He departed before I could ask him but he had made mention that among a certain group of physicists, fully 50% were not on board with the conclusions of a vast majority of other scientists regarding the seriousness of climate change, or at least our ability to do something about it. Does anybody know who he was referring to and/or whether his statement about those physicists are accurate?

I just found his comment. "Scientists in the broader field of atmospheric physics are the least believing of climate change narratives, coming in at ~50% belief in the major tenets of AGW in professional surveys. The whole thing is a farce."

Not really sure how to answer this question within the posted rules of the forum (basically reasonable inferences about intent based on posting history).

If he hasn't provided a source it's probably made up. ToothSayer is the person putting forward a claim that is contradictory to the scientific consensus so the burden of proof rests with him. Wikipedia lists three atmospheric scientists in the arguing that global warming is primarily driven by natural processes and the cause of global warming in unknown categories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ural_processes

This is going to be a fraction of the number of atmospheric physicists that have expressed an opinion on the subject. Wikipedia isn't a great source but it's as much depth as I can be bothered going into in the morning before my second cup of coffee.

One of them is undoubtedly Richard Lindzen

Pretty sure that nearly all physicists are anti climate change

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

Quote:

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. A minority are climatologists. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.[3][4]

Of course not all physicists and certainly not 50%.

What I found interesting about this are the following categories:

Quote:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

This article mentions IPCC perditions among others.
Climate Model Analysis

Quote:

Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Methodological note
Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli helpfully provided a list of past model/observation comparisons, available here. The PlotDigitizer software was used to obtain values from older figures when data was not otherwise available. CMIP3 and CMIP5 model data was obtained from KNMI Climate Explorer.

I could quibble with the characterization in the conclusion about accuracy. I think the bolded is hedging. I stated on this forum years ago that climate models are evolving and would improve. With that stated forecasting future temperatures with climate modeling is a huge challenge. Relying on the IPCC in predicting the effects accuratly (LOL at politicians making predictions)seems like an act of faith to me. I readily concede I’m not a religious guy.

Why don't you go over to BFI and ask him yourself?

don't want to feel like agent starling

Seems cowardly to start a thread about him here where he can’t defend his position.

was asking about an assertion of fact. not a position that needed to be defended

I understand that this forum includes a mechanism to send people private messages when you want to ask them a specific question.

This probably would have been better but since we're here I guess we'll carry on.

I doubt BFI would agree.

Still good to see Trolly supporting the decency of not attacking posters who cannot defend themselves. And no-one is objecting. Such is progress.

Good to see chez standing up for the guy to used to post Sambo cartoons in the thread he used to moderate.

Why not move this science thread to SMP, where TS is allowed to post?

If David wants it moved there, that's fine with me. I'll let him decide.

Excuse me?

Oh come on, surely people must realise that chez is making a joke based on the ambiguous meaning of being "anti climate change".

I know but obviously he can’t defend himself here so why not deflect a tad? Aren’t you going down the road that TS is making stuff up to defend his position on climate change? If so then the TS position on climate change is something that should be totally discounted. Why don’t we start with let’s not take the TS positions on climate change seriously and move on to a more relevant discussion? I am fine with that. Apologies if I am wrong in impugning your motives.

I simply thought he might be referring to a well known study and wanted to save time. shouldn't have included the last few words of that quote I guess.

From the brief encounter I had with the guy I would assume he pulled them out of his ass.

I can't answer the question in the OP but some googling turned this up:

The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists





That last chart is entertaining, at least. Cliffs: everyone thinks climate science is trustworthy; but everyone thinks it's less trustworthy than their own field :P

I need to preface this with saying I think pollution is awful and I'm confident that people are doing incredible amounts of damage to the environment. I've always enjoyed spending a lot of time in the mountains/outdoor and scuba diving is one of my favorite hobbies. I've done it across the world and the guides across Asia and S.A. always talk about the ecosystem not being what it used to be.

That said, it's obvious that what they've been telling us about a lot of it is a lie. I mean, Gore's predictions already failed. On top of that much of the pollution is coming from cheap energy raising the third world out of poverty. Denying them the ability to make a better life for themselves is kind of weird from where we sit. Green this and that are a luxury. All of the climate advocates, including musk, fly private. The hate pollution unless first class is too much of an inconvenience to them.

I'm no expert but from what I've heard, rising temps and CO2 actually lead to a greener and wetter planet. The two largest countries are Canada and Russia. Much of the land is useless. Warmer and wetter climate would produce a lot more green stuff. I've also read that lots of first world countries have more trees than ever before

Again, I'm all for the environment and think people are harming it in very serious ways, I just think there's also a ton of B.S. being smuggled in

Here's an "expert" that makes credible scientific claims

It's one thing to accept climate change as a fact, whoever was responsible for it. But is there really anything that humans could do about it? I remember when Mount St. Helens erupted leading to cooler climate, so maybe that is something. I just googled it and look what I found here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-a8197046.html

There is another correlation that may be underestimated. We have less atomic testing these days than we had 20-30 years ago. I googled that also and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea..._multilang.svg
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/222/4630/1283

Maybe we just need to blow up more stuff...

Can you provide specific examples here? All of the criticism I've heard about his film has come from Fox News hosts that do not understand how science works and who are pushing a very obvious anti-science agenda. To give a example example not specifically related to Gore, Sean Hannity repeatedly states that you shouldn't listen to climate scientists because global cooling was in Time magazine 30 odd years ago. For starters, Time is not a scientific journal. Additionally, global cooling was put forward as a hypothesis, tested then rejected as it wasn't supported by the evidence. This is how science should work.

I'd also be hesitant to call inaccurate predictions lies. There is a difference between being wrong about something and lying. Models are not 100% perfect and mistakes will be made. This is fine as long as we learn from these mistakes and continue to improve data collection and analysis techniques.

This is too subtle a distinction for at least 95% of posters.