The problem is that the issue is not whether or not “humans are causing global warming.” I can concede that there is a good possibility of that, and it still has zero implications for policy, absent quantification with sufficient confidence levels, which remain lacking.
[Afternoon update]
“Climatologists will say that the way the question is worded depends on whether they are included,” Morano said. “We have many skeptical scientists included as the 97 percent because of the way the questions [in surveys] are asked are so vague and broadly worded.”
Yup.
I must insist that 1 percent of carbon mitigation taxes go for reparations to the Tennessee snail-darter!
The 97% number will remain relevant as long as the leaders of one of our major political parties continue to deny that humans are changing the climate. Then we’ll be able to move on to arguing about how much we’re changing the climate, what the effects are and will be, and what we can and should do about it. But as long as you have leading Republicans like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump arguing that it’s all a hoax we need the 97% studies to remind the public just how out of touch those politicians are with the science.
The people “out of touch with the science” are the people who continue to cite the 97% number.
No, it’s people who say things like “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Or “”The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming.” In other words, the two leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination.
we need the 97% studies to remind the public just how out of touch those politicians are with the science
I really like getting reminded. What do you think the general public’s opinion is on getting reminded. In general.
Is this your latest talking point?
Jim:
What general part of the world are you in, and how many kWHr (or MJ) in electricity does your household use per month? You have electric or gas-fired stove, oven, dryer, and water heater?
I live in NH. Our appliances are electric except for our water heater and furnace, which use propane. We buy about 500kWHr/month in electricity, and about 70 gallons/mo in propane.
Why do you ask?
Allowing for 5 months where heating is not needed, assuming 20 therms/month hot water use over those months, and making some assumptions regarding dwelling heat recovery from the electric and water heating use, your household heating input is 740 terms gas (100,000 BTU units, propane is .913 therms/gallon), 120 therms electric, for a total of 860 therms.
The climate varies considerable between the much milder more coastal Manchester and the harsher more inland Concord. Concord has averaged 6800 deg-days over the past 6 heating seasons (see http://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=gyx). That puts your house at about 530 BTU/deg-hr.
That level of total house insulation rating is about what you can achieve with a house with double-pane windows, good attic insulation, fiberglass insulation in 2X4 stud walls (R-11), and a high-efficiency (condensing) gas furnace. There is not much more to gain unless you want to spend a lot of money insulating your basement (if you have one), tearing off your interior wallboard and putting some exotic insulation between the studs, new exterior siding on top of foal insulation board, new triple-pane windows, and stuffing your attic with more insulation.
I have seen houses with half that in the Madison, WI area (your gas and electric consumption is a public record here in the People’s Republic). These are a couple of “earth shelter” houses probably dating to the late 1970’s-early 80’s oil-crisis era and one more conventional stand-alone condo.
The condo owner in the low 300’s BTU/deg-hr is one of two adjunct professors in Construction Engineering. His office mate, the guy who introduced himself to me by “social signaling” about Climate Change lives in a place that is in the 900’s in the “po’ part of town” (i.e., Monona, probably lake-front property).
There is not much you can do about improving the effective insulation rating of an existing house once you have maxed out the attic insulation, installed a high-efficiency furnace when the old one conks out and an electronic set-back thermostat, and plug up some air leaks, although I have known immigrants from India and other places in Asia who for cultural reasons keep their houses much colder in winter than most of the native-born can stand.
In addition to just cutting down on your automobile trips and air travel, the electric is perhaps the most elastic category where a person could reduce their “carbon footprint.” A lot of us are conscious about how much gas is going into the car, but the electric use is out of sight, out of mind with little idea of where it all goes, and then we get the monthly bill and we just pay it.
500 kWHr/month electric? MGE regards that as “typical” for a Madison-area household, although most of my neighbors are up around 1000 or more. This guy I know ran on an environmental platform and served for a short time as my State Representative and I ragged on him for being above 400 kWHr/month, especially since the guy serving for 30 years whom he replaced was under 300. My environmentally conscious Power Engineering colleague is around 300, and there are a couple of faculty members in Consumer Sciences (what used to be Home Economics) below 250.
I live in NH. Our appliances are electric except for our water heater and furnace, which use propane. We buy about 500kWHr/month in electricity, and about 70 gallons/mo in propane.
The good news for you is that your electricity is coming from one of two primary non-carbon sources. Either Hydro Quebec or Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. Depending upon who you are using for a supplier. NH lets you pick a supplier independent of your line utility which is Eversource formerly Public Service Of New Hampshire. The bulk of NH electricity is from one of the above two sources, the rest is made up by mom&pop small hyrdo dams. In the noise are the other mom&pop ‘renewables’ intermittently contributing windmills and a smattering of solar, which is off at night and not all the productive in the winter due to the high latitude.
Propane is such a racket in NH. Talk about something that could use RICO. But!!! No Natural Gas pipeline in MY backyard. No siree…..
That famous “97%” survey was compiled by a small group of activists who simply rendered opinions on whether the published work of particular climate researchers did or did not support the catastrophic AGW hypothesis. It isn’t known what percentage of the paper authors were contacted to confirm or deny their ratings, but it is known, now, that many of them were not contacted and that a number have subsequently called their inclusion in this “survey” a misrepresentation of their work.
There isn’t just one “97%” survey, there have been a number of them. The paper referenced above refers to six independent studies: different authors, different methodologies, similar results.
Yes, similar results that have absolutely nothing to do with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
They do establish, quite robustly, that 90+% of climate scientists think that A) the planet has been getting warmer and B) human activities are a significant contributor to that warming. Meanwhile, one of our two major political parties refuses to accept either one of those consensus scientific findings.
No, they don’t. The only thing on which there is such a consensus is that CO2 is a GHG. It’s not “significant” in the sense that it demands a policy response.
“They do establish, quite robustly, that 90+% of climate scientists think that A) the planet has been getting warmer and B) human activities are a significant contributor to that warming.”
Given that many of the scientists on that list weren’t even queried, yet included, and many others were mis-represented the list is just so much trash.
Also the authors admit that a lot of the people on that list are NOT climate scientists and yet their opinions are factored in.
More trash.
Given the long history of bad science, lies falsifications, and attempts to suppress opposing opinion, perhaps you can see why most thinking people heap scorn those lists.
The statement that has 90+% support from climate scientists in the 6+ surveys analyzed by the paper is that “humans are causing recent global warming”, not just that CO2 is a GHG.
It’s not “significant” in the sense that it demands a policy response.
It is significant in the sense that it establishes that humans can change the climate — because we already have. The policy question is whether we should continue to do so.
Yes, and there is no “97% consensus” on that. Obviously humans have changed the climate (for example, in the Sahara). So?
And in the 14th century, Probably 97% of all scholars thought the sun revolved around the earth.
You need to survey Republican and Democratic Party politicians on what they tell their constituents and compare that against their household electric usage.
A person who uses the average amount of electricity in a region may be regarded as neutral, statistically speaking, as to what they really believe about human-caused climate change together with how dangerous it is. A Republican who uses much less electricity than average, statistically speaking, believes in their heart that some action must be taken against Climate Change, but they are afraid to take that position publically because of their political base.
A Democrat, on the other hand, who uses much more electricity than average, is a hypocrite.
A Republican or a Democrat who uses multiples of the average electric usage in their location is clandestinely “growing” in their basement . . .
Then we’ll be able to move on to arguing about how much we’re changing the climate, what the effects are and will be, and what we can and should do about it.
An argument with no point since reducing population is a non starter (where’s a good nuclear war when ya need one?)
No point because it’s about political power and not science.
Huh? There’s no technical reason why the world economy can’t support more people while emitting less carbon.
no technical reason
Weasel.
Good, then YOU work on it. Spend your evenings and weekends developing a non-carbon based energy system that is viable in the marketplace.
Too hard? Yes. Much easier to bully others into following your utopian vision.
There are actual surveys available, and some of them ask specific enough questions that you can find out what the respondents think about various different critical issues in climate science. If you want to know what climate scientists think, ask them.
. . . “humans are causing global warming.” I can concede that there is a good possibility of that, . . .
