Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes dear alarmist... but if man is the PRIMARY force behind climate change... how is it that nature is currently TRUMPING man's effect?
The above is precisely why the fear mongers refuse to answer that question.
Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Yes dear alarmist... but if man is the PRIMARY force behind climate change... how is it that nature is currently TRUMPING man's effect?
The above is precisely why the fear mongers refuse to answer that question.
A better question is how will "science" regain credibility ? And its not just this scam, they flkp flop on things when they should be more robust in their research. Its this 'publish or perish' nonsense that is the direct result of unconstitutional grants causing it.
govt is never the answer always the problem.
govt is never the answer always the problem.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Nothing Mutt? You have all the science behind you (according to you)... you cannot answer these simple questions?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
First please explain to me that if the data, as interpreted by you, is so compelling that ACC is not occuring then why is there a 97% consensus in the scientific literature that humans are causing global warming?
Why are you right and over 10,000 peer reviewed research publications are wrong?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
66% had no opinion. Of the rest 97% thought humans involved. You may want to scan links.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... just as I thought. You want to duck back to that nonsense. How long ago were those articles Mutt? Are 97% of the articles within the past two years also still stating that MAN is the primary driver?
I didn't expect you to answer those simple questions, because you clearly have no interest in science. Just the fear mongering.
LMAO...
about 2/3's of those 10,000 articles took NO POSITION on AGW. Because about 2/3's wanted to actually see the data. To see if they could falsify the theory before making a judgement. So the 97% number is on the 'scientists' that took a position. So less than a third.
So tell me Mutt... as a scientist... why do you continue to push forth nonsense like 97% of 10000 articles support man driving global warming?
There... I answered your nonsense... now... can you answer those questions? Or will you run again?
Even if 97% of scientists thought CO2 concentration was driving climate and creating catastrophic conditions, the recent decade and half has shown the correlation upon which they based their scientific belief has not continued as far as the predictions and forecasts of temperature are concerned.
Does Mott dispute this? I seriously wonder!
Mott might be the most awesome chemical engineer (or whatever Mott is) but unless Mott is willing to set aside any bias and examine the statistics, Mott is accepting based on faith especially when others have already done the legwork and documented the critiques publicly for the scientists to address.
Does Mott dispute this? I seriously wonder!
Mott might be the most awesome chemical engineer (or whatever Mott is) but unless Mott is willing to set aside any bias and examine the statistics, Mott is accepting based on faith especially when others have already done the legwork and documented the critiques publicly for the scientists to address.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No, Mott is simply citing a very broad scientific consensus that human activity is impacting climate. As for bias, I have already stated that this is an issue that transcends science. What makes having this discussion with the ACC deniers frustrating is not their denial of the evidence but their intellectual dishonesty in not admiting their bias in regards to the stake holder issues impacted by Climate Change that transcend the science.
I have stated I'm willing to evaluate and consider the dissenting data. My opinion, for what it's worth as an environmental professional (though this is not my area of expertise, my area of expertise is the subset of solid waste, hazardous waste) the dissenting data doesn't undermine the conclusion for ACC rather in underscores the fact that a lot more needs to be learned about this phenomena. I am also willing to transcend the science and and see the point of view of those who dissent because they have specific economic and/or political agendas that are negatively affected by ACC policy. What makes me roll my eyes are those who try to undermine ACC science that don't have the honesty to admit that their point of view is driven by their economic or political agenda....which I don't have a problem with. I certainly understand why they have a vested interest(s) that they are trying to protect.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh no....the roughly 30 trillion pounds of coal burned annually are just a figment of my imagination and couldn't possibly have any impact what so ever.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Except almost two thirds did not state an opinion. You misrepresented the support level. Now you continue to run from answering my questions. I asked first, yet you then stated you wanted me to address your questions first... I did... now you still haven't answered mine. Why is that mr. Scientist?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
bump for Mutt
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Mott, I expect a lot better than that from you, that is Desh territory.
Michael Crichton said: “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” Thales of Miletus, Abu Ali Ibn al Haytham, Newton, Einstein, Popper and Feynman thought much the same and said so. Science by head-count is mere politics.
Doran and Zimmerman (2009) and Anderegg et al. (2010) each concluded that 97% of a few dozen carefully-filtered climate scientists held Man guilty of some of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
Cook et al. (2013), in a recent me-too article in Environment Research Letters, conducted the largest-ever sensational epic blockbuster cast-of-thousands drama survey of scientific papers on climate change. They concluded that 97.1% of abstracts expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed the “scientific consensus”.
Here’s how they did it.
They examined 11,944 abstracts. But they arbitrarily threw out almost 8000 of them on the ground that they had not toed the Party Line by expressing the politically-correct opinion (or any opinion) on climate change.
Next, they ingeniously interchanged three separate versions of the imagined “scientific consensus”: that Man had caused some warming; that Man had caused most of the warming since 1950; and that man-made warming would be catastrophic unless the West were shut down and climate sceptics were put on trial – as the appalling James Hansen has suggested – for high crimes against humanity.
