97% Consensus BS

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

Studies to date:

Oreskes 2004 - 928 PR papers on climate change. 75% explicitly endorsed the consensus position, evaluated impacts of warming, or proposed mitigation strategies for warming. 25% did not state a position. Zero papers explicitly disagreed with the consensus.

Doran 2009 - survey of 3146 earth scientists. Of the scientists who list climate in their specialty, and have published papers on the topic, 96.2% answered yes to this: "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" 97.4 answered yes to this: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Cook 2013 - 14,000 PR papers on climate change from ISI science web. 4000 expressed an opinion on climate change. Of those, 97.1% accepted the consensus view.

Cook 2013 follow-up - directly contacted 8500 authors of the above papers; 1200 responded. 97.2% of them accepted the consensus view

Thus it's been validated four times over more than ten years.

Perhaps you could just pass a law against agreeing with the consensus, and fire scientists who agree? That way you could get those numbers down a bit. Seems to be working in Florida.

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/

ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate.

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/

ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate.

I prefer to look within the papers. Sometime people will hopefully value the message more than the messenger.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

******

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/

ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate.

I prefer to look within the papers. Sometime people will hopefully value the message more than the messenger.

I like to know who is paying for the message and also paying the messengers.

What do you think the recent history of this country would be had people looked at the "papers" put out by the Project for a New American Century in the mid 1990's and looked at WHO was paying for that message???

They were quite prophetic for those of us who HAD read them

[turtlespeed 212]

Amazon

*********

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/

ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate.

I prefer to look within the papers. Sometime people will hopefully value the message more than the messenger.

I like to know who is paying for the message and also paying the messengers.

What do you think the recent history of this country would be had people looked at the "papers" put out by the Project for a New American Century in the mid 1990's and looked at WHO was paying for that message???

They were quite prophetic for those of us who HAD read them

You aren't insinuating that actions like what Lois Lerner would be similarly influenced are you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

I would say I support ANY efforts by the IRS to bust ANY group for fraudulently claiming a deduction when they try to use the tax code fraudulently.

I said ANY... I mean ANY... it has been proven again and again that they have gone after a WIDE spectrum of tax evaders.. on all sides of the political spectrum.

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

I would say I support ANY efforts by the IRS to bust ANY group for fraudulently claiming a deduction when they try to use the tax code fraudulently.

I said ANY... I mean ANY... it has been proven again and again that they have gone after a WIDE spectrum of tax evaders.. on all sides of the political spectrum.

Just like a wide variety of races are represented in the prison population.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,625]

Meanwhile, back in the world of reality:

www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctica-s-ice-shelves-thin-threaten-significant-sea-level-rise/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Among the many points that Tol makes are that “the sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,625]

rushmc

Quote

Among the many points that Tol makes are that “the sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.”

Yep, a blogger quoted on a denier web site surely has the imprimatur of valid, impartial research.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>“the sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage
>on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about
>three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say
>about the subject matter.”

OK. Let's see his list of papers that were irrelevant.

[rushmc 18]

A start
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

I believe that there are two similar things going on. Climate change is natural, and global warming is man made. Climate change is the bigger one affecting the environment, and global warming has added things, but is not causing some mass chaos out of control event. Natural climate change is doing majority of the change, Global warming is getting the credit for the change and is an excuse for people to write expensive legislation that will benefit some ones private company, and have no effect.

If people honestly believe Bush went to war with false intel so Cheney and the republicans could make money off oil and war contracts, I can claim the Global warmers are making a big deal out of this more than it is for research grants, expensive earth saving technologies that dont do shit, and out of control EPA regulations that require plants to buy specific control equipment from specialized companies.


Have you seen a political and scientific consensus(with facts) on this matter? Have any of them came out and even recognized(as a whole) if Climate change <>=~ Global warming, or even related.

Im talking a unified ok the earth is finally NOT FLAT type of consensus everyone understands now.

They cant even show who the real enemy is, and how it works. Why the fuck you gonna start an expensive war on the earth when you dont even understand.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Im talking a unified ok the earth is finally NOT FLAT type of consensus everyone understands now.

You were saying:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[billvon 2,400]

>You were saying:
>http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, they're not saying the Earth is flat. They are just saying that the science isn't settled! There's no consensus. In a recent poll, 7% of Mississippi schoolteachers weren't sure if the Earth was round. We should be teaching both viewpoints, so that kids can make up their own minds.

[rushmc 18]

from the link above

Quote

To check that claim, look at Cook et. al. 2013. Table 2 shows three categories of endorsement of global warming reflected in the abstracts of articles. Category 1, explicit endorsement with quantification, is described as "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming." Category 2 is explicit endorsement without quantification. The description, "Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact" is ambiguous, since neither "causing" nor "anthropogenic global warming" specifies how large a part of warming humans are responsible for. But the example for the category is clearer: 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change.' If human action produces ten percent of warming, it contributes to it, hence category 2, as implied by its label, does not specify how large a fraction of the warming humans are responsible for. Category 3, implicit endorsement, again uses the ambiguous "are causing," but the example is '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change,' which again would be consistent with holding that CO2 was responsible for some but less than half of the warming. It follows that only papers in category 1 imply that "human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." Authors of papers in categories 2 and 3 might believe that, they might believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases were one cause among several.

Reading down in Cook et. al., we find "To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2)." It is that combined group, ("endorse AGW" on Table 4) that the 97.1% figure refers to. Hence that is the number of papers that, according to Cook et. al., implied that humans at least contribute to global warming. The number that imply that humans are the primary cause (category 1) is some smaller percentage which Cook et. al. do not report.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Driver1 0]

billvon

>You were saying:
>http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, they're not saying the Earth is flat. They are just saying that the science isn't settled! There's no consensus. In a recent poll, 7% of Mississippi schoolteachers weren't sure if the Earth was round. We should be teaching both viewpoints, so that kids can make up their own minds.

In all actuality, the earth isn't round. It's oval, even if slightly.

I might not have the right term for a 3D object though... maybe ovoid?

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[billvon 2,400]

>In all actuality, the earth isn't round. It's oval, even if slightly.

Exactly. It could be round, it could be oval, it could be flat - WE DON'T KNOW! We should teach all possibilities, so that kids have the freedom to make their own decisions.

Remember - there are no wrong answers.

[kallend 1,625]

Driver1

***>You were saying:
>http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, they're not saying the Earth is flat. They are just saying that the science isn't settled! There's no consensus. In a recent poll, 7% of Mississippi schoolteachers weren't sure if the Earth was round. We should be teaching both viewpoints, so that kids can make up their own minds.

In all actuality, the earth isn't round. It's oval, even if slightly.

I might not have the right term for a 3D object though... maybe ovoid?

Oblate spheroid.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

billvon

>You were saying:
>http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, they're not saying the Earth is flat. They are just saying that the science isn't settled! There's no consensus. In a recent poll, 7% of Mississippi schoolteachers weren't sure if the Earth was round. We should be teaching both viewpoints, so that kids can make up their own minds.

Also, Bill, don't forget that the entire concept of the Earth being round is a lie to begin with propagated by extremists and financed by "big sphere." The TRUTH is the Earth isn't perfectly round so that whole model needs to be thrown out until a perfect model can be made that predicts not just how misshapen the Earth is today, but also predicts the all the, volcanos, mountains and valleys which will be created for at least the next hundred years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,123]

quade

***>You were saying:
>http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, they're not saying the Earth is flat. They are just saying that the science isn't settled! There's no consensus. In a recent poll, 7% of Mississippi schoolteachers weren't sure if the Earth was round. We should be teaching both viewpoints, so that kids can make up their own minds.

Also, Bill, don't forget that the entire concept of the Earth being round is a lie to begin with propagated by extremists. The TRUTH is the Earth isn't perfectly round so that whole model needs to be thrown out until a perfect model can be made that predicts not just how mis-shapen the Earth is today, but also predicts the all the, volcanos, mountains and valleys which will be created for at least the next hundred years.

Volcanos are one big lie anyways, just a scare tactic to keep the population under control and make money.

Not one scientist can predict when and how a volcano will erupt or what the resulting damages will be. Yet, I have to believe that they actually exist? Please.....

[Anvilbrother 0]

For fuck sakes......

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Isn't it "for fuck's sake"?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Who cares how the FUCK it goes could we stop hijacking threads around here with a bunch of BS?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,