waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Well - after 37 pages of posts, it's still difficult to determine exactly where "people" stand. One group of posters (that includes me) do not accept a figure of 97% as a consensus again, once again... qualify that number with your personal interpretation of what it means. What does it relate to? What is it based on? What type of scientist are you interpreting it includes? What type of science is being done? What type of publications are involved? Are the scientists active? How active? How much have they published, if at all? Etc., etc., etc.. Again, what is your interpretation of what you don't accept... of what you contest? State/define it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 ...So I'll ask this question again to those that believe in a wide-spread consensus along the order of 95/97%. What does this consensus actually agree on? What is this consensus? Anyone care to weigh in? I think we already have...the very idea of a 97% consensus about anything is hard to believe, let alone something as contentious as the causes of global warming climate change. That's just ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think we already have...the very idea of a 97% consensus about anything is hard to believe, let alone something as contentious as the causes of global warming climate change. That's just ludicrous. since you feel so emboldened, why don't you step-up and do something that Simple (and the other guy) are so reluctant to do... why don't you step-up and provide your interpretation of what the consensus is. Just what is it that you're calling... ludicrous? State/define what your interpretation of the consensus is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 since you feel so emboldened, why don't you step-up and do something that Simple (and the other guy) are so reluctant to do... why don't you step-up and provide your interpretation of what the consensus is. Just what is it that you're calling... ludicrous? State/define what your interpretation of the consensus is. Don't shine us on...extraordinary claims like "97% consensus on climate change from scientists" requires extraordinary data, and you ain't got it. It's the same old shuck and jive we've seen for actual climate change data...little wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 that's fine... I'll simply add you into the growing list of those who claim to contest the consensus... but won't actually state/define what it is they're contesting! Talk about (your) same old shuck and jive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 that's fine... I'll simply add you into the growing list of those who claim to contest the consensus... but won't actually state/define what it is they're contesting! Talk about (your) same old shuck and jive! Then show us the data. To the border if you must, but produce the data that support such a ludicrous claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 ludicrous claim? What claim? Why are you (and Simple... and the other guy) so unwilling to actually state just what it is you're so contesting? again, provide your interpretation of what the consensus is. Why is this so difficult for you to respond to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 while you're working on not stating/defining just what it is you're so contesting... perhaps you could advise just what it is you actually accept? now you've got it coming at you both ways - you're welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 while you're working on not stating/defining just what it is you're so contesting... perhaps you could advise just what it is you actually accept? Doesn't matter what others will "accept"...either the data supports such a claim or it doesn't. This is just more of the same dance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 you're not adding anything here... you just mentioned 'claim' again. You were just asked to define that claim... to provide your interpretation of that 'claim'. You refuse to do so; again, you're not adding anything here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 actually, I'll just take the same advice about feeding I was just given in the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 you're not adding anything here... you just mentioned 'claim' again. You were just asked to define that claim... to provide your interpretation of that 'claim'. You refuse to do so; again, you're not adding anything here. Obviously you have no data supporting such a "consensus" claim, but we already knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Obviously you have no data supporting such a "consensus" claim, but we already knew that.Exactly. The only data he has is the bogus anti-scientific survey that originated this topic. Anti-scientific surveys to uphold "science". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 the Seinfeld thread about nothing! First Simple, then the other guy, then BC_2004... and now the latecomer Shady; none of who will actually step forward and state/define exactly what it is they interpret the consensus to be... to state/define exactly what they're contesting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 This is getting hilarious as Waldo flounders on the rocks - dodging, dancing, evading. We're all saying there is no consensus - of the ilk that the Alarmists claim.....and there's ol' Waldo asking the question that we've repeatedly asked him! He simply won't stand up and state what this magical "consensus" really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 This is getting hilarious as Waldo flounders on the rocks - dodging, dancing, evading. We're all saying there is no consensus - of the ilk that the Alarmists claim.....and there's ol' Waldo asking the question that we've repeatedly asked him! He simply won't stand up and state what this magical "consensus" really is. what's hilarious is your 'Seinfeld threads (now merged into this one thread) about nothing'. Since you refuse to state/define what it is you're contesting, your claim that there is no consensus is simply you claiming there is "no nothing". Again, the Seinfeld thread about nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 the Seinfeld thread about nothing! First Simple, then the other guy, then BC_2004... and now the latecomer Shady; none of who will actually step forward and state/define exactly what it is they interpret the consensus to be... to state/define exactly what they're contesting! In a sense you're right. This thread IS about nothing. The nothing though, is the so-called 97% or 95% or whatever number of a consensus you wanna throw out there. Because its based on an anti-scientific process. Anti-science in the defence of science! Just when I thought things couldn't get more absurd when it comes to science politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 In a sense you're right. This thread IS about nothing. The nothing though, is the so-called 97% or 95% or whatever number of a consensus you wanna throw out there. Because its based on an anti-scientific process. Anti-science in the defence of science! Just when I thought things couldn't get more absurd when it comes to science politics. if you don't accept something, you need to get away from contesting what you won't state or define; i.e., your nothing... the nothing you and "your ilk™" absolutely refuse to state/define. Given your posting history in the many, many, many AGW/CC related MLW threads, there's nothing more hilarious than reading you speaking of science! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 if you don't accept something, you need to get away from contesting what you won't state or define; i.e., your nothing... the nothing you and "your ilk™[/size]" absolutely refuse to state/define. Given your posting history in the many, many, many AGW/CC related MLW threads, there's nothing more hilarious than reading you speaking of science! It's not about not accepting something. It's about recognizing a deeply dishonest process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 It's not about not accepting something. It's about recognizing a deeply dishonest process. what's dishonest about whatever it is you're contesting... whatever it is you won't state/define; i.e., your nothing. What's dishonest about your nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 This thread has degenerated into an immature brawl. Any way of elevating the discussion a bit? I know you all can do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I've been negligent; you've also offered your unwillingness to accept 'the nothing'... the something that remains unstated/undefined; the something nothing that none of those contesting will state, will define, will offer their own interpretations of! let me correct the list and add you to it: Simple, the other guy, BC_2004, Shady... and you... all contest the something nothing. Again, the MLW 'Seinfeld thread about nothing'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 So I'll ask this question again to those that believe in a wide-spread consensus along the order of 95/97%. What does this consensus actually agree on? What is this consensus? Anyone care to weigh in? So far we've circled around the studies that use Skeptical Science members to use their interpretation of abstracts. Personally, I could care less about abstracts or the number of papers. I would rather know what the scientists themselves think. As such I think this most recent survey by George Mason University and Yale University of the AMS shed some good insight on to the consensus. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1. As mentioned in the bulletin, this study is peer reviewed and available for publishing. 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. If you add up the first two rows in order to see the percentage of scientists that believe humans are playing a major role (50% or more) then the number for the total respondents jumps to 62% and on the high end its at 88%. The only time the 'consensus' gets into the 90s...is when you add in those who say there is Insufficient evidence but believe humans have caused SOME of the warming. This again comes from looking at a select category of scientists....not all. I think its fair to say that the 97% number is just wrong especially when you move past just climate scientists. At best the range is between 62% and 88%. I think the objective numbers of this study back that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) ...I think its fair to say that the 97% number is just wrong especially when you move past just climate scientists. At best the range is between 62% and 88%. I think the objective numbers of this study back that up. 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. Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 Excellent post....confirms what any objective person would logically suspect or believe. Bravo! guys, guys... it's encouraging that this immediately preceding link doesn't lead to a creationist's blog... like the prior hyped "published" (but not really published) paper that only exists on the author's personal blog! But hey now, are you letting your 'single study syndrome' reliance get ahead of peer-response of that study? Are you letting it get ahead of statements from authors of the paper? only 13% of the survey participants described their area of expertise as climate science. To be expected, the AMS survey respondents include a significant number of weather forecasters... although I've not read a sub-categorization of just how many of those are 'TV-weatherpersons'... or former denier TV-weatherpersons who for the longest time were a part of Simple's regular go-to crew around here (like Watts, like Copeland) ! As to be expected, scientific research is not the principal occupation of most of the AMS membership. among the survey climate expertise respondents, those with published climate research: - 93% agreed that humans have contributed to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). - 2% percent claim global warming is mostly natural, 1% claim global warming isn't happening from the paper's lead author: We found high levels of consensus on global warming among the climate experts in our sample. You only see low levels of consensus in the sample if you also look at the views of people who are not climate experts. the paper has been out for a while now... still no citations; apparently not too significant - go figure! Of course, it did get a lot of 'buzz' across the denialsphere, particularly from the prolific denier Heartland Institute and the like... to the point the AMS was forced to issue this counter to the Heartland Institute purposeful manipulation. oh, and ya... it also warranted this reply: How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus? --- A new study examines meteorologists, the global warming consensus, political ideology, and climate expertise ... a reply that actually addressed the numbers along with the study's principal focus on hypothesis testing for the well understood/acknowledged disparity of opinion, within, across and between meteorologists! that's quite the survey/paper you have there guys! Bravo! 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.