Disaster in Texas

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

"Explicit Endorsement by quantification".

Your argument doesn't stand as there are hard facts showing the number of storms that have happened and at what regularity/force. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

Ok, so you don't believe in consensus.  Check.  Your article doesn't refuse that the consensus exists, and doesn't refute that it's absolutely correct.

It says that even consensus doesn't mean that economic/energy policy should change in the way environmentalists recommend, and I have always agreed with that.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so you don't believe in consensus.  Check.  Your article doesn't refuse that the consensus exists, and doesn't refute that it's absolutely correct.

It says that even consensus doesn't mean that economic/energy policy should change in the way environmentalists recommend, and I have always agreed with that.

It does say consensus doesn't exist.

It says he did not follow proper protocol.

It does refute.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

It says that even consensus doesn't mean that economic/energy policy should change in the way environmentalists recommend, and I have always agreed with that.

I.6% of 97% sure as hell isn't consensus.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

 

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

59 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

It does say consensus doesn't exist.

It says he did not follow proper protocol.

It does refute.

Fair enough - there was a page 2 that I missed.  If the author had asked anyone, there was an academic study of climate science papers to find out how many refuted human-caused global warming.  That's likely where it came from.

[drummindiver]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair enough - there was a page 2 that I missed.  If the author had asked anyone, there was an academic study of climate science papers to find out how many refuted human-caused global warming.  That's likely where it came from.

An academic study has protocols which are followed. This isn't one of those.

[Michael Hardner]

Agreed - it's a magazine article, and in that it's less rigorous.  It still doesn't make a good case against consensus, though.  And when you think of it, that makes sense.  Who would argue that a consensus of scientists should be ignored, which is not to say that their economic advice should be heeded.

[DogOnPorch]

It's cute that we Canadians think a few carbon credits and a carbon tax will turn-back that hands of time.

 

[drummindiver]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed - it's a magazine article, and in that it's less rigorous.  It still doesn't make a good case against consensus, though.  And when you think of it, that makes sense.  Who would argue that a consensus of scientists should be ignored, which is not to say that their economic advice should be heeded.

Again, there is no consensus.

Skeptical Science is a blog utilized to promote an agenda for personal gain.

That is unconscionable. Like All Gore owning carbon credits.

If there was a consensus..ie proper scientific protocols were used to show a certain set of data...we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Again, there is no consensus.

Skeptical Science is a blog utilized to promote an agenda for personal gain.

That is unconscionable. Like All Gore owning carbon credits.

If there was a consensus..ie proper scientific protocols were used to show a certain set of data...we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There is definitely a consensus that AGW is real.  Calling motives into question is something anybody can do.  "Scientists make money" therefore all science is bullshit.

If there is anything that would convince you that there's a consensus, state what that is.  Common sense doesn't cut it.

[drummindiver]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is definitely a consensus that AGW is real.  Calling motives into question is something anybody can do.  "Scientists make money" therefore all science is bullshit.

If there is anything that would convince you that there's a consensus, state what that is.  Common sense doesn't cut it.

I've showed you where the "consensus"came from.

Show me facts where this comes from....all relates to this bullshit paper.

People who don't read and research may have this consensus...those who follow facts don't. 

[drummindiver]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

If there is anything that would convince you that there's a consensus, state what that is.  Common sense doesn't cut it.

I stated 2 posts ago what would convince me.

[drummindiver]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is definitely a consensus that AGW is real.  Calling motives into question is something anybody can do.  "Scientists make money" therefore all science is bullshit.

Money isn't the only motive.

Unless you're AL Gore.

[Hudson Jones]

9 hours ago, drummindiver said:

"Explicit Endorsement by quantification".

Your argument doesn't stand as there are hard facts showing the number of storms that have happened and at what regularity/force. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

John Cook is the fella that coined the 97% agree phrase, and he is reliable as David Wolfe or Food Babe. There is no consensus unless you want to use his science the same as anti GMOers used Serallini's.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Holy crap. How far down the sewers will you people go? Just let it go already. "Your argument doesn't stand.." 

