Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning)

[FollowTheWay]

Oil giant Shell has spent millions of dollars lobbying against measures that would protect the planet from climate catastrophe. But thanks to a film recently obtained by De Correspondent, it’s now clear that their position wasn’t born of ignorance. Shell knows that fossil fuels put us all at risk – in fact, they’ve known for over a quarter of a century. Climate of Concern, a 1991 educational film produced by Shell, warned that the company’s own product could lead to extreme weather, floods, famines, and climate refugees, and noted that the reality of climate change was "endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists."

Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning)

 

[Salty]

The earth will be around until after the tribulation......

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no climate catastrophe, it is all a wealth stealing scam.

 

[FollowTheWay]

There is no climate catastrophe, it is all a wealth stealing scam.

Much in the Trump tradition, you make pronouncements about things which run counter to the conclusions reached by almost all (I think 95%) of the climate scientific experts and the judgement of all of the countries of the world except for Syria. We have bought into this anti-science lie to the extent that's where we stand now, right with Syria as the only two nations who have not ratified the Paris agreement.

 

[TCassidy]

Much in the Trump tradition, you make pronouncements about things which run counter to the conclusions reached by almost all (I think 95%) of the climate scientific experts and the judgement of all of the countries of the world except for Syria. We have bought into this anti-science lie to the extent that's where we stand now, right with Syria as the only two nations who have not ratified the Paris agreement.

Once again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject on which you wish to pontificate.

You have conflated global warming (which just about everyone with an IQ greater than his hat size recognizes as being very real) with anthropogenic global warming.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

This warming trend leveled off around 2000 but began another steady increase in 2013.

When global water temperatures have risen at the rate of .4 degrees (F) per decade for the past 40 years most people just say "So what? .4 degrees every 10 years is nothing to worry about. The temperatures in Texas vary by about 20 degrees from day to night."

But the oceans account for 140 million square miles of surface. That is a LOT of water. Raising the temperature of that amount of water takes a LOT of heat.

So, most climatologists climbed on the anthropogenic band wagon (largely to continue federal funding of their research), but later evidence began to come forth indicating the global temperature increase might actually be due to a slight variation in the sun's output.

NASA looked into the issue and found that the ice caps on Mars were melting at a greater rate than those on Earth. The conclusion. Warming on Mars cannot be anthropogenic so it is increasingly probable that at least a significant percentage of global temperature increase on this planet is not anthropogenic.

So all of the effort to prove the unprovable should be put into preparing for the global temperature rise that will continue through 2070 when we reach the Maunder Maximum, at which time the sun will begin its cooling cycle and temperatures will go down for the next 500 years or so, perhaps as low as during the "mini ice age" (1645–1715).

The US did not sign the Paris Accord because it was unenforceable, did nothing to address the problem, and placed an unacceptable burden on industrial countries without an appreciable affect on global temperatures.

What most people fail to realize is that the half life of atmospheric carbon is 200 years. If we stopped ALL carbon emissions, in other words shut down all industry and never again light a fire anywhere on Earth, it would be 200 years before any change would be noticeable (and probably as many as 6 billion people will be dead in the first couple of years). How would you like to live in a place like Somalia? That is what the whole planet will be like.

Time to prepare for temperature increase and rising sea levels. Not the stupid, and fruitless, political arguments we see now.

 

[Revmitchell]

Much in the Trump tradition, you make pronouncements about things which run counter to the conclusions reached by almost all (I think 95%) of the climate scientific experts and the judgement of all of the countries of the world except for Syria. We have bought into this anti-science lie to the extent that's where we stand now, right with Syria as the only two nations who have not ratified the Paris agreement.

Just stop the global warming alarmists have been caught withholding data and fudging temps to create a false narrative. It is widely known and the global warming myth has been debunked. Anyone who continues to push it looks foolish.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Once again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject on which you wish to pontificate.

You have conflated global warming (which just about everyone with an IQ greater than his hat size recognizes as being very real) with anthropogenic global warming.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

This warming trend leveled off around 2000 but began another steady increase in 2013.

When global water temperatures have risen at the rate of .4 degrees (F) per decade for the past 40 years most people just say "So what? .4 degrees every 10 years is nothing to worry about. The temperatures in Texas vary by about 20 degrees from day to night."

But the oceans account for 140 million square miles of surface. That is a LOT of water. Raising the temperature of that amount of water takes a LOT of heat.

So, most climatologists climbed on the anthropogenic band wagon (largely to continue federal funding of their research), but later evidence began to come forth indicating the global temperature increase might actually be due to a slight variation in the sun's output.

NASA looked into the issue and found that the ice caps on Mars were melting at a greater rate than those on Earth. The conclusion. Warming on Mars cannot be anthropogenic so it is increasingly probable that at least a significant percentage of global temperature increase on this planet is not anthropogenic.

So all of the effort to prove the unprovable should be put into preparing for the global temperature rise that will continue through 2070 when we reach the Maunder Maximum, at which time the sun will begin its cooling cycle and temperatures will go down for the next 500 years or so, perhaps as low as during the "mini ice age" (1645–1715).

The US did not sign the Paris Accord because it was unenforceable, did nothing to address the problem, and placed an unacceptable burden on industrial countries without an appreciable affect on global temperatures.

What most people fail to realize is that the half life of atmospheric carbon is 200 years. If we stopped ALL carbon emissions, in other words shut down all industry and never again light a fire anywhere on Earth, it would be 200 years before any change would be noticeable (and probably as many as 6 billion people will be dead in the first couple of years). How would you like to live in a place like Somalia? That is what the whole planet will be like.

Time to prepare for temperature increase and rising sea levels. Not the stupid, and fruitless, political arguments we see now.

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

All-star team with authors of seven previous climate consensus studies collaborate to debunk the ‘no consensus’ myth once and for all

Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, myself, and six of our colleagues — have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

 

[FollowTheWay]

Just stop the global warming alarmists have been caught withholding data and fudging temps to create a false narrative. It is widely known and the global warming myth has been debunked. Anyone who continues to push it looks foolish.

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

All-star team with authors of seven previous climate consensus studies collaborate to debunk the ‘no consensus’ myth once and for all

Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, myself, and six of our colleagues — have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience

 

[Sapper Woody]

The issue with that 97% consensus is that it is taken from scientists that believe that humans are causing global warming. The real story is that it isn't at 100%. Literally, look at the "consensus". It almost literally says "Out of scientists who say that man causes global warming, 97% say that man is causing global warming".

As TC said, no one with an ability to analyze data will argue that the earth isn't in a warning cycle. The contention is whether or not man is causing it. And there's no way to prove we are or are not. It's all speculation and conjecture.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

".....
The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.


In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#7ea367231157

 

[Revmitchell]

“Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to take action? In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus. Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy. RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists. SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEETSurely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all.

Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

 

[Revmitchell]

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

 

[FollowTheWay]

Why we should trust scientists

Oreskes is the daughter of Susan Eileen (Nagin), a teacher, and Irwin Oreskes, a professor.[4][5][6] She received her Bachelor of Science in mining geology from the Royal School of Mines of Imperial College, University of London in 1981, and worked as a research assistant in the Geology Department and as a teaching assistant in the departments of Geology, Philosophy and Applied Earth Sciences at Stanford University starting in 1984. She received her PhD degree in the Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science at Stanford in 1990. She received a National Science Foundation's Young Investigator Award in 1994.

She has worked as a consultant for the United States Environmental Protection Agency and US National Academy of Sciences, and has also taught at Dartmouth, Harvard and New York University (NYU). She is the author of or has contributed to a number of essays and technical reports in economic geology and history of science[7] in addition to several books.

Oreskes was the Provost of the Sixth College at the University of California, San Diego.

Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists -- but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry -- and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Once again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject on which you wish to pontificate.

You have conflated global warming (which just about everyone with an IQ greater than his hat size recognizes as being very real) with anthropogenic global warming.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

This warming trend leveled off around 2000 but began another steady increase in 2013.

When global water temperatures have risen at the rate of .4 degrees (F) per decade for the past 40 years most people just say "So what? .4 degrees every 10 years is nothing to worry about. The temperatures in Texas vary by about 20 degrees from day to night."

But the oceans account for 140 million square miles of surface. That is a LOT of water. Raising the temperature of that amount of water takes a LOT of heat.

So, most climatologists climbed on the anthropogenic band wagon (largely to continue federal funding of their research), but later evidence began to come forth indicating the global temperature increase might actually be due to a slight variation in the sun's output.

NASA looked into the issue and found that the ice caps on Mars were melting at a greater rate than those on Earth. The conclusion. Warming on Mars cannot be anthropogenic so it is increasingly probable that at least a significant percentage of global temperature increase on this planet is not anthropogenic.

So all of the effort to prove the unprovable should be put into preparing for the global temperature rise that will continue through 2070 when we reach the Maunder Maximum, at which time the sun will begin its cooling cycle and temperatures will go down for the next 500 years or so, perhaps as low as during the "mini ice age" (1645–1715).

The US did not sign the Paris Accord because it was unenforceable, did nothing to address the problem, and placed an unacceptable burden on industrial countries without an appreciable affect on global temperatures.

What most people fail to realize is that the half life of atmospheric carbon is 200 years. If we stopped ALL carbon emissions, in other words shut down all industry and never again light a fire anywhere on Earth, it would be 200 years before any change would be noticeable (and probably as many as 6 billion people will be dead in the first couple of years). How would you like to live in a place like Somalia? That is what the whole planet will be like.

Time to prepare for temperature increase and rising sea levels. Not the stupid, and fruitless, political arguments we see now.

You foolishly choose to go against the accumulated knowledge and experience of almost ALL climate scientists. I choose to believe the science not you. You pays your money and takes your choice. You can continue to demonstrate your ignorance if you choose to do that.

