The debate is over... 7% agree!

Originally posted by uzless
Global warming is due to a decline in the Pirate population. Here's proof!


http://doggrinnit.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/17/776pxpchart.jpg

I'm waiting for more accurate census figures for pirate populations throughout the ages before making up my mind on that one. Do software pirates count? That could be a bit of a hockey stick in itself!

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words they might have been papers about some totally unrelated topic thrown in to help make the stats look better.
Essentially it breaks down to
48% think global warming is factual
6% think it isn't
the rest have nothing to do with it.
And you summarize that with "7% agree"

There are:
Lies,
Damn lies,
Statistics,
people who lie with statistics,
and then you. (Someone who lies about the statistics).

Perhaps you should read it again:

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7% ) gave an EXPLICIT endorsement of the consensus."

The rest are papers whose authors tread carefully - not supporting it but not rejecting it either - because they are sitting on the fence. It's a political expedient.

A "consensus" on any issue usually means some kind of explicit support, which is clearly lacking in this case.

Yes indeed, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics" which should be applied to Naomi Oreskes' dubious study on the so-called "consensus".

Originally posted by wittywonka
Yes, you're right, Spastic. You always were, you always will be.

I'm just a left-winged hippy-ninny who enjoys jumping on a completely outrageous fashionable trend because the big, scary left-winged media told me to.

Global warming is a myth, derived from other hippy-ninny scientists who only constitute a minority in the scientific community, and w ...[text shortened]... ys right, Spastic. I'm a left-winged coward, trembling in my pants for an imagined future.

You took the words out of my mouth wonky!

All except the bit about researching alternative energy, which actually I'm all in favour of! But not because of the AGW myth. It just makes sense to.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
You took the words out of my mouth wonky!.

So maybe now you won't regurgitate them again.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Yes indeed, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics" which should be applied to Naomi Oreskes' dubious study on the so-called "consensus".

What was the difference between Oreskses' and Schulte's study that would make you come up with such a claim? Yet again I find myself asking you - do you know what the hell you're talking about?

Here's Oreskses' response to Schulte's paper, and a few things to bear in mind in this debate.
1) The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal. It was posted on the minority blog of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, whose leader thinks that global warming is a "hoax." It was circulated on the internet by Marc Morano, a long-standing contrarian and former reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show, and who was involved in the "swift boat" campaign against John Kerry.

2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.

3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position. This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted.. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant. We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion).

4) The Schulte piece misrepresents my own interpretation of the severity climate question, as well as that of the scientific societies whose positions we compiled. This is a typical contrarian tactic - to exaggerate or misrepresent the scientific claim and then "refute" it. My analysis was a summary of the position of scientific experts. I never said, nor have any of the major scientific societies said, that the scientific literature warns of an imminent "catastrophe." An analysis of how severe scientists think warming is or will be would have been a different paper. So you cannot "refute" my analysis by pointing out that the word "catastrophe" doesn't appear. I never said that it did. Nor would I expect it to. Scientists don't generally use that kind of language, although contrarians do.

5) The EPW press release accuses my paper of being "outdated." It is in fact a crucial element of the paper that the study that it goes back to 1993. We wanted to see how the arguments had developed over time, and to test, if we could, when the consensus position emerged. A crucial result for me was the realization that the basic consensus had already been established in the early 1990s. However, in hindsight this should actually have been obvious: it's why President George H.W. Bush signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The basic scientific insight was already in place.

6) The author is a medical researcher. As a historian of science I am trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and my specific expertise is in the history of earth science. This past summer I was invited to teach a graduate intensive course at Vienna International Summer University, Vienna Circle Institute, on Consensus in Science. I do not know why a medical researcher would feel qualified to undertake an analysis of consensus in the earth scientific literature.

7) Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again.

http://rightontheright.com/node/2413

What's your response to Oreskes' counter-argument, or are you going to run away the second a debate gets too technical for your ickle brain?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
A "consensus" on any issue usually means some kind of explicit support, which is clearly lacking in this case.

It means explicit support by the people in question when asked. It does not mean that every paper they publish must reiterate that support. The 38% listed as implicit support obviously do support it whether or not they explicitly say so (otherwise the implicit support bit is meaningless). We do not know whether the 48% of neutral papers support it, but only 6% explicitly reject the idea.

I am sure that less than 7% of the papers explicitly say that the world is a sphere. Can we also claim that there is no consensus (in the scientific community) that the world is a sphere?

Originally posted by mrstabby
What was the difference between Oreskses' and Schulte's study that would make you come up with such a claim? Yet again I find myself asking you - do you know what the hell you're talking about?

Here's Oreskses' response to Schulte's paper, and a few things to bear in mind in this debate.
1) The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environme ...[text shortened]... way the second a debate gets too technical for your ickle brain?

That's a very detailed analysis. Given that Spasti has never responded to my detailed analyses, and also incidentally completely ignored the last post on the first page of this thread which quite explicitly sought a response from him, I think you'll find that he'll just ignore what his limited argumentative abilities can't handle.

Go on Spasti, I dare you to prove me wrong, you've still given no argument that takes into account any of the things int he link I posted. I did it for your link... so go on,indulge me with your supposed clarity of vision in such matters. Alternatively, go read the link. Near four months now and you still haven't said anything about it. (and you know that I have posted it at least once a week or thereabouts, if not more, and I'm still waiting...)

Originally posted by mrstabby
[b]Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again.
/b]

I just re-read this sentence and saw its relevance to Spasti...
I know how it feels...

Originally posted by agryson
[b] two seperate occasions I went into great detail while studying the evidence provided by yourself on the first occasion, and mcswain on the second occasion. My analysis not being questioned by either of you.

I wish to point out I made two posts of factual information. After the first your response was to question 1percent and if it should not have been 2percent and left the rest unchallenged except putting it to rest with the challenge to post a “peer reviewed” paper from scientific journal. When I posted such an item, you wrote your “rebuttal”, dismissing the paper because the model used differed from your paradigm. Shortly after, you asked me to respond. I chose not - because it is useless with you. The reason I write now is, you named me in this post AND the fact that you are (as usual) “blowing off” Spasti’s info which dispels the “consensus” lie.

When material is offered to support non-anthropogenic warming, the attack in response is always the same: “that is not a respected source” “they have used the wrong type data” “the information is not printed in ‘acceptable’ journals” “those are the wrong scientists” “those scientists have ulterior motives” "those scientists are from the wrong country", etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc..

Although not bothering to post, I do continue to read the forum threads. I have seen numerous times you refer to your “analysis” of Global Warming papers you have posted here. You have stated you work as a bubble physicist. I have checked for any papers you may have published associated with global warming and have found none.

I have found a couple of fields you may be involved in, both interesting, but hardly building blocks for climate expertise.

“Morning Edition, March 3, · Chemists discover that tiny air bubbles in a flask of strong acid can get hotter than the surface of the sun. This finding is the latest development in a controversial pursuit to generate nuclear energy in a tabletop device.”

“anti-bubbles could have practical uses, such as speeding up chemical reactions or forming a new kind of foam that might be useful as a lubricant or filtration material. The article informs that bubble tea, named for the tapioca pearls placed in the bottom of a cup before an iced tea with milk or fruit smoothie is poured on it, is starting to draw interest.”

Since you have stated your field of study is bubble physics, I attach no more weight to your “analysis” than I do any other posters’. I will continue to hold “analysis” made by published climate scientists as the trump card, no matter what you may question about their methods or about them personally.

1edit-typo

Originally posted by SpastiGov
By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Also, I noticed this bit and have been trying to find where they could possibly be sourcing this from... it's not sourced in the article you gave, which of course is the mark of excellent journalism wouldn't you agree.
If you could help me out, that'd be great. The summary written before the content... that's quite an accusation not to back up don't you think?

Originally posted by MacSwain
I wish to point out I made two posts of factual information. After the first your response was to question 1percent and if it should not have been 2percent and left the rest unchallenged except putting it to rest with the challenge to post a “peer reviewed” paper from scientific journal. When I posted such an item, you wrote your “rebuttal”, dismissing th ...[text shortened]... d, no matter what you may question about their methods or about them personally.

1edit-typo

First off, I have stated often that I am not offering my rebuttal as a climate physicist and that I have never claimed to be an expert on climate science. I know that I am not an expert in that particular field, but I know about scientific method and thus can offer my views on the scientific content. If a climate scientist were to challenge me on my interpretation of their method, and provide scientific reasoning as to why I am wrong, I too would cede in their favour.
I've said many times that I don't care who funds the research, who does the research or what journal it's printed in (provided it goes through a process of peer review, which is necessary in ANY scientific field). All I care about is whether the science holds up, and if my interpretation is wrong, I beg of you to show me how. That's all I want. Show me, logically, how I am wrong. That's what's missing, the logical explanation which undermines the current interpretation of the evidence. There is an important distinction there, I don't care about stuff that contradicts AGW unless it can also be demonstrated to effectively undermine it too. Otherwise it's just hot air.

I was referring to you and spastigov not rebutting my analyisis, I didn't say that you haven't provided us with anything, what I said was that you didn't return the favour, by working through my analysis as I did yours. You said it yourself.

"you asked me to respond. I chose not - because it is useless with you."

Don't try to convince me then, simply challenge my arguments, and whosever arguments stand at the end of it are what we work with.

I know perfectly well that you posted factual information and said as much. Also, I did not dismiss the model provided, I simply quoted the author himself who said that it needed much more work and I said that until that work is performed, by the authors own words, it cannot offer a strong case against the anthropogenic theory.

As for...
"attack in response is always the same: “that is not a respected source” “they have used the wrong type data” “the information is not printed in ‘acceptable’ journals” “those are the wrong scientists” “those scientists have ulterior motives” "those scientists are from the wrong country","

The only one of those that I've used is the "they've used the wrong type data" one, which I think you'll agree is an important point when it comes to data analysis.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Since you have stated your field of study is bubble physics, I attach no more weight to your “analysis” than I do any other posters’. I will continue to hold “analysis” made by published climate scientists as the trump card, no matter what you may question about their methods or about them personally.

Incidentally on this final point of yours, I don't ask you to attach more weight to what I say compared to any other poster. But if what I say doesn't make sense, say why. If I question the methods used, and there's no good answers to those questions, then it is the argument that holds weight, not the poster.
Also, I have never based my argument on the personal quality of the source. The crux of my arguments always rest on the content.

Originally posted by agryson
Incidentally on this final point of yours, I don't ask you to attach more weight to what I say compared to any other poster. But if what I say doesn't make sense, say why. If I question the methods used, and there's no good answers to those questions, then [b]it is the argument that holds weight, not the poster.
Also, I have never based my argument on the personal quality of the source. The crux of my arguments always rest on the content.[/b]

Obviously I need to make it clearer for you.

I posted a peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist. I do not recognize your self described "analysis" as a QUALIFIED refutation. You are not a climate scientist, therefore un-qualified.

Please post a peer reveiwed rebuttal, from either a climate scientist or recognized climate study group, directed at the assertions made in the peer reviewed article I posted.

Surely, if the paper was as groundless as you believe, a counter should be coming "post haste" from the 🙂consensus 7 percenters🙂 scientists and be available in an issue of new scientist shortly. I shall be waiting with bated breath.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Obviously I need to make it clearer for you.

I posted a peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist. I do not recognize your self described "analysis" as a QUALIFIED refutation. You are not a climate scientist, therefore un-qualified.

Please post a peer reveiwed rebuttal, from either a climate scientist or recognized climate study group, directed ...[text shortened]... nd be available in an issue of new scientist shortly. I shall be waiting with bated breath.

Wait a minute, you were the one that said that the paper's finding were more significant than they are - that is a distortion of what the paper was saying.
You're the one that has to find an article written by a scientist as to why the findings are more significant than are outlined in the paper.

Originally posted by agryson
Because single events are simply weather. Stroms of the century have always occurred, no one denies that. What Global warming theory says (which is a theory accepted even by the skeptics) is that "weather" sucha s that will get more frequent with increasing global average temperature. The only point of contention is whther man is the cause or not.
Now, I'v ...[text shortened]... alt with in this link...


http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

You're giving these botherers too much credit. They don't care about science or information. That's why they peddle this junk in the first place.