Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Weather Channel To Breitbart: Don't Use Our Content To Mislead On Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Let me ask you one Armor 11...

    Do you think that computer modelling of the planetary atmospheric system that has not produced results consistent with actual measurements over the past 20+ years should be accepted as able to produce predictions about future atmospheric temperatures for decades to come?
    Well, first of all, whether one "models" a theory properly doesn't change the validity of the theory itself. We have no good "models" of a batter in baseball, but that doesn't mean that a theory that "most batters in baseball will cluster around .250" is wrong.

    Second of all, the climate models themselves are predicated on certain conditions. E.g. "If X, Y, and Z are 3, 7 and 2" then we expect *this* to happen. If X, Y, and Z are any *other* numbers, then we're less sure about what's going to happen.

    When properly used, the models are pretty good.

    The fact that Dave would consider a 7 month temperature reading indicative of *anything* about AGW shows you just how flawed his thinking is about AGW. It's like he's claiming that because a .300 lifetime hitter hits .250 for a couple of months that the guy is no longer a .300 lifetime hitter. You can see how stupid that is, right? He's either doing it on purpose, because he doesn't want to jeopardize the denier propaganda machine, or he really believes it. I happen to believe the former, but in any case anything he has to say about AGW can be safely ignored.

    No one (except the deniers) gives a crap that temperatures drop precipitously within a few months of record highs. It's the long term trends that matter. The long term trend OVERWHELMINGLY shows a heating planet. There's just no doubt about that at all. The temperature goes up and down all the time. But the TREND is up. Anyone that doubts that is irrational. Anyone that accepts that has to explain it. And while they're thinking of an explanation, they'll have to include the fact that it's heating up while the amount of energy it is receiving from the sun is down. Energy in is down, but the temperature is up. Weird, huh?

    For years, the deniers (including Dave) used to say there was no significant warming since 1998. They picked 1998 as a starting point because it happened to be, you guessed it, a record high. Since then, there have been numerous record highs, and so the original argument, as asinine as it was, no longer makes sense.

    *Now* I guess they are claiming that there was a "pause" in AGW (around 1998) which was eliminated by the recent El Nino. There was a "pause" in the "pause." Since we just had a drop in temperature after the record highs, then the "pause" in the "pause" has ended.

    It's just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid.
    "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
    -The President of the United States of America.

    Comment


    • #92
      "1984"(Orwell) and "Correct Think" in play again;
      Portland Public Schools to Eliminate Curriculum that Questions Man-Made Climate Change
      EXCERPTS:
      Tuesday, the Portland Public School board unanimously passed a resolution that would remove all materials from the curriculum that contradict anthropogenic (man-made) climate change theory.

      Portland Tribune quotes Bill Bigelow, a former PPS teacher, current curriculum editor of Rethinking Schools, and one of the proponents of the resolution:
      ...
      Despite what Bigelow says, many scientists dispute the idea that there's an “overwhelming consensus” regarding climate change, specifically the idea that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic.

      The study frequently referenced when speaking of an “overwhelming consensus” is one conducted by John Cook. Since its publication, however, the study has been scrutinized and found to be severely lacking.

      Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware, led a study on Cook's paper, and found his methodology to be deeply flawed.

      The Wall Street Journal reports:

      “David R. Legates...and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found 'only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse' the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”

      Legates said:

      “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis, the true consensus was well below 1%.”

      Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, said of the study:

      “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

      Several scientists even came forward to say that Cook completely misrepresented their conclusions when he surveyed their work.

      Conversely, George Mason University recently conducted a survey of more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (of whom approximately 37% claimed to be climate “experts”), and found:

      29% believe climate change is “largely or entirely” man-made.
      38% believe “most of the change” is man-made.
      14% believe any changes are “more or less equally” man-made and natural.
      7% believe it's mostly due to natural causes.
      6% believe it's largely or entirely natural.
      That's far from a 97% consensus.
      ...
      http://ijr.com/2016/05/611727-portla...limate-change/
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        [...]
        The Wall Street Journal reports:

        “David R. Legates...and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found 'only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse' the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”

        Legates said:

        “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis, the true consensus was well below 1%.”

        Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, said of the study:

        “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

        Several scientists even came forward to say that Cook completely misrepresented their conclusions when he surveyed their work.
        Cook runs "The Logical Fallacy Factory" (Skeptical Science). He is a professor of... drum roll please... "Climate Change Communication" (propaganda).

        Legates used the data from Cook's own paper to do something like this:



        I came up with 0.54% because I did not check to see if Cook's numbers matched his own criteria. Legates did, and found the number to be 0.3%. Cook's definitions of "implicitly endorses" would include most of my posts at Watts Up With That. His definition of "explicitly endorses, but does not quantify" would include some of my posts.

        You can't explicitly endorse a quantified statement without quantifying it.

        The so-called consensus is that humans have caused more than half of the warming since 1950. There is no way to endorse this in an unquantified manner.

        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Conversely, George Mason University recently conducted a survey of more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (of whom approximately 37% claimed to be climate “experts”), and found:

        29% believe climate change is “largely or entirely” man-made.
        38% believe “most of the change” is man-made.
        14% believe any changes are “more or less equally” man-made and natural.
        7% believe it's mostly due to natural causes.
        6% believe it's largely or entirely natural.
        That's far from a 97% consensus.
        ...
        http://ijr.com/2016/05/611727-portla...limate-change/
        29% + 38% = 67%

        This is based on a 1950 starting point. The earlier survey that used 1850 as a starting point yielded a 52% majority. This pie chart is based on the earlier survey...



        If you dig down into the surveys, you'll find that a surprisingly large percentage of the AMS members do not think that there is a consensus or that climate change is a particularly imminent threat, if any threat at all.

        A 2009 survey of geoscientists yielded...

        40% support for climate change being overwhelmingly natural.
        14% support for there being no way to know or alter the process.
        10% support for there being no economically viable solution

        That's 64% who don't endorse Kyoto or any of its progeny.



        The fact that they consistently, reflexively and obsessively lie about a 97% consensus should be prima facie evidence that this is not science. The need >95% in order to claim that there is a consensus...
        consensus

        agreement among all the people involved

        They need a consensus because this is their objective:

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

        –Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC
        Last edited by The Doctor; 14 Dec 16, 16:39.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #94
          Global warming on other planets?
          EXCERPT:
          ...
          Believers in global warming hold to what I will call the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This involves multiple claims: (1) anomalous global warming is now occurring on Earth; (2) this warming is the result of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century; (4) the consequences of this warming will be disastrous; and (5) specific, immediate public policy actions are necessary to mitigate this coming disaster. While some claim that the scientific community agrees with these claims, in reality scientists have come to a variety of conclusions on all five claims, and many scientists may agree with some but reject others. Taken as a whole, the scientific evidence does not support such an extreme position. (For more on this, see this page).

          Observations of several planets and moons in our solar system show climate change is occurring on these bodies. This is held by some skeptics of global warming to prove that climate change is natural, refuting claims about the nearly exclusive role of mankind in climate change on Earth. Believers have countered that none of these observations have any relationship to natural influences on the Earth's climate. Both claims are wrong.

          Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of natural influences on the Earth's climate. The total solar irradiance, or flux of solar energy arriving at the Earth, is well measured and has varied by only about 0.1% in the last few decades. Believers correctly point out that this can only directly produce a temperature change of about 0.07° C on Earth. They err, however, in claiming or implying that this is the only possible Sun-climate link. Considerable evidence supports the hypothesis that solar influences have indirect effects on the Earth's climate, with the potential of contributing to a greater fraction of recent observed climate change.

          Some solar output varies by much more than 0.1%, such as UV solar radiation and magnetic activity. One proposed mechanism in particular suggests that variations in solar magnetic activity affect the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. This indirectly influences climate because these cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds which reflect more or less sunlight back to space depending on solar activity, consequently changing the Earth's climate. Such indirect mechanisms could in principle produce most of the modern observed change in global temperature. Studies to date show correlations supporting these claimed mechanisms but parts of the casual link have yet to be confirmed (unsurprisingly, research dollars are scarce when it comes to investigating natural influences on climate).

