JoyV

Where do you get your assertion that nobody is saying climate change is a natural event.

The article written by Oreskes, a supporter of anthropogenic climate change, included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change” whether or not they were by climatologists or even about climate change. Of those about 25% admitted to believing there was human caused climate change. About 50% agreed there was climate change by natural causes. And the rest expressed no opinion on whether climate change was anthropogenic or not. But understand that the survey was of scientists from all branches of science. If you eliminate all who are NOT climatologists, meteorologists, or geologists; the consensus narrows even further. In fact geologists, the science which covers climate over the long term; are far less supportive of anthropogenic climate change. They see the cycles of warming and cooling and how they compare before and after the industrial revolution.

Almost all more recent estimates of science consensus on climate change base their figures on Oreskes' article. Of those which have done their own surveys, most of the questions do not address the question of whether climate change is anthropogenic. Instead the questions are often about whether the public BELIEVES there is human caused climate change. This is misleading. Another misleading detail is that most science papers on climate change do not address the cause but rather address the problems caused by climate change (regardless of whether the cause is natural or man made. In fact The 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.

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.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. But this Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Another point to consider is how often is the majority correct? In the early to mid 20th century, the majority of scientists were on board that our planet was getting cooler, or about to get cooler and an ice age was on the way. The majority of the mid 20th century scientists had a very convincing sounding theory on air pollution reflecting solar rays and causing cooling. The consensus on the cause of lunar craters use to be volcanic activity. And the consensus on plate techtonics was the same figure quoted for climate change of 97%. But the 97% were OPPOSED to the idea of plate techtonics!

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Airforceone

What is it that I am not paying attention to.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Where do you get your assertion that nobody is saying climate change is a natural event.

The article written by Oreskes, a supporter of anthropogenic climate change, included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change” whether or not they were by climatologists or even about climate change. Of those about 25% admitted to believing there was human caused climate change. About 50% agreed there was climate change by natural causes. And the rest expressed no opinion on whether climate change was anthropogenic or not. But understand that the survey was of scientists from all branches of science. If you eliminate all who are NOT climatologists, meteorologists, or geologists; the consensus narrows even further. In fact geologists, the science which covers climate over the long term; are far less supportive of anthropogenic climate change. They see the cycles of warming and cooling and how they compare before and after the industrial revolution.

Almost all more recent estimates of science consensus on climate change base their figures on Oreskes' article. Of those which have done their own surveys, most of the questions do not address the question of whether climate change is anthropogenic. Instead the questions are often about whether the public BELIEVES there is human caused climate change. This is misleading. Another misleading detail is that most science papers on climate change do not address the cause but rather address the problems caused by climate change (regardless of whether the cause is natural or man made. In fact The 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.

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.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. But this Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents - nearly half - believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Another point to consider is how often is the majority correct? In the early to mid 20th century, the majority of scientists were on board that our planet was getting cooler, or about to get cooler and an ice age was on the way. The majority of the mid 20th century scientists had a very convincing sounding theory on air pollution reflecting solar rays and causing cooling. The consensus on the cause of lunar craters use to be volcanic activity. And the consensus on plate techtonics was the same figure quoted for climate change of 97%. But the 97% were OPPOSED to the idea of plate techtonics!

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Airforceone

Trump unlocked the economy what actually does that mean. That’s a first economy goes up economy goes down now the democrats locked it up. Please explain locked up.

Let’s walk through the Days when Obama took office and let’s take one step at a time.

Issues to discuss.
Jobs
Home foreclosures
Banks failing
Stock market crash
Deficit spending
Fighting 2 wars unpaid for
Auto industry going bankrupt
Stock market at
Unpaid for programs
Bush Tax cuts/Jobs created
Bush spending/Obama spending
Number of jobs created under Obama
Compare Trumps first two years to Obama
Wages
GDP
Inflation


So maybe if we take one issue at a time and get the facts first then maybe we can get to the avenue where Trump picked up the key to unlocked the economy.

Let’s talk jobs first and see if we can agree.

According to the BLS the unemployment rate when Obama took office was at 7.8% and this country over the next 3 months was purging 800,000 jobs a month. Unemployment maxed out at 10.2% (CAN WE AGREE ON THESE FIGURES)

Actually in January when Trump took office that’s when the December jobs report came out followed by the Jan report where the unemployment rate was revised down for Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 to 4.1% of which Trump immediately took the credit. So actually the Unemployment rate was at 4.1%. (CAN WE AGREE ON THESE FIGURES)

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

What you fail to realize is that on day one; Trump cancelled all of the economy strangling regulations Obama instituted. Trump unleashed the usage of oil shale, etc.
AND; People now new that the economy would be allowed to grow, and actad accordingly.
Now we have a continued economy going in the right direction.

How is this so hard for you and other Democrats to understand?

JoyV

This was my post verbatim.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Yes it was!
It needed repeating.

JoyV

The figures you quote are not the full picture. When people lose good paying jobs and can only find part time work so take two part time jobs; the unemployment figures go down. When government "creates" new jobs from taxpayers money, or subsidizes existing businesses to hire more workers than they could otherwise afford to pay; the unemployment figures go down. These are low paying jobs. And the latter two require oversight and administration of the programs so only a fraction of every dollar collected in taxes actually makes it to the paychecks of the employees. This is unsustainable over the long term.

JoyV

So true!

JoyV

Then I thank you!

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I usually include the Quotation marks and authors.

Common_Sense_Matters

Actually, people taking multiple jobs has no impact on unemployment rates, those figures are actually taken from those currently on unemployment and those actively searching for a job through the workforce development department. Other factors not taken into consideration in the unemployment rate is those that have run out of benefits, those that have opted for early retirement due to not being able to find a job in a reasonable time frame and/or have given up the search for a new job.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

The only ones who don't have a job right now or those who do not want to work.

JoyV

That is why it is better to look at employment figures instead of unemployment.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker