SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GW: human activities vs natural influences
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
You actually think a link into that denier echo chamber is worth ANYTHING? You never cease to amaze, son.
Have I told you today that you're an ignorant bigot? No? Well, you're an ignorant bigot.
If you want to see the backpedaling of Mr Jilette, just google "Penn Jilette, global warming". You really need to learn how to use a search engine. We won't always be around to hold your sweaty little hand.
But a winning ignorant bigot.........
Not a single AGW fascist climate k00k has been able to provide one single link in the past 2 years of requests, "Show us where the science is mattering???".......
winning
- Thread starter
- #23
If you believe that CO2 drives the climate you believe in magic....if you believe that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 drives climate change you not only believe in magic but are just f'ing stupid.
Odd, then, that I seem to have 97% of all climate scientists and 97% of all their studies supporting my point of view (because that's where I get my point of view) while you actually have LESS than the remaining 3% of those scientists and their studies. So on what do you base your conclusion that I (and the scientists I follow) are "f'ing stupid"? Eh?
There is no 97% of scientists consensus. That's a Cook paper that has already been discredited as crap. You have .3% consensus based off Cook's formula and findings.
The Cook paper has not been discredited - Legate's work is complete nonsense - and Cook's conclusion are paralleled by over a dozen other polls, surveys and studies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Links please????
daveman
Diamond Member
I have to hand it to you; you're very consistent.Penn Gillette has backpedaled frantically from his previous emotional hyperventilating on the topic, hyperventilating illustrated by the video above. Now, when asked about global warming, he just gives a mealymouthed "I don't know". He's plainly very embarrassed about his past behavior. He knows he screwed up badly, but isn't ready to say it yet.
Deniers, take an example from Penn Gillette. He jumped off the sinking ship before it was too late, and thus avoided becoming a laughingstock. It's not too late for you.
Consistently wrong.
Morality, Religion and Bullsh*t: An Interview with Penn Jillette
The other issue is global warming, which we never addressed contrary to public opinion. Everyone seems to think we did a global warming episode on Bullshit where we were skeptical of global warming. Well, that never happened. There were asides during other topics, like the ecology or Earth Day parts. Although I used to be more skeptical it seems like the information, and by that I do not mean Hurricane Sandy, but the preponderance of information seems to be there is climate change and it is anthropogenic. Although I still dont know that the best solution is just a stronger government.
Whats so odd is that when we have tragedies like 9/11 many people use that tragedy to say, We need a stronger government and more draconian laws. For climate change, there is the idea that there is a horrible emergency so we need a stronger government and more draconian laws. I wish we would at least consider, when given a tragedy or emergency, the idea of trying to solve it with more freedom instead of less.
Whats so odd is that when we have tragedies like 9/11 many people use that tragedy to say, We need a stronger government and more draconian laws. For climate change, there is the idea that there is a horrible emergency so we need a stronger government and more draconian laws. I wish we would at least consider, when given a tragedy or emergency, the idea of trying to solve it with more freedom instead of less.
He doesn't support your desire for ecototalitarianism, either. More freedom. What a concept!
Links?
Show us how any of the "consensus science" is mattering in the real world???
Show us how any of the "consensus science" is mattering in the real world???
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Odd, then, that I seem to have 97% of all climate scientists and 97% of all their studies supporting my point of view (because that's where I get my point of view) while you actually have LESS than the remaining 3% of those scientists and their studies. So on what do you base your conclusion that I (and the scientists I follow) are "f'ing stupid"? Eh?
There is no 97% of scientists consensus. That's a Cook paper that has already been discredited as crap. You have .3% consensus based off Cook's formula and findings.
The Cook paper has not been discredited - Legate's work is complete nonsense - and Cook's conclusion are paralleled by over a dozen other polls, surveys and studies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
Right. That's why Legates work was published in the Science and Education Journal. Not only that, but Cook's subsequent papers on the subject have been flat out rejected for publish by Earth System Dynamics. Cook is hack, and not even a clever one. No 97% consensus.
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Links please????
Even Crick's own links do not support his contention. Not that it is shocking to watch a 97% consensus moron fall right on his face.
- Thread starter
- #29
Do YOU believe Legates' conclusion? That only 3 out of every 1,000 climate scientists believe AGW to be valid?
Were you aware that Legates was formally asked to step down as the State Climatologist of Delaware (after having previously been asked not to use his title in any public statements) and this likely due to his involvement with Willie Soon (of Soon and Bailunas fame) who was found to have been funded to the tune of over $1 million by no one BUT oil and coal interests since 2001 and to have plotted in advance how to discredit the IPCC's AR4 (with Legates among others).