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

 

[FollowTheWay]

I file these discussions under politics not science. The Republican-Christian Right coalition continues to push for profits for the rich over supporting the needy and over science. America seems to heading towards the new Dark Ages which was filled superstition and science was derided and persecuted by the Catholic Church. Galileo was put under house arrest for the last years of his life for speaking out in favor of Copernicus' theory that the Sun not the earth is not the center of the Solar System nor of the universe as a whole.

 

[TCassidy]

You foolishly choose to go against the accumulated knowledge and experience of almost ALL climate scientists. I choose to believe the science not you. You pays your money and takes your choice. You can continue to demonstrate your ignorance if you choose to do that.

Yes, of course. The melting of the polar ice caps on Mars is because we keep driving SUVs. Yep. That makes perfect sense. Well, it makes perfect sense if you are a low information leftist. Of course if you have even a modicum of common sense you realize the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars has nothing to do with climate change on Earth except that they are both caused by the same thing. The sun spot cycle is trending toward maximum. Duh!

 

[TCassidy]

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, an atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, says that about 40% of qualified climate scientists say global warming is not man-made.

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

 

[FollowTheWay]

The issue with that 97% consensus is that it is taken from scientists that believe that humans are causing global warming. The real story is that it isn't at 100%. Literally, look at the "consensus". It almost literally says "Out of scientists who say that man causes global warming, 97% say that man is causing global warming".

As TC said, no one with an ability to analyze data will argue that the earth isn't in a warning cycle. The contention is whether or not man is causing it. And there's no way to prove we are or are not. It's all speculation and conjecture.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli

Here is an analysis of the fallacy of your argument.

Consensus misrepresentations
Our latest paper was written in response to a critique published by Richard Tol in Environmental Research Letters, commenting on the 2013 paper published in the same journal by John Cook, myself, and colleagues finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature.

"Tol argues that when considering results from previous consensus studies, the Cook 97% figure is an outlier, which he claims is much higher than most other climate consensus estimates. He makes this argument by looking at sub-samples from previous surveys. For example, Doran’s 2009 study broke down the survey data by profession – the consensus was 47% among economic geologists, 64% among meteorologists, 82% among all Earth scientists, and 97% among publishing climate scientists. The lower the climate expertise in each group, the lower the consensus."
************************************************************************************************************************
In science just as in every field, no one is an expert in everything. You wouldn't expect an ophthalmologist to know as much about how to deal with a heart attack as a cardiologist. That's what this article is saying. And you certainly wouldn't expect someone without a MD or any experience in medicine to know as much as either one of them. That last category represents most of the people on this board yet you continue to think you know more about climate change than the experts. Try that in the emergency room when you go in wioth all the signs of a serious heart attack.
*************************************************************************************************************************

"The flaw in this approach is especially clear when we consider the most ridiculous sub-sample included in Tol’s critique: Verheggen’s 2015 study included a grouping of predominantly non-experts who were “unconvinced” by human-caused global warming, among whom the consensus was 7%. The only surprising thing about this number is that more than zero of those “unconvinced” by human-caused global warming agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. In his paper, Tol included this 7% “unconvinced,” non-expert sub-sample as a data point in his argument that the 97% consensus result is unusually high."

"In our paper, we show that including non-experts is the only way to argue for a consensus below 90–100%. The greater the climate expertise among those included in the survey sample, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. Similarly, if you want to know if you need open heart surgery, you’ll get much more consistent answers (higher consensus) if you only ask cardiologists than if you also survey podiatrists, neurologists, and dentists.

That’s because, as we all know, expertise matters. It’s easy to manufacture a smaller non-expert “consensus” number and argue that it contradicts the 97% figure. As our new paper shows, when you ask the climate experts, the consensus on human-caused global warming is between 90% and 100%, with several studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

There’s some variation in the percentage, depending on exactly how the survey is done and how the question is worded, but ultimately it’s still true that there’s a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on human-caused global warming. In fact, even Richard Tol has agreed:


The consensus is of course in the high nineties.

Is the consensus 97% or 99.9%?
In fact, some believe our 97% consensus estimate was too low. These claims are usually based on an analysis done by James Powell, and the difference simply boils down to how “consensus” is defined. Powell evaluated the percentage of papers that don’t explicitly reject human-caused global warming in their abstracts. That includes 99.83% of papers published between 1991 and 2012, and 99.96% of papers published in 2013."

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yes, of course. The melting of the polar ice caps on Mars is because we keep driving SUVs. Yep. That makes perfect sense. Well, it makes perfect sense if you are a low information leftist. Of course if you have even a modicum of common sense you realize the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars has nothing to do with climate change on Earth except that they are both caused by the same thing. The sun spot cycle is trending toward maximum. Duh!

I'm quoting experts. You're making nonsensical statements.

 

[Revmitchell]

Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists -- but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry -- and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science.

Oh we are ok with science, we mistrust shady scientists with a far left agenda who want to redistribute wealth so they doctor numbers, change data, and lie to the world.