Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hot in Herre


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#61 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,008 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:37 AM

Are you familiar with the literature at all?

 

Because you seem to be taking the stance "Well, climate is just too complex so there's no way models could help predict anything at all, these scientists are full of bullshit," and having read several of the papers that examined alternatives to mostly human causes, as well as reading through some of the more popularly cited major papers attributing climate change to humans, I am pretty much in favor of listening to the experts here.

 

i am very familiar with the literature and i am prepared to to argue that research conducted at george mason university, home of the fuging mercatus center, and some guy on a wordpress blog have exposed both the wide-reaching climate change conspiracy as well as the fact that the scientists responsible for developing these contentious models never actually took a statistics course because, as you'll see, statistical significance means something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than the colloquial use of the word

 

check and mate, idiot



#62 Vampire the buffet slayer

Vampire the buffet slayer

    Fat Alice's Dietitian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,123 posts
  • Locationunder an aluminum hat

Posted 25 June 2014 - 04:49 AM

^^^^^what an internet badass! I mean this guy must ride a internet motorcycle with no helmet and fug internet chicks with no condom and just don't giv a fug. Wow! " Check and mate, idiot."WHAT A FUGGING BADASSS!"

#63 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 08:49 AM

Informal surveys may have the problems you stated, scientific papers however do not.  The Cook paper mav linked to earlier is very clear in its definitions and classifies published papers based on their conclusions

 

 

Then they emailed paper authors to directly ask them to rate their own paper's position on anthropogenic global warming

 

They emailed a bunch of authors that endorsed AGW and surprisingly they all said they endorsed AGW. Well that settles that.



#64 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:11 AM

They emailed a bunch of authors that endorsed AGW and surprisingly they all said they endorsed AGW. Well that settles that.

 

No, they emailed the authors of every paper, it just so happens that nearly every scientific paper written on AGW supports the conclusion that humans have a big influence on AGW (though quite a few took no position, but those arent included in the 97% number).

 

Look, the level of climate sensitivity is absolutely the subject of debate in the scientific community (which has rather large implications on what will happen in the future/ what we should do about it).  The existence of AGW is not



#65 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 16,558 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:19 AM

Look, the level of climate sensitivity is absolutely the subject of debate in the scientific community (which has rather large implications on what will happen in the future/ what we should do about it).  The existence of AGW is not

 

Isn't this a rather meaningless statement though?

 

Until the last human stops breathing, we will always have an influence on the ecosystem.

 

To me the questions have always been

 

1. How much of an effect do we have truly,

2. How much damage can we do worst-case, and

3. Is it worth it to try to fix it



#66 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,391 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:22 AM

They emailed a bunch of authors that endorsed AGW and surprisingly they all said they endorsed AGW. Well that settles that.

 

if I recall, they emailed all the authors of papers, not just those whose papers endorsed AGW.  Surprisingly (or maybe not?), a larger percentage of authors identified their papers as supporting AGW than what the study authors had found in abstracts


Edited by mav1234, 25 June 2014 - 09:29 AM.


#67 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:30 AM

Isn't this a rather meaningless statement though?

 

Until the last human stops breathing, we will always have an influence on the ecosystem.

 

To me the questions have always been

 

1. How much of an effect do we have truly,

2. How much damage can we do worst-case, and

3. Is it worth it to try to fix it

 

Maybe the way I worded it, but most climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for at least 50% of the warming.  I dont know if its worth trying to fix it (a debate I've had with a number of friends), but we wont have a definitive answer to that question without more study (which is annoyingly something many people are against).



#68 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:49 AM

No, they emailed the authors of every paper, it just so happens that nearly every scientific paper written on AGW supports the conclusion that humans have a big influence on AGW (though quite a few took no position, but those arent included in the 97% number).

 

Look, the level of climate sensitivity is absolutely the subject of debate in the scientific community (which has rather large implications on what will happen in the future/ what we should do about it).  The existence of AGW is not

Yes they started with a subset of papers where 98% of them support AGW. They didn't need to turn around and email them to ask if they support the consensus. If this is where the 98% number is supported then it is pretty absurd. Anyway your own paper debunks that when they surveyed all of the papers including no stance and the results were much more logical.

 

All that paper proves is that nobody is writing anti-AGW papers. I can think of lots of reasons for that.



#69 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,391 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 09:59 AM

Yes they started with a subset of papers where 98% of them support AGW. They didn't need to turn around and email them to ask if they support the consensus. If this is where the 98% number is supported then it is pretty absurd. Anyway your own paper debunks that when they surveyed all of the papers including no stance and the results were much more logical.

 

All that paper proves is that nobody is writing anti-AGW papers. I can think of lots of reasons for that.

 

 

 

Please see the link - they "started" with 11,944 papers. Of those papers that took a position on AGW at all, 97+% supported AGW.  Of the papers that took no position, a sizable portion of the authors of those papers classified those papers as supported AGW.

 

Nobody is writing anti-AGW papers anymore because there is a scientific consensus in the literature.  You really think that there's no money available for "debunking" AGW?  I personally know a climatologist offered $60k to write a critical paper, so there's certainly money out there.



#70 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 10:10 AM

Nobody is writing anti-AGW papers because, well, you cant just make poo up in a scientific paper.  You have to be able to support your conclusions with the available data, and copying the position of a blog that says, "well there is a lot of variability, so humans aren't responsible for any of this" is simply not going to work



#71 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 10:56 AM

At least you almost admit that the "98% of climate scientists agree on the consensus" is garbage.



#72 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 11:56 AM

At least you almost admit that the "98% of climate scientists agree on the consensus" is garbage.

 

How about, "2% of scientific papers disagree with the consensus"



#73 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,108 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 25 June 2014 - 12:15 PM

Today, a higher percentage of scientists disagree on whether smoking causes cancer than those who disagree that human activity is at least in part responsible for global warming.

For more than four decades, in spite of a raft of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as reams of internal but undisclosed research reports, Big Tobacco companies denied that cigarettes caused cancer and were addictive. In a “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” that appeared in 448 newspapers in 1954, the tobacco industry laid out the themes of denial that it would use into the 1990s: “Medical research...indicates many possible causes of lung cancer. There is no agreement among authorities regarding the cause. There is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes. The validity of the statistics is questioned by numerous scientists."
 
smokingcancer.jpg
 
Any of this sound familiar?

Read more here:
http://www.jamespowe...Castclosed.html

Edited by NanuqoftheNorth, 25 June 2014 - 01:37 PM.


#74 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,622 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:13 PM

How about, "2% of scientific papers disagree with the consensus"

So no you will not admit it.



#75 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts

Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:15 PM

So no you will not admit it.

 

Admit what?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.