March for Science

How could this possibly be anti Trump? If it's a real march for science it would have nothing to do with him.

 

Oh I just read about this. This should be called the "March against real science." Apparently these people believe man made global warming has been proven which simply is not the case. Yeah, this is nothing more than political posturing of the far left.
Disappointing.

 

AARON BANDLER
OCTOBER 7, 2016

With Hurricane Matthew wreaking havoc, the Left is predictably seizing the storm as a means of promoting their radical global warming agenda. Climate change has not been a major theme this election cycle, but Hillary Clinton is now trying to turn it into one, with the help of global warming guru Al Gore. Unfortunately for the climate change alarmists, despite all the celebrity endorsements and high-minded rhetoric, the facts keep getting in the way. Here are nine things you need to know about the climate change hoax.

1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the "father" or "grandfather" of the climate change myth, as it was his "Model Zero" that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying "to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming," according to the leaked emails. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the "background data on which their findings and temperature records were based," even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear "any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work."

2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails. The new round of leaked emails at the time provided more teeth to the revelations of 2009. Here are a couple of egregious emails from Jones found, via Forbes:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The Washington Times reported in 2009: "Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler."

Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted "that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit," reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.

A 2015 Washington Times editorial also highlighted another example of NASA cooking the books:

Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.

4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it. The latter fact was left out of their press release at the time, as well as the fact that 2014 was supposedly hotter than the previous hottest year, 2010, by 0.02C – well within the margin of error of 0.1C that scientists tend to adhere by. The Washington Post attempted to spin in favor of NASA by arguing that NASA simply said that 2014 was the most likely hottest year on record – but their press release unequivocally stated that "2014 was the warmest year on record" and leaving out the aforementioned key facts makes such a declaration seem misleading, as it's clearly not a guarantee that 2014 was even likely the hottest year on record.

5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years. As The Daily Caller highlights, a recent peer-reviewed study concluded that when accounting for El Ninos and La Ninas – which are the "the fluctuations in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central Equatorial Pacific" that "occur on average every two to seven years," according to NOAA – there has been a flat-line temperature trend since 1997. In fact, the study found that the El Ninos and La Ninas disproved the existence of the Tropical Hot Spot, which the Environmental Protection Agency claimed as evidence of carbon dioxide supposedly warming the atmosphere.

6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent. The 97 percent myth stems from a variety of flawed studies, as the Daily Wire explained here. On the other hand, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a survey in 2015 that found that only 43 percent of scientists believe in man-made climate change, which is far from a consensus.

7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high. Data from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that the "average [ice] extent over the month [of September] is one of the highest in the last decade," according to Paul Homewood. This runs directly counter to the predictions of the climate change models.

8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists. Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry. National Review reports:

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Mann, one of the scientists mentioned earlier for his role in the Climategate scandal, received nearly $6 million in grants from the federal government. The sources of funding for scientists like Hansen are unknown, the federal government has been resisting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to reveal them.

9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change. Not just because of the aforementioned reasons, but because as Marco Morano points out at Climate Depot, "The data show for the last 10 years we have had an unusual drought of landfalling major hurricanes (Category 3 and higher) on the continental U.S."

"That’s right, no major hurricanes have made landfall for over a decade," Morano continued. "This is the longest such drought on record."

 

Make no mistake about it, our carbon footprint exists.

 

Maybe it's that they believe in water but know there's nothing that can be done to repair the boat or remove the water.

 

As a theoretical physicist, I was excited to hear about Saturday’s nationwide March for Science. But after learning who is leading it and why, I am disappointed to report it is but a brazen attempt by political activists to hijack science.

My dream of becoming a scientist started in the second grade and was my ticket out of the disadvantaged, gang-plagued neighborhoods of East Los Angeles, where I was born. I’ve spent my life teaching science in and out of classrooms to millions of people worldwide – and my efforts have been rewarded with everything from distinguished teaching awards to Emmys.

I believe the scientific method is by far our best hope for elucidating the physical universe. It’s why I feel so protective of it. I can’t bear seeing the organizers and partners of the so-called March for Science trying to politicize it.

Bill Nye, the march’s highly visible co-chairperson, is barely even a scientist. After earning an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, he worked for an airplane company, did stand-up comedy, and hosted a PBS kids show, in which he cleverly branded himself “The Science Guy.”

In science-related debates, Nye consistently defends a strident, liberal position. (I’d also call him out if he were a strident conservative.) And he promotes a woefully benighted stereotype of a scientist – an old, nerdy white guy sporting a tweed jacket and bow tie. Given all the highly qualified, bona fide researchers out there – including Nobel Prize winners – it boggles the mind that march organizers would choose Nye to represent science and expect to be taken seriously.