Were you aware that "Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"." (Wikipedia)
But, back to the topic under discussion. Are you willing to discuss and compare the methodologies of Cook and Legates? Do you really think you can defend Legates methods as an acccurate determination of the opinion of the world's publishing climate scientists regarding AGW? Let us know.
Were you aware that Legates was formally asked to step down as the State Climatologist of Delaware (after having previously been asked not to use his title in any public statements) and this likely due to his involvement with Willie Soon (of Soon and Bailunas fame) who was found to have been funded to the tune of over $1 million by no one BUT oil and coal interests since 2001 and to have plotted in advance how to discredit the IPCC's AR4 (with Legates among others).
Were you aware that "Legates is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming"." (Wikipedia)
But, back to the topic under discussion. Are you willing to discuss and compare the methodologies of Cook and Legates? Do you really think you can defend Legates methods as an acccurate determination of the opinion of the world's publishing climate scientists regarding AGW? Let us know.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #30
Links please????
Even Crick's own links do not support his contention. Not that it is shocking to watch a 97% consensus moron fall right on his face.
Are you deaf and blind? I just gave you links to two extensive articles on polls, surveys and studies examining the opinions of climate scientists regarding AGW. Is this a new central strategy of deniers: close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na na naaaaaa"?
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
You fail at understanding science. Cook used a flawed definition of consensus to get to his conclusion. Not only that, but several authors whom work was used in Cook's paper have publically stated he misrepresented their work/opinion on the matter. He's a hack, and using the standard definiton of consensus Cook found only .3% consensus. In other words, his "science" is about as useful as his website. He's a hack, not worth listening to and his work is garbage.
I do not need to discuss the work methodology, it's already been done and been found wanting. Not that this will stop you from repeating the 97% consensus lie over and over and over and over and over again.
I do not need to discuss the work methodology, it's already been done and been found wanting. Not that this will stop you from repeating the 97% consensus lie over and over and over and over and over again.
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Links please????
Even Crick's own links do not support his contention. Not that it is shocking to watch a 97% consensus moron fall right on his face.
Are you deaf and blind? I just gave you links to two extensive articles on polls, surveys and studies examining the opinions of climate scientists regarding AGW. Is this a new central strategy of deniers: close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na na naaaaaa"?
Neither of these two wiki links provide the basis for "dozens of similar polls found the same results". Apparently it is you who is dumb, fella. By all means, continue to shoot yourself in the foot though. It's pure gold entertainment.
- Thread starter
- #33
A useful link demonstrating the quality of work produced by Dr David Legates.
Refuting a Global Warming Denier | Climate Science Watch
and another
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Bedford_2013_agnotology.pdf
Refuting a Global Warming Denier | Climate Science Watch
and another
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Bedford_2013_agnotology.pdf
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #34
You fail at understanding science. Cook used a flawed definition of consensus to get to his conclusion. Not only that, but several authors whom work was used in Cook's paper have publically stated he misrepresented their work/opinion on the matter. He's a hack, and using the standard definiton of consensus Cook found only .3% consensus. In other words, his "science" is about as useful as his website. He's a hack, not worth listening to and his work is garbage.
I do not need to discuss the work methodology, it's already been done and been found wanting. Not that this will stop you from repeating the 97% consensus lie over and over and over and over and over again.
Please explain to us what you believe to be "the standard definition of consensus".
- Thread starter
- #35
A few points:
If Cook et al's classification of the 12,000 papers reviewed is so flawed, how is it that the self-assessment he performed in which the authors of the papers they had rated were allowed to rate themselves, arrived at an even higher consensus?
If Cook miscategorized ~96% of 12,000 papers, where are the complaints from the tens of thousands of authors involved? Anthony Watts has publicized the complaints of 3.
Cook's paper is publicly available. Seeing Legates (David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley) paper costs $39.95. However, at least one gentleman with access has provided a glimpse into how this group of highly qualified scientists turned 97.1% into 0.3%.
Tom Curtis at 17:01 PM on 5 September, 2013
0^0 @1, I ran some calculations on the detailed results as released on this site. They show that to obtain a 0.3% "consensus rating", Legates et al had to only count papers rated 1, and then also exclude any papers categorized as "impacts" and "mitigation".
The first step not only excludes every paper that endorses the consensus without explicitly quantifying the contribution of humans, or only implicitly endorses the consensus - it actually counts them and neutral (rating 4) papers as disendorsing the consensus. That follows because they are not rejecting the 32.6% of all abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus in Cook et al, but the 97.1% "among abstracts with AGW position". So, either it is a deliberate strawman by quantifying something they know to belong to a different category (% among all abstracts) or they are tacitly asserting that all abstracts have a position on AGW, and that overwhelmingly that position is a refusal to endorse AGW. Curiously they are willing to assert this without any sign that they themselves have rated the abstracts. They are insisting that their a priori rating is better than Cook et al's empirical rating.
Excluding "impacts" and "mitigation" papers is even more dubious. First, it confuses "endorses" with "is evidence of". A paper about marigolds could "endorse" AGW by simply noting that they think AGW is true. That is not evidence of AGW, and nobody pretends otherwise. It merely indicates the opinion of the authors about AGW (ie, they think it is true). And, of course, Cook et al is not trying to measure the level of evidence, but the distribution of opinions. In fact, it is one of the main arguments of the pseudo-skeptics that a consensus is not evidence, but here they ignore that distinction and pretend that Cook et al by trying to measure consensus is actually trying to measure evidence, the only basis on which excluding "mitigation" papers would be relevant.
It is worse than that, however, for a large portion of "impacts" papers are about the climatological impacts of increasing CO2 levels. They make findings about such things as the likely temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, or from historical and projected CO2 emissions. These are exactly the sort of papers that do provide evidence about whether or not anthropogenic emissions have caused >50% of recent temperature increases. Yet Legates et al want to exclude them as irrelevant (while counting them among "abstracts with [an] AGW position".
The contortion of reasoning involved in their claim is, as you can see, beyond belief.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-discredited.htm
If Cook et al's classification of the 12,000 papers reviewed is so flawed, how is it that the self-assessment he performed in which the authors of the papers they had rated were allowed to rate themselves, arrived at an even higher consensus?
If Cook miscategorized ~96% of 12,000 papers, where are the complaints from the tens of thousands of authors involved? Anthony Watts has publicized the complaints of 3.
Cook's paper is publicly available. Seeing Legates (David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley) paper costs $39.95. However, at least one gentleman with access has provided a glimpse into how this group of highly qualified scientists turned 97.1% into 0.3%.
Tom Curtis at 17:01 PM on 5 September, 2013
0^0 @1, I ran some calculations on the detailed results as released on this site. They show that to obtain a 0.3% "consensus rating", Legates et al had to only count papers rated 1, and then also exclude any papers categorized as "impacts" and "mitigation".
The first step not only excludes every paper that endorses the consensus without explicitly quantifying the contribution of humans, or only implicitly endorses the consensus - it actually counts them and neutral (rating 4) papers as disendorsing the consensus. That follows because they are not rejecting the 32.6% of all abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus in Cook et al, but the 97.1% "among abstracts with AGW position". So, either it is a deliberate strawman by quantifying something they know to belong to a different category (% among all abstracts) or they are tacitly asserting that all abstracts have a position on AGW, and that overwhelmingly that position is a refusal to endorse AGW. Curiously they are willing to assert this without any sign that they themselves have rated the abstracts. They are insisting that their a priori rating is better than Cook et al's empirical rating.
Excluding "impacts" and "mitigation" papers is even more dubious. First, it confuses "endorses" with "is evidence of". A paper about marigolds could "endorse" AGW by simply noting that they think AGW is true. That is not evidence of AGW, and nobody pretends otherwise. It merely indicates the opinion of the authors about AGW (ie, they think it is true). And, of course, Cook et al is not trying to measure the level of evidence, but the distribution of opinions. In fact, it is one of the main arguments of the pseudo-skeptics that a consensus is not evidence, but here they ignore that distinction and pretend that Cook et al by trying to measure consensus is actually trying to measure evidence, the only basis on which excluding "mitigation" papers would be relevant.
It is worse than that, however, for a large portion of "impacts" papers are about the climatological impacts of increasing CO2 levels. They make findings about such things as the likely temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, or from historical and projected CO2 emissions. These are exactly the sort of papers that do provide evidence about whether or not anthropogenic emissions have caused >50% of recent temperature increases. Yet Legates et al want to exclude them as irrelevant (while counting them among "abstracts with [an] AGW position".
The contortion of reasoning involved in their claim is, as you can see, beyond belief.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-discredited.htm
Last edited:
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Failure. It's what the weatherman will do tomorrow. Like Crick's argument.
No wonder it was so stinkin cold this winter........the damn globe is cooling!!!
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 160
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 488
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 580
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 576
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 103
- Views
- 603
- Replies
- 738
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8056
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-