97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:37 pm

Believing AGW is a fact is one thing. Believing it to be a 97% scientific consensus is another.

It takes either a die hard want-to-believe-at-all-costs, or insanity to believe the "97% Scientist Consensus" figure from Cook et al is anything but garbage.

Link

I am disappointed – and so should you be –

  • that the paper had erroneously and gravely over-claimed 97.1% “scientific consensus;
  • that the authors had tried to conceal that they had had categorized only 64 abstracts out of 11,944 as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
  • that, even then, the authors had miscategorised 23 of the 64 abstracts as endorsing that “scientific consensus” when the 23 had not in fact endorsed it;
  • that the authors had failed to disclose that their effective sample size was not 11,944 nor even 4014 papers but just 119, rendering the entire exercise meaningless;
  • that, on the basis that one of the authors now says was intended, that author says they had meant 87% consensus (not 97%) among just 73 abstracts (not 4014);
  • that the true “scientific consensus”, after correcting an obvious error in the newly-asserted (and still strange) basis for calculation, would be 34% of just 119 abstracts;
  • that the authors had failed to admit that only 1% of the 4014 abstracts they marked as expressing an opinion had endorsed the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
  • that the authors had failed to disclose that only 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts had endorsed that “scientific consensus”;
  • that the authors had not adhered to a single definition of “scientific consensus”; and
  • that one of the authors, in a public scientific forum, continues in defiance of the truth to assert that 97.1% had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”, when very nearly all of the abstracts had neither stated nor implied any such thing.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21667
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:49 pm

Sandi wrote:Believing AGW is a fact is one thing.

So is that one thing something you now believe in?

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6666
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby pjbogart » Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:22 pm

I think you missed the point, Sandi. Popular Science canned their comment section in their scientific publication because too many non-scientists (which would include Sandi and pjbogart) were cluttering their articles with political nonsense.

Posting what you believe to be intelligent rebuttals of climate change does not make you a scientist.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:11 pm

Nice source:

Monckton's articles on global warming were once published in Nexus magazine, alongside articles featuring conspiracy theories about government UFOs and a 9/11 "terrorist plot."

According to a search of Google Scholar, Monckton has never published peer-reviewed research in any journal at any time.


Monckton "has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications.


http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

Vet your sources. Any quack can have an opinion on the interwebs. Linking to them doesn't help your argument.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:42 pm

pjbogart wrote:I think you missed the point, Sandi. Popular Science canned their comment section in their scientific publication because too many non-scientists (which would include Sandi and pjbogart) were cluttering their articles with political nonsense.

Posting what you believe to be intelligent rebuttals of climate change does not make you a scientist.


I didn't miss the polint at all. Please try to follow along.

It doesn't matter what Pop Science did with their comments, what matters is what was in John Cook's study.

Henry Vilas wrote:
Sandi wrote:Believing AGW is a fact is one thing.

So is that one thing something you now believe in?


I have never denied nor claimed AGW has a fact, though I have often said it is a strong possibilty, but to an unknown extent.

Stebben84 wrote:Vet your sources. Any quack can have an opinion on the interwebs. Linking to them doesn't help your argument.


Please try to use your head instead of emotion. What is in contention here is Cook's "97% consensus" study, not what Christopher Monckton said. There are plenty of other sources with the same message. That message is that Cook's study is bogus BS.

So instead of trying to change the subject to what the messenger said, try to focus on what Cook said.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7898
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:52 pm

Sandi wrote:Please try to use your head instead of emotion. What is in contention here is Cook's "97% consensus" study, not what Christopher Monckton said. There are plenty of other sources with the same message.

Actually no. There's Monckton quoting Legates, and Legates quoting Monckton. Everyone else is quoting one of them quoting each other.

There's nobody else. It's just Monckton and Legates.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:04 pm

Sandi wrote:So instead of trying to change the subject to what the messenger said


Your so hung up on this messenger bullshit. I'm not changing the subject, because that was the bulk of your post. I'm challenging the messenger because this was an opinion piece and his opinions are b.s. They have been proven to be b.s. time and time again. He does not have peer reviewed papers and doesn't believe in "consensus science" So I guess he believes in his own science. Do a search on him and find out how many times he has been proven wrong or misrepresented the facts.

A conservative scientist who doesn't believe global warming is man made has some credibility in my book. This quack does not.

I can go on the internet and find some freak show who supports pretty much any position out there and quote their writings, but I won't because, well, I'm not you.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12972
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby snoqueen » Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:10 pm

And when you quote from a link you provide, you should box the quote or at least place it within quotation marks.

Just because.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:24 pm

snoqueen wrote:And when you quote from a link you provide, you should box the quote or at least place it within quotation marks.

Just because.


No. Just because ordered lists will not work within quote tags.

For all you warmenists who just cannot get past what was said in so-and-so's link: Here is John Cook's original (pdf).

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby DCB » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:24 pm

Monckton wrote:
  • that the paper had erroneously and gravely over-claimed 97.1% “scientific consensus;
  • that the authors had tried to conceal that they had had categorized only 64 abstracts out of 11,944 as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;

Huh, I was able to get a list to appear in a quote.

The authors get from '11,944' to '64' by saying "these other ones don't really count". Cute.

His Lordship rejects the bulk of papers because they are only "implicit endorsement". So, if you write a paper looking at the influence of global warming on clouds, but don't say "this proves that global warming is going to destroy us", it doesn't really count. According to a non-scientist.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby DCB » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:26 pm


Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21667
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Sep 25, 2013 5:57 pm

Sandi wrote:No. Just because ordered lists will not work within quote tags.

Really? Don't you claim to run your own forum? I thought you were computer literate.

My bad.

Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Sandi » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:18 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Sandi wrote:No. Just because ordered lists will not work within quote tags.

Really? Don't you claim to run your own forum? I thought you were computer literate.

My bad.


Hmm ok it does work...
  • List 1
  • List 2
  • List 3


Without quotes...
  • List 1
  • List 2
  • List 3

Not bad for free software platform.
[/offtopic]


rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7898
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:57 am

Sandi wrote:Please try to use your head instead of emotion. What is in contention here is Cook's "97% consensus" study, not what Christopher Monckton said. There are plenty of other sources with the same message. That message is that Cook's study is bogus BS.

Monckton's rebuttal has been rebutted.

All these comparisons made by Monckton to lower the scientific consensus percentage are meaningless. You can’t compare papers that state no position on global warming with those that do. It’s nonsensical as the papers that don’t state a position often are researching an entirely different question/subject in climatology.

There's several more good quotes in that article but this one gets to the heart of it. It shows just how low the denierists have to stoop to get any mileage.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Huckleby, PaleoLiberal, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests