Page 62 of 70 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 694

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #611
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,045
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,797
    Rep Power
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

    I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.
    Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...us-ian-tuttle/
    Crap.

    The number of papers that have no bearing on global warming is irrelevant.

    Using their logic there's no way His Flatulence should be President since less than 1% of people voted for him.

  2. Top | #612
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,902
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,115
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you posted points out 97% of the climate science establishment.

    I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.
    Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...us-ian-tuttle/
    Not my 97%. Its a video you posted. Now you are blaming others for your propaganda using more of your propaganda.

    Not an actual fact in anything you post. Just smearing others and shoveling garbage.

  3. Top | #613
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...us-ian-tuttle/
    This is what the blog has to say about the 97% consensus:

    Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
    0.3% is quite a bit different than 97.1 percent, so how did Legates get such a different number when he "recreated" the study?

    It turns out that Legates et al didn't recreate the study at all. They simply decided that Cook's rubric was wrong, and picked a different set of papers from Cook's dataset.

    Cook et al 2013 divided abstracts into seven types of endorsement:

    (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
    (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
    (3) Implicit endorsement
    (4a) No position
    (4b) Uncertain
    (5) Implicit rejection
    (6) Explicit rejection without quantification
    (7) Explicit rejection with quantification

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024

    These are the results:

    Rated by volunteers Self-rated by authors
    Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%)
    Endorse AGW (1, 2, 3) 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4
    No AGW position (4a) 66.4% (7930) 64.6% (18 930)
    Reject AGW (5, 6, 7) 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
    Uncertain on AGW (4b) 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4

    Legates et al criticism is threefold:

    1. Abstracts with no position should be treated as if they are undecided on AGW or disagree with AGW. ("It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 % endorsed ‘consensus’.") This reduces the percentage from 97.2% to 32.6%.
    2. Explicit endorsements of AGW without quantification, and implicit endorsements of AGW, don't count as endorsements of AGW. ("...consensus hypotheses must be expressed quantitatively.") This reduces the percentage from 32.6% to 0.5%.
    3. Of 64 abstracts marked as an "explicit endorsement with quantification", they say that only 41 actually qualify. ("However, the authors’ data file shows that they had marked only 64
    abstracts (0.5 % of the entire sample) as endorsing the standard definition of consensus. Inspection shows that 23 of these 64 do not, in fact, endorse that definition. Only 41 papers
    (0.3 % of the sample) do so.") This reduces the percentage from 0.5% to 0.3%.

    Basically, Legates et al are just relying on a ridiculous interpretation of Cook's analysis in order to disregard the overwhelming majority of abstracts that endorse AGW.

    @angelo, do you agree with Legates that Cook should have reported 0.3% instead of 97.2%?
    Last edited by bigfield; 01-17-2020 at 01:05 PM. Reason: why the fuck do I bother?

  4. Top | #614
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,809
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,515
    Rep Power
    59
    However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS. as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!

  5. Top | #615
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS.
    "I believe, no matter what the facts are."

    You're the cultist, @angelo.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!
    Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.

  6. Top | #616
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,498
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,998
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.
    Oh! Oh! One has glasses!
    The other is taller!

  7. Top | #617
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,809
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,515
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS.
    "I believe, no matter what the facts are."

    You're the cultist, @angelo.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!
    Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.
    Of course, Professor bigfield is the standard bearer of scientific knowledge on this forum. What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!

  8. Top | #618
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!
    We can rule a couple of things out:
    - science
    - irony

  9. Top | #619
    Elder Contributor angelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,809
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,515
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!
    We can rule a couple of things out:
    - science
    - irony
    Both of which you're the expert of course. Especially climate science. A Martin Reese or a Prof Freeman would have nothing on your expert knowledge.

  10. Top | #620
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,839
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,589
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!
    We can rule a couple of things out:
    - science
    - irony
    Both of which you're the expert of course. Especially climate science. A Martin Reese or a Prof Freeman would have nothing on your expert knowledge.
    Martin Rees? Freeman Dyson? If you're going to name-drop, at least get the names correct.

    Fucked if I know why you name-dropped Martin Rees.

    As for Freeman Dyson: Dyson says that "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated."

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/...lobal-warmimg/

    He also goes on to say:

    I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
    Dyson goes on to explain what he means by "what is really happening": he believes climate scientists have not accounted for land use change, and he believes that human land use can absorb all of the carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. However he adds the caveat that we need to invent new land use techniques that will increase our ability to capture carbon.

    Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.
    Basically, Dyson's view is "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated" because we'll invent our way out of the problem, with land use change and genetic engineering.

    Last I checked, Dyson was a professor of physics, not an expert in land use or genetic engineering. So why the fuck should I care what he thinks?

    Climate science is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Land use is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Genetic engineering is not
    Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.

    Just because someone is a expert in one thing doesn't make them an expert in everything else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •