Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 you sure seem to have a lot to say about that study... yet you can't find any cycles for the following - go figure! Again....this thread is about the scientists....not their papers. Get it together already!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 an easy read that reflects upon that scientific consensus... you didn't miss this, did you? Typical waldo....once again! Posts the data with zero insight of his own. Yawn..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Again....this thread is about the scientists....not their papers. Get it together already!!!! then you sure have had a lot to say about that qualification paper... the one speaking to peer-reviewed papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Typical waldo....once again! Posts the data with zero insight of his own. Yawn..... the waldo provides the recently released NAS/Royal Society document as a MLW board service. Fake skeptics should not be afraid of reading it... again, it's high-level and presented in an easy readable format. You personally should have no excuse for asking others to provide you "insight" into its content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 then you sure have had a lot to say about that qualification paper... the one speaking to peer-reviewed papers. I'm always willing to slam any flops you serve up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 the waldo provides the recently released NAS/Royal Society document as a MLW board service. Fake skeptics should not be afraid of reading it... again, it's high-level and presented in an easy readable format. You personally should have no excuse for asking others to provide you "insight" into its content. Once again....how does this recent 'easy read' tie in with the OP? Don't be afraid to extend yourself by actually quoting something and following it with some of your own thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 do you have anything new/positive to add to this thread? we need to move beyond me continuing to flaunt your big-time fails in regards your improper conflating of 'papers with scientists', in regards you incorrectly mixing the results of different surveys (abstracts vs. self-rated), in regards me showcasing your inability to provide your own statement/position on the consensus, in regards me highlighting your unwillingness to speak to your own personal (alternate) interpretation of the level of peer-review papers supporting the consensus, etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 do you have anything new/positive to add to this thread? we need to move beyond me continuing to flaunt your big-time fails in regards your improper conflating of 'papers with scientists', in regards you incorrectly mixing the results of different surveys (abstracts vs. self-rated), in regards me showcasing your inability to provide your own statement/position on the consensus, in regards me highlighting your unwillingness to speak to your own personal (alternate) interpretation of the level of peer-review papers supporting the consensus, etc.. Add anything to the thread? Like you adding a study about abstracts when the OP is about scientists? Or like you adding an 'easy read' but offering no reason or insight as to why you added it. Its quite obvious that the only thing you need to move on from is your constant need to derail threads....especially with weak studies that cherry pick data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Once again....how does this recent 'easy read' tie in with the OP? Don't be afraid to extend yourself by actually quoting something and following it with some of your own thoughts. already stated: an easy read that reflects upon that scientific consensus... like I said, it's a very readable document; you shouldn't have had a need to ask for insight into it. Give it a chance... have a read. If you actually choose to present your own (alternate) interpretations of the consensus (scientists and/or peer-reviewed papers), I trust the NAS/Royal Society document might be an easy point for you to channel your 'consensus concerns' over. Your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Add anything to the thread? Like you adding a study about abstracts when the OP is about scientists? Or like you adding an 'easy read' but offering no reason or insight as to why you added it. no - as stated, the survey on peer-reviewed papers is a qualification of the consensus. And, again, the NAS/Royal Society document is another qualification of the consensus (also as stated). Its quite obvious that the only thing you need to move on from is your constant need to derail threads....especially with weak studies that cherry pick data. no - there has been no thread derail; again, qualifications of the consensus have been provided. so... should we interpret this to mean you have nothing new/positive to add to this thread? If so, perhaps you should move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 already stated: like I said, it's a very readable document; you shouldn't have had a need to ask for insight into it. Give it a chance... have a read. If you actually choose to present your own (alternate) interpretations of the consensus (scientists and/or peer-reviewed papers), I trust the NAS/Royal Society document might be an easy point for you to channel your 'consensus concerns' over. Your choice. ROTFL....it says the word consensus ONCE. Here..."The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty." It says it once....and is says the consensus is GROWING....as in not rock solid or very high or substantial....it says growing. And this is your contribution to the thread? LOL!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 so... should we interpret this to mean you have nothing new/positive to add to this thread? If so, perhaps you should move along. You have yet to add anything. You should have moved along a long time ago. In the mean time.....I'll continue to be here to smash all your flops. Is this where you threaten me ONCE again about putting me on ignore? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 it's certainly your prerogative to dispute the consensus... you've done that.as repeatedly pointed out to you, it's also your prerogative to provide your own personal (substantiated) alternate interpretation of the consensus, as reflects upon scientists at large, and climate scientists in particular... you've not done that.as repeatedly pointed out to you, it's also your prerogative to provide your own personal (substantiated) alternate interpretation of the consensus, as reflects upon peer-reviewed papers... you've not done that. I am encouraged that you have actually now shown you've opened the provided NAS/Royal Society document. Please advise if you have any concerns over the document not supporting the consensus, and in what manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 as repeatedly pointed out to you, it's also your prerogative to provide your own personal (substantiated) alternate interpretation of the consensus, as reflects upon scientists at large, and climate scientists in particular... you've not done that. Already did....earlier in the thread showing various studies and how they ranged from 82-98% with alarmists like you only acknowledging the higher end. Can't keep up hey? as repeatedly pointed out to you, it's also your prerogative to provide your own personal (substantiated) alternate interpretation of the consensus, as reflects upon peer-reviewed papers... you've not done that. I've already addressed this....once you address the facts of the post that KeepitSimple has already stated then we can move on. However your constant deflection clearly indicates you can't. I am encouraged that you have actually now shown you've opened the provided NAS/Royal Society document. Please advise if you have any concerns over the document not supporting the consensus, and in what manner. Opened it and read it when you first posted it. Since it had NOTHING to do with this thread, I then ignored it. The fact that you are now trying to tie it to the consensus is pure comedy as it mentions as much about the consensus as it does about UNCERTAINTY!!!!!! ROTFL.....tough times for the waldo today. Well....most days....just today is really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 you simply pulled a graphic from the supplied wiki page, made reference to the range of graphic numbers and stated, "Clearly those who support AGW push the 97% number as it suits their cause even though these other studies show various numbers." You never explicitly commented on the respective studies/surveys and the nature of the lower numbers within the graphic number range presented. Perhaps you should revisit this and come back with an appropriate qualification as to what those lower numbers represent. Of course, that graphic is quite limited in representing all the various studies and surveys out there that support the consensus... you've also been advised of this, several times now. as for peer-reviewed papers, you've had a couple of big-time fails interpreting that related survey; again, your improper conflation of papers/abstracts with scientists, as well as your improper mixing of the results of the abstract and self-rated aspects. As I keep mentioning you've not offered anything of your own (substantiated) interpretation on the status of peer-reviewed papers. I can appreciate why you are resistant to accepting the recently released NAS/Royal Society document as being representative of the consensus science... as qualifying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) I see that Waldo is an ardent supporter of the 97% consensus, As any rational individual knows, it's virtually impossible to get a 97% consensus on anything, let alone something as contentious as Man-made runaway Global Warming or Accelerated Climate Change. But as I've said before, if ol' Waldo has anything, it's stamina. But seriously, the 97% is bad enough - but what's worst is that the Alarmist zeolots use that figure to support their own interpretation of what lies ahead - predictions of doom and gloom- literal Armageddon.There should be no embarrassment in admitting that the consensus might be 60% - or 80% - or whatever.......but lets not be foolish....97% is literally impossible. And what does it mean? Well, it means that many scientists believe that humans are contributing to - and accelerating Climate Change. To what degree? Well, that's the big question. Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action. Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ Edited March 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 It's pretty clear that there's a strong consensus that humans largely caused most of the global warming since 1900. Nothing wrong with scientists who disagree, but they're few and far between compared to those believing in AGW. Skeptical news articles and pundits in the media and skeptical websites are not peer-reviewed science. You look at the peer-reviewed science, and it's pretty clear what conclusions most scientists have come to. From Hardner's wikipedia link earlier: National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7] "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8] "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. So some scientific bodies have no position, but the vast majority support the AGW position. If anyone can find some kind of legitimate national or international scientific body that disagrees with the mainstream AGW positions I'm all ears, but until then...best believe the science or face the environmental consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I see that Waldo is an ardent supporter of the 97% consensus, As any rational individual knows, it's virtually impossible to get a 97% consensus on anything, let alone something as contentious as Man-made runaway Global Warming or Accelerated Climate Change. But as I've said before, if ol' Waldo has anything, it's stamina. But seriously, the 97% is bad enough - but what's worst is that the Alarmist zeolots use that figure to support their own interpretation of what lies ahead - predictions of doom and gloom- literal Armageddon. what's with the strawman, "Runaway Global Warming"? Where does the term "Accelerated Climate Change" derive... and where does it fit within any formal construct? do you even know what the consensus is about... is stated as... is in relation to? You started this thread (twice now, since the latest has been merged into your original). Perhaps you should actually define the consensus... exactly define it. It's quite clear that you don't even have a grasp of what you've now initiated discussion on... by starting 2 distinct threads on the subject. Define it, Simple. There should be no embarrassment in admitting that the consensus might be 60% - or 80% - or whatever.......but lets not be foolish....97% is literally impossible. And what does it mean? Well, it means that many scientists believe that humans are contributing to - and accelerating Climate Change. To what degree? Well, that's the big question. Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ right! James Taylor, lawyer and mouthpiece for the denier organization, Heartland Institute! Nuff said. yes, you're finally getting something out of these exchanges. As pointed out to you many times, the degree... climate sensitivity... is the only true point of contention remaining. In spite of everything else you've thrown into the mix... in spite of everything else you continue to throw into the mix. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 It's pretty clear that there's a strong consensus that humans largely caused most of the global warming since 1900. Nothing wrong with scientists who disagree, but they're few and far between compared to those believing in AGW. Skeptical news articles and pundits in the media and skeptical websites are not peer-reviewed science. You look at the peer-reviewed science, and it's pretty clear what conclusions most scientists have come to. So some scientific bodies have no position, but the vast majority support the AGW position. If anyone can find some kind of legitimate national or international scientific body that disagrees with the mainstream AGW positions I'm all ears, but until then...best believe the science or face the environmental consequences. exactamundo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 So some scientific bodies have no position, but the vast majority support the AGW position. If anyone can find some kind of legitimate national or international scientific body that disagrees with the mainstream AGW positions I'm all ears, but until then...best believe the science or face the environmental consequences. And. Best believe the science and face the environmental consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 And. Best believe the science and face the environmental consequences. Fair enough. But if people continue to ignore the problem because the right-wing media has convinced them that there's still so much doubt out there about the science, the environmental consequences will be worse. My main argument on climate change continues to be that everyone, on the left or right or in-between, needs to stop listening to journalists/pundits/politicians/activists and even individual scientists or think-tanks etc. who tend to spread misinformation in the media, and we all need to start listening to what the masses within the scientific community agree on through peer-reviewed.research. What makes me laugh is that for the public (including posters on MLW), much of the time it seems whether a person believes in AGW or the skeptics is determined by what side of the left-right political spectrum they fall into...which just proves that people listen to their chosen "trusted" media sources to get their science rather than listening to the actual science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 you simply pulled a graphic from the supplied wiki page, made reference to the range of graphic numbers and stated, "Clearly those who support AGW push the 97% number as it suits their cause even though these other studies show various numbers." You never explicitly commented on the respective studies/surveys and the nature of the lower numbers within the graphic number range presented. Perhaps you should revisit this and come back with an appropriate qualification as to what those lower numbers represent. Of course, that graphic is quite limited in representing all the various studies and surveys out there that support the consensus... you've also been advised of this, several times now. as for peer-reviewed papers, you've had a couple of big-time fails interpreting that related survey; again, your improper conflation of papers/abstracts with scientists, as well as your improper mixing of the results of the abstract and self-rated aspects. As I keep mentioning you've not offered anything of your own (substantiated) interpretation on the status of peer-reviewed papers. I can appreciate why you are resistant to accepting the recently released NAS/Royal Society document as being representative of the consensus science... as qualifying it. You mean the graphic that contain various peer reviewed studies all of which are properly referenced if you are so inclined to look at them further. Most important it also contained the study that the OP was discussing which of course is about scientists and NOT abstracts as your epic fail of a post tries to suggest. If you are having a hard time sleeping tonight because of the variety of consensus numbers shown in this graphic then feel free to investigate those individual papers but please....stay on topic!!! As for your idea of conflation....just because I mentioned the word scientist does not mean I conflated anything. If you need reassurance then go back and see how many times I wrote about the percentage of papers or abstracts. With that being said, even your bogus study comments on the authors of the studies expressing a view. In case you don't know....these authors are scientists. So come back with another famous lie....or your go to word 'bumble'. I'm just glad you're not studdering anymore! As per usual, your latest study has nothing to do with this thread which is about consensus. NOTHING!!!!! But yet you still try to derail this thread with that gem. Honestly....you need to rethink your approach as your current one fails you time and time again!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 There should be no embarrassment in admitting that the consensus might be 60% - or 80% - or whatever....... Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ I know. Trying to suggest that the number may actually be lower or that there is still a level of undecidedness is like completely impossible to him. The funny thing....your quote talks about Skeptical Science. His study....the epic failure about the abstracts....uses people from Skeptical Science for the study. Hmmmm......biased much???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 exactamundo Trying to talk like your buddies in produce again, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 ..best believe the science or face the environmental consequences. Which environmental consequences are you talking about? The actual ones observed or the theoretical ones being discussed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.