From Maryland League for Conservation Voters:
“Congressman Harris, Your Constituents Are Being Harmed By Severe Storms And Rising Tides”
Organizing For Action ( OFA) volunteers and constituents from Congressman Andy Harris’ congressional district met on Tuesday at his Bel Air, Maryland district office to present him with the OFA Climate Change Deniers Award, and express their frustration at the Congressman’s refusal to accept the scientific evidence of climate change.
OFA Volunteer and Maryland State Lead for Climate Change, Jennifer Hosey showed the Unicorn Trophy to the audience and explained why OFA chose a unicorn as their symbol for the Climate Change Denier Award:
“The point is that these members of Congress who continue to deny the existence of climate change are living in a fantasyland. The unicorn analogy may seem extreme, but it isn’t. What is extreme are those members of Congress who continue to stand against 97% of climate scientists and undermine our ability to deal with the serious threats that climate change poses to the health of our community, our economy and future generations. Believing in unicorns and denying climate change may seem equally silly or naive,” said Ms Hosey, “but the later is far more dangerous.”
Mr. Bob Patterson, PT a health care professional who resides in Chestertown, a Waterfront Community in the First Congressional District, spoke with the audience assembled outside Congressman Harris’ Bel Air office, telling them that storms in his area have increased in both number and severity. “Climate change is here and it is now, ” said Mr Patterson, adding that he has seen first hand the devastating impact of climate change on his own community.
Only members of the audience who reside in The Congressman’s district, were permitted inside the his Bel Air office to hear Mr. Patterson’s remarks as he presented The Climate Deniers Award to Congressman Harris’ designate, District Staff Assistant, Matt Nemphos.
“Representative Harris, Dr. Harris, you are a Congressman and a Doctor, ” said Mr. Patterson. “We ask you to bring the same ethics to your constituents as you would your patients. As a physician, if 97% of scientific researchers agreed that a procedure you were performing was suddenly found to be harmful to your patients, wouldn’t you have the moral and legal obligation to accept this science and change the procedure?” Mr. Patterson then urged Congressman Harris to accept the science of Climate Change saying that Congressman Harris’ own constituents are being harmed by severe storms and rising tides. ” I urge you to accept the science of Climate Change and stand with PresidentObama’s agenda.”
Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 2
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Received 18 January 2013, accepted for publication 22 April 2013, Published 15 May 2013
Abstract:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11?944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Notice you said “Peer-reviewed” not scientifically reviewed. “Peer Review” is one idiot saying the other idiot is right. Please stop using “Peer Review” as anything legitimate.
Oh they didn’t ask you Mt Peer? What the Hell do you think a Peer is” It is a scientist. Go back to watching Duck Dynasty and Pawn Stars. That’s about the extent of your knowledge of History or much of anything else.
Peer-reviewed science research is reviewed by other scientists in the same field.
Yes in this case peer reviewed is getting peers who already agree with you and to agree with your theory. Theory is not proof, it’s a theory.
Polar bears thriving and world climate the same for past 15 years.
Are you anyone’s peer? Is this a cry for help from a person with low self esteem? Seek counseling.
Notice the first paragraph in the MLCV press release. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the word action in the same sentence as the phrase Congressman Andy Harris. Even the right-leaning Aegis makes that point on Friday’s editorial page
First it was global warming, no real evidence presented. Oops, now we call it climate change. Still no REAL evidence. Perhaps some of you morons should follow the Scientific method and deliver some hard, cold evidence that this ever-name-changing-phenomenon is actually occurring. Rather than spreading your blather and attempting to interrupt political gatherings.
They’d provide it to you but the absence of pretty water color pictures would make it hard for you to understand.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
New paper finds only 32.6% of climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming
The 32% non-consensus
The new paper from climate clowns Cook & Nuccitelli et al has just been published open-access online in Environmental Research Letters. According to the authors, of 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011, “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” Of the only 32.6% of papers that endorsed AGW, one would expect 100% endorsement of AGW by the authors of those 32.6% of papers, yet Cook finds somewhat less agreement of 97.1% even amongst scientists who already endorsed AGW in their papers. Even if one trusts the methods of Cook & Nuccitelli et al, who have repeatedly been shown to distort & torture data and apply inappropriate statistical methods, their paper only indicates a 32.6*0.971 = 31.6% non-consensus endorsement of AGW in the climate literature.