Crikey Rand, as the discussion develops I could end up on your side again! 😮
I’ve never “denied” that. What I deny is that we have enough knowledge with sufficient confidence to base policy on it.
I agree to a point. If a house is on fire, I am not going to sit and debate if this or that fire suppression system would be the most advantagous or the best economic value. I would just start start spraying and deal with the different theories at the same time. What are humans doing at a greater rate and how, then appears naturally in nature?
The Earth is not on fire, nor is mankind equipped to put it out if it was. Bad metaphors do not make sound basis for policy either.
“the Earth is not on fire”
actually haven’t we spent (in the west) billions on suppressing the natural fires of the earth, and now when they happen they’re 1000’s time worse than if we’d just let them burn naturally originally a little here and a little there?.
Yep, us Humans sure know how to ‘manage’ nature!
My ex-wife works for the state of CA. Most fire management is budget management. Fires occur with predictable frequency there every year.
Vladislaw:
I take it your don’t live in the U.S. “Mountain West” and especially not in the canyons in the L.A. Basin?
If your house is on fire, odds are it was a natural occurrence or at least the consequence of naturally occurring events. Good luck fighting this fire — if you value your life, you are best leaving not only the house but the neighborhood, immediately.
There are certain natural forces remaining outside mankind’s ability to harness, dominate, mitigate, or control. Weather and climate are such forces.
Perhaps it was a fire that would extinguish itself or by throwing a wet towel over it but because you freaked out and started blasting the house with a fire hose, your house is now ruined.
In these situations, its important to be calm not freak out. The devotees of climate apocalypse are freaking out. The whole point of creating the hysteria is to lower inhibitions to implementing preexisting political preferences.
Typical fear based politics with a primitive religious twist.
I’ve never denied it either, I just think it is background noise in the overall scheme of things.
I guess that makes me part of the 97%.
We’re in an interglacial and the temperature is wandering up and down a degree C or so now and again. Not surprising as about 20,000 years ago SOMETHING gave the Earth/atmosphere/ocean system an almighty whack bringing us out of an ice age.
It isn’t surprising to me that there are oscillations in all sorts of measurable things.
Enjoy the interglacial. The ice will be back soon enough.
Mike, this theory seems to be plausible. Eastern Washington is filled with massive boulders lying about as if they had been embedded in ice and then deposited there after the ice melted. I don’t know if this happened because of the emptying of Glacial Lake Missoula or something bigger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
To me, if there’s anything to worry about it’s asteroidal impacts, not climate change (unless climate change is caused by asteroidal impact.)
Yup, they are from Glacial Lake Missoula but it didn’t just happen once, but repeatedly. There was also the Bonneville flood, which was bigger than any one of the Missoula floods.
The Missoula floods weren’t just big because of the lake they came from but because they flowed into Glacial Lake Columbia and Glacial Lake Spokane, depending on the time period, which also held a lot of water.
Look at this map. You can see where the floods came through the small mountains to the north and south. Zoom in on the Dishman Hills Conservation Area , the flood waters were 300 feet above the peak, although I am not sure if that is the 3000ft peak by Glenrose or just the peak in the green shaded area. There are north/south channels carved by the floods.
It was something like 20m (or 200m) gallons a minute pouring through there. I can’t remember the exact number and can’t find my notes.
Latah Creek was also carved by the floods. Just zoom out and keep moving west. The path of the floods are easy to spot from the satellite view.
The Ice Age Flood Institute has events all year long. Most of them are in the Tri-Cities and include jet boat rides and winery tours but they also do lectures and what not.
Tons of stuff to read like hugefloods.com and lots of youtube videos like this one with Patrick Stewart narrating or some cool ultralite flyovers.
The story behind the J Harlan Bretz and his megaflood theory is a good example of how consensus is not science and how viciously the scientific community can attack those who stray off the path of popularity.
It’s worth noting that the latest “97%” paper, referred to in the link, has eight of the nine authors of the last one, and the same primary author, John Cook. I’m not interested in hearing what the “consensus” is from someone who has already written a fraudulent paper on the subject.
Anyone who professes to believe that humans have a significant impact on climate by this time is either a knave or a fool.