Australia See's the Light...

[westwall]

Reality check: Do YOU actually believe that only 0.3% of active climate scientists accept AGW? One climate scientist out of 300?!?!? Really?

Have you READ the paper supposedly refuting Cook? Do YOU approve and accept the methods employed?

Yes, i've read it. Not only does Legate et al explain succinctly where Cook erred in math and fundamental statistics based on consensus, but so do the peers who reviewed and published the piece in the Science and Education Journal. I'm not a scientist of this nature. My background is in engineering. What i believe is of little relevance.

And there is no supposedly about it. Cook's claim is false and his follow up work of in the same vein was rejected for publication outright.

What people believe, has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.

Not to mention the PARTICULAR reasons for rejecting this POS...

1) Lead author is the Grand Wizard behind skepticalscience.com. A known rabid partisian and manipulator of data and facts.

2) Authors SELECTED about 35 studies out of several hundred that even MADE a statement about man's contributions.. Meaning that the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists --- EXPRESSED NO OPINION on the topic..

3) They were not polling INDIVIDUAL authors of those papers. Instead throwing ALL authors into the same category WITHOUT proof of their "beliefs".. Not uncommon to have 10 or 12 authors on a paper with SOME OF THEM coming from disciplines largely OUTSIDE of the debate.

It's shit in every way.. YET --- Abraham and others CONTINUE to peddle this factoid even after they've been TOLD why it's shit.. Won't be a week -- before one of them DUMPS on another thread...

Just realize flac, they are drones. Simple, mindless drones, reading from the script that their masters have decreed they use. They have no ability to think for themselves, that's why they present the same tired, proven false horse manure time and time again.

It's quite simply the best they are capable of.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fct, do you believe that a paper that makes no statement regarding the ipcc position or its implications can accurately be said to reject the ipcc position?

Yes or fucking no?

Abraham.. Calm down.. You might have a handle on the general tools of the biz, but you really suck at one thing.. And that is setting up the experiment and defining the problem.

Most reputable polls will leave a "no opinion" or "none of above" category because their TASK, Their job, Their PROBLEM DEFINITION, DEPENDS on making statements about the "GENERAL POPULATION"....

Of course, those with NO OPINION of either stripe should not be recruited against their will into ANY other category.. If the VAST majority of your population sample falls into that category --- you literally have very few valid statements to MAKE about your "poll".
It becomes crap. As tho the majority never were sampled. UNLESS -- Your GOAL was to show that the general population is actually UNBIASED (as they should remain in this case) and dont' give a fuck about the socio-political implications of their work..

I've seen zealots include padding in their abstracts totally UNRELATED to their results --- just to score a political point with the sponsors. Heck --- I MAY HAVE DONE that in a paper. (Just sayin I know I want another grant).

And how would SCORE 12 authors anyway? Please answer. It's crap...

 

[Abraham3]

You've done it again Abe.. It's amazing that these whacky math and logic assertions are almost daily...



Your cannot make the statement that "97% of Climate Scientists Believe X" if you purposely EXCLUDE the general population and pick only the subset that EXPRESSED an opinion.. Like your lying heros at skepticalscience did. Its PATENTLY WRONG.

The only statement you could make is "97% of Climate Scientists who expressed an opinion on X, Believe X".. The difference in results are monumental. Because you've dismissed the vast majority of your sample and it no longer REPRESENTS all Climate Scientists.. He did not poll an UNBIASED subset of the population.... Chapter One --- Statistical Methods for ANY Discipline.

Seriously dude.. Put down the nail gun and read the manual before someone gets hurt...

Then perhaps that's why Cook et al stated that 97.1% of the papers WHICH EXPRESSED AN OPINION supported AGW.

Amazing how these wee details slip right by you.

But IF COOK and Nuticielli did that -- (I refuse to read crap from skepticalscience) --- then they depended on partisian shills like you to MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT their results as "97% consensus of ALL climate scientists".. Which makes you -- a useful power tool.

BUT --- I'm happy to learn that you ACKNOWLEDGE the mistake of your interpretation and understand that they EXPECTED you and the press to do their dirty work for them. Which is WHY --- these guys will probably NEVER get a page in a respected science journal again.

