Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Next >
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Turtletotem]
    #21446504 - 03/23/15 10:27 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Loaded Shaman said:
Quote:

thescientist said:
Retractions are often issued because scientists deliberately lied or mislead. It is not rare as you suggest.

You have a very uninformed and erroneous concept of science and its institutions.




QFT.




May I ask what experience with the scientific field you are basing this assessment on? Have you ever worked in a lab, published a paper, or even regularly kept up with a scientific journal? It is absolutely absurd to suggest that most retractions occur because of deliberate lies.

I'll point you to this post, where you can see my experience with the scientific field. I am confident that I have a fairly strong understanding of how often retractions happen and for what reasons, and I can tell you that retractions because of blatant lies are exceedingly rare.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21447039 - 03/23/15 12:14 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You seriously think that 97% of climate scientists are being paid to lie???  And that the other 3% haven't yet disclosed that someone offered to bribe them but they turned it down?




Why do you continue to lie? It's been pointed out to you before that the "97%" is a bogus claim.

While I doubt it will matter to your sense of honor:

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

color 4 panel3Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

    And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

How sad that it's no surprise you continue to make that claim.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21447756 - 03/23/15 03:38 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You seriously think that 97% of climate scientists are being paid to lie???  And that the other 3% haven't yet disclosed that someone offered to bribe them but they turned it down?



Why do you continue to lie? It's been pointed out to you before that the "97%" is a bogus claim.



BoldAsLove already pointed out that there is more than one study making this claim, and you should look at the better studies.

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
While I doubt it will matter to your sense of honor:
.
.
.



I've already refuted point #1.

Your 2nd argument actually supports the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute to climate change.  However, it claims that if the human contribution isn't explicitly shown in a study to contribute 50% or more to global warning, then that study shouldn't be considered as supporting of manmade global warming.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (03/23/15 03:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemycopathy
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/14
Posts: 52
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Turtletotem]
    #21449039 - 03/23/15 09:52 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Once again, big business has got you by the balls.
Hey nice kids you got there! I bet they love life, too! You know what is bad for life? A fucking collapsed eco system.




Big business is going to utterly dominate you as it makes hundreds of billions from nuclear energy. Big business has already castrated you and left you thinking salvation can be found in the shiny surface of a solar panel.

Big macs for the morons and fillet steak for the big boys, solar panels for the morons and nuclear power for the big boys. There's no difference. You have been beaten.

Your only hope is to extract head from rectum and help your children to make the most of the opportunities that the nuclear age is bringing in.

Quote:

China is the world’s biggest nuclear growth market. The country operates 24 reactors currently. A further 25 are under construction, out of 68 globally, according to the IAEA. China doesn’t disclose total spending, but based on the cost of reactors, its buildout represents tens of billions of dollars in potential new business for Chinese and foreign companies over the coming decade.




http://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-power-gains-traction-in-china-1425986954

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #21449288 - 03/23/15 11:02 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You seriously think that 97% of climate scientists are being paid to lie???  And that the other 3% haven't yet disclosed that someone offered to bribe them but they turned it down?




Why do you continue to lie? It's been pointed out to you before that the "97%" is a bogus claim.





That's not true at all. Your article only talks about one of the studies that found the 97% number. Any comments on the study I quoted from PNAS?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: mycopathy]
    #21449314 - 03/23/15 11:08 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

mycopathy said:
Big business is going to utterly dominate you as it makes hundreds of billions from nuclear energy. Big business has already castrated you and left you thinking salvation can be found in the shiny surface of a solar panel.

Big macs for the morons and fillet steak for the big boys, solar panels for the morons and nuclear power for the big boys. There's no difference. You have been beaten.

Your only hope is to extract head from rectum and help your children to make the most of the opportunities that the nuclear age is bringing in.



Does that post make any sense to anyone?  I could just rewrite it slightly and it's the same nonsense:
Quote:

Big business is going to utterly dominate you as it makes hundreds of billions from solar energy. Big business has already castrated you and left you thinking salvation can be found in the radioactive core of a nuclear reactor.

Big macs for the morons and fillet steak for the big boys, nuclear power for the morons and solar panels for the big boys. There's no difference. You have been beaten.

Your only hope is to extract head from rectum and help your children to make the most of the opportunities that the solar age is bringing in.




--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemycopathy
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/14
Posts: 52
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21449377 - 03/23/15 11:22 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Oh big business is certainly going to rape you with the solar panels. Just in the way that McDonalds has made billions of off the ignorant masses.

How many nuclear plants is China, Russia, India, and Iran going to build?

That answer must be so painful for you. Keep munching on the big macs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 7 days
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: mycopathy]
    #21449691 - 03/24/15 01:41 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

mycopathy said:
Oh big business is certainly going to rape you with the solar panels. Just in the way that McDonalds has made billions of off the ignorant masses.

How many nuclear plants is China, Russia, India, and Iran going to build?

That answer must be so painful for you. Keep munching on the big macs.