          The relevant point is that the Sun-climate link proposed by scientists skeptical of global warming claims is indirect and involves mechanisms particular to the Earth system. The fact that we have not observed large changes in total solar irradiance, or large climate shifts on other planets, does nothing to refute the claim that the Sun-Earth climate link is significant. At the same time, some and perhaps even all of the extraterrestrial climate shifts are from mechanisms with no bearing on the Earth's climate. This boils down to the fact that we don't fully understand climate change, either here or elsewhere in the solar system. Those that claim we do (and particularly that we can concentrate on a single mechanism for climate change on Earth) are seriously wrong from a scientific perspective.

          Climate change reports in the solar system:
          ...
          http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/envi...ngplanets.html
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Cook runs "The Logical Fallacy Factory" (Skeptical Science). He is a professor of... drum roll please... "Climate Change Communication" (propaganda).
            Gee, a marxist conspiracy theorist that is a shill for the petroleum industry goes ad hominem! Would'a thunk it?

            His definition of "explicitly endorses, but does not quantify" would include some of my posts.
            That's bullcrap and/or so incredibly disingenuous that it defies description.

            Here's Cook's definition: "paper explicitly states humans are causing
            global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact."

            Which of your blog posts corresponds to that definition?

            And of course you left out a bunch of his research which included a "self rating" component. A very large percentage of the scientists rated their own papers. The results were completely in line with the independently rated papers.

            Now. I wonder why you didn't bother to mention that little detail?

            The so-called consensus is that humans have caused more than half of the warming since 1950. There is no way to endorse this in an unquantified manner.
            But you *can* endorse the notion that the planet is warming without quantifying the human contribution. E.g. "I think Dave has indigestion and more than half of it is caused by pizza vs "I think Dave has indigestion caused by pizza." The latter statement doesn't quantify the "pizza contribution." Maybe your ulcer had more to do with it than the pizza.

            The fact that many papers explicitly call out the role of humans as the major contributing factor is a stronger endorsement of AGW compared to just accepting the basic premise of AGW. But they *both* endorse it, which is really the main point.

            40% support for climate change being overwhelmingly natural.
            Which means that 60% think it *isn't*! HAHAHHHAHA! Majority rules!
            14% support for there being no way to know or alter the process.
            And 86% think there is!! There's definitely a consensus amount geoscientists on knowing and altering. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
            10% support for there being no economically viable solution
            And 90% do! Wow! The consensus from geoscientists on this point is YUGE!

            I'll bet the consensus from Climate Scientists is even MORE overwhelming.

            That's 64% who don't endorse Kyoto or any of its progeny.
            ?!?!!!??

            How do you know that the 14% and the 10% isn't included in the 40%?

            And of course, Cook is talking about the SCIENCE, and not necessarily the OPINIONS. What counts is what has been published. That's where science exists. Published papers with data that can be scrutinized and analyzed.

            Now, although opinions don't matter when it comes to the science, certainly well informed opinions should have more value when deciding matters of policy. One way to tell how valuable an opinion is is to compare it to the known science. I.e. Is the opinion based on reality?

            For example, *your* opinions on AGW would have very little or no value in terms of policy decisions (or the theory itself) because they are in direct opposition to the published science. Your opinions don't even leave the starting gate when it comes to AGW.

            Them's the breaks...
            "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
            -The President of the United States of America.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
              Gee, a marxist conspiracy theorist that is a shill for the petroleum industry goes ad hominem! Would'a thunk it?


              That's bullcrap and/or so incredibly disingenuous that it defies description.

              Here's Cook's definition: "paper explicitly states humans are causing
              global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact."

              Which of your blog posts corresponds to that definition?

              And of course you left out a bunch of his research which included a "self rating" component. A very large percentage of the scientists rated their own papers. The results were completely in line with the independently rated papers.

              Now. I wonder why you didn't bother to mention that little detail?


              But you *can* endorse the notion that the planet is warming without quantifying the human contribution. E.g. "I think Dave has indigestion and more than half of it is caused by pizza vs "I think Dave has indigestion caused by pizza." The latter statement doesn't quantify the "pizza contribution." Maybe your ulcer had more to do with it than the pizza.

              The fact that many papers explicitly call out the role of humans as the major contributing factor is a stronger endorsement of AGW compared to just accepting the basic premise of AGW. But they *both* endorse it, which is really the main point.
              Try reading Cook's paper. The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

              ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’


              Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.