The march’s flagrant political bias is also plain in its choice of partners – for instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of fiercely anti-nuke, anti-Trump lobbyists. Its president, Kenneth Kimmel, defends the march by deliberately confusing attacks on his political agenda with attacks on the scientific method: “Nowhere is the attack more ferocious than on the issue of global warming, where the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to the modest but important policies put in place by President Obama.”

The march’s official website isn’t reassuring either. While reading its stated principles and goals, I came across this doozy of a statement: “Political decision-making that impacts the lives of Americans and the world at large should make use of peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus, not personal whims and decrees.”

Like wizards uttering a magical incantation, lobbyists routinely invoke the existence of a “scientific consensus” to lend an aura of infallibility to their political stands. At a seminar years ago, Arianna Huffington explained the Huffington Post did not tolerate any debate about climate change, because Al Gore – that world renowned scientist – personally assured her the matter was “settled science,” another oft-heard political spell.

The only thing Huffington revealed that day was her scientific illiteracy. Science is never settled. As Albert Einstein once observed, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Einstein knew whereof he spoke. As a young physicist in Switzerland, he confronted a stubborn scientific consensus – supported by a mountain of peer-reviewed evidence – that decreed Newtonian physics was settled science. In 1905, when Einstein dared to challenge it – to publish the special theory of relativity – the scientific establishment promptly reared up against him. Prominent Nazi physicists even accused him of promulgating disreputable “Jewish science.”

There is enormous room for improving science education in our nation’s public schools, colleges, grad schools, media, and – yes – political institutions. But the March for Science – lobbyists claiming that supporting the scientific method is equivalent to supporting their political agendas – is a very big, very public step in the wrong direction.


Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Science Editor for ABC News, taught physics at Harvard. His novel, "The Null Prophecy," debuts July 10.

 

What specific research?

 

Have you ever seen a "link" before? It's a special feature of hypertext markup language, and it allows you to click on some active text in a webpage to be taken to another webpage, usually for further information or a related source. Stu provided such a link in his previous post that you replied to. In this case it has been automatically marked up as a feature of the forum, and looks like a web address. If you click on it with your mouse cursor, it will take you to a page with further information about specifically what research has been cut. You can read all about it there.

 

Thanks invisible. Helpful as always. I skimmed through what was found on the link before I asked My question. My question remains.

 

@Stu
Yes I read all that in the link. You have cut and pasted that information which means you do not understand what I was getting at. I'll be more specific later and point out what I wanted you to see. Just don't have time now and wouldn't want to type it out on the phone anyway.

 

Right. You prefer to not see how ridiculous it is to say that Trump is against or is attacking science. Got it.
Damn Trump the science murderer!

 

Sweet! First you say you don't want to hear from me, then you change your thread title. I do feel special!

 

Can you believe I read through the whole thing!?
Wow!

Evidence for global warming

It's not happening
"...these global warming studies that now we're seeing (are) a bunch of snake oil science.”
(Sarah Palin)​

The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”.

The conclusion?
All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.

The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data.

All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:

​

The 10 indicators are:

1. Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
2. Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
3. Air temperature over the oceans.
4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
5. Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
6. Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
7. Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
8. Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
9. Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
10. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.

Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse.

Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”.

To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world.
This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:

• Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat(Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
• The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
• Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
• The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
• There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
• A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
• Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
• Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)

Ice Melt

• Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section 4.7.2.3)
• Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)
• Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)
• Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)
• Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)
• Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).
• Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005) Parmesan 2003)

• The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmesan 2003)

• Growing season is lengthening (Christidis 2007)

• Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterflies (Kearney 2010)

• Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)

• Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008)

• UK Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years (Amano 2010)

• Arctic phytoplankton blooming earlier in the year, affecting the food chain (Kahru 2010)

• Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterfly: 1.6 days per decade (Kearney 2010).

• Decline in lizard populations (Sinervo 2010)

• Drop in primary productivity due to unprecedented warming at Lake Tanganyika(Tierney 2010)

• Tropical reef corals are expanding poleward (Yamano 2011)

• Species are shrinking (Sheridan 2011)

​

 

The 97% consensus on global warming

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.
When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect.

Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).

Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up.

Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end.
Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
There is no vote.

Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer.

Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time.
Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work.

All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations.

The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a 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.

Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016).​

Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample.
There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. ​

Expert consensus is a powerful thing.
People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts.

It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill.
The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists.

Crucially, as we note in our paper:

Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus.

They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.

​