Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

No my cynical world is a real place. Your humans making a difference by caring is a worthless place. All the caring and changes we make in this country is going to change very little if any in the grand scheme of the planet.

 

THIS.

 

This on so many levels.

[HappyDays]

Here's that study author directly:

 

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

 

 

Consensus is not a scientific principle. The moment you say "consensus," you are discussing politics, not science.

 

THAT IS WHY YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF HAVING ANY DIALOG ABOUT THE SCIENCE.

Of course scientific consensus is important and it isn't political. Experts in an objective field coming to a consensus is the best proof we have of something being true.

 

This is the best reading I've found on the subject:

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/02/how-common-are-science-failures/

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/17/learning-to-love-scientific-consensus/

 

I'm not usually a link dump person but I can't compete with those articles. I highly recommend them.

Edited August 4, 2017 by HappyDays

[Deranged Rhino]

Of course scientific consensus is important and it isn't political. Experts in an objective field coming to a consensus is the best proof we have of something being true.

 

That's not how science works. By literal definition. Consensus is not proof and certainly not the best proof we have of something being true.

[Tiberius]

That's not how science works. By literal definition. Consensus is not proof and certainly not the best proof we have of something being true.

You don't have a clue how science works

[Magox]

Oh come on the Fabius Maximus BS? You really think I've never seen that before? Climate skeptics (read: scientifically illiterate people) pull from the same 5 or so sources every time.

 

Luckily the study's own author refutes the blog post's misinterpretation of the data:

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/

 

Please don't just say "oh Politifact is a liberal propaganda machine." Read the article. The blog post deliberately misinterprets the study.

 

So to back up your claim, you cited a Politifact article that didn't refute it with any substance other than conflating something that Santorum misstated, and they used just the opinions of other scientists who they knew would be part of the 97% to refute the findings of the survey??? That's your response??

 

Here is the actual Survey, how about using this thing we called critical thinking?

 

— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.

…

 

Read the Politifact article again. What is the basis of their dispute with this survey?

 

Lets go over it

 

What the survey (and others) actually say

The real finding of the survey actually backs the idea of scientific consensus on climate change, despite varying levels of confidence, said Verheggen.

"It is clear from our survey that a strong majority of scientists agree that greenhouse gases originating from human activity are the dominant cause of recent warming," he said.

That’s consistent with most of the literature on scientific opinion about climate change, experts agreed.

"You don't get anywhere near 57 percent when surveying the broad earth science community, and you get very close to full consensus when you ask the experts in climate science," said Peter Doran, a professor of earth science at Louisiana State University.

National Science Board member James Powell surveyed what’s actually published in scientific journals, finding that the consensus in the literature is about 99.9 percent. And multiple independent studies have "asked scientists directly" and found consensus levels of around 97 percent, said William Anderegg, who studies climate change at Princeton University.

"Those studies were rigorously peer-reviewed and thus should be considered more credible than a blog post that misreads an institute report," he said.

 

 

 

Now show me where they are substantively disputing the survey in the above section! Basically the argument boils down to this - "We are right, he is wrong"

 

The closest part to substantively disputing the survey comes below:

 

The figure likely comes from the blog Fabius Maximus (and repeated by the prominent climate change skeptic Joanne Nova), which re-analyzed the findings of a 2014 survey by the Dutch environmental research agency PBL.

According to Fabius Maximus editor Larry Kummer, the survey’s findings disprove the IPCC's confidence level finding. He walked us through how he got the 57 percent:

1. About 65.9 percent of scientists said they agreed that greenhouse gases were the main driver of climate change.

2. Of those scientists, 65.2 percent reported "virtually certain" or it was "extremely likely" that their estimate was correct (corresponding to a 95 percent or higher confidence level).

3. That means, according to Kummer, about 43 percent (65.2 percent of 65.9 percent) were extremely confident that greenhouse gases were the main driver of climate change. In other words, 57 percent weren’t 95 percent confident.

We ran Kummer’s analysis by a few experts, including the survey authors themselves, who said his interpretation is flat-out wrong.

The survey’s lead author, Bart Verheggen, told us that Kummer — and, by extension, Santorum — made a few mistakes.

First, 22 percent of climate scientists surveyed didn’t directly answer a question as to what extent greenhouse gases were causing climate change, says Verheggen. Verheggen said it would be more accurate to consider only those who answered the question. (He goes into more detail in a blog post.)

Second, Kummer only counts scientists who were 95 percent or more confident that greenhouse gases drive climate change, when the actual IPCC statement reports a 90 percent certainty, Verheggen pointed out.

"Basically, Santorum’s claim is not consistent with the results from our survey," Verheggen concluded.

 

 

So lets take a look at it:

 

(you see, this is what critical thinking looks like, you should try it)

 

The questions to the survey are at the top.

 

So the guy that Politifact cites to dispute the survey says that they shouldn't count the 22% who "don't answer the question". Actually, they did.

