Climate: The Movie

[IT Minion]

There is only one peer reviewed source for this claim and it has been discredited for including large numbers of researchers who do not have any scientific credentials, including research where they merely speculate about the possibility but don't say with any certainty one way or the other, and rounding up to give the impression of consensus.

Wrong, it was repeated at least 8 times, varying methods slightly and getting very similar results. As you know that's how good science works.

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>

skepticalscience.com

Which of those is discredited again?

If you're not familiar with the research then may I recommend consensus on consensus?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/...yhKAIZSvI1Zi5xwD9PJns3BHUjFGbscPFpuL8rQgbTnv0

 

[berty3000]

Why do you want peer reviewed scientific studies as evidence?

If you were interested in an factual, evidence based debate you wouldn’t have posted a film built on myths and misinformation.

I dont see how presenting misinformation as the argument for "your side" helps that debate at all

You have not read any peer reviewed studies on this subject.

You do not know the names of any credible scientists in this field or anything about their work and what it actually says.

And yet you fill the thread with hot air and wild claims about myths and misinformation.

Please have some more humility in your approach going forward. You are not in any position to shout others down or malign people - much more qualified than you are - for holding perfectly reasonable views about this unsettled matter.

 

[berty3000]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/...yhKAIZSvI1Zi5xwD9PJns3BHUjFGbscPFpuL8rQgbTnv0

Have you actually read it and examined the method and references?

They are "estimating consensus" - this is precisely the sort of garbage so called "research" that tax payer money has been wasted on. Many of the "climate scientists" being referred to are not scientists by qualification and none of them offer any certainty on the subject, which doesn't exist.

And... because you seem to be struggling with this idea, I will repeat: consensus is irrelevant, especially when it is being paid for by lavish grants. There was one Copernicus and one Isaac Newton - was the consensus view in their day right or wrong?

 

[aveatry]

I'm afraid that this is when the lefties get the thread closed down just like all the others when they are on the back foot and having been schooled.

 

[IT Minion]

Have you actually read it and examined the method and references?

They are "estimating consensus" - this is precisely the sort of garbage so called "research" that tax payer money has been wasted on. Many of the "climate scientists" being referred to are not scientists by qualification and none of them offer any certainty on the subject, which doesn't exist.

And... because you seem to be struggling with this idea, I will repeat: consensus is irrelevant, especially when it is being paid for by lavish grants. There was one Copernicus and one Isaac Newton - was the consensus view in their day right or wrong?

I have, clearly you haven't beyond the abstract because they cover that in the method and results.

This is a variation of a standard scientific approach, a meta study. They are used to combine all the research on a topic together and in so doing refine it to get a better picture than individual studies could on their own.

And one thing they found very clearly is that the greater your knowledge of climate science, the greater the consensus.

Again, which study was discredited? I know the one you're thinking of, it's C13, and i know which attempt to discredit it you meant T16, but i don't think you do know what those papers are. Off you Google.

Lavish grants? Can we at least cut out the nonsense and waffle?

 

[wobs]

23%?
Are you sure?

23% yes, but:
"When Earth’s orbit is at its most elliptic, about 23 percent more incoming solar radiation reaches Earth at our planet’s closest approach to the Sun each year than does at its farthest departure from the Sun. Currently, Earth’s eccentricity is very slowly decreasing and is approaching its least elliptic (most circular), in a cycle that spans about 100,000 years.
The total change in global annual insolation due to the eccentricity cycle is very small. Because variations in Earth’s eccentricity are fairly small, they’re a relatively minor factor in annual seasonal climate variations."

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

science.nasa.gov

Another aspect that has been well studied.

 

[Notch7]

And yet you fill the thread with hot air and wild claims about myths and misinformation

The film "Climate the movie" contains many myths and misinformation.

I've provided a number of links which go through them.....clearly you've ignored them.

Would you like me to post each one as a separate post? I haven't done so because it would clog up the thread, but if that's what it takes I'm happy to help.

 

[Brigadier]

Yes

23% change in the "strength" of the solar radiation upon the Earth, attributable to the (Earth's, around the Sun) 100,000 yr cycle?
You have a source for that, that you are willing to share?

 

[Brigadier]

23% yes, but:
"When Earth’s orbit is at its most elliptic, about 23 percent more incoming solar radiation reaches Earth at our planet’s closest approach to the Sun each year than does at its farthest departure from the Sun. Currently, Earth’s eccentricity is very slowly decreasing and is approaching its least elliptic (most circular), in a cycle that spans about 100,000 years.
The total change in global annual insolation due to the eccentricity cycle is very small. Because variations in Earth’s eccentricity are fairly small, they’re a relatively minor factor in annual seasonal climate variations."

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

science.nasa.gov

Another aspect that has been well studied.

I know; it's Aveatry who has likely made a huge mistake in his interpretation.
Which is why I'm asking for them to clarify.

 

[Brigadier]

I'm afraid that this is when the lefties get the thread closed down just like all the others when they are on the back foot and having been schooled.

The reality is that one side is praying for the thread to be closed down, to save them further embarrassment.....
...and that side ain't "the lefties".

 

[aveatry]

Is NASA good enough for you

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

science.nasa.gov

 

[wobs]

I'm afraid that this is when the lefties get the thread closed down just like all the others when they are on the back foot and having been schooled.

Maybe you can point to some evidence that shows anything you claim.

 

[wobs]

Is NASA good enough for you

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science

Small cyclical variations in the shape of Earth's orbit, its wobble and the angle its axis is tilted play key roles in influencing Earth's climate over timespans of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

science.nasa.gov

I literally just posted that link, and it demonstrates you are wrong.

You stated:

something that all climate alarmists ignore or are just ignorant of.

If this is so, then NASA wouldn't have a full page on the subject.

 

[Notch7]

You have not read any peer reviewed studies on this subject.

You do not know the names of any credible scientists in this field or anything about their work and what it actually says.

I mosr certainly have, from both sides of the argument.

You clearly have not read any peer reviewed studies.....if you had you wouldn't have posted a link to a documentary which is superficial and misleading.

Please have some more humility in your approach going forward. You are not in any position to shout others down or malign people - much more qualified than you are

All I have done is refute the claims made in the documentary you posted.

I haven't shouted anybody down, I'm sorry if you are upset but you should have done your research before posting something based on misinformation.

Perhaps this will teach you to fact Check stuff before believing it next time

 

[aveatry]

I literally just posted that link, and it demonstrates you are wrong.

You stated:

If this is so, then NASA wouldn't have a full page on the subject.

Yes that was the source of my info - the fact that you googled it and found it proves you didn't know about it until i mentioned the 23% eairler