The article is by Alex Epstein who writes pro-fossil articles for the fossil industry in exchange for money. 

He wrote a funny book called, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels. Seriously. This guy is a full-time advocate for burning of oil, coal, and petroleum gas. He’s sponsored by the now-infamous petrochemical billionaires the Koch brothers.

He claims to be an energy policy expert, but his pedigree is that of an ideologue. After graduating in philosophy, he eventually founded his own Center for Industrial Progress, which provides a superficially appealing spin on the beliefs of the most regressive quarters of the energy industry.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Hudson Jones

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

The article is by Alex Epstein who writes pro-fossil articles for the fossil industry in exchange for money. 

But scientists are paid, you see, therefore you can't trust scientists.  Or anyone who is paid, I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

I stated 2 posts ago what would convince me.

I don't know why we would have that.  The Greenhouse effect is known and can be reproduced in a lab.  CO2 emissions are increasing in line with temperature.

Anyway, believe what you like.

[Hudson Jones]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But scientists are paid, you see, therefore you can't trust scientists.  Or anyone who is paid, I guess.

Scientists are not paid to give a specific conclusions. There is no solar panel industry, paying scientists to push solar companies. None that I know of anyway.

On the other hand, you have hacks like Alex Epstein, which drummerboy is quoting, who is a paid propagandist for the fossil fuel industry. 

The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels

Hah! Seriously!

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Hudson Jones

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

Scientists are not paid to give a specific conclusions.

In fact, if a scientist disproved AGW, fame, reputation and wealth would be his/hers.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

It's cute that we Canadians think a few carbon credits and a carbon tax will turn-back that hands of time.

 

 

Agreed...Canada already experienced an epic Kyoto Protocol FAIL after so much political posturing and value signaling.

The laws of thermodynamics and economics don't care about the feelings of climate change alarmists.

Texas, disaster or not, will keep refining oil....and bitumen from Canada....so cute !

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But scientists are paid, you see, therefore you can't trust scientists.  Or anyone who is paid, I guess.

What a non argument that I never said.

Regardless of who Alex Eastern writes for, the FACTS surrounding your so called 97% are bullshit.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

In fact, if a scientist disproved AGW, fame, reputation and wealth would be his/hers.

Same as if they proved it.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

Holy crap. How far down the sewers will you people go? Just let it go already. "Your argument doesn't stand.." 

The article is by Alex Epstein who writes pro-fossil articles for the fossil industry in exchange for money. 

He wrote a funny book called, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels. Seriously. This guy is a full-time advocate for burning of oil, coal, and petroleum gas. He’s sponsored by the now-infamous petrochemical billionaires the Koch brothers.

He claims to be an energy policy expert, but his pedigree is that of an ideologue. After graduating in philosophy, he eventually founded his own Center for Industrial Progress, which provides a superficially appealing spin on the beliefs of the most regressive quarters of the energy industry.

 

Anyways, please refute the evidence about John Cook'spaper. You see, no matter how much you hate something facts don't change.

Edited September 15, 2017 by drummindiver

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

Scientists are not paid to give a specific conclusions. There is no solar panel industry, paying scientists to push solar companies. None that I know of anyway.

On the other hand, you have hacks like Alex Epstein, which drummerboy is quoting, who is a paid propagandist for the fossil fuel industry. 

The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels

Hah! Seriously!

 

Also  @Michael Hardner 

Here is the actual paper. Please refute anything Epstein wrote.

Use my proper handle Hudson Jones.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

[taxme]

On 9/8/2017 at 2:06 PM, drummindiver said:

The good old hockey stick graft. Useful in any/all cc debates

117 hurricanes since 1850 but this one is our fault.

Ever heard of chemtrails or HAARP? Try checking it out on the internet and maybe you will learn a little more about why the weather is acting strange and not normal all over the earth. 

[drummindiver]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

Ever heard of chemtrails or HAARP? Try checking it out on the internet and maybe you will learn a little more about why the weather is acting strange and not normal all over the earth. 

Lol.

You are joking, right?

[taxme]

9 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Lol.

You are joking, right?

Never mind. Carry on as usual.