Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 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. No kidding. I never thought waldo would actually serve up a flop like that which actually proved what you were saying. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 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. Not word that I said is deviated or miscontrued from the quoted substance that you stated. The facts based on YOUR chosen study show that 66.4% of the abstracts had NO postition. Usually you throw up a much larger presentation with charts and graphs that scares most people off. Something that might actually be convincing. But you just flopped right out of the gate on this one. You just handed it right to KeepitSimple....didn't you. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Not word that I said is deviated or miscontrued from the quoted substance that you stated. The facts based on YOUR chosen study show that 66.4% of the abstracts had NO postition. Usually you throw up a much larger presentation with charts and graphs that scares most people off. Something that might actually be convincing. But you just flopped right out of the gate on this one. You just handed it right to KeepitSimple....didn't you. Wow. not sure what your problem is here??? The abstract is very precise in its wording, emphasizing those studies that include abstracts that take a position, versus those that don't. You're certainly free to attempt to say something about abstracts that were categorized as 'taking no position'... that's your prerogative. Equally, as I stated: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 not sure what your problem is here??? The abstract is very precise in its wording, emphasizing those studies that include abstracts that take a position, versus those that don't. You're certainly free to attempt to say something about abstracts that were categorized as 'taking no position'... that's your prerogative. Equally, as I stated: My problem is that as per usual you trot out what you feel is conclusive evidence to something that is so very clearly undecided. 66% of the papers have no comment....yet they take the 34% that do have a position and exlpoit the 97% figure. All you hear about is the 97% of scientists claim....but nothing of the undecided. Does this not seem the least bit manipulative to you? If not then maybe you'll believe that 97% of British Columbians back the Northern Gateway....based on the 30 Enbridge employees I spoke to. Just a minor 'qualification' as you claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Not word that I said is deviated or miscontrued from the quoted substance that you stated. The facts based on YOUR chosen study show that 66.4% of the abstracts had NO postition. My problem is that as per usual you trot out what you feel is conclusive evidence to something that is so very clearly undecided. 66% of the papers have no comment....yet they take the 34% that do have a position and exlpoit the 97% figure. All you hear about is the 97% of scientists claim....but nothing of the undecided. Does this not seem the least bit manipulative to you? without any substantiation, you took the liberty (your leap as I described it), of self-categorizing a subset within the grouping of abstracts that the paper author's categorized as holding no position. Given the profile raised, this study took on attacks/challenges from the usual suspects (from some of the more prolific deniers/fake-skeptics). The paper authors extended upon the initial survey to, in turn, contact authors directly and ask for them to rate their own papers. The results from this secondary initiative brought forward similar results from a representative sampling; in this regard, "When scientists were asked to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, [of those] that actually specified the proportion of human-caused global warming, over 96% agreed that humans have caused more than half of the recent global warming". more pointedly, you now, again, extend upon your earlier leap! You (again) take the liberty of outright assigning "undecided" to the papers categorized as taking no position (based on a review of abstracts). What gives you this liberty to declare, to outright declare, these papers as "undecided"? Do you maintain that there is still a point of contention within scientific circles, within climate science proper, that the attribution behind warming is still undecided? Is there a likelihood you can entertain that scientists have moved on, moved beyond questions of assigning attribution to something other mankind? If you don't entertain this likelihood, I look forward to you extending on that prerogative I keep mentioning you have. do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of papers that show a position within the abstract.... that very smallish, cryptic, few sentences that are offered as a preview of the paper, that are (typically) offered outside the pay-walls of journals? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of authors asked to rate/review their own papers. again, do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? If so, you should be able to show that, to support your belief, your interpretation..... again, to exercise that prerogative of yours, the one I keep highlighting, the one you appear to keep avoiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 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. You might want to get your head out of the plastic bag and give this a bit of thought. They made 32.6 in profit, got that PROFIT, not just money GIVEN to them by out of country sources to sabotage our resourses sector. What ever you are breathing in that plastic bag over head I would quit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 They made 32.6 in profit, got that PROFIT, not just money GIVEN to them by out of country sources to sabotage our resourses sector. What ever you are breathing in that plastic bag over head I would quit. as of today, as of the recent CRA investigations I've been privy to, your "money GIVEN" reference falls within the allowed so-called CRA 10% rule for charities engaged in political activities. your 'plastic bag breathing' personalization only weakens your already weak statement/position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 as of today, as of the recent CRA investigations I've been privy to, your "money GIVEN" reference falls within the allowed so-called CRA 10% rule for charities engaged in political activities. your 'plastic bag breathing' personalization only weakens your already weak statement/position Are'nt these ''charities'' under investigation as we speak as in tides canada and others?