bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 True, but what if your doctor tells you that you have cancer and when you ask for a second opinion he promptly calls you ignorant and says anyone who disagrees with him gives oral sex to bears in the woods, when they're not looking? At that point, it is only logical to suspect your doctor's diagnosis. Until the alternate source you seek out calls you an "alarmist" for worrying about cancer, that you've imbibed the "kool-aid," and then starts talking about Galileo. Then what do you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Until the alternate source you seek out calls you an "alarmist" for worrying about cancer, that you've imbibed the "kool-aid," and then starts talking about Galileo. Then what do you do? At the point specified by the poster, Wild Bill, it is logical to suspect your doctor's diagnosis. I note you slipped in the word "alternate" do you mean the source to be an "alternative" to allopathic medicine because if you did that wasn't suggested. Only a second opinion was suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 The process is fine. It is people who abuse science in order to promote a political agenda which are the problem. Precisely. I believe Global warming is passe now and Climate Change is the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think it's time for an explanation of where the terms global warming and climate change came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think it's time for an explanation of where the terms global warming and climate change came from. The temperature over the last century went up 1.5 degrees on average. Not scary enough and deniers are not going away. Climate Change is the new strategy. Every record breaking temperature can be attributed to climate change. Every cataclysmic tornado can be attributed to climate change. Every damaging hurricane can be attributed to climate change. We can now point to the weather and attribute it to climate change. I think if we get everyone focused on cataclysmic weather events it is easier to spread the hysteria. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, warmer temperatures - they just don't cut it as scary. Death and destruction works. At last. Get ready for the "Bikes for clunkers" program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 At the point specified by the poster, Wild Bill, it is logical to suspect your doctor's diagnosis. And at the point I specified, it is logical to suspect the second-opinion doctor's diagnosis; in fact, in keeping with the spirit of WB's analogy, I was too generous: it would have been apropos to add to the analogy, and to point out that the majority of doctors agreed with the intial diagnosis. I note you slipped in the word "alternate" do you mean the source to be an "alternative" to allopathic medicine because if you did that wasn't suggested. Only a second opinion was suggested. By "alternate" I only meant "other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 The temperature over the last century went up 1.5 degrees on average. Not scary enough and deniers are not going away. Climate Change is the new strategy. Every record breaking temperature can be attributed to climate change. Every cataclysmic tornado can be attributed to climate change. Every damaging hurricane can be attributed to climate change. We can now point to the weather and attribute it to climate change. I think if we get everyone focused on cataclysmic weather events it is easier to spread the hysteria. Melting glaciers, rising sea levels, warmer temperatures - they just don't cut it as scary. Death and destruction works. At last. Get ready for the "Bikes for clunkers" program. Someone didn't watch the video, climate change was first coined in the 30's it's hardly "new" to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I remember posting this back in 2011 - but it's always good to refresh people's minds.....since this claim is trotted out time and time again. That "97%" claim is significant, not for what it what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about the Climate Movement: The study that supports the 97% was done by Margaret Zimerman, who sent the survey to 10,257 Earth Scientists. Of those, 3,146 responded. Of those, Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 77. That fact alone should have your journalistic instincts on high alert. But it gets worse. The two questions which lead to the 97% finding were: Ask yourself how and why the 97% number can STILL be used with a straight face? It should be infuriating to anyone who values science and the search for truth. Link: http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/ Link: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Sorry, but I don't accept Financial Post articles that say we shouldn't believe science. If you think for a second about how ridiculous that premise is, that would be good. The wikipedia article summarizes it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Sorry, but I don't accept Financial Post articles that say we shouldn't believe science. If you think for a second about how ridiculous that premise is, that would be good. The wikipedia article summarizes it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change You are free to do so. My point is that the 97% consensus - which is used over and over again to support almost any interpretation of Global Warming or Accelerated Climate Change - is hogwash and doesn't deserve to see the light of day. It has become the centerpiece of many Alarmist arguments and should continually be "outed" as hogwash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Tells me that 97% know where the money is and 3% have the courage to question what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 You are free to do so. My point is that the 97% consensus - which is used over and over again to support almost any interpretation of Global Warming or Accelerated Climate Change - is hogwash and doesn't deserve to see the light of day. It has become the centerpiece of many Alarmist arguments and should continually be "outed" as hogwash. I usually hear 95% - which is mentioned in the wiki page. If you're just quoting some newspaper that states 97% consensus then I agree with you that it's probably just picked out of thin air, or from something somebody heard at a party. But, why don't you just do what I do and reject the gossip and chatter outright ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Tells me that 97% know where the money is and 3% have the courage to question what is going on. There's more money to be made in revealing that the existing orthodoxy is incorrect, and a name to be made as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Sorry, but I don't accept Financial Post articles that say we shouldn't believe science. If you think for a second about how ridiculous that premise is, that would be good. The wikipedia article summarizes it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change That is a pretty poor reason for ignoring reality, the belief in a survey without understanding it's methodology or lack there of is terribly unscientific, yet you and no doubt hordes of others think the financial post is anti science for pointing out what is already a known fact about that 'survey'. Sorry, who doesn't believe in science now? Hint, it isn't the people who question a cherry picked survey that is now a pillar of agw advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 There's more money to be made in revealing that the existing orthodoxy is incorrect, and a name to be made as well. Try it and see how the rest burns you at the stake alive. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I usually hear 95% - which is mentioned in the wiki page. If you're just quoting some newspaper that states 97% consensus then I agree with you that it's probably just picked out of thin air, or from something somebody heard at a party. But, why don't you just do what I do and reject the gossip and chatter outright ? Your link shows a variety of numbers but it too uses the 97% in the graphic showing the 97 people out of 100. The basis of this graphic states: The first study (Doran 2009) is a survey with 2 questions. In the first question, 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels" (compared with before the 1550-1850 A.D. Little Ice Age ended). In the second question, 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to its survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts. According to the second study (Anderson 2010), there are only 2% to 3% UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") disagreeing scientists amongst a group of 50 to 200 climate researchers ranked as top. Expertise was defined as determined by the number of articles published by climate journals. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence") wrote an average of 408 articles each which were successfully published. It also shows this graphic outlining a number of other studies showing the numbers vary from 82-98%. Clearly those who support AGW push the 97% number as it suits their cause even though these other studies show various numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 That is a pretty poor reason for ignoring reality, the belief in a survey without understanding it's methodology or lack there of is terribly unscientific, What survey are you talking about ? I don't believe the FP article - also because there are charlatans involved there. I think the Naomi Oreskes (sp?) study was the one I read the closest. There still is that solid 3% of real scientists who don't agree, I suppose. Or 5% or 10%.... the number itself doesn't matter to me, but it's pretty clear it's not 50%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Try it and see how the rest burns you at the stake alive. LOL. Not a serious response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Clearly those who support AGW push the 97% number as it suits their cause even though these other studies show various numbers. Oh, that wouldn't surprise me a bit. I went carefully through a Globe and Mail story recently, that linked Climate Change to infrastructure costs for power in Ontario and it was pretty terrible. The press is just bad at science IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) It's certainly fair to say a vast vast majority of scientists are in agreement. Now as for the claim that they are all a part of some global conspiracy to defraud the public for the purpose of getting money...isn't fraud illegal? Why aren't the world's prisons filled with scientists? Edited February 26, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 isn't fraud illegal? It depends on how much money you have. The fake Climategate scandal was a massive fraud paid for by some anonymous benefactors who have enough money to enlist hackers, and planted the seeds of believe in a climate conspiracy that never happened. No charges were brought against the hackers who leaked the emails, and spoon fed the out-of-context quotes to cable news networks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 What survey are you talking about ? I don't believe the FP article - also because there are charlatans involved there. I think the Naomi Oreskes (sp?) study was the one I read the closest. There still is that solid 3% of real scientists who don't agree, I suppose. Or 5% or 10%.... the number itself doesn't matter to me, but it's pretty clear it's not 50%. What is it that you don't believe? The study was done by Doran and Zimmerman and although they started out by requesting responses from over 10,000 scientists, their conclusion (97%) ends up being based on 75 of 77 respondents. If this doesn't make you skeptical about the accuracy of any of these "surveys", I don't know what will . Putting aside the acute selectivity of these particular authors - it's all in the questions - and the wording....always has been. Vague words like "could", "may" and "significant" can easily tip an answer one way or the other - and when the thrust of the question is towards warming, the answers invariably veer there as well. The Alarmists can't have a consensus of 60 or 70 or even 80% - that would leave too much room for debate and after all, the science is settled, right? The sad part Michael is that if indeed Global Warming is the Armegeddon of humanity, if Climate Change is a weapon of mass estruction, if we are fast approaching tipping points that will plunge the planet into a death spiral.....then shouldn't it be good news - shouldn't we express some relief - that we've had no warming for going on two decades, that the computer models have been proven grossly inaccurate, that hurricaines and tornadoes have actually lessened in frequency - among other positive findings? Ask yourself why it is so important for only one side to be 100% right and to even debate the issue is "criminal". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The study was done by Doran and Zimmerman and although they started out by requesting responses from over 10,000 scientists, their conclusion (97%) ends up being based on 75 of 77 respondents. If this doesn't make you skeptical about the accuracy of any of these "surveys", I don't know what will . I didn't look at that study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 It depends on how much money you have. The fake Climategate scandal was a massive fraud paid for by some anonymous benefactors who have enough money to enlist hackers, and planted the seeds of believe in a climate conspiracy that never happened.No charges were brought against the hackers who leaked the emails, and spoon fed the out-of-context quotes to cable news networks... That just isn't true. The hacked communications revealed pretty unscientific attempts, with success, to silence critics of the accepted orthodoxy from participating in the peer review process. Other very unscientific practices were also revealed. I guess openness and transparency is your thing, unless it's applied to climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The hacked communications revealed pretty unscientific attempts, with success, to silence critics of the accepted orthodoxy from participating in the peer review process. Some personal sniping, maybe, which is understandable. I imagine if somebody stole your personal emails that they would find something worse - certainly mine would be. The phrase "hide the decline" was what rang out from Climategate, and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing. 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.