              The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the exmple Cook provided:

              ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’


              By this subjective standard, I have explicitly endorsed AGW a few times... But I have never explicitly or implicitly endorsed the notion that humans have been the primary driver of climate change over the past 50-150 years.

              Cook's attempt to publish a rebuttal of Legates was rejected for publication.

              Regarding Cook's "self-rating system", only 14% of the 8,547 authors even bothered to reply to the email from the SkepSci Gorebots. 68% of 14% of the 8,547 authors explicitly endorsed AGW. That's 9.5% of the 8,547 scientists surveyed.


              Originally posted by armor11
              Which means that 60% think it *isn't*! HAHAHHHAHA! Majority rules!

              And 86% think there is!! There's definitely a consensus amount geoscientists on knowing and altering. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

              And 90% do! Wow! The consensus from geoscientists on this point is YUGE!

              I'll bet the consensus from Climate Scientists is even MORE overwhelming.


              ?!?!!!??

              How do you know that the 14% and the 10% isn't included in the 40%?
              Because I read the paper. The survey asked if respondents supported Kyoto and if not, why they opposed it.
              Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change

              Abstract
              This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

              Originally posted by armor11
              And of course, Cook is talking about the SCIENCE, and not necessarily the OPINIONS. What counts is what has been published. That's where science exists. Published papers with data that can be scrutinized and analyzed.

              Now, although opinions don't matter when it comes to the science, certainly well informed opinions should have more value when deciding matters of policy. One way to tell how valuable an opinion is is to compare it to the known science. I.e. Is the opinion based on reality?

              For example, *your* opinions on AGW would have very little or no value in terms of policy decisions (or the theory itself) because they are in direct opposition to the published science. Your opinions don't even leave the starting gate when it comes to AGW.

              Them's the breaks...
              Cook's paper consisted of nothing but his opinions (and those of a handful of other SkepSci bloggers) about papers based on reading nothing but the abstracts.

              Legates et al., 2013 conclusively demonstrated that Cook's 97% was 0.3%. Cook's attempt to publish a rebuttal of Legates was rejected by every journal it was submitted to.

              The opinions that matter regarding climate policy over the next 4-8 years will be those of President Trump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and the rest of his administration.
              Last edited by The Doctor; 15 Dec 16, 16:38.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

                Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes.
                But they are talking about "global climate change," which is not associated with natural processes. It's associated with AGW. Of course *you* would associate "global climate change" with a natural process. But you are incredibly biased.

                Furthermore, the raters read the *entire* abstract, and didn't try to derive the position of the paper from a single sentence.

                I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.
                I have all kinds of doubt about that. Your blogging doesn't even come with an abstract, right? So a rater would have to read your entire post to establish anything.

                The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification?
                All you have to do is misrepresent the description. As you have done several times now. You are assuming that the definition of AGW implicitly assumes that humans are mostly responsible for global warming in this century. One can make different assumptions. One could believe that there are many factors affect global warming, and that humans are only minimally responsible for it. Cook was trying to differentiate how strongly the papers supported the notion that humans are responsible for global warming.

                In any case, it doesn't really matter that much in terms of the consensus, since the overwhelming majority of the papers either explicitly or implicitly support AGW.

                Regarding Cook's "self-rating system", only 14% of the 8,547 authors even bothered to reply to the email from the SkepSci Gorebots.
                HAHAHAHA! "'Bothered' to reply," "Gorebots." You are so incredibly biased.

                14% is a LOT!

                68% of 14% of the 8,547 authors explicitly endorsed AGW. That's 9.5% of the 8,547 scientists surveyed.
                But you're lumping the non-respondents in with the respondents. The real data point is that 68% of the authors that responded explicitly supported AGW. Period. End of discussion. Now, what percent "implicitly" supported it? 25? 30? Add *those* numbers together and you get the percent that actually endorsed it.

                The survey asked if respondents supported Kyoto and if not, why they opposed it.
                But how do you know that the 14% that opposed it weren't also in the set of respondents that rejected AGW? You can't just add those numbers together willy nilly.

                Furthermore, if only 14% rejected Kyoto, how many *didn't* reject it? 85%?

