bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 That "survey paper" is as credible as anything offered/not offered in defense of the ludicrous 97% consensus claim. And disagreement about the posted survey numbers and contributors only illustrates the very point of the lack of such a consensus...about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 go with the 87% of the survey meteorologists who state their expertise is not climate science! Go with most of the AMS membership that does no scientific research... of any kind! Go with your weather forecasters! As you said, "Bravo"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 At best the range is between 62% and 88%. A vast vast Vast majority in other words. Okay, I'll qualify that and just call it a VAST majority. One that's still growing like it has been for years. A more relevant thread would be titled, "At which point do politicians stop listening to the advice of a minute and shrinking number of naysayers?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Excellent post....confirms what any objective person would logically suspect or believe. Bravo ! A few years ago, American viewers watched as The Weather Channel got pummeled because several of it's on air meteorologists started spouting nonsense numbers about climate change and scientific consensus. They are no longer under contract. I know that other posters might want to believe that the AMS is full of weathermen and has no researchers but I think this statement from the survey should settle that. Our sample had fewer students (1% vs. 17% in 2005, although we intentionally did not include student members in our sample), more retired members (11% vs. 4% in 2005), more older members (59% were 50 or over, vs. 33% over 50 in 2005), more members with PhDs (52% vs. 38%), more members employed in research (41% vs. 31%), and fewer female members (15% vs. 20%). It is thus reasonable to suggest the present sample is quite similar to the overall membership of the AMS, at least demographically. As the bolded part says, 41% of the people invovled in the survey are employed in research which they state is similar to the overall AMS demographic. I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 A vast vast Vast majority in other words. Okay, I'll qualify that and just call it a VAST majority. One that's still growing like it has been for years. A more relevant thread would be titled, "At which point do politicians stop listening to the advice of a minute and shrinking number of naysayers?" I certainly wouldn't go with vast vast Vast. You can go with vast IF and only IF the number is as high as 88% but again that number is derived from only the climate scientist in that particular field. If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. They gain another 10% saying that humans have an equal portion to natural causes. So perhaps its really 83%. But if we are down to 62% then vast doesn't apply....its just a majority. My guess is that its somewhere in between which tells me that there is still a LOT of undecided votes out there which is reflected in the 20% in the final column. I think that most skeptics on this forum would agree that humans have some portion of the percentage of warming. The amount of that percentage may vary but I think the one thing that all skeptics agree on is that the idea of an absolute 97% number is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 A more relevant thread would be titled, "At which point do politicians stop listening to the advice of a minute and shrinking number of naysayers?" and yet, that MLW naysayer group will push the likes of this last 'survey' as a representative account of "the consensus"... although again, they absolutely and categorically refuse to state/define just what their interpretation of that consensus is. It's utterly bizzarro world to suggest the AMS organization is representative..... bloody hell, that's why they study was done in the first place! That most convenient (purposely) overlooked point that the study authors were surveying to gain insight into just why the 'meteorological field' has such a disparity of opinion... and how best to improve climate change related communication to the AMS membership. Point in fact, the survey was commissioned by the AMS’s Committee to Improve Climate Communication... cause, like, apparently there's a lot of 'tension' amongst the membership! As I briefly mentioned, the main focus of the study was to test 4 hypothesis as to try and understand the reasons why members might have different views about AGW; specifically: Hypothesis 1: As compared with professionals with less expertise in climate change, professionals with more expertise will have higher levels of personal certainty that global warming is happening. Hypothesis 2: As compared with professionals with a more conservative political orientation, professionals with a more liberal political orientation will have higher levels of personal certainty that global warming is happening. Hypothesis 3: As compared with professionals who perceive less scientific consensus about global warming, professionals who perceive more scientific consensus will have higher levels of personal certainty that global warming is happening. Hypothesis 4: As compared with professionals who perceive less conflict about global warming within the membership base of their professional society, professionals who perceive more conflict will report lower levels of personal certainty that global warming is happening. and the study authors confirmed all 4 of their hypothesis - go figure! Gee, that sure doesn't line up with the MLW naysayers contesting the consensus, presumably based on "expertise"... presumably emphasized since, again, MLW naysayers refuse to provide their interpretation of just what the consensus is... to them! from the study summation: Confirmation of our four hypotheses shows that meteorologists’ views about global warming observed in the last 150 years are associated with, and may be causally influenced by, a range of personal and social factors. In other words, the notion that expertise is the single dominant factor shaping meteorologists’ views of global warming appears to be simplistic to the point of being incorrect. oh, not just expertise then! That's odd... isn't expertise the mantle of what the MLW naysayers