32.6% – is a failing grade
Nice picture. I always wondered who the 6 people were who voted against Harris.
WAIT IS THAT RALPH NADER
Yes, in drag.
I’m not in the picture Alex. Your theory is shot to Hell again
Because, We all know that is you with the orange shirt and blue shorts.
Such a nasty little person Jaguar Judy. You took your name form the car? Dated anachronism of automotive excellence with a reputation for lousy reliability, high expense and an air of superiority that is just undeserved. Kind of the Ayn Rand of the Automotive World. Superior in your mind only and to those of the simpletons you appeal to.
Don’t try flattery on me, Because. You’re still just a Lib/Dem tilting at windmills and spending as much taxpayer money as you can to get your buddies elected. Care to comment on Jesse Jackson, Jr? Jesse, the darling of the Democratic Party, is now sitting in prison (with a golf course and Olympic size pool) guilty of the theft of tons of money but the Obama administration has awarded him $8700 per month in disability plus he is starting to collect a Federal pension. Maybe your other buddies Bob Filner and Wendy Rosen and Anthony Weenie and Lois Lerner could join him there.
Really? Nancy Pelosi drives one.
Pelosi does indeed have a Jaguar. In fact she and her husband have two. Does that make them double what Because alleges people who have Jag’s are like?
Alex R = Jaguar Judy
Two names, one useless human being
There is too much evidence of fraudulent science to consider the “science” settled. More like propaganda. Science is when you intentionally take out the bias, and hand the data over to ensure that the bias has indeed been neutralized and then are able to get repeat results with similar testing/analysis….Various scandals and leaks have shown, though the IPCC, media and the powers that be at the UN (who seem to enjoy the money attached to the hysteria) that they are more interested in providing propaganda for their power consolidating enterprise.
In considering the statistics of “scientists” that support AGW, you might all remember that science and democracy are not the same, and do not serve the same purpose; and that there is a difference between science and political science. If the results are determined prior to the actual analysis, it’s not science.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
You are correct, Mom in Harford. This is why we rely on peer-reviewed studies. It removes the junk science from the mix. This was seen quite recently with those who attempted to link autism with vaccinations. Until that hypothesis was debunked (rather quickly), it has scared, and continues to scare some people to the point where they won’t protect their children by having them vaccinated, thereby exposing a greater population to diseases that we shouldn’t be facing.
Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the “peer-review card” to silence scientific dissent.
The peer-review system faces two common criticisms: (1) that the system wrongly rejects scientifically valid papers, and (2) that the system wrongly accepts scientifically flawed papers. “Peer review” literally killed Galileo, and dismissed Newton. So again you can name call all you want. I feel sorry that so many of you refuse to question that status quot and will happily regurgitate what you see on TV as fact. I must really thank you for the entertainment though. Watching and reading the countless “open minded” robots spew their hate on here toward opposing view points is way more entertaining then pawn stars or duck dynasty.
The two scientist you named we’re shut down because their discoveries ran contrary to catholic dogma! Peer review had nothing to do with it!
@Nice Try:
I’m sorry you reject peer-reviewed research and the scientific method. Unfortunately, the opposite system, which amounts to “take my word for it” never worked out very well.
All research that is peer-reviewed has a large section on methodology, which allows others to conduct the research in order to see if the results can be duplicated, as well as to check for errors. This is ultimately what brought down Andrew Wakefield and his attempts to link vaccines and autism. His work led to many to become sick from preventable disease. Peer review allowed the scientific community to quickly debunk his dangerous ideas, although not fast enough to protect many innocent people from getting sick.