                Cook's paper consisted of nothing but his opinions (and those of a handful of other SkepSci bloggers) about papers based on reading nothing but the abstracts.
                False.

                They also relied on the self ratings of the authors themselves.

                They received 1200 responses from the authors themselves. That's a TON of responses.

                The raters were anonymous and independent. The data is there. Rate it yourself if you think they're off. And then you can publish the obvious rebuttal and gain international and/or lasting fame.

                Or you'll find out that Cook was right. After all, he wasn't the only one to find a strong consensus.

                Take this paper from 2004:

                http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...5702/1686.full
                From the abstract:

                This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
                That one is particularly funny because Benny Peiser wrote a critique of it, and then realized how flawed his critique was and finally accepted that the consensus is absolutely real.

                From http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm

                Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.
                <snicker>

                While you're at it, you can review this paper from 2010:

                Expert credibility in climate change
                http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

                From the abstract:

                Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

                http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002

                Legates et al., 2013 conclusively demonstrated that Cook's 97% was 0.3%. Cook's attempt to publish a rebuttal of Legates was rejected by every journal it was submitted to.
                Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? I found a copy of his rebuttal in the same journal that Legates published right here:

                http://link.springer.com/article/10....191-013-9608-3

                The opinions that matter regarding climate policy over the next 4-8 years will be those of President Trump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and the rest of his administration.
                Well, they will matter because they have been granted power to shape policy by fiat. But their actual opinions are worthless, from a scientific perspective. They are literally the antithesis of informed opinion.
                "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                -The President of the United States of America.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Dumbest thing ever written about climate change or anything else remotely related to science...
                  Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                  But they are talking about "global climate change," which is not associated with natural processes.

                  [...]
                  If this is your level of understanding of global climate change, nothing you write about it is worth my time to read.

                  Oreskes and Anderegg (a biology grad student) are nothing but their personal opinions of the abstracts of papers. I'm shocked you didn't cite Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman.

                  The nonsense about expertise correlating with endorsement of the failed AGW hypothesis is truly moronic. If you surveyed the AAPG Datapages for papers on abiogenic hydrocarbon formation, you would probably find a 97% level of endorsement among those with the most expertise. You might even fimd a high level of endorsement among the authors of all papers on hydrocarbon formation. If you surveyed books on UFO's, you would probably find a 97% consensus that they were piloted by space aliens. Drawing a broad conclusion from a small subset is a common statistical pitfall.

                  The American Meteorological Society had conducted two recent surveys which found 52% agreement that humans were the primary cause of global warming since 1850 and 67% agreement that humans were the primary cause of global warming since 1950. These surveys also found low levels of support for the notions of a consensus, settled science or imminent threats from climate change.

                  So, why is there such an obsession with fabricating a 97% consensus? Why are they trying to stir up hysteria through their bald-faced alarmist lies?
                  Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Dec 16, 07:30.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Dumbest thing ever written about climate change or anything else remotely related to science...
                    What!!? What about using a 6 month temperature record to establish long term climate change trends? What about cherry picking an abnormally hot year as a starting point for temperature analysis? What about claiming that the temperature stations have a warming bias, demanding that they be checked, and then ignoring the fact that the stations actually have a COOLING bias in all subsequent "blogs?"

                    Those three issues alone are WAY stupider than associating "global climate change" with man made "global climate change."

                    If this is your level of understanding of global climate change, nothing you write about it is worth my time to read.
                    Ok by me.

                    I recommend you ask any 50 people what they think Global Climate Change means and see what kind of an answer you get. Actually, why don't you ask the people that wrote the papers what *they* think their papers meant. Oh right! They did that...I keep forgetting.

                    Oreskes and Anderegg (a biology grad student) are nothing but their personal opinions of the abstracts of papers. I'm shocked you didn't cite Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman.
                    I'm not shocked that a conspiracy theorist with ties to the petroleum industry continues to go ad hominem.

                    The nonsense about expertise correlating with endorsement of the failed AGW hypothesis is truly moronic.
                    You ought to submit this careful review of the papers I cited to Nature. I'm sure they'd publish it.

                    So, why is there such an obsession with fabricating a 97% consensus? Why are they trying to stir up hysteria through their bald-faced alarmist lies?
                    YOU are the one that's obsessed. You bring it up at every opportunity, as though discrediting Cook PROVES there is no consensus. Which, of course, it doesn't.

