Just curious

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

now you are repeating yourself over and over.

the Forbes article showed that NASA .. a biased source to begin with .. was only 80%. the other link shows overall it's about 50%. the wiki link shows not "possibly" but there is no way to accurately model certain data especially in the past where such records were either not recorded at all or recorded with enough variance to give rise to inaccuracies in the data used for the infamous "hockey stick graph" which has yet to accurately predict "warming"

feel free to post new articles showing the scientific community has "consensus" on man made climate change.

but you did make one good point .. it is complicated. so complicated that there is no "consensus" on it.

We are both repeating ourselves, but we're not forcing anyone to read this.

On the hockey stick thing, you may be mis-interpreting or mis-representing your own source, but people can look at the link and the whole article themselves, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey...ation_of_MBH98

We are using different definitions of consensus, but I'm not saying you are using the wrong one. There is one that can be used the way you are using it. You agreed to 80% agreement among scientists. Sometimes you mention that not being "mass consensus." So, using the definition you are using, it's either mass consensus or no consensus.

So, here we go, a source (not NASA) from the same year as your Forbes (Big Oil dude) source, back at 97%, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/048002/meta
Here is the site's rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/insti...f-physics-iop/

Your Fraser Institute (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fraser-institute/ ) source is from 2015. He sites the IPCC, sometimes to refute them, sometimes to support his points. Anyway, here is a 2023 report from the IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/d...R6_SYR_SPM.pdf . I haven't finished it, but here is an interesting nugget on page 10, "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). {2.1, Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2}."

There are more reports here, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-ass...-report-cycle/

Here is the IPCC's rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-i...e-change-ipcc/

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

We are both repeating ourselves, but we're not forcing anyone to read this.

On the hockey stick thing, you may be mis-interpreting or mis-representing your own source, but people can look at the link and the whole article themselves, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey...ation_of_MBH98

We are using different definitions of consensus, but I'm not saying you are using the wrong one. There is one that can be used the way you are using it. You agreed to 80% agreement among scientists. Sometimes you mention that not being "mass consensus." So, using the definition you are using, it's either mass consensus or no consensus.

So, here we go, a source (not NASA) from the same year as your Forbes (Big Oil dude) source, back at 97%, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../4/048002/meta
Here is the site's rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/insti...f-physics-iop/

Your Fraser Institute (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fraser-institute/ ) source is from 2015. He sites the IPCC, sometimes to refute them, sometimes to support his points. Anyway, here is a 2023 report from the IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/d...R6_SYR_SPM.pdf . I haven't finished it, but here is an interesting nugget on page 10, "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). {2.1, Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2}."

There are more reports here, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-ass...-report-cycle/

Here is the IPCC's rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-i...e-change-ipcc/

amusing you keep intentionally claiming that, my Forbes link dealt with NASA only. you know that.

so we're done here if that's what you want to do. and if you want to play semantics on what "consensus" means ...

i'll let this stand as something worth considering ..


once again let's go back to the hockey stick graph and it's "data" problem







Dr. Mann's model .. which was used for decades to prove "climate change" predicted a 5 degree rise in global temperate by .... the year 2000.

it's 2024. 24 years later the model is still wrong.

still claim Mann's data isn't flawed? if he had been right we wouldn't be talking about this now.


24 years later.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

amusing you keep intentionally claiming that, my Forbes link dealt with NASA only. you know that.

so we're done here if that's what you want to do. and if you want to play semantics on what "consensus" means ...

i'll let this stand as something worth considering ..

once again let's go back to the hockey stick graph and it's "data" problem



Dr. Mann's model .. which was used for decades to prove "climate change" predicted a 5 degree rise in global temperate by .... the year 2000.

it's 2024. 24 years later the model is still wrong.

still claim Mann's data isn't flawed? if he had been right we wouldn't be talking about this now.

24 years later.

Your Forbes link was an opinion piece written by a retired Big Oil guy. You have been using it as a not-97% source. I found a it's-97% meta-analysis from the same year. Not sure what your complaint is, but while I'm here, here is NASA's bias rating, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nasa/

My discussion of consensus was in your favor, but I used your latest definition. Using your latest definition, where 80% is no consensus (at one point 80% was not a mass consensus; at another point, 80% was not a clear consensus), it's back at 97%, and there is consensus. My non-NASA source is in my previous post.

You might be writing about Mann et al 1998 et al. Your source cites Mann et al 1998, and also includes newer publications. My claim about the hockey stick graph is from your source (which you abstained from posting in full), and it's still...
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Further reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."