint. The article “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” was published in 2014. The authors found a strong correlation of expertise with recognition that humans are a cause of climate change. For instance, for scientists who have published more than 10 papers on the topic, there is a 90% consensus that human influences dominate.


I could go on, but you get the point. What we see is that it doesn’t matter how you measure the consensus. Whether you ask the scientists, whether you read the papers, or whether you trawl the literature in other ways. The results are reinforcing, which why we know there is such a strong consensus.

While I won’t spend too much time on the scientifically incorrect or misleading statements in the Heartland report, I will mention a few. In chapter 4, they claim that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in approximately 1°C warming. They neglected to remind the readers that we have nearly already reached that and we are nowhere near doubling of carbon dioxide yet. The report claims that meteorological observations are consistent with a climate sensitivity of 1°C but they provide no support for this assertion and in fact, the research does not support this.


The report falsely claims that climate models assume all the warming since the industrial revolution is from carbon dioxide. Climate models include many factors in addition to carbon dioxide. The report also falsely claims that models do not attempt to simulate internal climate oscillations. They claim that thawing of permafrost is not likely to emit dangerous methane, which will add to the warming, but they give no evidence to support their claim.


This is what happens when you have a fossil fuel-funded political organization parade a document as a scientific publication. You get nonsense and non-science. This is why we should be skeptical of anything published by an advocacy organization such as Heartland. Fortunately, we are used to their nonsense.

[msjh]

For those still trying to deny that the climate is being significantly changed by human beings, have a look at this entertaining video of the comedian, Dara O'Briain.

You Tube

I'd suggest the climate change deniers are "toothyologists" and should be put in the bag.