Yeah, yeah……and the planet earth is flat. 🙁
Wait until are coasts are underwater and tell me it’s not real.
super cool link to a real clear politics article from 5 years ago, a-hole
Who would have thought the “#” would make its way to a hand written protesters sign?
Timely comment in 2008
The lady holding the action tells me everything I need to know about them. In the eighties it was global cooling now global warming. Pick a Disney theory and stick with it already.
You a nasty jerk man
Swallow that bile back down
Don’t spray it so much
You hateful ho
No that is my opinion which I am allowed to have. Libs say they are understanding of different points of view and free speech as long as you agree with them. I am not a conservative RINO who believes in being politically correct. If your feelings get hurt well then get over it. I can speak my mind like you. You libs and your PC ways are destroying a once great country, along with the idiot in Chief and his minions.
Seriously Marc, you are so far right you’re starting to come around to the fringe left
David Porter –
And what are you?
David A Porter God put liberals on the earth to entertain us Conservatives…..God does have a sense of humor. @Marc_Eaton
If its sooooo hot or mucccchhh warmer why are you wearing long pants during the peak of summer? Just saying.
Uh, oh. When you use “consensus” and “science” in the same sentence, you lose the argument right then and there. “Global Warming” was a hoax. The trendy Lefties now cling to “Climate Change”. What’s next?
Otto Schmidlap
Yes scientific fact requires no consensus. It is as settled the same as the round earth revolving around the sun.
Science is always right—until it is proven wrong. I’m so old I remember scientist used to think the world was flat…
“Took no position” does not mean “couldn’t decide.” It means that those papers were investigating aspects of climate change, not whether climate change is caused by humans. Of the papers that did ask whether it’s us causing it, 97.2% said yes and only 2% said no (proving that papers CAN be published whose findings disagree with their peer climatologists, as long as they meet a minimum standard of accepted methods of inquiry).
That should be “other aspects” above.
Indoctrinated, that is why we refer to it as climate change- so people who thought global warming meant it would always be unbearably got everywhere instantly would get that it’s a very complex system. One degree Celsius higher of average temperatures worldwide is an indication of quite dramatic, dangerous changes even if locally things still get a bit chilly now and then.
So an increase in solar activity over that same period can’t be the cause of that degree difference?
An increase in solar activity COULD cause increases in global temperatures, yes. BUT the Sun has been closely observed by several satilites and ground-based systems for decades; there is no evidence that there has been an increase in solar output that could begin to explain the climate changes observed on Earth. Furthermore the entire atmosphere from top to bottom would be warming. That is not happening; the bottom of the Troposphere is warming while the Stratosphere is cooling. This trend could only be explained by increases in Greenhouse Effect.
Search the topic and find many articles and studies that say otherwise.
I bet you still drive your car and have a smart phone….
Yeah and it gets 31 mpg and no, I gave up the smartphone because I hated the $15 a month data plan. Still not the 56 mpg my co-workers get out of their Prius; which by the way is a very cool car. I still get a kick out of the commercial that touts the $400 a month a family supposedly pays for cellphone service. Just how much money do you have to pay for frills and excess?
Please provide links to such articles published through reputable scientific sources…
I really don’t understand the deniers. The climate crisis is an opportunity to move this country forward. Do they seriously think that we can keep polluting our rivers, our atmosphere, cutting down trees and so on without paying any price? If I’ve learned something in life, is that EVERYTHING has a price. We’re running a very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. There is no planet B.
We have so much more to win than just the war on terror. An America that runs on clean energy is a core national security and economic interest. Green is not a form of generating electric power, it’s a new form of generating national power. Period. To the deniers I ask this: What kind of America would you like to see: an America that is addicted to oil and thereby fueling the worst autocracies in the world, or a green America that is building scalable alternatives to crude oil and thereby freeing yourselves from the grip of countries who have drawn a bull’s eye on our back and whose values we oppose?
Deniers, don’t be afraid of change. When you’re afraid you’re not yourself. And being afraid is not American.
When the wind changes direction, there are those who build walls and those who build windmills. What are you gonna do?
