Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Climate consensus

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ever hear that 98% number?

That survey is Lolz. They sent 10,000 requests for that survey...77 responded (only counting climate scientists)... 75 answered yes to question two (regarding if humans cause climate change).

So that number is based on 75 people........ http://wattsupwiththat.com...

A case against a consensus shows 400 scientists on a skeptical position....
. http://epw.senate.gov...

Whose case has a better sample size?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:30:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:24:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Ever hear that 98% number?

That survey is Lolz. They sent 10,000 requests for that survey...77 responded (only counting climate scientists)... 75 answered yes to question two (regarding if humans cause climate change).

So that number is based on 75 people........ http://wattsupwiththat.com...

A case against a consensus shows 400 scientists on a skeptical position....
. http://epw.senate.gov...

Whose case has a better sample size?

I'm loving this sub-100 degree weather we are getting... thank you global warming.

The sad thing about the whole thing, is NASA, the IPCC, and GW researchers the world over aren't even practicing fundamentally-strong research. They have thousands of data points which are constantly being adjusted, and have automatic adjustments to every reading...

When you are doing research, if a reading you get doesn't look right, you don't just adjust the data. You fix the actual problem.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:36:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:30:16 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:24:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Ever hear that 98% number?

That survey is Lolz. They sent 10,000 requests for that survey...77 responded (only counting climate scientists)... 75 answered yes to question two (regarding if humans cause climate change).

So that number is based on 75 people........ http://wattsupwiththat.com...

A case against a consensus shows 400 scientists on a skeptical position....
. http://epw.senate.gov...

Whose case has a better sample size?

I'm loving this sub-100 degree weather we are getting... thank you global warming.

The sad thing about the whole thing, is NASA, the IPCC, and GW researchers the world over aren't even practicing fundamentally-strong research. They have thousands of data points which are constantly being adjusted, and have automatic adjustments to every reading...

When you are doing research, if a reading you get doesn't look right, you don't just adjust the data. You fix the actual problem.

All their data is from climate models. The results you get are as good as the theory out into it... It's predictions fail and means the thesis is inherently false. http://www.paulmacrae.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]"

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use."
http://www.ncpa.org...

The 98% number used 77 climate scientists, the rest were others...


The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.

You know alarmists have more money right?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a hard time taking general scientific opinion at face value these days. It is very hard to get to the truth these days, and it takes a lot of effort and even then you can't really be sure w/o the proper education.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:46:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:40:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]"

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use."
http://www.ncpa.org...


The 98% number used 77 climate scientists, the rest were others...



Would you mind linking to the actual polls, rather than a blog which mentions them as part of an obvious argument in favor or against? I know I did something similar, although with hopefully less of a bias, but that was only because the Journal they reside in is $-locked, and the internet seemed to confirm their results multiply.

The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.

You know alarmists have more money right?

More money than every industry that benefits from not having to pay for their emissions? Or to be more accurate, more money than those industries utilize for political, etc., purposes?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:46:12 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:40:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]"

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use."
http://www.ncpa.org...


The 98% number used 77 climate scientists, the rest were others...



Would you mind linking to the actual polls, rather than a blog which mentions them as part of an obvious argument in favor or against? I know I did something similar, although with hopefully less of a bias, but that was only because the Journal they reside in is $-locked, and the internet seemed to confirm their results multiply.

It's not that hard to read a post by a scientist and then look at the cited study. See figure 1.



The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.

You know alarmists have more money right?

More money than every industry that benefits from not having to pay for their emissions? Or to be more accurate, more money than those industries utilize for political, etc., purposes?

Government grants...
Political gain...
Yeah, that's not much money.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:59:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:49:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:46:12 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:40:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]"

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use."
http://www.ncpa.org...


The 98% number used 77 climate scientists, the rest were others...



Would you mind linking to the actual polls, rather than a blog which mentions them as part of an obvious argument in favor or against? I know I did something similar, although with hopefully less of a bias, but that was only because the Journal they reside in is $-locked, and the internet seemed to confirm their results multiply.