It was this last definition – in fact untested in Cook et al. or, as far as I know, in any other paper – that Mr Obama’s Twitteratus plumped for when he tweeted that 97% of scientists consider climate change not only real but “dangerous”.
The introduction to the Cook paper said that the survey was intended to examine the standard or IPCC “scientific consensus” that most of the warmer weather since 1950 was our fault.
The authors, having consigned 7930 abstracts to the Memory Hole because they had not parroted the Party Line, were left with 4014 abstracts. They marked just 64 of them, or 1.6% of the 4014 abstracts, as endorsing the standard version of “scientific consensus”.
Further examination by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41 of the 64 abstracts, or 1.0% of the 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, or just 0.3% of the original 11,944 abstracts, had said Yes to the standard version of consensus.
The incredible shrinking consensus
(A) Cook et al. claimed 97.1% consensus among 4014 abstracts; but (B) that was only 32.6% of all 11,944 abstracts in their sample; and (C) only 1% of the 4014 papers or (D) 0.3% of the entire 11,944 sample actually said Yes to the “scientific consensus” as Cook et al. had defined it.
However, since 32.6% of all 11,944 abstracts, or 97.1% of the 4010 abstracts expressing an opinion on the Party Line, had said or implied that Man causes some warming, Cook et al. concluded by saying that 97.1% of all abstracts expressing an opinion had said that Man had caused most of the warming since 1950.
The totalitarian news media (that is just about all of them), ever careless with their logical quantifiers, dutifully reported that 97.1% of all scientists had stated their support for the “scientific consensus” that all global warming since 1950 was manmade.
The website of the Institute of Physics reported one of Cook’s co-authors as saying that the paper had indeed concluded that there was 97.1% support for that notion.
However, in my submission it is time for sceptics not merely to express dismay at the flagrant distortion of the objective truth that has occurred. I reported that co-author to his university for misconduct in the dissemination of research results, and the university has told me it has decided to investigate.
The Institute of Physics, to whom I also complained, says it does not propose to alter its story because, it says, the co-author’s statement accurately reflects the paper’s conclusion. I have sent it the authors’ own data-file and have asked it to check that the authors themselves had marked only 64 out of 11,944 papers as endorsing the version of “scientific consensus” for which the paper claims 97.1% consensus.
I have asked that the Institute should at least report that the result of the paper has been credibly challenged in the peer-reviewed literature; and I await its reply. A report of research misconduct has gone to the Vice-Chancellor of Queensland University and to the Professor who is the “designated person” to investigate the lead author under the University’s research policies. I await a reply from either of them.
This is where you come in, gentle readers. For I have written a letter to the editor of Environmental Research Letters asking him to withdraw the paper on the ground that it is not merely defective but deceptive. The letter is below.
I should be very grateful if every reader who agrees with me that the paper should be withdrawn would send a message to this thread giving their names and, if they wish, their academic qualifications. I shall then add the names to the letter and send it to the editor. Jo Nova herself is a signatory. Please join us.
The paper should have been withdrawn long ago, but it is perhaps not unreasonable to suspect that the board of the journal, whose members include Peter Gleick, will delay doing the inevitable for as long as possible in the hope of not undermining the IPCC’s arbitrary decision, in its imminent Fifth Assessment Report to assign a 95% confidence interval to the proposition that we caused most of the warming since 1950.
On the evidence that Cook et al. have themselves collected, there is no legitimate scientific basis whatsoever for any such confidence interval. Like much else in the IPCC’s disgraceful documents, it is simply made up.
There was a sting in the tail of my latest reminder note to the editor of Environment Research Letters. I said that I hoped I should not have to involve the public authorities.
For the most disturbing aspect of this affair is that the result that the paper claims is egregiously at variance with the authors’ own categorization of the 11,944 abstracts in their own data-file.
Yet the authors themselves, though they have read Legates et al., have not withdrawn their paper; aside from the editor of Environment Research Letters, not a single member of the board has written back to me; the Institute of Physics seems unbecomingly reluctant to correct its gravely misleading story even though I have sent it Cook’s data-file and a copy of Legates et al. and have asked it to verify the position for itself; and, after a longer period than is reasonable in the circumstances, not one but two senior officers of Cook’s university have failed even to acknowledge a reasonable request that they should investigate.
Something does not smell right. Should we be angry?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/
Yes, it does. The conclusions were that the science was settled, 95% confidence levels in forecasts, and too many claims to mention.
The dissenting data, as you term it, falsifies the models which made predictions that fall outside of reality. The data is a representation of reality. It's the closest thing we have to a control by which to compare the models' output.
It make a difference.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Still no response from Mutt... he told me to answer his questions first, then he would answer mine. Now he has run away again.
Funny how our so-called science experts mutt and string continually run away from questions...
Funny how our so-called science experts mutt and string continually run away from questions...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Odd... Mutt is on the board, yet he still cannot answer the questions...
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Man made global warming as an issue is dead. It's kver