What a bunch of emotional hippy crap.
You can’t destroy the present for hope of a future technology capable of replacing our current power generation. You need inexpensive energy to sustain business and grow wealth. When a method for sustainable green energy evolves, the market will go that route.
No one, even the so called ‘deniers” want the dirty air, water and deforestation that you are accusing them of. Liberal talking points. No one is afraid of change, it just has to make sense to make that change.
Windmills or walls? This is the kind of dreamer we have leading the country, change without responsibility.
@Aurelio
We are addicted to energy, any kind of energy.
We have tons of natural gas reserves that are a form of inexpensive energy that insane green activists want us not to use.
Green activists want us to use expensive green energy technologies that are unreliable and unscalable.
Between shale oil and natural gas we are independent, if only the President and his green activist acolytes would stop their insane war on energy.
And finite. Thanks for playing
No It just gives politicians a reason to get rich selling carbon credits.
We have had a belly full of change since 2009, we are sick of your change. Obaturd can take his change and stuff it. Do you think the have seen me post this?
With all your denial and refusal to cooperate Marc, it’s no surprise that you and the less than 50% that supported him are happy with your stagnation. Thanks so much for your lack of effort. Thanks for your hate and derision. It really makes living with you on the planet more bearable. Perhaps you should travel to another country to see how progressive living can be better. Give it a shot – even Canada has it’s benefits. Responsible Gun Ownership and Universal Health Care. Heck they even have Tar Sands for you to salivate over, when they aren’t spoiling the water table. But ignore that. You know you love the shear excitement of more carbon in your water and in your air.
@Aurelio
Well put. The US is a country that is always moving forward. This applies to technology as well. The inertia you describe is one that pits established interests which prefer some form of status quo against innovation. Eventually, the latter will prevail, as it always does in this country. We will see a greater diversification of our energy generation capabilities for the benefit of the whole country. It will start with these experiments with shale oil, fracking, wind, and solar, but we will be moving away from coal and oil with time, not to get rid of them entirely, but like a good retirement package, so that we aren’t easily crippled by shortages in any one area, like the oil embargo from the 1970’s.
DC’s Cancers Per Million: 530x the acceptable 1x per Million … hmmm, the Congressman and his colleagues can be unicorns but they can’t escape dirty diesel pollution. Lung cancer’s got an 85% mortality rate = we should have 100% of our elected leaders standing up for our health http://catf.us/diesel/dieselhealth/state.php?site=0&s=11
Dirty diesel? Is that the new sack riding topic?
Hate all energy that is the plan.
If it fuels your electricity hate it.
If it makes your car move hate it.
If a factory uses energy hate it.
If cows fart hate them.
Is there anything you will not critique with your personal version of negativity? Got any positive things to say that are not simply an attack on someone else’ positive comment? Seek counsel or get a kitten. If you don’t snuff it’s life out immediately I will be impressed.
Because
You have cornered the market on negativity.
You’ve concluded that fossil fuels which provide 98% of the world’s energy are destroying the planet and should be eliminated.
Can you get more negative than that?
Fortunately, the US is ahead of the game and only generates 81% of its energy needs through fossil fuels alone.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/major_energy_sources_and_users.cfm
Here’s a fact. No issue will ever be proven, unproven or solved if politics are involved. Now, putting politics aside, in my almost 58 years I have noticed the winters have gotten a lot more mild as years gone by. Sure, there have been some damn cold winters here and there but overall the climate has gotten warmer. So as far as “I’m” concerned, global warming is a fact. The question I can’t answer is why. It could be just a natural thing. Maybe not. I’ll probably never know because from what I read, it’s because G W Bush invaded Iraq or Obama wanted to change health care.
What more evidence do we require that this is politically motivated than the use of the term “denier” in this debate? Those that would say this is settled science and that those that hold a different view are “deniers” exposé their political motivation. The science in this case consists of mathematical models which predict the future based on what has happened. So when you use the term denier, you are saying that predictions for the future are settled facts. Is anyone else awestruck by the arrogance of such a stance?