Please explain to us what you think they SHOULD have done? And, while you're at it, you could answer that wee question up above. It falls right in with this: Do you believe that a paper that expresses no opinion regarding the IPCC position or any of its implications, can be counted as REJECTING the IPCC position? It's a yes or no question. It's pertinent. There are no tricks involved. I just want to know where you stand on a fairly simple point.

 

[westwall]

Allow me to condense for everyone:

1) I'm going with consensus science because it's all I have.
2) Peer review isn't fair because we want our opinion to carry the weight of fact.

Allow me to translate into honest speech:

We are going to identify the actual state of the consensus because the core of the fossil-fuel funded denialist movement, just as were the fights of the tobacco industry and the intellligent design movement, is to create the false impression that no consensus exists.

To seriously suggest that ONLY papers that explicitly state they accept the IPCC position do so, and that no paper which only makes use of all the assumptions implicit in the IPCC position does so, is so patently dishonest an assessment it makes me ill.

What is wrong with you people?

You're a pathological liar. You don't understand factual data.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, i've read it. Not only does Legate et al explain succinctly where Cook erred in math and fundamental statistics based on consensus, but so do the peers who reviewed and published the piece in the Science and Education Journal. I'm not a scientist of this nature. My background is in engineering. What i believe is of little relevance.

And there is no supposedly about it. Cook's claim is false and his follow up work of in the same vein was rejected for publication outright.

What people believe, has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.

Not to mention the PARTICULAR reasons for rejecting this POS...

1) Lead author is the Grand Wizard behind skepticalscience.com. A known rabid partisian and manipulator of data and facts.

2) Authors SELECTED about 35 studies out of several hundred that even MADE a statement about man's contributions.. Meaning that the VAST MAJORITY of climate scientists --- EXPRESSED NO OPINION on the topic..

3) They were not polling INDIVIDUAL authors of those papers. Instead throwing ALL authors into the same category WITHOUT proof of their "beliefs".. Not uncommon to have 10 or 12 authors on a paper with SOME OF THEM coming from disciplines largely OUTSIDE of the debate.

It's shit in every way.. YET --- Abraham and others CONTINUE to peddle this factoid even after they've been TOLD why it's shit.. Won't be a week -- before one of them DUMPS on another thread...

Just realize flac, they are drones. Simple, mindless drones, reading from the script that their masters have decreed they use. They have no ability to think for themselves, that's why they present the same tired, proven false horse manure time and time again.

It's quite simply the best they are capable of.

Then as Hercules once said "We're gonna need a bigger broom"...

Or --- we could go fix the bigger problems in this country first, throw the barn doors open, and wait for one of them CO2 inspired superstorms to clean the stables for us..

 

[BDBoop]

Sorry, I can't take it anymore. There is no apostrophe in 'sees.'

 

[flacaltenn]

Then perhaps that's why Cook et al stated that 97.1% of the papers WHICH EXPRESSED AN OPINION supported AGW.

Amazing how these wee details slip right by you.

But IF COOK and Nuticielli did that -- (I refuse to read crap from skepticalscience) --- then they depended on partisian shills like you to MISINTERPRET and MISREPRESENT their results as "97% consensus of ALL climate scientists".. Which makes you -- a useful power tool.

BUT --- I'm happy to learn that you ACKNOWLEDGE the mistake of your interpretation and understand that they EXPECTED you and the press to do their dirty work for them. Which is WHY --- these guys will probably NEVER get a page in a respected science journal again.

Please explain to us what you think they SHOULD have done? And, while you're at it, you could answer that wee question up above. It falls right in with this: Do you believe that a paper that expresses no opinion regarding the IPCC position or any of its implications, can be counted as REJECTING the IPCC position? It's a yes or no question. It's pertinent. There are no tricks involved. I just want to know where you stand on a fairly simple point.

Answered all your questions in Post #42..

 

[Foxfyre]

Fct, do you believe that a paper that makes no statement regarding the ipcc position or its implications can accurately be said to reject the ipcc position?

Yes or fucking no?

Abraham.. Calm down.. You might have a handle on the general tools of the biz, but you really suck at one thing.. And that is setting up the experiment and defining the problem.

Most reputable polls will leave a "no opinion" or "none of above" category because their TASK, Their job, Their PROBLEM DEFINITION, DEPENDS on making statements about the "GENERAL POPULATION"....

Of course, those with NO OPINION of either stripe should not be recruited against their will into ANY other category.. If the VAST majority of your population sample falls into that category --- you literally have very few valid statements to MAKE about your "poll".
It becomes crap. As tho the majority never were sampled. UNLESS -- Your GOAL was to show that the general population is actually UNBIASED (as they should remain in this case) and dont' give a fuck about the socio-political implications of their work..

I've seen zealots include padding in their abstracts totally UNRELATED to their results --- just to score a political point with the sponsors. Heck --- I MAY HAVE DONE that in a paper. (Just sayin I know I want another grant).

And how would SCORE 12 authors anyway? Please answer. It's crap...

Further, I have on occasion been asked to 'peer review' a paper on a subject in which I have a modicum of expertise. In such cases, a 'no opinion' is a declaration that the paper provides insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion one way or the other - or - there is insufficient documentation to determine whether the research was done competently - or - it is the best I can offer a friend who desperately wants my approval but who has in fact offered me some pretty substandard work to review.

In the scientific world, most peer review is simply an affirmation that acceptable statistical or research methods appear to be used, and is in no way an affirmation that the conclusions derived are correct.

 

[Abraham3]

Just realize flac, they are drones. Simple, mindless drones, reading from the script that their masters have decreed they use. They have no ability to think for themselves, that's why they present the same tired, proven false horse manure time and time again.

It's quite simply the best they are capable of.

Just realize, West, that you're incapable of making a valid technical argument because you have no valid technical basis for your position. So, instead, we witness your skill at attempted character assassination.

 

[freedombecki]

The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

Strange thing to state when Australia is a socialist nation.

They had a change of smart.

 

[westwall]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Of that there is no doubt. Try showing me how man is responsible. CO2 lags warm temps by hundreds of years. That means the CO2 increase we are witnessing now, was begun hundreds of years before man was capable of doing anything about it. Which means man is not responsible for what is happening now no matter how much you wish it to be so.

 

[westwall]

Just realize flac, they are drones. Simple, mindless drones, reading from the script that their masters have decreed they use. They have no ability to think for themselves, that's why they present the same tired, proven false horse manure time and time again.

It's quite simply the best they are capable of.

Just realize, West, that you're incapable of making a valid technical argument because you have no valid technical basis for your position. So, instead, we witness your skill at attempted character assassination.

I don't have to do anything silly person. You clowns have destroyed whatever credibility you had when you yelled and screamed about how the CLIMATEGATE emails were stolen and completely ignored the evidence of peer review corruption, data falsification, and outright fraud.

YOU DID IT TO YOURSELVE'S MONKEY BOY!

 

[Noomi]

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Of that there is no doubt. Try showing me how man is responsible. CO2 lags warm temps by hundreds of years. That means the CO2 increase we are witnessing now, was begun hundreds of years before man was capable of doing anything about it. Which means man is not responsible for what is happening now no matter how much you wish it to be so.

You cannot pump out so much shit into the atmosphere and not expect consequences. We are responsible for the shit that is pumped out, we need to stop it.

 

[westwall]

Climate change exists. End of story.

Of that there is no doubt. Try showing me how man is responsible. CO2 lags warm temps by hundreds of years. That means the CO2 increase we are witnessing now, was begun hundreds of years before man was capable of doing anything about it. Which means man is not responsible for what is happening now no matter how much you wish it to be so.

You cannot pump out so much shit into the atmosphere and not expect consequences. We are responsible for the shit that is pumped out, we need to stop it.

Particulate material I agree. That's why they have to have scrubbers to keep it out of the atmosphere now. Poisonous gasses should not be allowed into the atmosphere at all. However, CO2 is not a poisonous gas. In fact it is the fundamental building block of all life on this planet and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better.

It has been shown to have zero effect on global temperatures. That theory is now toast. But pollution control is always important and necessary. Just make sure you're cleaning up something that IS a pollutant.

CO2 isn't.

 

[Abraham3]

Particulate material I agree. That's why they have to have scrubbers to keep it out of the atmosphere now. Poisonous gasses should not be allowed into the atmosphere at all. However, CO2 is not a poisonous gas. In fact it is the fundamental building block of all life on this planet and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better.

It has been shown to have zero effect on global temperatures. That theory is now toast. But pollution control is always important and necessary. Just make sure you're cleaning up something that IS a pollutant.

CO2 isn't.

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

 

[freedombecki]

Climate change exists. End of story.