Can anyone translate that into English for me?  What's he trying to say?  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKauaiOrca
Waterman


Registered: 08/12/08
Posts: 3,131
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 3
    #21449970 - 03/24/15 05:52 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

The older I get, the more I wonder if mankind suffers from some kind of disease or affliction that pushes us into apocalyptic fear thinking?  There are many varieties of this from what religion pushes (Extreme Islam, Evangelicals, etc.), to global nuclear war, to total economic collapse and anarchy, to environmental collapse due to global warming.

Maybe this thinking is rational and at some point one of these apocalyptic scenarios will come to pass or maybe it's just a way of thinking that short circuits human potential? 

The solutions to the real problems of poverty, efficient utilization of resources, reducing violence, improving education, preventing chronic health problems are so obvious, yet we just can't execute on it because the overwhelming amount real brainpower on this planet is put to use trying to increase shareholder returns often for companies that create products that CREATE THE PROBLEMS.


--------------------
"The universe is endless, limitless and infinite.  Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance.  We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end.  There is only memory.  Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends.  Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations.  Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death."

-- Ancient Taoist Master

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21451268 - 03/24/15 01:47 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You seriously think that 97% of climate scientists are being paid to lie???  And that the other 3% haven't yet disclosed that someone offered to bribe them but they turned it down?



Why do you continue to lie? It's been pointed out to you before that the "97%" is a bogus claim.



BoldAsLove already pointed out that there is more than one study making this claim, and you should look at the better studies.




Rebuttal to his sociologist's study by real scientists

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/E151.full?ijkey=02f27fe6127b46617c18e0496ec7d9d262784231&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Quote:





Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
While I doubt it will matter to your sense of honor:
.
.
.



I've already refuted point #1.

Your 2nd argument actually supports the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans contribute to climate change.  However, it claims that if the human contribution isn't explicitly shown in a study to contribute 50% or more to global warning, then that study shouldn't be considered as supporting of manmade global warming.




No it doesn't.

Now will you please present us with the proof of AGW?  Thanks in advance


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 13 hours, 45 minutes
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #21451296 - 03/24/15 01:53 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

mycopathy said:
Oh big business is certainly going to rape you with the solar panels. Just in the way that McDonalds has made billions of off the ignorant masses.

How many nuclear plants is China, Russia, India, and Iran going to build?

That answer must be so painful for you. Keep munching on the big macs.



Can anyone translate that into English for me?  What's he trying to say?  :shrug:




I guess he's trying to say that business will produce items that the market wants. Not sure what the point is though...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21451563 - 03/24/15 02:40 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
You seriously think that 97% of climate scientists are being paid to lie???  And that the other 3% haven't yet disclosed that someone offered to bribe them but they turned it down?



Why do you continue to lie? It's been pointed out to you before that the "97%" is a bogus claim.



BoldAsLove already pointed out that there is more than one study making this claim, and you should look at the better studies.




Rebuttal to his sociologist's study by real scientists

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/E151.full?ijkey=02f27fe6127b46617c18e0496ec7d9d262784231&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha






Did you read it? That's not a rebuttal. They never dispute the 97% number or make claims about false methodology. They are just arguing that using the terms "climate denier" and "contrarian" don't lend enough credibility to those "unconvinced by the science" and creates unnecessary polarization.

You claimed the 97% number is a lie. You must have had a reason for that, so what in the methodology of that study makes you think the 97% number is a lie?


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21451754 - 03/24/15 03:16 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:


Did you read it? That's not a rebuttal. They never dispute the 97% number or make claims about false methodology. They are just arguing that using the terms "climate denier" and "contrarian" don't lend enough credibility to those "unconvinced by the science" and creates unnecessary polarization.

You claimed the 97% number is a lie. You must have had a reason for that, so what in the methodology of that study makes you think the 97% number is a lie?




:picard:  As ever the nutjobs seek to pervert the language to suit their agenda.

I have asked for this before.  Provide ONE SINGLE PROOF of AGW.  Just one.  Because before we stop using the thing that has been responsible for human prosperity you damn well better have some proof that it is harmful.  Hell, prove that AGW is harmful in any way at all.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21451824 - 03/24/15 03:29 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:


Did you read it? That's not a rebuttal. They never dispute the 97% number or make claims about false methodology. They are just arguing that using the terms "climate denier" and "contrarian" don't lend enough credibility to those "unconvinced by the science" and creates unnecessary polarization.

You claimed the 97% number is a lie. You must have had a reason for that, so what in the methodology of that study makes you think the 97% number is a lie?




:picard:  As ever the nutjobs seek to pervert the language to suit their agenda.

I have asked for this before.  Provide ONE SINGLE PROOF of AGW.  Just one.  Because before we stop using the thing that has been responsible for human prosperity you damn well better have some proof that it is harmful.  Hell, prove that AGW is harmful in any way at all.




Nice try, don't change the subject, we've been talking the last few posts about the scientific consensus. This has nothing to do with the wording used, you and others here have claimed the 97% figure is a lie. What makes you think that, or did you just assume it to be the case? Why is the methodology of this study, which found the 97% figure, faulty in a way meant to deceive?