are presumably fronting their contesting of the consensus with? Again, emphasis on presumably since, again, MLW naysayers refuse to provide their interpretation of just what the consensus is... to them! yes, clearly, to this non-committing MLW naysayer group, apparently, their idea of a representative sampling for "the consensus" is one in which there is a widely known and recognized disparity of opinion within the AMS sampling membership and 87% of those survey participants state climate science is not their area of expertise. Again, just what do these MLW naysayers interpret the consensus to be? Why won't they state/define their interpretation? Is there a problem, naysayers? and uhhh, by the by, when someone states most of the AMS membership doesn't do research... and a guy comes back stating 41% do... is that a counter, or a reinforcement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Oh my...so much squirming and deflection in the face of real data and common sense. No matter....the "97% consensus" is not affirmed. Next case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Oh my...so much squirming and deflection in the face of real data and common sense. No matter....the "97% consensus" is not affirmed. Next case... No kidding. A few more quesitons though.... 1. Does anyone else see post 428 where one MLW claimed "Go with most of the AMS membership that does no scientific research... of any kind!". I guess the 41% of the AMS comment would answer that. I guess not. 2. Does anyone else use the saying "by the by"? I've travelled to all parts of the US and Canada with exception of the maritimes (altough I very much want to) and I haven't ever heard anyone use that. When I look it up on Urban Dictionary is says that 'by the by" is a snooty way of saying "by the way" that should be used with extreme caution. Just checking to see if this saying has further reference to something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) No matter....the "97% consensus" is not affirmed. Next case...Yep. The dishonest nature of alarmists claiming 97% consensus seems to be acknowledged by everyone now. On top of that simply establishing that 83% of publishing climate scientists believe AGW is manmade does not provide any support for extraordinary action to reduce CO2 emissions. The percentage of people who think that AGW is a clear and present danger is going to be less than 83% - probably closer to the 40% reported by other studies that asked that exact question. Edited March 10, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 1. Does anyone else see post 428 where one MLW claimed "Go with most of the AMS membership that does no scientific research... of any kind!". I guess the 41% of the AMS comment would answer that. I guess not. like I said... when the word most is used... and 41% is referenced to refute that, is 41% a counter to "most"... or a reinforcement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Yep. The dishonest nature of alarmists claiming 97% consensus seems to be acknowledged by everyone now. On top of that simply establishing that 83% of publishing climate scientists believe AGW is manmade does not provide any support for extraordinary action to reduce CO2 emissions. The percentage of people who think that AGW is a clear and present danger is going to be less than 83% - probably closer to the 40% reported by other studies that asked that exact question. Of that 83%, 10% of them think that its equally natural and equally human. In those cases, it would tend to show that the alarmist view on the sensitivity to carbon is half as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks to all for their input to this topic - it's not often that we actually get some sense of closure. Wasn't sure where it would end up but I think we're all in agreement that whatever consensus might be out there - it's far less that 97%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 say what Simple? You got your sense of closure... on something you absolutely and categorically are afraid to state/define, to provide your own interpretation of what the consensus actually means... to you! If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. Oh my...so much squirming and deflection in the face of real data and common sense. let's further qualify your weak/failed attempt to qualify that study as representative... of anything: - yes, again, that 231 number reflects on just 13% of the survey respondents stating their field of expertise as "climate science"! Clearly, your kind of consensus... presumably... since, again, you won't provide what your own interpretation of what the consensus means... to you!- wait, what's this... 11% of the survey respondents indicated they were retired. Oh my! That's 200 survey participants (at the survey max n number)... almost as many as those being tagged as "climate scientists". - wait, what's this... only 56% of survey respondents have published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years... of that, only 23% indicate "50% or more of their papers were on the subject of climate change". That's quite the qualitative sampling of climate change expertise! ...believe global warming is mostly human caused. The highest number in this category alone was 78% by the published climate scientists. If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. They gain another 10% saying that humans have an equal portion to natural causes. So perhaps its really 83%. Of that 83%, 10% of them think that its equally natural and equally human. In those cases, it would tend to show that the alarmist view on the sensitivity to carbon is half as much. accepting to the non-representative nature of this survey/study, was it just an "honest" mistake that you've messed up your 73% vs. 78% references... cause the former (73%) is a combined total, not that of those claiming climate science as their expertise. Imagine if someone went all nuclear and started throwing lying/dishonesty charges over this!of course, there's another way to play with your nonsense and that's to emphasize the numbers opposite to how you did earlier; specifically, of the total respondents, only 5% claim global warming is mostly natural (or just 2% of those being tagged as 'climate scientists')... another 10% claim it is equally both human and natural caused. See, I can manipulate numbers just like you!but the following is the most representative kicker on you attempting to flog this study/survey as being representative of the consensus (whatever you actually interpret it to be... who knows!)