Of that there is no doubt. Try showing me how man is responsible. CO2 lags warm temps by hundreds of years. That means the CO2 increase we are witnessing now, was begun hundreds of years before man was capable of doing anything about it. Which means man is not responsible for what is happening now no matter how much you wish it to be so.

You cannot pump out so much shit into the atmosphere and not expect consequences. We are responsible for the shit that is pumped out, we need to stop it.

That's what Mao Tse-Tung said before he slew one hundred million Chinese to achieve his ends of the perfect social system.

We be watching our backs for those who need to stop freedom.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Particulate material I agree. That's why they have to have scrubbers to keep it out of the atmosphere now. Poisonous gasses should not be allowed into the atmosphere at all. However, CO2 is not a poisonous gas. In fact it is the fundamental building block of all life on this planet and the more CO2 in the atmosphere the better.

It has been shown to have zero effect on global temperatures. That theory is now toast. But pollution control is always important and necessary. Just make sure you're cleaning up something that IS a pollutant.

CO2 isn't.

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

When every "model" failed its projections against observation. Global temperatures remain within the margin of error for over 15 years and yet CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

There is a correlation problem between CO2 and temperature. Leaving much skepticism as to whether or not CO2 drives temperatures at all. I'm inclined to agree that temperatures actually drive CO2 instead of vice versa.

And there is also research out there to compliment this assertion.

 

[Abraham3]

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

When every "model" failed its projections against observation. Global temperatures remain within the margin of error for over 15 years and yet CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

There is a correlation problem between CO2 and temperature. Leaving much skepticism as to whether or not CO2 drives temperatures at all. I'm inclined to agree that temperatures actually drive CO2 instead of vice versa.

And there is also research out there to compliment this assertion.

1) The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is based on basic physics. It does not require models to support the assertion.
2) The only thing models have missed has been the recent change in the sequestration location of thermal energy. The ToA imbalance shows the Earth is still accumulating energy at a pace that has increased if anything.
3) NO model that does NOT assume the greenhouse effect can come anywhere near reproducing the climate's behavior over the last 150 years.

If you have research that refutes the greenhouse effect, let's see it.

 

[flacaltenn]

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

When every "model" failed its projections against observation. Global temperatures remain within the margin of error for over 15 years and yet CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

There is a correlation problem between CO2 and temperature. Leaving much skepticism as to whether or not CO2 drives temperatures at all. I'm inclined to agree that temperatures actually drive CO2 instead of vice versa.

And there is also research out there to compliment this assertion.

1) The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is based on basic physics. It does not require models to support the assertion.
2) The only thing models have missed has been the recent change in the sequestration location of thermal energy. The ToA imbalance shows the Earth is still accumulating energy at a pace that has increased if anything.
3) NO model that does NOT assume the greenhouse effect can come anywhere near reproducing the climate's behavior over the last 150 years.

If you have research that refutes the greenhouse effect, let's see it.

I cant refute the GH theory nor do I want to.. But I can USE the greenhousentheory to show that Co2 is not a pollutant. What results from the combustion of fossil fuels is a combo of CO2 and H2O. H2O vapor is the dominant GHgas isnt it? So by your definition of a chemical pollutant -- water vapor ought to be considered a pollutant as well. RIGHT? Man causes increased water vapor thru paving streets and farming and burning fuels. NEXT ON YOUR LIST OF POLLUTANTS? The next tax to be proposed?

 

[skookerasbil]

You keep trying to run that line ("lack of empirical evidence"). Even the deniers aren't following you on that one.

but only climate nutters care.......people all over the world are speaking up loudly and clearly. They don't want to pay the fucking stupid ass carbon tax.......which is why we will all be up to our eyeballs in fossil fuels for decades and decades. This thread speaks exactly to that and is what we are seeing all over the world.


For mounds of evidence supporting exactly this point, see the thread "PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING". Dozens of links that decimate every cool-aid argument of the alarmist nutters.


The alarmist k00ks cant connect the dots on this.......it is a thought processing disconnect ( nothing to do with intelligence). Climate science......consensus or not.......is having ZERO impact on energy production/usage anywhere in the world. Renewables are at approximately 3-4%.......by 2040, they will be at absolute maximum of 10%.....likely less. Fossil fuels will be well over 70%!! So says Obama's EIA!!!



Its called alarmist nut losing.