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Are'nt these ''charities'' under investigation as we speak as in tides canada and others?? as I said, (in regards the ongoing investigation of Harper Conservatives pursuing "enemies of the state"), I've not read of a violation of that 10% rule. Clearly, you were over the top with your claim that exercising an allowed political advocacy was tantamount to, as you stated a, "sabotage [of] our resources sector"! CRA has a 2003 dated policy statement related to registered charities 'political activities'; i.e., the "10% rule"... to retain its charitable status, a charity can't allocate more than 10% of its total yearly resources to political activities. The following graphic extract also speaks to caveat allowances that can be applied for "small charities". The prior link also includes updates related to the 2012 "tightening restrictions" applied by Harper Conservatives, to ensure compliance with the 10% rule... this reflects significant 2012 budget allocations to the CRA to ensure appropriate monitoring processes/resources are in place to enforce this CRA policy. Of course, this all reflects back on the flap raised by the Harper Conservatives offshoot "Ethical Oil" campaign and it's "enemies of the state" vitriol spoken by various cabinet ministers, most notably Harper Conservatives Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 without any substantiation, you took the liberty (your leap as I described it), of self-categorizing a subset You still have problems reading....don't you? Here was my EXACT comment: You're right it is straight forward....67.4% have either no opinion or are against the idea of AGW. Pretty conclusive. Tell me how ANYTHING I said is a leap. This is taken EXACTLY from your quote. Was there not 66.4% of the papers that had no comment? Was there not 0.7% of the papers that flat out rejected it? Was there not 0.3% of these papers who outright stated they were undecided? Does this not add up to 67.4%....I'll wait if you need to get your calculator out. Of the papers that had no comment, the abstract gives no indication of whether these scientists endorse the consenses or not. Of course if you did a little deeper we see that only 53.8% actually endorse the consenses. If you would have kept up with the conversation, you would have noticed where I posted the graphic from Michael Hardner's wiki post showing various studies on this matter and how the consenses in these studies range from 82% to 98%....yet the alarmists certainly like to trot out the most self serving numbers....don't they. How about the 82%? And this is taking those studies at face value which obviously is not a good idea based on the insights shown by your recent flop of a study. "When scientists were asked to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers, [of those] that actually specified the proportion of human-caused global warming, over 96% agreed that humans have caused more than half of the recent global warming". How convenient that you forgot to post this portion...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus". You see...this is what I was getting at. That group of papers with no position left a big question mark but with the above quote we can recalculate to show the true number based on the entire group....not just your self serving, maniputlating one. So lets do the math.....of the 66.4% papers that had no position there were only 53.8% of these authors that actually endorsed the consensus (46.2% that did not). Why... that would mean that 30.1% of the total does not endorse the consenses. Add in the 1% wrote papers against AGW or undecided on it and we are now at 31.1% leaving the true number of hard core AGW endorses based on the TOTAL number of those surveyed at 68.9%. YIKES. Not quite the 97% when you actually take in the whole approach. do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? Great attempt to derail the threa but I'm not biting as you won't touch the question raised by KeepitSimple....as pointed out in the OP title.....Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists? So far you have only presented a study that shows 97% over small subset and 68.9% over the entire group. Show me where 97% of all scientists actually endorse AGW. Why do alarmists purposely choose the 97% number when it is clearly misleading. PS...I'll give you a hint. Its because they are no different than the deniers in that they have their own agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) If you would have kept up with the conversation, you would have noticed where I posted the graphic from Michael Hardner's wiki post showing various studies on this matter and how the consenses in these studies range from 82% to 98%....yet the alarmists certainly like to trot out the most self serving numbers....don't they. How about the 82%? And this is taking those studies at face value which obviously is not a good idea based on the insights shown by your recent flop of a study. Don't know if you noticed - but the majority of the graphic that you posted from Michael's link comes from - wait for it - the Doran & Zimmerman study....the very same discredited study that was the basis of this thread. It's captioned right there on the graphic. Edited February 28, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Tell me how ANYTHING I said is a leap. This is taken EXACTLY from your quote. Was there not 66.4% of the papers that had no comment? Was there not 0.7% of the papers that flat out rejected it? Was there not 0.3% of these papers who outright stated they were undecided? Does this not add up to 67.4%. no - you were rightly called on it. Called on your leap. You didn't qualify that miniscule 1%... rather, the actual 0.3% against. Instead, you simply took the 67.4% figure and broadly categorized it as "no opinion or against". Clearly, you see no problem with this, your sleight of hand! Of course not. . How convenient that you forgot to post this portion...