It's not that hard to read a post by a scientist and then look at the cited study. See figure 1.


Well, for a start, that post was published in 1997. The debate has moved on a-lot since then. I'm saying that now the majority of scientists seem to be in favor.

Ah, it's much better in PDF form. Still, I'm sticking with the 1997 thing. Oh, and that the think tank he was working for is funded partly by corporations whose profits would be harmed by emissions-reduction policies.


The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.

You know alarmists have more money right?

More money than every industry that benefits from not having to pay for their emissions? Or to be more accurate, more money than those industries utilize for political, etc., purposes?

Government grants...

The government doesn't help out the oil industry?

Political gain...

The fact that it's becoming more popular doesn't necessarily mean that environmentalists have more money, unless you have that $ is the only way to get people to think anything.

Yeah, that's not much money.

It's probably a whole heap of money. Still less though.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:59:55 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:49:48 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:46:12 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:40:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
http://journalistsresource.org...

"A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change," collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government, and industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

...

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

"A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]"

"Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use."
http://www.ncpa.org...


The 98% number used 77 climate scientists, the rest were others...



Would you mind linking to the actual polls, rather than a blog which mentions them as part of an obvious argument in favor or against? I know I did something similar, although with hopefully less of a bias, but that was only because the Journal they reside in is $-locked, and the internet seemed to confirm their results multiply.

It's not that hard to read a post by a scientist and then look at the cited study. See figure 1.


Well, for a start, that post was published in 1997. The debate has moved on a-lot since then. I'm saying that now the majority of scientists seem to be in favor.

Ah, it's much better in PDF form. Still, I'm sticking with the 1997 thing. Oh, and that the think tank he was working for is funded partly by corporations whose profits would be harmed by emissions-reduction policies.


The difference is really this, those in favor tend to be rendered statistically, and in the context of an attempt being made to produce an accurate sample of the relevant scientific community, whilst those against come in the form of shock headlines and literal numbers, "400" or whatever. Well, show me the wealthy industry that can't get 400 scientists to agree to just about anything.

You know alarmists have more money right?

More money than every industry that benefits from not having to pay for their emissions? Or to be more accurate, more money than those industries utilize for political, etc., purposes?

Government grants...

The government doesn't help out the oil industry?

Political gain...

The fact that it's becoming more popular doesn't necessarily mean that environmentalists have more money, unless you hold that $ is the only way to get people to think anything.

Yeah, that's not much money.

It's probably a whole heap of money. Still less though.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:38:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most people who claim man is the cause of the changes in the earth's climate are classic examples of confirmation bias. Hell the models they use are a clear example of confirmation bias.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:41:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

Yes, only 16% believe the effects of human-caused CO2 are insignificant. What is takes for significance is subjective. My impression is that something less than about 10% of total warming being due to CO2 would make it insignificant. Most of the skeptical scientists put the warming effects of CO2 at more than 10% of the warming observed, but less than half. The skeptical position is that the contribution of CO2 is not known with certainty.

The poll asks the wrong question. It wants people to equate "significant" with "Unless we make Al Gore imperial ruler, the world will end soon." An honest poll would ask what percentage of global warming was believed due to CO2, and with how much certainty CO2-induced global warming presented a threat. Relevant questions are avoided for fear that they won't yield the desired answers. the fear is well-founded.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:41:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

Yes, only 16% believe the effects of human-caused CO2 are insignificant. What is takes for significance is subjective. My impression is that something less than about 10% of total warming being due to CO2 would make it insignificant. Most of the skeptical scientists put the warming effects of CO2 at more than 10% of the warming observed, but less than half. The skeptical position is that the contribution of CO2 is not known with certainty.