 

A) I don't know

B) Unknown

C) Other

 

They selected one of those options.

 

That right off the bat, starts off with 22% that are uncertain of the causes. They could be in agreement or they may not. That's what that means.

 

Or as the finders of the survey correctly put it

 

Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.

 

 

Well yeah. Duhhh

 

Secondly they go on to question basically their definition of "extremely likely" . From 95% to 90%. That is nothing more than gobbledygook. This says nothing.

 

The IPCC AR5 Statement:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

 

 

And then the third point is a non sequitur to this topic, because it has to do with a misstatement from Santorum, who didn't properly convey what the findings of the survey were.

 

So unless you can address with substance just the way I did refuting the BS findings from Politifact, don't bother responding.

 

 

Also

Did you open up any of the other links? Because if you had, you'd see that there are tons of peer reviewed articles that dispute the certainty that man is responsible for most of the increases. They aren't saying that man isn't, just that they don't know based of their studies. There in lies the difference.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

You don't have a clue how science works

 

I know enough to realize consensus isn't a scientific principle nor proof.

[Chef Jim]

 

THIS.

 

This on so many levels.

Ok I may need to rethink my position.

[DC Tom]

Here's that study author directly:

 

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/

 

 

Of course scientific consensus is important and it isn't political. Experts in an objective field coming to a consensus is the best proof we have of something being true.

 

This is the best reading I've found on the subject:

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/02/how-common-are-science-failures/

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/17/learning-to-love-scientific-consensus/

 

I'm not usually a link dump person but I can't compete with those articles. I highly recommend them.

 

That's not how science works, and those articles are bull ****.

 

You don't need to explain how it works to me, since I am a "scientist."

[Tiberius]

I know enough to realize consensus isn't a scientific principle nor proof.

Ok! Sounds good

[HappyDays]

 

So to back up your claim, you cited a Politifact article that didn't refute it with any substance other than conflating something that Santorum misstated, and they used just the opinions of other scientists who they knew would be part of the 97% to refute the findings of the survey??? That's your response??

 

Here is the actual Survey, how about using this thing we called critical thinking?

Summary for Policymakers of the IPCCs AR5 Working Group I.

 

 

 

 

 

Read the Politifact article again. What is the basis of their dispute with this survey?

 

Lets go over it

 

 

 

Now show me where they are substantively disputing the survey in the above section! Basically the argument boils down to this - "We are right, he is wrong"

 

The closest part to substantively disputing the survey comes below:

 

 

So lets take a look at it:

 

(you see, this is what critical thinking looks like, you should try it)

 

The questions to the survey are at the top.

 

So the guy that Politifact cites to dispute the survey says that they shouldn't count the 22% who "don't answer the question". Actually, they did.

 

A) I don't know

B) Unknown

C) Other

 

They selected one of those options.

 

That right off the bat, starts off with 22% that are uncertain of the causes. They could be in agreement or they may not. That's what that means.

 

Or as the finders of the survey correctly put it

 

Well yeah. Duhhh

 

Secondly they go on to question basically their definition of "extremely likely" . From 95% to 90%. That is nothing more than gobbledygook. This says nothing.

 

And then the third point is a non sequitur to this topic, because it has to do with a misstatement from Santorum, who didn't properly convey what the findings of the survey were.

 

So unless you can address with substance just the way I did refuting the BS findings from Politifact, don't bother responding.

 

 

Also

Did you open up any of the other links? Because if you had, you'd see that there are tons of peer reviewed articles that dispute the certainty that man is responsible for most of the increases. They aren't saying that man isn't, just that they don't know based of their studies. There in lies the difference.

Uhhhh what are you talking about? The study that you posted and quoted is the one I responded to - this one:

 

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

 

Except the blog post you found gravely misinterprets this study, and I posted another link to the study author refuting the misinterpretation.

 

But this is very common in climate change skeptic circles. It isn't enough to merely be wrong about man-made climate change, you must also convince yourselves that experts are equally divided. They aren't. The debate right now is over what percentage of global warming is because of human causes and how much we can do to prevent it. That same study found that the few skeptics they did survey had about half the professional experience as the pro-AGW side had.

 

EDIT: I am really not sure what those graphs you posted are supposed to mean as far as supporting your argument. The first graph is irrelevant to our discussion entirely, and the second graph shows that about 80% of the "over 50% caused by humans" is at least 90% certain of their judgment. Whereas on the "under 50% caused by humans" side only about 24% are at least 90% certain of their judgment.

 

Soooo what are you trying to prove? That there IS a consensus? Thanks!

 

That's not how science works, and those articles are bull ****.

 

You don't need to explain how it works to me, since I am a "scientist."

Nice response to those articles, I can tell you took the time to carefully read and think about them.

Edited August 4, 2017 by HappyDays

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Huh? Nothing wrong with telling you that someone not in the field of actual study of science, like a report for CNN, isn't delivering anything but conjecture that isn't necessarily accurate.

 

There's tons of areas of important experience that aren't done in a test tube.

 

You might fall in love someday, probably not if you act like that in real life.

 

You might want to read a poem, again probably not...

 

Sucks to be you...

What are you babbling about?

 

This is true.

 

Science does, however, progress at the boundaries where discrepancies abound, when the 3% look at those discrepancies from a new perspective from the 97% (examples: Michelson-Morley; Einstein; Feynman; Wegener; Lee, Yang, and Wu; Rubin; Hubble).

 

The biggest scientific failing of climatology right now is that it doesn't allow any such investigation "because there's consensus!"

The consensus argument is bunk.

 

We are clearly in a warming trend. But the earth is old and whether mankind is causing the warming, is unsettled. And if it is, what can we do? And if we can do something, can we afford it?

 

All tough questions.

[DC Tom]

Nice response to those articles, I can tell you took the time to carefully read and think about them.

I spent enough time to know they're facile, ignorant, and useless.

 

You will NEVER find anything in the history of scientific inquiry where "consensus" was part of the methodology. Ever.

[Deranged Rhino]

I spent enough time to know they're facile, ignorant, and useless.

 

You will NEVER find anything in the history of scientific inquiry where "consensus" was part of the methodology. Ever.

Whaaaaa? But "experts" in an objective field are the best proof we could possibly hope for.

[HappyDays]

I spent enough time to know they're facile, ignorant, and useless.

 

You will NEVER find anything in the history of scientific inquiry where "consensus" was part of the methodology. Ever.

Well you clearly haven't read the articles then. If you have, you'll have no problem pointing me to one example of ignorance in either of them, or each of them for that matter.

 

He isn't talking about consensus as methodology. Of course scientists themselves don't use consensus as their primary source - they have the evidence and data and expertise to process it all. As amateurs in climate science, consensus is all we have. It's what separates fact from uneducated gibberish. It is absolutely evidence that AGW is real, that experts have at least a 90% consensus opinion on AGW and that the more experienced experts fall more on the pro- side.

[Magox]

Uhhhh what are you talking about? The study that you posted and quoted is the one I responded to - this one:

 

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

 

Except the blog post you found gravely misinterprets this study, and I posted another link to the study author refuting the misinterpretation.

 

But this is very common in climate change skeptic circles. It isn't enough to merely be wrong about man-made climate change, you must also convince yourselves that experts are equally divided. They aren't. The debate right now is over what percentage of global warming is because of human causes and how much we can do to prevent it. That same study found that the few skeptics they did survey had about half the professional experience as the pro-AGW side had.

 

EDIT: I am really not sure what those graphs you posted are supposed to mean as far as supporting your argument. The first graph is irrelevant to our discussion entirely, and the second graph shows that about 80% of the "over 50% caused by humans" is at least 90% certain of their judgment. Whereas on the "under 50% caused by humans" side only about 24% are at least 90% certain of their judgment.

 

Soooo what are you trying to prove? That there IS a consensus? Thanks!

 

Nice response to those articles, I can tell you took the time to carefully read and think about them.

 

In other words, you aren't able to critically think for yourself.

 

Got it

[B-Man]

Whaaaaa? But "experts" in an objective field are the best proof we could possibly hope for.

 

 

But...........But................what am I going to do with all these "97% Believe Hats" ??

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

Well you clearly haven't read the articles then. If you have, you'll have no problem pointing me to one example of ignorance in either of them, or each of them for that matter.

 

He isn't talking about consensus as methodology. Of course scientists themselves don't use consensus as their primary source - they have the evidence and data and expertise to process it all. As amateurs in climate science, consensus is all we have. It's what separates fact from uneducated gibberish. It is absolutely evidence that AGW is real, that experts have at least a 90% consensus opinion on AGW and that the more experienced experts fall more on the pro- side.

 

Or I just wouldn't waste my time explaining it to you, since you're ignorant.

[HappyDays]

It's my own fault, trying to engage with people that lack basic critical thinking skills. I think I'll leave this board alone and let it get back to the echo chamber it was before. Don't slap each other on the back so hard you leave a mark. Good lord.

 

In other words, you aren't able to critically think for yourself.

 

Got it

Is that what you call questioning expert opinion without understanding it? Critical thinking? Interesting.

[DC Tom]

It's my own fault, trying to engage with people that lack basic critical thinking skills. I think I'll leave this board alone and let it get back to the echo chamber it was before. Don't slap each other on the back so hard you leave a mark. Good lord.

 

The simple fact that you linked to an article as authoritative that describes science as "right" or "wrong" demonstrates how ignorant you truly are.

[Magox]

It's my own fault, trying to engage with people that lack basic critical thinking skills. I think I'll leave this board alone and let it get back to the echo chamber it was before. Don't slap each other on the back so hard you leave a mark. Good lord.

 

Is that what you call questioning expert opinion without understanding it? Critical thinking? Interesting.

 

You don't know what that word means, do you?