... the absolute kicker showcasing the lengths MLW fake-skeptics/deniers will go to presume to contest the consensus (of which they won't provide their own interpretations for): - the study author's reinforce contextual limitations, as raised by survey respondents: 1 - survey results determining whether global warming is happening and its cause (the basis for the above 78/88% figures) was predicated upon a somewhat contentious and non-standard definition of global warming; specifically: - within the survey, global warming was defined as, "the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result". - as the author's indicate, a 150 year reference designation compounded an interpretation on human causal attachment... particularly in regards the more conventionally accepted reference being 1950. In that regard, per the IPCC attribution statement: It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. - apparently, context doesn't mean much (if anything) to MLW fake-skeptics/deniers, those so intent on presuming to contest the consensus (whatever that 'consensus' actually is, since they won't provide their own interpretations of just what the consensus means... to them!). 2 - the study author's describe a second limitation in that 12% of respondents indicated the survey questions did not allow them to "fairly represent their views". - but hey now, why let that get in the way of MLW fake-skeptics/deniers projecting the survey/study as a representative vehicle to contest the consensus (whatever that consensus actually means to these most non-committal, naysaying malcontents who are just so afraid... yes, afraid... to actually state/define their interpretation of just what the consensus means... to them!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 hey now! If you can't argue the science..... try to contest the consensus... and look for closure! but first, make sure you're actually prepared to state/define just what your interpretation of the consensus is! What a concept. yes, again! The MLW Seinfeld thread on nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks to all for their input to this topic - it's not often that we actually get some sense of closure. Wasn't sure where it would end up but I think we're all in agreement that whatever consensus might be out there - it's far less that 97%. Yes you're right Simple. I think all rational people involved realize that 97% is just ridiculous. Even above our resident alarmist is trying to show a discrepancy between 78% and 73% when those numbers are taken right from the table and speak to different categories. Leave it up to him to either confuse the issue or deliberately mislead by taking things out of context. The fact that people can use/confuse various categories to describe what they want lead us into this mess in the first place. Of course, this same person likes to throw out stats on the percentages involved yet he seems to forget that his very own study had 66% of the papers reflecting no position. But of course.....lets just brush those aside so that we can meet the self serving number of 97%. The word consensus means majority amonst the group. So in any study or report I've seen, there is a consnesus that humans are causing global warming. However, that is not the issue at hand. Is that consensus 97%. No....its not. Is it at 52% like the AMS study could suggest. No...its not. I believe its somewhere inbetween but again...we don't really know until the undecided become decided. But anyone claiming 97% is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) yes, again! The MLW Seinfeld thread on nothing! Exactly right! Finally, you've got it. There is no 97% consensus! It really is the thread on nothing. Edited March 10, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 The word consensus means majority amongst the group. eventually, they say too much! This is gold, Jerry, real gold! What group? Eventually, they can't hide the fact they have no clue what the consensus position actually is! In spite of all the lengths taken to attempt to claim that survey/study is representative of "the consensus", it comes down to nothing more than this cold, hard fact - you haven't any understanding of what the consensus position actually is! But don't let that stop your bluster, your fabrication, your misinformation and your absolute zeal and preposterous summation! Well done... I didn't think you'd be able to top some of your prior best worst! trying to show a discrepancy between 78% and 73% when those numbers are taken right from the table and speak to different categories. Leave it up to him to either confuse the issue or deliberately mislead by taking things out of context. while not accepting to the survey/study having any representative legitimacy, your categorizing the 73% vs. 78% discrepancy as "speaking to different categories" is a bold disingenuous move when those categories are improperly associated and claimed to be in relation to something they are not... which is exactly what you did. When you made follow-up posts/claims based on your mixing up those categories, you messed up! If simply a genuine mistake, that mistake should simply be acknowledged and rectified... unless it wasn't a mistake and you did it purposely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Exactly right! Finally, you've got it. There is no 97% consensus! It really is the thread on nothing. oh Simple... just state/define your interpretation of what you understand the consensus to mean... to you! Until you do, all your infantile summations and posturing over "having gained closure", simply reinforces you've started 2 threads (now merged into this one) and you haven't a clue as to what the consensus position actually is. Or... perhaps (thanks to the waldo's incessant pressuring you to actually state/define the consensus) you finally gained an understanding along the way as to what the consensus position really is... and you now realize your mega fail, you won't admit it, and you're now simply attempting to play out your initial charade. Which is it, Simple? Again, just state/define your interpretation of what you understand