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus". You see...this is what I was getting at. That group of papers with no position left a big question mark but with the above quote we can recalculate to show the true number based on the entire group....not just your self serving, maniputlating one. So lets do the math.....of the 66.4% papers that had no position there were only 53.8% of these authors that actually endorsed the consensus (46.2% that did not). Why... that would mean that 30.1% of the total does not endorse the consenses. Add in the 1% wrote papers against AGW or undecided on it and we are now at 31.1% leaving the true number of hard core AGW endorses based on the TOTAL number of those surveyed at 68.9%. YIKES. Not quite the 97% when you actually take in the whole approach. clearly, you don't realize you're mixing the abstract results with the self-rated results! Here, try the following; have a do-over on me! And try to remember, a paper not having a position does not equate to one that is against AGW/doesn't endorse AGW... no matter how hard you try to squeeze or shape it that way! . do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of papers that show a position within the abstract.... that very smallish, cryptic, few sentences that are offered as a preview of the paper, that are (typically) offered outside the pay-walls of journals? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of authors asked to rate/review their own papers. again, do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? If so, you should be able to show that, to support your belief, your interpretation..... again, to exercise that prerogative of yours, the one I keep highlighting, the one you appear to keep avoiding. Great attempt to derail the threa but I'm not biting it's hardly a thread derail! If you're not prepared to accept the consensus, I thought you might be encouraged to have someone ask you to convey exactly what you accept... or don't accept, particularly in regards this most selective point on peer-reviewed papers. They are quite straight-forward questions... not sure why you would have such strong reservations against answering them. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Don't know if you noticed Simple... have a go: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 no - you were rightly called on it. Called on your leap. You didn't qualify that miniscule 1%... rather, the actual 0.3% against. Instead, you simply took the 67.4% figure and broadly categorized it as "no opinion or against". Clearly, you see no problem with this, your sleight of hand! Of course not. . clearly, you don't realize you're mixing the abstract results with the self-rated results! Here, try the following; have a do-over on me! And try to remember, a paper not having a position does not equate to one that is against AGW/doesn't endorse AGW... no matter how hard you try to squeeze or shape it that way! . it's hardly a thread derail! If you're not prepared to accept the consensus, I thought you might be encouraged to have someone ask you to convey exactly what you accept... or don't accept, particularly in regards this most selective point on peer-reviewed papers. They are quite straight-forward questions... not sure why you would have such strong reservations against answering them. . Ah...the typical waldo response. No real content of your own...only a misplaced table that really doesn't explain anything. Think about this one for the weekend and get back to me on Monday...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus" For the largest group (2/3) of the study...only 53.8% actually endorse the conensus. But yet you choose to pick out the bottom third and focus there. Hardly self serving.....LOL!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted February 28, 2014 Report Share Posted February 28, 2014 Don't know if you noticed - but the majority of the graphic that you posted from Michael's link comes from - wait for it - the Doran & Zimmerman study....the very same discredited study that was the basis of this thread. It's captioned right there on the graphic. Yes...it seems that all of these studies sure seem to dwindle their numbers to the point where they can fabricate an attractive number. I never thought that waldo would actually serve up such a flop but his study is the most obvious of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ah...the typical waldo response. No real content of your own...only a misplaced table that really doesn't explain anything. Think about this one for the weekend and get back to me on Monday...."Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus" For the largest group (2/3) of the study...only 53.8% actually endorse the conensus. But yet you choose to pick out the bottom third and focus there. Hardly self serving.....LOL!!! LOL??? Really? You earlier conflated papers and scientists... and now, you just mixed the figures for the abstracts with those of the self-rated. Well done! What you refer to as a "misplaced table", are the results that you should be speaking to when speaking of the self-rated... not the results you improperly mixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Yes...it seems that all of these studies sure seem to dwindle their numbers to the point where they can fabricate an attractive number. I never thought that waldo would actually serve up such a flop but his study is the most obvious of this. unlike you, where you're either conflating entities, fabricating categorizations, assigning your own meaning to figures, or outright mixing different analysis (abstracts vs. self-rated), the study/survey on peer-reviewed papers has a plainly worded methodology... one you keep stumbling & bumbling over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Don't know if you noticed - but the majority of the graphic that you posted from Michael's link comes from - wait for it - the Doran & Zimmerman study....the very same discredited study that was the basis of this thread. It's captioned right there on the graphic. Yep. Apparently he likes to perpetuate dishonesty. Also, he doesn't accept anything from The Post. Yes, it would be much easier if we all only accepted media sources that agreed with us. Wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Don't know if you noticed - but the majority of the graphic that you posted from Michael's link comes from - wait for it - the Doran & Zimmerman study....the very same discredited study that was the basis of this thread. It's captioned right there on the graphic. Yep. Apparently he likes to perpetuate dishonesty. Also, he doesn't accept anything from The Post. Yes, it would be much easier if we all only accepted media sources that agreed with us. Wouldn't it? Michael simply presented a wiki link, one that was given short-shrift by the guy who isolated only on that graphic. Your suggesting he "likes to perpetuate dishonesty" is clearly uncalled for. There are certainly more recent/timely and comprehensive studies than the one you/Simple are choosing to highlight... some are even mentioned within that same supplied wiki link. More pointedly, your (and Simple's) attempt to leverage a claim from serial misinformer, denialist "journalist" Lawrence Solomon, that the one single highlighted study has been "discredited, carries no weight/significance. Shady, let's add you into the mix... please state/substantiate the consensus figure you believe/interpret to be more acceptable (to you), to be more representative of a consensus level, or lack of therein. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 the following document, per a recent days joint release from the U.S. National Academies of Science and the UK Royal Society: Climate Change Evidence and Causes - a higher level, brief and readable 'overview' style document... it presents an initial Q&A format, followed by a 'Climate Basics' section... one that even MLW fake-skeptics should have no trouble reading/comprehending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 LOL??? Really? You earlier conflated papers and scientists... and now, you just mixed the figures for the abstracts with those of the self-rated. Well done! What you refer to as a "misplaced table", are the results that you should be speaking to when speaking of the self-rated... not the results you improperly mixed. You want me to look at your table? Do you mean the one using data that was conveniently carved down from 11,944 papers written by 29,083 authors down to 2142 papers with 1189 authors. Wow...that's quite the hand picked representation. I'll give them credit...they tried emailing 8547 authors but only got 1200 responses. 4% of the total authors....hmmm....but that is good enough for you right? Of course in the first round of the survey, there were 66% of the papers that had no position. Then they decided to email only 30% of the authors (which I'm sure was purely random and had no bias at all...sarcasm alert!) who then self-rated the 'selected' papers again for which they turned the tables and now made only 35% of the papers in the new group to have no position or undecided. As mentioned earlier....among self rated papers not expressing a position, 53.8% were self rated as endorsing the consensus. Using this 53.8% on the carved down, manipulated number of the second phase we still see that 18.8% of the papers do not support or are undecided on the consensus....not 3%. Of course, this is the ONLY stat regarding the papers or respondents of the no position papers in this entire paper so one must assume that this stat of 53.8% was accurate in the first phase which then raises the number to 36%. Is that a broad assumption? Well you can pretty much cut the 53% number in half if you want and we are still at 18% total. So what is the accurate number....somewhere between 18 and 36%....neither of which gives the unwavering supporting number of 3% that you alarmists like to purport. I'm going to beat you to the punch...this doesn't mean 18-36% are against AGW....it means they are undecided. UNDECIDED....which is what other MLW members keep suggesting. Of course, this study chooses not to comment on the actual respondents for those papers who have no positions but they conveniently throw in the 96.4% of the respondents endorsing the consensus for those who had a view. What a bunch of BS. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you buy into this stuff. Of course the concept of examining publications as an indicator of the true consensus is ridiculous anyway. They took papers dating back to 1981? Hmmm...wonder if anything has changed since then? When they emailed these 8547 authors, perhaps they should have just asked if they believe that humans were causing more than 50%....why bother with rating papers which date back to 1981? Of course this way they might actually get hard numbers that couldn't be manipulated or carved down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 have you finally figured out the survey yet... papers/abstracts, not scientists, right? So you won't be mixing the results again (abstracts vs. self-rated), right?like I said: 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. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 you sure seem to have a lot to say about that study... yet you can't find any cycles for the following - go figure! do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of papers that show a position within the abstract.... that very smallish, cryptic, few sentences that are offered as a preview of the paper, that are (typically) offered outside the pay-walls of journals? You certainly don't see that echoed in the subset of authors asked to rate/review their own papers.again, do you believe/interpret that most/many papers still contest the cause of warming? If so, you should be able to show that, to support your belief, your interpretation..... again, to exercise that prerogative of yours, the one I keep highlighting, the one you appear to keep avoiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 an easy read that reflects upon that scientific consensus... you didn't miss this, did you? the following document, per a recent days joint release from the U.S. National Academies of Science and the UK Royal Society: Climate Change Evidence and Causes - a higher level, brief and readable 'overview' style document... it presents an initial Q&A format, followed by a 'Climate Basics' section... one that even MLW fake-skeptics should have no trouble reading/comprehending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 have you finally figured out the survey yet... papers/abstracts, not scientists, right? So you won't be mixing the results again (abstracts vs. self-rated), right? like I said: . Saw right through it the minute you put it up. I posted numerous times about the abstracts and various percentages....especially the large number of abstracts indicating no view on AGW. Of course the pure comedy of the situation is that you still refuse to acknowledge the question asked by the OP which is about 97% of SCIENTISTS....not abstracts. But what did you so bravely submit to counter the OP? A study entirely based on abstracts!!! Holy crap waldo...you keep floundering like this and no one will take you serious.....ooops....too late! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.