                    The fact that there *is* a consensus demonstrates that the deniers are at odds with the basic science. The consensus on the science should inform our policy on the use of energy. That is, if we had rational people in charge of our policy on energy. Unfortunately, in about 1 month, we won't. So it goes.
                    "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                    -The President of the United States of America.

                    Comment


                    • The Skep Sci boys started out with a pool of 29,286 scientists; of which 746 (2.5%) explicitly endorsed AGW at Levels 1-3, with no more than 65 (0.2%) agreeing with Maobama, Gore and the IPCC (Level 1).

                      1,200 scientists did not say that the SkepSciBots were right about their papers.

                      1,200 scientists bothered to reply to their email survey of 8,547 hand-picked scientists.

                      Of the 1,200 who bothered to reply, 746 (63%) endorsed AGW at some level above neutral. 415 (35%) were neutral. And 28 (2%) out-right rejected AGW.



                      Bear in mind that the vast majority of the 746 endorsers were below Level 1 (the IPCC standard).
                      However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

                      http://link.springer.com/article/10....191-013-9647-9
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        The Skep Sci boys started out with a pool of 29,286 scientists; of which 746 (2.5%) explicitly endorsed AGW at Levels 1-3, with no more than 65 (0.2%) agreeing with Maobama, Gore and the IPCC (Level 1).
                        There you go OBSESSING about Cook again. When will you learn that his research is only one of many that support the consensus?

                        But uh, where the heck are you getting 29,286 number from?

                        There were two aspects to their research: 1) rating abstracts 2) self rating from the authors themselves.

                        They surveyed 11,944 papers, and had self ratings from 1200 authors. So......wait a second...<armor looks at the paper>...29,286 scientists? That's the number of scientists that were involved in the publishing of all the articles they surveyed!

                        Don't tell me...this *can't* be true. Are you using the 29,286 scientists as the starting point for the calculation of the percentage of who endorsed what? Because IF YOU ARE...oh...my..god.

                        Of the 1,200 who bothered to reply, 746 (63%) endorsed AGW at some level above neutral. 415 (35%) were neutral. And 28 (2%) out-right rejected AGW.
                        Thank you for pointing out that only 2% rejected it. That's exactly what Cook has been saying all along! <guffaw!>

                        That 746 number represents ALL respondents. So 62% endorse AGW in general, but 97% endorse it if they take a position on AGW. That means that the overwhelming majority of scientists that have a position on AGW endorse it. Meanwhile, 62% endorse it in general.

                        As far as I know, you're not a scientist, but you would fall into the 3% category. I'm definitely not a scientist, but I fall into the 97% category.

                        So 97% of the scientists agree with me, and only 3% agree with you.

                        Your opinion on this matter is WAY out on the edge in terms of those that 1) are scientists and 2) have taken a position on it.

                        Food for thought.

                        Also: that percentage for the endorsement of the abstracts is based on ~12,000 papers surveyed from as far back as 1991. A lot of things have changed since then, and the amount of consensus is actually increasing over time, since it's blindingly obvious to all except perhaps the conspiracy theorists with an axe to grind that the planet is heating up from all the CO2 we're dumping into it.

                        In sum, the laws of physics dictate that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in a well understood energy band (infrared) within the energy spectrum. As long as there is CO2 in the atmosphere, it's going to absorb incoming energy (photons). The more CO2 you have the more absorption you have. That concept is EZ-PZ and is not open to debate. (Unless, of course, you are a conspiracy theorist with an axe to grind...) We are currently dumping WAYYYYYYYYYYY more CO2 into the atmosphere than occurs naturally. And we have been doing so for about 150 years. And the planet is heating up. (Logic is fun!)

                        The current effects of the warming due to CO2 are measurable and well documented across multiple disciplines, including climatology, biology and geology.

                        An overwhelming majority of the research agrees. (~95%)

                        A significant majority of scientists agree in general.

                        97% of the scientists who have made up their minds one way or the other, and that typically includes scientists that are experts in this particular field, agree.

                        Deal with it.
                        "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                        -The President of the United States of America.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X