the consensus to mean... to you! Until you do so, yes, this thread remains the MLW Seinfeld thread on nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 eventually, they say too much! This is gold, Jerry, real gold! What group? Eventually, they can't hide the fact they have no clue what the consensus position actually is! In spite of all the lengths taken to attempt to claim that survey/study is representative of "the consensus", it comes down to nothing more than this cold, hard fact - you haven't any understanding of what the consensus position actually is! But don't let that stop your bluster, your fabrication, your misinformation and your absolute zeal and preposterous summation! Well done... I didn't think you'd be able to top some of your prior best worst! while not accepting to the survey/study having any representative legitimacy, your categorizing the 73% vs. 78% discrepancy as "speaking to different categories" is a bold disingenuous move when those categories are improperly associated and claimed to be in relation to something they are not... which is exactly what you did. When you made follow-up posts/claims based on your mixing up those categories, you messed up! If simply a genuine mistake, that mistake should simply be acknowledged and rectified... unless it wasn't a mistake and you did it purposely! waldo...as always...you continue your dishonest ways which is why I won't engage you. The numbers are clearly laid out in the table.....if you choose to misrepresent the numbers yet again then so be it. Just don't be surpised when you are lableled as being dishonest. Now...a free insight on what the word consnensus is defined as: con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA noun, plural con·sen·sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony. I guess the dictionary is wrong? Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2.general agreement or concord; harmony. I guess the dictionary is wrong? Lol. like I said in the last post, what group? [what categorizations within 'what group']? again, you clearly don't know what the consensus position is! Please... educate yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Thanks to all for their input to this topic - it's not often that we actually get some sense of closure. Wasn't sure where it would end up but I think we're all in agreement that whatever consensus might be out there - it's far less that 97%. Yes...this was a prima facie case that was never in question. The original "97% consensus" assertion is totally without merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 like I said in the last post, what group? [what categorizations within 'what group']? again, you clearly don't know what the consensus position is! Please... educate yourself. Nope...I'm good. Still going after that 97% number hey.....poor waldo. Tell a few more lies...maybe you'll get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 waldo...as always...you continue your dishonest ways which is why I won't engage you. The numbers are clearly laid out in the table.....if you choose to misrepresent the numbers yet again then so be it. Just don't be surpised when you are lableled as being dishonest. it's a somewhat trivial point, but since you've again thrown down the dishonest label... it was you that initially correctly provided, used and associated the 78% number to the right category description. In follow-up you still referred to the same category description but you incorrectly pulled the 73% number from a different category... you then proceeded to use that incorrect number in follow-up references to the initial category description. I'm not misrepresenting any numbers. Perhaps you should have another look at the table... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Nope...I'm good. Still going after that 97% number hey.....poor waldo. Tell a few more lies...maybe you'll get there. no - you clearly don't know what the consensus position is. Anything you've stated to-date, anything you've introduced for reference to presume to contest the consensus position is simply showcased within the context of your significant lack of understanding. What's so incredibly amazing is that I've, quite literally, pressed the point a brazillion times asking you/others to simply relate your/their interpretations of what the consensus means... to you/them. Through all of that repetitive ask, it appears you/them, couldn't be bothered to actually investigate to confirm your own interpretations. Apparently, none of you could actually be bothered! Why let a little research/investigation get in the way of your preconceptions/misunderstandings. As I said, please educate yourself on what the consensus position is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 it's a somewhat trivial point, but since you've again thrown down the dishonest label... it was you that initially correctly provided, used and associated the 78% number to the right category description. In follow-up you still referred to the same category description but you incorrectly pulled the 73% number from a different category... you then proceeded to use that incorrect number in follow-up references to the initial category description. I'm not misrepresenting any numbers. Perhaps you should have another look at the table... No...here is exactly what I said: There are many ways to manipulate the numbers. On the low end, if you take all respondents, only 52% believe global warming is mostly human caused. The highest number in this category alone was 78% by the published climate scientists. That category being those who beleive that global warming is mostly human caused (as indicated in the sentence that you cropped avoided) I then said: If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. So if you look at THAT category.....78% is the highest number when you are looking at Climate Scientist studying mostly climate. If you look at just those in the Meterology and Atmospheric Science field...specifically those who deal mostly in climate, the number is 61%. If you look at both fields for those who mostly study climate then the number is 73%. Like I said, the numbers are all there. You are either confused or being dishonest. Which one is it? I will suspect its the latter of the two if I just get deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.