waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 Do you believe the number is 97%? Yes or no? again, you don't know what the consensus position is... it doesn't matter what the number might be... you simply don't know what it relates to/reflects upon/how it was determined/how it's been qualified, etc., etc., etc. Quote
waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 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%. closure, Simple? I'll give you/your thread the needed closure you appear to be striving for: - none of you presuming to contest the consensus are willing to state what it is you're contesting. - the only consistency you/others maintain is to simply repeat a reference to, "the 97% consensus". - you/others have never qualified that 97% number... never provided your interpretation of what that number means, what it includes, how it was arrived at, how it was qualified, etc., etc., etc. - all you/others are sure of in your contesting is that, "you contest it... it's, as you say, far less than that 97%"! But what is it... that is far less? What's your "it"? Who knows what your "it" is, since none of you will actually step forward and fully qualify your interpretation of what the consensus means... to you! - none of you actually know what the consensus position is? None of you! But why let that get in the way of your absolute certainty... of something you categorically refuse to state/define! there Simple, that is your/this thread's closure! You're welcome... Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 again, you don't know what the consensus position is... it doesn't matter what the number might be... you simply don't know what it relates to/reflects upon/how it was determined/how it's been qualified, etc., etc., etc. More deflection. Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 closure, Simple? I'll give you/your thread the needed closure you appear to be striving for: - none of you presuming to contest the consensus are willing to state what it is you're contesting. - the only consistency you/others maintain is to simply repeat a reference to, "the 97% consensus". - you/others have never qualified that 97% number... never provided your interpretation of what that number means, what it includes, how it was arrived at, how it was qualified, etc., etc., etc. - all you/others are sure of in your contesting is that, "you contest it... it's, as you say, far less than that 97%"! But what is it... that is far less? What's your "it"? Who knows what your "it" is, since none of you will actually step forward and fully qualify your interpretation of what the consensus means... to you! - none of you actually know what the consensus position is? None of you! But why let that get in the way of your absolute certainty... of something you categorically refuse to state/define! there Simple, that is your/this thread's closure! You're welcome... Not a single claim made. You certainly are one slippery individual. Great work on your award! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 ... it doesn't matter what the number might be... Correct...because it sure isn't 97% ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 Yep. The dishonest nature of alarmists claiming 97% consensus seems to be acknowledged by everyone now. One might even say that it's a consensus! Pun intended. Quote
Shady Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 Correct...because it sure isn't 97% ! Exactly. But it's strikingly odd, that apparently it doesn't matter what the number might be, so they insist on just going with a bogus one. Correct...because it sure isn't 97% ! Come'on BC, you're ruining the alarmist fallback position! Quote
eyeball Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 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%. But It's clearly somewhere on a scale that's now slid somewhere up between humongous and vast. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) But It's clearly somewhere on a scale that's now slid somewhere up between humongous and vast.Hardly. The word consensus means "nearly everyone agrees". I say you need >90% before you can claim consensus. Below that level you have a large majority (>75%) or a majority (>50%). "humongous and vast" are adjectives that do not normally apply in this context so everyone has a different idea what they might mean. This makes them rotten words for communicating an idea in this context. However, if your objective is propaganda rather than communication then they might make sense. I don't see the point. Edited March 11, 2014 by TimG Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) 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. I think we all know what the so-called consensus is. It's always shrouded in hedgy language such as "if" temperatures rise by 5C in a year, then we "may" all be doomed from, take your pick, blood, frogs, lice, locusts, flies, boils, hail, cattle disease, darkness, or killing of the first born. Edited March 11, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) Hardly. The word consensus means "nearly everyone agrees". I say you need >90% before you can claim consensus. Below that level you have a large majority (>75%) or a majority (>50%). I say you only need a large majority due to the length of time there's been one and in light of the rapidly evaporating number of naysayers. Edited March 11, 2014 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
TimG Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) in light of the rapidly evaporating number of naysayers.ROTFL. 2007-2008 was the peak of alarmism. Since then number of skeptics have been growing. The prospect for a new Kyoto treaty is near zero (there is always a chance the Europeans will choose to destroy their economy by agreeing to another treaty that exempts the US, China, India and Russia). Edited March 11, 2014 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 The word consensus means "nearly everyone agrees". I say you need >90% before you can claim consensus. Below that level you have a large majority (>75%) or a majority (>50%). as you well know, in the actual domain the consensus position applies to, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, accepts that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities. endorsement expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities. qualification expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associate to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities. of course, as you also well know, the actual domain of the consensus position does not encompass the wizardry that emanates from and appears on "the blogs" of your favoured gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier "blog scientists". Why, not that far back in this thread, we had a guy here trying to falsely claim an article from a fake-skeptics blog was a peer-reviewed publication... falsely posturing that it was published; imagine that! You know, just like you've done, many, many times over in the past through an assortment of many, many past MLW threads. Of course, I had to call this out and highlight that the individual was taking peer-review/peer-response to a whole new level..... you know, a level where you've gone many, many times/where you perpetually reside; a level outside the domain that the consensus position applies to and reflects upon. from your latest comment, it's quite clear that you measure the, as you say, "growing number of your [fake-]skeptics", from the ranks of your gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier blogs.... which, of course, is outside the consensus domain of the body of scientific experts that the consensus position reflects upon, applies to and associates with. . Quote
eyeball Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 ROTFL. 2007-2008 was the peak of alarmism. Since then number of skeptics have been growing. Not amongst climate scientists and experts. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
gunrutz Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/ I thought that was an interesting take on the numbers, looks like it might be at best a 94.9% 'consensus'. What i find amazing is the desperate need of some to defend a number that is obviously cherry picked form a survey of over 10,000, of whom a little over 3000 bothered to respond. If the real non bs consensus of the scientific coumminty was 75% in favor of agw and believed that the negative effects would be drastic would that not be good enough? If it was only 50%, would that still not be cause for alarm? Producing a number that can be so easily challenged from a survey within a survey amounting to only 77 or perhaps 75 actually used responses makes the whole thing look bad, even if it isn't. I believe that is bad, and that the survey is irrelevant, but, presuming it is relevant, the obvious vulnerabilities in the way the numbers came about should be enough to make someone who wants to honestly represent the opinions of scientists think twice about using them. The fact that the number has been touted far and wide says to me that what should be an absolute need to represent the real science in a way that is above reproach, takes a back seat to building believers, to propaganda. What better way to take advantage of people that have mostly grown up to believe that science should be our new religion, our new belief system, we will just tell them that 97% of scientists, or climate scientists, or climate scientists with a certain pecentage of recent peer reviewed papers on climate change, out of a survey of 10,000, of whom only 3000 responded, and of those only 77, or is it 75 that qualifed, agreed that it's happening and its our fault, O wait, only 97% agreed, or is it 95%. Nevermind we will just tell everyone that 97% of climate scientists believe, it is simpler and clearly more beneficial to the cause, it isn't exactly true, but it's for everyones own good, so the need to represent science in the most honest and straight foraward way can take a back seat on that one. Edited March 11, 2014 by gunrutz Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 I thought that was an interesting take on the numbers, looks like it might be at best a 94.9% 'consensus'. What i find amazing is the desperate need of some to defend a number that is obviously cherry picked form a survey of over 10,000, of whom a little over 3000 bothered to respond. You have 70% response rate, which isn't bad at all... Edited: To add - it depends on if the responses indicate self-selection. What I meant to say is that the sample size is more than adequate at that rate. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 You have 70% response rate, which isn't bad at all...I see a 30% response rate... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 I see a 30% response rate... Sorry, I misread that. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) it's so cute that we still have MLW members willing to put themselves out there by referencing WTFIUWT! Edited March 11, 2014 by waldo Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 deny the science, deny the consensus Deny the facts...deny reality...there is no 97% consensus. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 of course, as you also well know, the actual domain of the consensus position does not encompass the wizardry that emanates from and appears on "the blogs" of your favoured gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier "blog scientists". Why, not that far back in this thread, we had a guy here trying to falsely claim an article from a fake-skeptics blog was a peer-reviewed publication... falsely posturing that it was published; imagine that! You know, just like you've done, many, many times over in the past through an assortment of many, many past MLW threads. Of course, I had to call this out and highlight that the individual was taking peer-review/peer-response to a whole new level..... you know, a level where you've gone many, many times/where you perpetually reside; a level outside the domain that the consensus position applies to and reflects upon. Are you still nattering on about that? Perhaps you should spend more time trying to figure out the sample sizes of the particular study at hand rather than worrying about this. Or perhaps you should spend more time working on your dishonest approach. You asked me to show how the natural cycles tie into the warming as such I provided you a study from Roy Spencer on the PDO feedback. Incapable of looking at the actual science behind it you chose to pass it off as blog science. Yet here the same author now presents another study on natural cycles and their feedback on warming http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/our-new-paper-el-nino-warming-reduces-climate-sensitivity-to-1-3-deg-c/. Sorry to break your heart but this one is published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science. The study itself is behind a paywall however he has a description of it on his site. Just as interesting on his site is the following statement: There needs to be more studies of this type, and I am at a loss to explain why they haven’t been performed. They are relatively easy, and don’t require a marching army of climate modelers. Yet, I will tell you that it is virtually impossible for someone like me to get a proposal specifically funded to perform such a study, because a few gatekeepers in the science community make sure during the peer review process that it doesn’t happen. Instead, we have to piggy-back on other funded projects we have. And we wonder why the abstracts favor the 97%.....hmmm. Quote
waldo Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 have you figured out what the consensus is yet? Don't you feel so, so silly for attempting to contest something you clearly had no understanding of? hey now, I didn't ask/challenge you to, as you say, "show how natural cycles tie into warming". In regards your stated denial of AGW, I asked/challenged you to show how your alternate posturing with "natural cycles", alternatively, caused warming... that was on the broader level. On the more direct levels, I challenged you to show a correlation between your claimed warming from "natural cycles and the life-cycle/range expansion of the mountain pine beetle... both within the most localized single BC area highlighted and also the larger regional damage/destruction of the mountain pine beetle across the western provinces/states. Hence your reach to a creationist's fake-skeptic/denier's blog where you puffed up over a blog article... while claiming it was published (which it wasn't). in this your latest googly best? Are you reinforcing that fake-skeptics/deniers can't get published... until they can? Of course, it's a rather obscure Korean journal! in any case, 'Uncle Roy' is legion with his failed simple 1D climate model, cranking paper after paper with it. All those fake-skeptics/deniers that continually berate climate models... apparently, they likee this one, big time! After all, who would need more than a simple model to detail all the complexities of climate... and then presume to speak to climate sensitivity on that basis. Notwithstanding, of course, the "internal forcing" wizardry that he just magically creates! Here's a clue, Spencer has a long tired record of long failed science... it's well documented where his nonsense has been punted to the point that no/few legitimate scientists give him any consideration. He's simply not taken seriously... clearly, your kind of guy... your kind of fake-skeptic/denier guy! I look forward to you formally joining the ranks of those pushing conspiracy themes of journal gate-keeping... why is everybody keeping the poor denierMan down? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 Yup....nothing from waldo. Pure nothingness to accompany no actual claims....just dishonesty and deflection. Well done....well done. Quote
Shady Posted March 11, 2014 Report Posted March 11, 2014 deny the science, deny the consensus This isn't about the science or even the consensus. It's about acknowledging the truth about a bogus anti-scientific poll. It would do you good to admit to bad science when it exists if you're to be believed in regards to good science. The fact that you can't get yourself to acknowledge this type of situation speaks volumes, and raises red flags when it comes to the whole alarmism movement. 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.