Btw, you misquoted. I said that, not falcon


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21451913 - 03/24/15 03:46 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Sorry about the misquote

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html

Quote:

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.




You can have your religion and are welcome to it but I don't think it should drive serious policy decisions


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21452064 - 03/24/15 04:19 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

That article, and all the ones it cites (at least the journal articles it cites) are talking about a paper published by Cook. That is not the paper I cited. The difference is important because the claims and methodology are different.

Cook claimed that 97% of studies (not researchers) support AGW and chose and analyzed papers as needed. This was faulty, as at least some researchers felt misrepresented. The extent to which the data were incorrect is not clear.

The paper I linked is different, they found the top 1,000+ climate researchers and asked them to sign statements about whether or not they were convinced or unconvinced. Clearly this is a wildly different study with a much more robust methodology (less room for misinterpretation). They showed that greater than 97% of the top 200 researchers are convinced by the evidence. The top 200 was determined by number of papers and citations. Of the total population tested, the number was 90%.

The 97% figure is supported by the study I cited (or at the very least a 90% figure), and I'm wondering whether you still believe it is a lie, and if so, what makes you think that?


Also, don't put words in my mouth. I have yet to state my opinion in this thread about climate change and policy. At this point, I am merely contending that the claim that the 97% figure is a lie is false.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21452156 - 03/24/15 04:48 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

I cite 97 studies that say 97% is bullshit and you keep whining
Quote:

BoldAsLove said:
That article, and all the ones it cites (at least the journal articles it cites) are talking about a paper published by Cook. That is not the paper I cited. The difference is important because the claims and methodology are different.

Cook claimed that 97% of studies (not researchers) support AGW and chose and analyzed papers as needed. This was faulty, as at least some researchers felt misrepresented. The extent to which the data were incorrect is not clear.

The paper I linked is different, they found the top 1,000+ climate researchers and asked them to sign statements about whether or not they were convinced or unconvinced. Clearly this is a wildly different study with a much more robust methodology (less room for misinterpretation). They showed that greater than 97% of the top 200 researchers are convinced by the evidence. The top 200 was determined by number of papers and citations. Of the total population tested, the number was 90%.

The 97% figure is supported by the study I cited (or at the very least a 90% figure), and I'm wondering whether you still believe it is a lie, and if so, what makes you think that?


Also, don't put words in my mouth. I have yet to state my opinion in this thread about climate change and policy. At this point, I am merely contending that the claim that the 97% figure is a lie is false.




I am sorry but it it most certainly is a lie.  This is direct to Cook

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-the-97-consensus/


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: zappaisgod] * 1
    #21452252 - 03/24/15 05:14 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

:lol: Nice try, but you didn't cite 97 studies, that is clearly a lie. You cited an opinion article which cited only three journal articles, all of which respond only to Cook and provide no data of their own (and are therefore not studies). As has now been stated multiple times, Cook is not the only researcher who made the 97% claim, and I am not using his paper as evidence. The paper I cited, uses a much more robust methodology, asking over 900 of the top climate researchers to sign statements on whether or not they are convinced by the evidence, and still found the 97% figure.

I'd you intend to say the figure is a lie, then you're going to have to refute the study I linked.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: BoldAsLove]
    #21452410 - 03/24/15 05:48 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Some social scientists anointed top climate scientists and polled a small percentage of them and found some blather that isn't what the 97% claim is.  There is no holding of goal posts among the faithful.

Will you please show me the study by any one of these 97percenters that establishes AGW?    Thanks in advance.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBoldAsLove
Pokemon Master


Registered: 03/10/11
Posts: 2,549
Loc: Kanto Region
Re: Global Warming Data Scandal: how will world government respond? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #21452698 - 03/24/15 07:03 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Will you please actually read the paper that you are trying to discuss? It's short and shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes. If you had read it, you'd know that the authors weren't social scientists (Dept. of Biology and Dept. of Computer and Electrical Engineering), "top" scientists were determined by number of papers published and number of citations (a fairly standard measure), and the small population you speak of was over 1,000 (in the end only 908 responses were used because only scientists with greater than 20 papers were used). They found that >97% of the top 200 climate change scientists are convinced by the evidence of AGW (are you speaking of a different 97% claim?). So, tell me again why the methodology was faulty, because everything you just said was false.

As to your request, as with any scientific field, one study is not used to establish a theory or model; it has to be tested and retested before being widely accepted. Therefore, you aren't looking for one paper, but  a body of research. Anyways, here is a good overview of AGW and how effects are detected and attributed. Here is another paper testing the robustness of detection and attribution. I'll list a couple more: 1, 2, 3, 4.


--------------------
DISCLAIMER: None of the ideas expressed above are actually mine. They are told to me by Luthor :alientransform: and Ferdinand :cigar:, the five inch tall space aliens who live under my desk. In return for these ideas, I have given them permission to eat any dust bunnies they may find under there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Next >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 14,001 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,920 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,194 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 5,006 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 998 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 464 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* Global Elite-Conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TrueBrode 5,437 62 01/17/04 03:53 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,189 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.