waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Yes...this was a prima facie case that was never in question. The original "97% consensus" assertion is totally without merit. and yet, when you're asked to provide your own interpretation of the consensus position, you can't be bothered to respond; i.e., you refuse. It's quite clear you're simply another of the crew that doesn't understand what it is. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Like I said, the numbers are all there. yes, they are there and you're not using them consistently... you're using them improperly. - in isolation, the higher 78% figure reflects on all those participants within the survey claiming an expertise in 'climate science', while publishing mostly about climate science (the n number here is 232). As I said, you initially referred to this correctly; in follow-up you didn't, you mixed categories and improperly attached a grouping percentage, not one that reflects on the isolation categorization of claimed 'climate science' expertise. This is counter to your subsequent statement and posts based on that statement... it is counter to the following quote, the one you just re-quoted above and reinforced with red colour highlighting; this following statement, this following quote: If you look at all 231 climate scientists involved in this study, only 73% believe that humans are mostly responsible for the warming. - in (the total) grouping, the lower 73% figure is no longer determined from within the isolation of those claiming an expertise in 'climate science'. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Posted March 10, 2014 Waldo gets a lot more attention than he deserves - but I think this thread has laid bare his modus operandi of pasting dozens of wordy responses that have little or nothing to do with the core argument......he's been called out over and over again to simply state what he thinks the consensus is but he simply won't answer - because he can't. As we've all agreed, there is no consensus that relates to the Alarmist claim of 97%. I have to agree Accountability - his approach to this particular topic is indeed dishonest. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Waldo gets a lot more attention than he deserves - but I think this thread has laid bare his modus operandi of pasting dozens of wordy responses that have little or nothing to do with the core argument......he's been called out over and over again to simply state what he thinks the consensus is but he simply won't answer - because he can't. As we've all agreed, there is no consensus that relates to the Alarmist claim of 97%. I have to agree Accountability - his approach to this particular topic is indeed dishonest. no - you've repeatedly been asked to simply state/define your interpretation of what the consensus position means... to you. You refuse to do so. You categorically refuse to do so. You're the one presuming to contest it... but you won't state/define just what it is you're contesting. Referring to it continually as just '97%' means nothing if you can't... if you won't... actually state what it relates to, what it means, how is it qualified, etc.. You refuse to do so. it's quite obvious none of you presuming to contest the consensus even know what the consensus position is... and you, most pointedly, after starting 2 threads on it, you should be able to state/define your interpretation of it. At least! Quote
The_Squid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Exactly right! Finally, you've got it. There is no 97% consensus! It really is the thread on nothing. And which MLW member claimed that there was? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 yes, they are there and you're not using them consistently... you're using them improperly. - in isolation, the higher 78% figure reflects on all those participants within the survey claiming an expertise in 'climate science', while publishing mostly about climate science (the n number here is 232). No....232 is the total number of Climate Scientists in the study which is shown by adding up all three columns (124+82+26=232). The first column where n=124 is where we see the 78%. In the other group of Meteorologists we see n= 1203 for the whole group but ony 61 for those in that group that publish mostly climate related. When you combine all groups....not just Climate Scientists and Meteorolgists, you get a total sample size of n=1821 of which 231 publish mostly on climate. Still confused or just further dishonesty? Quote
The_Squid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 No....232 is the total number of Climate Scientists in the study which is shown by adding up all three columns (124+82+26=232). The first column where n=124 is where we see the 78%. In the other group of Meteorologists we see n= 1203 for the whole group but ony 61 for those in that group that publish mostly climate related. When you combine all groups....not just Climate Scientists and Meteorolgists, you get a total sample size of n=1821 of which 231 publish mostly on climate. Still confused or just further dishonesty? Did you provide a link to the this survey? I am curious as to what a "non-publisher" in climate science is and why they would have such a different outlook than those that are published... Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Did you provide a link to the this survey? I am curious as to what a "non-publisher" in climate science is and why they would have such a different outlook than those that are published... Yes...it was a while back. Here it is again. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 No....232 is the total number of Climate Scientists in the study which is shown by adding up all three columns (124+82+26=232). The first column where n=124 is where we see the 78%. In the other group of Meteorologists we see n= 1203 for the whole group but ony 61 for those in that group that publish mostly climate related. When you combine all groups....not just Climate Scientists and Meteorolgists, you get a total sample size of n=1821 of which 231 publish mostly on climate. Still confused or just further dishonesty? not confused at all, not in the least. Yes, when you combine all groups the resulting percentages, of course, change. But you're no longer determining a percentage based on an isolated expertise grouping. Are you stating the isolated categorization does not include all those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise? You combining all groups simply reinforces, again, you don't know and you don't understand what the consensus position is. Is there a particular reason you label challenges to you as "dishonest"? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 And which MLW member claimed that there was? As always...waldo never actually claims anything. He pushes studies that he certainly backs which coincidentally claim the 97% although he never actually claims it himeslf. Very courageous that way. He was asked a dozen times to directly answer the OP question but never did. Other non-skeptics like eyeball were much more reasonable in their approach. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) Did you provide a link to the this survey? I am curious as to what a "non-publisher" in climate science is and why they would have such a different outlook than those that are published... it reflects on the purpose of the survey/study... which wasn't at all intended to speak to or qualify a consensus position amongst AMS membership. Rather, the intent of the study was to test hypothesis that speak to the well understood/recognized disparity of opinion within the AMS membership. I posted on this in more detail earlier, quoting the 4 tested hypothesis, the author's statement that all hypothesis were confirmed and included an author summation that identified that expertise was not central to the disparity... rather, personal, social and political ideology (also) factored into the, as you phrase it, "different outlook" amongst the AMS membership. . Edited March 10, 2014 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 As always...waldo never actually claims anything. He pushes studies that he certainly backs which coincidentally claim the 97% although he never actually claims it himeslf. Very courageous that way. He was asked a dozen times to directly answer the OP question but never did. in spite of you being asked a brazillion times, you've never provided your own interpretation of what you're contesting! But why would that ever stop you? Care to expand on your statement wording "claim the 97%" that I've highlighted? Care to qualify what you mean by that... what it reflects upon, what it includes, how it was determined, what it's based upon? Oh right, sorry... that would mean you would have to reinforce you don't know what the consensus position actually is! But why would that ever stop you? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 not confused at all, not in the least. Yes, when you combine all groups the resulting percentages, of course, change. But you're no longer determining a percentage based on an isolated expertise grouping. Are you stating the isolated categorization does not include all those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise? You combining all groups simply reinforces, again, you don't know and you don't understand what the consensus position is. Is there a particular reason you label challenges to you as "dishonest"? As you stated in your post....the n number with the 78% is 232. It is not....its 124. Are you clear on that yet? The first two isolated cateogories (Climate Science and Atmospheric Science) make up the majority (79%). As such they focused on those two isolated categories. The third group titled Sample Total is....well you guessed it....the total of all groups. This break down was provided in the preliminary results. You will note the sample size of 1796 is smaller than 1821 so I'm guessing that more results came in after the preliminaries. The percentages won't change that much. So.....again....are you confused....or dishonest? Its a very simple question. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 As you stated in your post....the n number with the 78% is 232. It is not....its 124. Are you clear on that yet? now you're just playing dumb! I mentioned 232 to reinforce the point that the isolation category of those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise was all inclusive... it included all survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise. It's why I asked you pointedly, "Are you stating the isolated categorization does not include all those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise?" Are you clear on that yet? Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 This break down was provided in the preliminary results. thanks scoop! Where did you think I got the 13% figure from, if not there? But thanks for reinforcing the very nature of the survey sampling makeup... one itself only determined through participants self-evaluation. Yes, again, only 13% of the survey participants claimed 'climate science' as their area of expertise. Could there be anything more glaringly obvious than this to, (once again), reinforce that you have no idea what the consensus position is... like I said, like I'll keep saying, please educate yourself! Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 in spite of you being asked a brazillion times, you've never provided your own interpretation of what you're contesting! But why would that ever stop you? Care to expand on your statement wording "claim the 97%" that I've highlighted? Care to qualify what you mean by that... what it reflects upon, what it includes, how it was determined, what it's based upon? Oh right, sorry... that would mean you would have to reinforce you don't know what the consensus position actually is! But why would that ever stop you? I've been very clear that the 97% consensus is ridiculous. Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists is accurate. Yes or no? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 now you're just playing dumb! I mentioned 232 to reinforce the point that the isolation category of those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise was all inclusive... it included all survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise. It's why I asked you pointedly, "Are you stating the isolated categorization does not include all those survey participants claiming 'climate science' expertise?" Are you clear on that yet? Here it is again: - in isolation, the higher 78% figure reflects on all those participants within the survey claiming an expertise in 'climate science', while publishing mostly about climate science (the n number here is 232). The n number for 78% is not 232. I've spoken to it and even marked up the drawing for you. It's not! As I thought...your deflection indicates your dishonesty.....again! Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 thanks scoop! Where did you think I got the 13% figure from, if not there? But thanks for reinforcing the very nature of the survey sampling makeup... one itself only determined through participants self-evaluation. Yes, again, only 13% of the survey participants claimed 'climate science' as their area of expertise. Could there be anything more glaringly obvious than this to, (once again), reinforce that you have no idea what the consensus position is... like I said, like I'll keep saying, please educate yourself! Perhaps by dividing the number of total participant publishing in climate science (n=231) by the total sample size (n=1821) which equals 13%. I should have known that division might evade you. I also know that you still haven't figured out the 231 number anyway. I guess you don't need to educate yourself when you can rely on utter dishonesty. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 I've been very clear that the 97% consensus is ridiculous. Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists is accurate. Yes or no? again, you simply reinforce you don't know what the actual consensus position is! Again, please educate yourself. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Here it is again: The n number for 78% is not 232. I've spoken to it and even marked up the drawing for you. It's not! As I thought...your deflection indicates your dishonesty.....again! no - again, the reference was to reinforce the isolated category included all survey participants that claimed their expertise as 'climate science'. It's central to your statement... it's why I, again, asked if you were claiming the category didn't include all (232) of those claiming that expertise. But you're just playing silly buggar, because all the focus was on the percentage numbers. You're now playing a juvenile act out. For what reason? Who is paying attention to the actual numbers (other than the total to reinforce all inclusiveness)? The/your emphasis was on percentages. Quote
waldo Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 Perhaps by dividing the number of total participant publishing in climate science (n=231) by the total sample size (n=1821) which equals 13%. I should have known that division might evade you. I also know that you still haven't figured out the 231 number anyway. I guess you don't need to educate yourself when you can rely on utter dishonesty. rather than continuing to lay dishonesty accusations, please correct your misunderstanding of what the consensus position is; again, please educate yourself. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2014 Report Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) and yet, when you're asked to provide your own interpretation of the consensus position, you can't be bothered to respond; i.e., you refuse. It's quite clear you're simply another of the crew that doesn't understand what it is. My "interpretation" of consensus doesn't matter, as it sure as hell isn't a laughable 97% . This little exercise in logic reveals the degree and extent to which the climate change (alarmist) faithful will go. Any and all dissent must be attacked, no matter how absurd be the position. If you insist, and after crunching all the numbers in my Bat Computer, I can support a consensus of 53.756% at a 95% confidence level. Edited March 11, 2014 by Charles Anthony image deleted Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 again, you simply reinforce you don't know what the actual consensus position is! Again, please educate yourself. Do you believe the number is 97%? Yes or no? Quote
waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 My "interpretation" of consensus doesn't matter, as it sure as hell isn't a laughable 97% . your interpretation doesn't matter... but you're certain and adamant that what you won't state/define... isn't! Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 no - again, the reference was to reinforce the isolated category included all survey participants that claimed their expertise as 'climate science'. It's central to your statement... it's why I, again, asked if you were claiming the category didn't include all (232) of those claiming that expertise. But you're just playing silly buggar, because all the focus was on the percentage numbers. You're now playing a juvenile act out. For what reason? Who is paying attention to the actual numbers (other than the total to reinforce all inclusiveness)? The/your emphasis was on percentages. I have clearly outlined your blunder. Easy enough for even you to see. I gave you an opportunity to redeem yourself by giving you the option to admit that you were confused by the similar 231 versus 232 numbers yet you persist. Your continued denial exceeds the possibility of confusion and is now clearly exemplifies your continued dishonesty. You are in fact MLWs most dishonest poster. I don't think you'll have much competition for that award the way you're going. Educate yourself on the consensus and on having an honest conversation Quote
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.