Disaster in Texas

[drummindiver]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

Never mind. Carry on as usual. 

 Oh my.

You weren't joking. 

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

 Oh my.

You weren't joking. 

Well, like I said, it is on the internet for you to view. You don't have to believe it if you do not want too. If you refuse to well that is your problem. I question everything that the mainstream media has to say or push on global warming. They are there to feed the sheeple nothing but bull, and most sheeple enjoy lapping it all up. Oh my. No joke. 

[Hudson Jones]

On 9/15/2017 at 4:05 PM, drummindiver said:

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

Here is the conclusion of the paper:

5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

[drummindiver]

10 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

Here is the conclusion of the paper:

5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Your citing his conclusion based on faulty procedures.

 

[Michael Hardner]

The response to the study is here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

Mostly they had problems with the methodology.  This is interesting stuff.   

[bush_cheney2004]

Scientists do not determine economic and political choices.

So there is "global warming"....big deal.

Not a specific Texas disaster issue.

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Your citing his conclusion based on faulty procedures.

 

You're going to inform us as to the proper way to provide sources? That's a real hoot coming from such a recent convert to the importance of providing them. Didn't take you long to become an expert did it? 

Edited September 18, 2017 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So there is "global warming".

I agree with your conclusion.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You're going to inform us as to the proper way to provide sources? That's a real hoot coming from such a recent convert to the importance of providing them. Didn't take you long to become an expert did it? 

You don't even know own what you're talking about...as usual. 

BTW, I always provide cites. 

 

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The response to the study is here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

Mostly they had problems with the methodology.  This is interesting stuff.   

Methodology is pretty important stuff.

Especially when you're looking at trillions of dollars.

Cooks paper should be retracted as Serallini's was.

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree with your conclusion.

Of course. And cooling.

But not AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Methodology is pretty important stuff.

I think the assertion that there is 97% approval in the papers has indeed been called into question.  But AGW still remains largely unchallenged in the literature so we can still say that there is consensus.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Of course. And cooling.

But not AGW.

You missed the fact that Cook's numbers only show 0.7% rejecting AGW.  And that's counting papers from 1991.  Again, we're talking about an effect that is reproducible in the lab so we're very much in a consensus position.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You missed the fact that Cook's numbers only show 0.7% rejecting AGW.  And that's counting papers from 1991.  Again, we're talking about an effect that is reproducible in the lab so we're very much in a consensus position.

Michael, his methodology is wrong. The numbers aren't correct.

And if you've been involved in science you know replicating in the lab doesn't equate to replicating in the real world. 

https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=820

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Michael, his methodology is wrong. The numbers aren't correct.

And if you've been involved in science you know replicating in the lab doesn't equate to replicating in the real world. 

We have multiple studies that show consensus and there are problems with the methodology with Cook's but trying to turn that around to saying no consensus is just pedantic.  The world is moving on and has accepted that consensus exists by a reasonable measure.  If you applied the same pedanticism to the cooling theory there would be less support.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

We have multiple studies that show consensus and there are problems with the methodology with Cook's but trying to turn that around to saying no consensus is just pedantic.  The world is moving on and has accepted that consensus exists by a reasonable measure.  If you applied the same pedanticism to the cooling theory there would be less support.

We have multiple studies showing nothing of the sort. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

We have multiple studies showing nothing of the sort. 

from your source

Quote

Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. 

 

[drummindiver]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

from your source

 

Yes, "given the politics". 

Every study showing 97% refuted.

If he were alive, you could ask Dr Bill Gray what happens  when you don't play the politics of consensus.

BTW, the statement you quoted was anecdotal, while every other point was statistical. 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

Yes, "given the politics". 

That's anecdotal.  Well, congratulations.  You have found a way to live in your own world of facts.  I'm watching the news as another hurricane hits.

[drummindiver]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's anecdotal.  Well, congratulations.  You have found a way to live in your own world of facts.  I'm watching the news as another hurricane hits.

"Most scientists believe" is certainly not statistical. Especially when the stats he had just given proved otherwise.

 Too bad you didn't have your TV back in 1933 to watch all those AGW hurricanes hit.

Edited September 19, 2017 by drummindiver

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Yes, "given the politics". 

Every study showing 97% refuted.

 

Agreed...the 97% claim cannot stand up to even rudimentary analysis.

Such AGW propaganda was adopted as an attempt to silence and squash any competing or contrary views, but actually had the opposite effect.

 

[Cum Laude]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:26 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...the 97% claim cannot stand up to even rudimentary analysis.

Such AGW propaganda was adopted as an attempt to silence and squash any competing or contrary views, but actually had the opposite effect.

 

Interesting, BC. We have a phrase in our local government that I am pretty sure is used often throughout the nation – NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard. It takes effect when someone decides to build something not so good near a neighborhood. The neighborhood comes out in force (for a short time) and there is a great gnashing of teeth while everyone else in the town could care less and remains asleep. Nobody notices, nobody cares, as Carlin often said. This principle is the basis for modern America when something horrible happens to somebody else, someplace else. The sellout media shows up beforehand with its logos and catchphrases, jumps all over the decimation, then goes away, off to the next event. People send in their $20 to the Clinton Foundation and then go back to sleep.

It may not be the start of the Long Emergency for most of us yet, but it is for the Caribbean, especially PR. Any of us that used to frequent those islands can tell you that the destruction and desolation lingers for decades. This chain of events is not only real expensive, but it is going to take a damned long time to overcome if it in fact ever is. How does it all get paid, for, why all we need is a little bit of Too Much Magic, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

8 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

....It may not be the start of the Long Emergency for most of us yet, but it is for the Caribbean, especially PR.

 

PR experienced its first major hurricane in almost 80 years....not a warning from God or climate change alarmists.

Hurricanes / typhoons are natural events, not political opportunities.

[Cum Laude]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

PR experienced its first major hurricane in almost 80 years....not a warning from God or climate change alarmists.

Hurricanes / typhoons are natural events, not political opportunities.

The likelihood is that the island will simply de-populate, putting a cap on the trend that has been underway now for many years. Where will they go? probably New York and Florida. With the island depopulated, the destroyed infrastructure will simply be abandoned, and the population that remains will once again revert to pre-industrial levels.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Cum Laude
spelling error

[DogOnPorch]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

PR experienced its first major hurricane in almost 80 years....not a warning from God or climate change alarmists.

Hurricanes / typhoons are natural events, not political opportunities.

 

They also look pretty cool stacked-up across the Atlantic like spinning pie plates in the satellite photos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwfCbsMmojc