A poll re the value of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

[Old Rocks]

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Polling, opinion and consensus isn't science. Post the facts and I'll drop my skepticism.

You are a liar. You most certainly will not drop your idiocy. The truth has been posted for you repeatedly, and you will not even look at it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Iceweasel]

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Polling, opinion and consensus isn't science. Post the facts and I'll drop my skepticism.

You are a liar. You most certainly will not drop your idiocy. The truth has been posted for you repeatedly, and you will not even look at it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You are the liar. Posting greenhouse effect and temperature changes doesn't prove AGW. That's why you idiots fall back on opinion and pretend it's science.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. GHGs warm the atmosphere and oceans. We have added huge amounts of GHGs through our use of fossil fuels and forest clearing. But that doesn't mean that we have had a part in warming the atmosphere.

Fellow, you are fucking stupid.

 

[Crick]

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Polling, opinion and consensus isn't science. Post the facts and I'll drop my skepticism.

The opinion being sought here is that of the posters on this board. It is not meant to have any scientific value and I never claimed that it would.

First, the idea that some methods are scientific and some are not is simply unsupportable. There is no list of approved methods. There are an infinite number of methods producing different sorts of results with different levels and sorts of value. If I do a study on the effectiveness of, say, negative campaigning, polls would be an entirely appropriate tool to use in my study.

Second, the proportion of the experts in a field that accept a given theory is a perfectly valid method of assessing it's likelihood of being correct. And there is never more than a likelihood for theories in the natural sciences. There is no PROOF. All theories are subject to revision and refutation. But the LIKELIHOOD that such will happen, goes DOWN as the number of experts accepting a theory goes up. THEY are the ones who can best assess whether or not a theory has made accurate predictions. THEY are the ones who can best judge whether experimental results support a theory. THEY are the ones who can best judge whether observations are best explained. And THEY are the ones who can best tell if a theory has been refuted or needs modification based on newer work.

If you think 97% acceptance is inadequate, you need to reject virtually every theory of modern science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The denialists think that consensus among obese junkies on the AM radio, dipso US Senators, and fake British Lords carries greater weight than that of scientists in the field with decades of study behind them.

 

[Iceweasel]

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Polling, opinion and consensus isn't science. Post the facts and I'll drop my skepticism.

The opinion being sought here is that of the posters on this board. It is not meant to have any scientific value and I never claimed that it would.

First, the idea that some methods are scientific and some are not is simply unsupportable. There is no list of approved methods. There are an infinite number of methods producing different sorts of results with different levels and sorts of value. If I do a study on the effectiveness of, say, negative campaigning, polls would be an entirely appropriate tool to use in my study.

Second, the proportion of the experts in a field that accept a given theory is a perfectly valid method of assessing it's likelihood of being correct. And there is never more than a likelihood for theories in the natural sciences. There is no PROOF. All theories are subject to revision and refutation. But the LIKELIHOOD that such will happen, goes DOWN as the number of experts accepting a theory goes up. THEY are the ones who can best assess whether or not a theory has made accurate predictions. THEY are the ones who can best judge whether experimental results support a theory. THEY are the ones who can best judge whether observations are best explained. And THEY are the ones who can best tell if a theory has been refuted or needs modification based on newer work.

If you think 97% acceptance is inadequate, you need to reject virtually every theory of modern science.

It should have been obvious that I was talking about the opinions of the scientists, not the posters here. Likelihood isn't fact, just the best guess. I'm also skeptical of the 97% opinion claim. I see it tossed around like it was proven as well. But it's just more church dogma.

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Anthropogenic? My aren't we fancy.

Anthro = man
genic = beginning or start

so man-made.

 

[Crick]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Anthropogenic? My aren't we fancy.

Anthro = man
genic = beginning or start

so man-made.

I didn't invent the term and I wasn't the first to apply it in this context. Did you have a point?

 

[mamooth]

This poll is a classic display of denier narcissism. In denierland, they all believe their own uninformed opinions have equal validity to the experts who have spent their entire lives studying the field. Why? Because they read some conspiracy theories, which told them how those egghead scientists don't know nuffin'.

Non-narcissists, OTOH, understand their own limitations. That's why I don't rant about string theory, dark matter theory, gravitational wave theory, or other such complex topics based solely on my "gut feeling". Not being a cult moron, I understand that my gut feeling means crap in comparison to the actual science.