Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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%.

this more recent study caused many an exploding head within the denialsphere... lots of wailing and howling over the methodology used:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

why didn't/can't the OP bring forward studies that, presumably, better convey a consensus level more acceptable to fake-skeptics... one presumably more representative of the consensus fake-skeptics believe exists?

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

ExxonMobil can't get its managers selected as IPPC report authors nor can it get its press releases quoted as supporting documents for IPCC reports. Corruption is not always about money - it is often more about connections.

Oh yes and I bet ExxonMobil is at a real loss for those too.

Come. On.

Posted

How?

I think the first step would be for politically aware people such as MLW people to care first and foremost about the quality of political dialogue above all else. This needs to be done because our collective politics is effectively our central nervous system for dealing with problems.

Posted

How many people here are old enough to remember the same shit back in the 70's except we were all going to freeze to death and one of the biggest mouth peices back then was a well respect eviro group the club of rome.

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted (edited)

Yeah, I'm sure Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs have all kinds of money to throw around that ExxonMobil, BP et al simply can't match.

Kevin-Butler-Mind-Blown.gif

Eviro groups are raking in the cash to spread their gospel around. Ezra nailed that one.Even saint suzuki gets money from big oil. Edited by PIK

Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.

Posted

How many people here are old enough to remember the same shit back in the 70's except we were all going to freeze to death and one of the biggest mouth peices back then was a well respect eviro group the club of rome.

citation request

Posted

The whole panic about "global warming" started after a series of hot summers in the heavily populated U.S. Northeast.

I'm going to stop and comment right here - you're likely talking about media discussion. So let's set the frame properly as I find too often that people switch between complaining about "the" public view, to environmentalists, to climate scientists, to Al Gore.

Back then, global warming alarmists didn't hesitate to argue that "weather" was interlocked with "climate." Now, when we have had a barrage of very snowy winters (1993-4, 1995-6, 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, 2004-5, 2005-6, 2008-9, 2009-10, 2010-1, 2013-4) and a few notably cold ones (1993-4, 2003-4 and of course 2013-4) the same people refuse to look at "weather" saying "weather" and "climate" are not the same. But the research dollars were already rolling.

I agree that an authoritative group should set forward some statements about how/why weather and climate may be affected by climate change. And I think they already have.

One would think that industry could sponsor research going the other way. They know that the corporate sources of funding would undermine the legitimacy of the work.

I don't think so. People already think that there's no consensus about climate change based on the funding that's already there. Anyway, the science on the side of climate change is supposedly so rickety, then it would be easy to bribe Mann et al to change teams and go the other way ?

Posted

No need. It's Newsweek, Time and - as one poster submitted - OMNI Magazine as a scientific journal. Yes, I'm not joking.

This is one of the oldest dead fish out there...

of course it is... as you know, a long standing one through an assortment of many, many MLW threads. Member PIK knows this... and he knows there was no consensus concerning the "70s ice-age" meme..... nothing even remotely approaching a consensus. And yet, member PIK continues to trot this out in the face of the many refutations of it previously on MLW. There's a name for what member PIK is continuing to perpetuate.

Posted

this more recent study caused many an exploding head within the denialsphere... lots of wailing and howling over the methodology used:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Let me see if I have this straight....there were 11,944 papers done on global warming. 66.4% had NO POSITION....that means 33.6% of the papers had a postion. So because they don't express a position, these scientists are now excluded from your final tally of 97%? That is pure cherry picking.

Is it not fair to say that these people may be in the undecided category? In reality....only 32.6% were actually full out supporting the notion of AGW. The rest are either against it or have no position on it.

Posted

Oh yes and I bet ExxonMobil is at a real loss for those too.

But when it comes to connections into the climate related scientific establishment the environmental NGOs have the oil companies completely outgunned. It is easy to corrupt science if you convince people that they are "saving the planet".
Posted

Let me see if I have this straight....there were 11,944 papers done on global warming. 66.4% had NO POSITION....that means 33.6% of the papers had a postion. So because they don't express a position, these scientists are now excluded from your final tally of 97%? That is pure cherry picking.

Is it not fair to say that these people may be in the undecided category? In reality....only 32.6% were actually full out supporting the notion of AGW. The rest are either against it or have no position on it.

it's a qualification... on papers. One clearly outlined. Perhaps you should read it again.

.

Posted

But when it comes to connections into the climate related scientific establishment the environmental NGOs have the oil companies completely outgunned. It is easy to corrupt science if you convince people that they are "saving the planet".

short of your ever present underlying conspiracy, care to speak to science corrupted... and just how easy it was?

Posted

I did read it. Only 32.6% of these papers full out support the notion of AGW...not 97.

it's quite straight-forward; unsurprisingly, you struggle with it, although we have made progress in that you no longer incorrectly directly correlate this study on papers to scientists. Again, per the study, of the peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming, 97% of those papers endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Posted

I did read it. Only 32.6% of these papers full out support the notion of AGW...not 97.

Who cares? The methodology was bogus and the data does not even support the claims. If waldo thinks that the Cook paper is anything other than excrement it is just more evidence that he has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. At some point you have to recognize that logic does not matter to zealots. Their "team" is 100% right and anyone who says otherwise is a "denier". It is pathetic.
Posted

Who cares? The methodology was bogus and the data does not even support the claims. If waldo thinks that the Cook paper is anything other than excrement it is just more evidence that he has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. At some point you have to recognize that logic does not matter to zealots. Their "team" is 100% right and anyone who says otherwise is a "denier". It is pathetic.

like I said, it caused lots of exploding heads over the methodology used... I was particularly taken with your boy Richard Toll! Talking about useful contributions... do you have anything more from the charlatan Anthony Watts or from your stable of cartoonists? Do you have another video to play out your dishonesty, or another reference to showcase your underlying conspiracy themes? All of the previous examples reflect upon recent posts you've made... and I've just responded to in the last recent minutes. That's your "contribution"... your, as you say, "useful contribution"!

Posted

But when it comes to connections into the climate related scientific establishment the environmental NGOs have the oil companies completely outgunned. It is easy to corrupt science if you convince people that they are "saving the planet".

Cite please.

Posted

Eviro groups are raking in the cash to spread their gospel around. Ezra nailed that one

Exxon Mobil made $32.6 billion (that's with a "B") profit last year. I'm betting that's more than Greenpeace, David Suzuki, the Sierra Club and any other number of top ENGOs make combined.

Even saint suzuki gets money from big oil.

You might want to get your head out of the plastic bag and give this a bit of thought.

Posted

it's quite straight-forward; unsurprisingly, you struggle with it, although we have made progress in that you no longer incorrectly directly correlate this study on papers to scientists. Again, per the study, of the peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming, 97% of those papers endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

You're right it is straight forward....67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW. Pretty conclusive.

I guess you're still struggling with PPP to figure these numbers out. Lol.

Posted

Who cares? The methodology was bogus and the data does not even support the claims. If waldo thinks that the Cook paper is anything other than excrement it is just more evidence that he has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion. At some point you have to recognize that logic does not matter to zealots. Their "team" is 100% right and anyone who says otherwise is a "denier". It is pathetic.

Yes....I am quite aware that logic doesn't matter to waldo. I just like seeing him flounder especially when he's the one to quote his preferred study which actually shows the flaws that the OP is talking about. Pure comedy.

Posted

You're right it is straight forward....67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW. Pretty conclusive.

I guess you're still struggling with PPP to figure these numbers out. Lol.

Yes - that's two major "consensus studies" that belong in the toilet. It's the same methodology as the initial one that was posted. Exclude everything you don't like, then calculate a farcical percentage. Clearly - so very clearly - there is really no consensus of the variety that is put forward by the alarmist community.

Back to Basics

Posted

You're right it is straight forward....67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW. Pretty conclusive.

again, the study abstract is plainly worded. Although plainly worded, you initially failed and conflated papers with scientists. Of course you did.

you now choose to take the study wording that states, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW", and turn that into your preferred wording, "67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW". That's quite the leap you made there! Per the study authors methodology, "unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'."

it's certainly your... and member Simple's... prerogative to put forward countering studies/surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of related/relevant experts... studies/surveys that speak to a level of consensus you believe, you interpret, as being more accurate/representative.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,891
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    armchairscholar
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...