The poll asks the wrong question. It wants people to equate "significant" with "Unless we make Al Gore imperial ruler, the world will end soon." An honest poll would ask what percentage of global warming was believed due to CO2, and with how much certainty CO2-induced global warming presented a threat. Relevant questions are avoided for fear that they won't yield the desired answers. the fear is well-founded.

Which poll?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:22:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:52:35 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:

Which poll?

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 11:15:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 10:22:58 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:52:35 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:

Which poll?

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

You did the exact same thing using the same kind of BS poll numbers in your ACA debate.
Sapere Aude!
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:41:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 6:35:56 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

Yes, only 16% believe the effects of human-caused CO2 are insignificant. What is takes for significance is subjective. My impression is that something less than about 10% of total warming being due to CO2 would make it insignificant. Most of the skeptical scientists put the warming effects of CO2 at more than 10% of the warming observed, but less than half. The skeptical position is that the contribution of CO2 is not known with certainty.

The poll asks the wrong question. It wants people to equate "significant" with "Unless we make Al Gore imperial ruler, the world will end soon." An honest poll would ask what percentage of global warming was believed due to CO2, and with how much certainty CO2-induced global warming presented a threat. Relevant questions are avoided for fear that they won't yield the desired answers. the fear is well-founded.

http://environment.yale.edu...

See question 50.

47% of Americans think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities.

Although, personally, I like question 69E, and not just for the number.

In any case, here's an interesting take on the relative credibility of those who are climate change deniers and not,

http://www.pnas.org...
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:27:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 11:15:51 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 10:22:58 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:52:35 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:

Which poll?

"97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring." Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."

You did the exact same thing using the same kind of BS poll numbers in your ACA debate.

What's an ACA debate? What poll? How was the question asked incorrectly that I claimed was correct?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:15:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 5:49:50 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
In any case, here's an interesting take on the relative credibility of those who are climate change deniers and not,

http://www.pnas.org...

The is interesting data to be had from that study. If you did down to the supporting data reference, the authors of the study found a total 0f 1372 climate researchers. They then looked at various ways reseachers identify themselves as "deniers," such as by signing statements or the like. 472 of the 1372 are skeptics, 34.4%. Some skeptics keep quiet because they don't ant to suffer the wrath of alarmists, expressed in such ways as being fired from university and government positions. That put the total level of skepticism at between about 35% and 50%. That's about the same as other estimates I've seen, such as Patrick Michael's informal estimates based upon IPCC attendees.

So why don't those skeptics publish much? The trick is to only count publications that appear in certain approved journals and which only contain certain climate change key words. Skeptics who doubt the statistical methodology used are likely to go into a statistical journal rather than a climate journal. Papers on the cosmic ray effect on climate go into physics journals. Crisis advocates control the climate journals, and as the Climategate scandal revealed, crisis advocates work hard to keep opponents from being published.

Crisis advocates also publish highly similar papers reviewed by each other. For example, after Mann discovered how to make hockey sticks out of random data, a bunch of his associates proved they could do it too.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 11:24:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:15:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:49:50 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
In any case, here's an interesting take on the relative credibility of those who are climate change deniers and not,

http://www.pnas.org...

The is interesting data to be had from that study. If you did down to the supporting data reference, the authors of the study found a total 0f 1372 climate researchers. They then looked at various ways reseachers identify themselves as "deniers," such as by signing statements or the like. 472 of the 1372 are skeptics, 34.4%. Some skeptics keep quiet because they don't ant to suffer the wrath of alarmists, expressed in such ways as being fired from university and government positions. That put the total level of skepticism at between about 35% and 50%. That's about the same as other estimates I've seen, such as Patrick Michael's informal estimates based upon IPCC attendees.

So why don't those skeptics publish much? The trick is to only count publications that appear in certain approved journals and which only contain certain climate change key words. Skeptics who doubt the statistical methodology used are likely to go into a statistical journal rather than a climate journal. Papers on the cosmic ray effect on climate go into physics journals. Crisis advocates control the climate journals, and as the Climategate scandal revealed, crisis advocates work hard to keep opponents from being published.

Crisis advocates also publish highly similar papers reviewed by each other. For example, after Mann discovered how to make hockey sticks out of random data, a bunch of his associates proved they could do it too.

I really don't understand why everyone is so hell-bent on accumulating the opinions of individual scientists. An opinion survey of thousands of scientists is scientifically useless. Why doesn't the media focus on controlled, quantitative studies on climate change instead?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 12:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:15:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:49:50 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
In any case, here's an interesting take on the relative credibility of those who are climate change deniers and not,

http://www.pnas.org...

The is interesting data to be had from that study. If you did down to the supporting data reference, the authors of the study found a total 0f 1372 climate researchers. They then looked at various ways reseachers identify themselves as "deniers," such as by signing statements or the like. 472 of the 1372 are skeptics, 34.4%. Some skeptics keep quiet because they don't ant to suffer the wrath of alarmists, expressed in such ways as being fired from university and government positions. That put the total level of skepticism at between about 35% and 50%. That's about the same as other estimates I've seen, such as Patrick Michael's informal estimates based upon IPCC attendees.

So why don't those skeptics publish much? The trick is to only count publications that appear in certain approved journals and which only contain certain climate change key words. Skeptics who doubt the statistical methodology used are likely to go into a statistical journal rather than a climate journal. Papers on the cosmic ray effect on climate go into physics journals. Crisis advocates control the climate journals, and as the Climategate scandal revealed, crisis advocates work hard to keep opponents from being published.

Crisis advocates also publish highly similar papers reviewed by each other. For example, after Mann discovered how to make hockey sticks out of random data, a bunch of his associates proved they could do it too.

A lot of them go into geology journals
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 1:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 11:15:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/19/2012 5:49:50 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
In any case, here's an interesting take on the relative credibility of those who are climate change deniers and not,

http://www.pnas.org...

The is interesting data to be had from that study. If you did down to the supporting data reference, the authors of the study found a total 0f 1372 climate researchers. They then looked at various ways reseachers identify themselves as "deniers," such as by signing statements or the like. 472 of the 1372 are skeptics, 34.4%. Some skeptics keep quiet because they don't ant to suffer the wrath of alarmists, expressed in such ways as being fired from university and government positions. That put the total level of skepticism at between about 35% and 50%. That's about the same as other estimates I've seen, such as Patrick Michael's informal estimates based upon IPCC attendees.


Sure, but there are a number of problems with what you're claiming, i) if you're an advocate for the position that climate change is caused by man, then likewise would much of the pertinent private sector be made more difficult for you - one would have to study A) which is more probably lucrative B) which scientists actually prefer to work in ii) some government departments favor, for example, the oil sector at the expense of the environment, eg: The Minerals Management Service, so saying "Does X organization affirm Y in its rhetoric/mission statement?" is not to prove that their policies, internal or external, as they relate to employment or no, are going to be hostile or not to a particular set of views, iii) How do you get from 34.4% to 50%? Did I fail to pick that up, or is this a separate statistic that you're introducing?

So why don't those skeptics publish much? The trick is to only count publications that appear in certain approved journals and which only contain certain climate change key words. Skeptics who doubt the statistical methodology used are likely to go into a statistical journal rather than a climate journal. Papers on the cosmic ray effect on climate go into physics journals. Crisis advocates control the climate journals, and as the Climategate scandal revealed, crisis advocates work hard to keep opponents from being published.

"(search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate")"

You're, hopefully unintentionally, conflating what you believe to be general practice with the paper specifically. As I noted above, the search did presume that "climate" would be involved in the title somehow, but that's different from only accepting climate journals (in-fact, they actually note that such a search failed to entirely exclude non-relevant publications).


Crisis advocates also publish highly similar papers reviewed by each other. For example, after Mann discovered how to make hockey sticks out of random data, a bunch of his associates proved they could do it too.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper