Are human activities influencing the climate?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You said the grey areas were 20% of the world. They are not

Nice cartoons.

Quick question-

What percentage of that NOAA map of the world is actually grey (has no data), in your opinion?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Nice cartoons.

Quick question-

What percentage of that NOAA map of the world is actually grey (has no data), in your opinion?

The Arctic ocean is 3% of the surface of the world and Antarctica is about 3% of the surface of the world, similar for the Arctic, so at a guess, I'd say the grey area is generously about 6% of the surface of the world.

But the fact is, global warming has been happening substantially faster in the arctic than anywhere else in the world, so the grey part at the top of that map would be deep red if they used a dataset that included those temperatures

For antarctica, the water temperatures are substantially warmer than the long term average average The continent itself is more complex, but unless you have proof that antarctica is cooling so fast that it can absorb the warming from the rest of the world, then you're still on the wrong side of the argument

dense

pitifulgod wrote: »

You've claimed 20% of globe which is incorrect.

What's your own estimate?

twinytwo

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

I don't believe we are having anywhere near the the kind of influence on climate as is constantly suggested.

You say this, but do you (like so many others)even know what you are talking about? Almost everything the human race does affects the planet.

Lets take an easy example, do you understand how CFC's interact with ozone?

Do you understand the how the global carbon cycle works and how the human production of CO2 has upset this balance?

Just remember its easier to convince people of the lie than the truth

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

What's your own estimate?

Are you just giving out homework?

What's your point?

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you just giving out homework?

What's your point?

The point is you are citing a global warming agenda based on manipulated data,which is what ive been saying all along,the fact that you now cant even argue your points with me iz evidence that im right.

Thargor

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you just giving out homework?

What's your point?

Ha, at least he's not using your refusal to sign up on some loons blog and debate him there as some kind of argument anymore...

Akrasia I dont bother wasting time on these types of people anymore but just wanted to say fair play to you for putting the time in and your excellent replies.

pitifulgod wrote: »

You've claimed 20% of globe which is incorrect. Akrasia has also outlined how we do have plenty of data on key locations. I suspect if we had 100% globe, you'd obsess over some other inconsequential point...

This is it exactly, its like the God of the Gaps in the evolution "debate", nothing you post will ever be good enough for him, he'll just keep narrowing it down like his obsession with a specific figure from NASA and no other source a few pages back, as long as they have the last word in a thread their brains will tell them they're in the right. Im surprised he hasn't started talking about polar bear populations or some other denier idiocy of the month yet.

https://twitter.com/krelnik/status/472046082135162881

Master of the Omniverse

Thargor wrote: »

Ha, at least he's not using your refusal to sign up on some loons blog and debate him there as some kind of argument anymore...

Akrasia I dont bother wasting time on these types of people anymore but just wanted to say fair play to you for putting the time in and your excellent replies.

This is it exactly, its like the God of the Gaps in the evolution "debate", nothing you post will ever be good enough for him, he'll just keep narrowing it down like his obsession with a specific figure from NASA and no other source a few pages back, as long as they have the last word in athread their brains will tell them they're in the right. Im surprised he hasnt started talking about polar bear populations or some other denier idiocy of the month yet.

https://twitter.com/krelnik/status/472046082135162881

Its hard to admit youre wrong.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Its hard to admit youre wrong.

Thats why you wont get in the ring with the master.

Akrasia

Eventually he'll figure out that most people have him on ignore

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

Eventually he'll figure out that most people have him on ignore

Those who ignore are themselves ignorant.

Master of the Omniverse

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Those who ignore are themselves ignorant.

At least I have the courtesy to reply to your misinformation,I dont want you misleading others,and the truth doesnt like hiding behind fake science.

Doctor Jimbob

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

At least I have the courtesy to reply to your misinformation,I dont want you misleading others,and the truth doesnt like hiding behind fake science.

You reply to pretty much everything though, including your own posts

Subcomandante Marcos

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You reply to pretty much everything though, including your own posts

He also used a z-list movie and a talk by a fisherman on a David Ike run youtube channel as evidence of his batsh!t ideas but claims science is fake...

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If you have evidence to support your own position, post it. Stop posting evidence that contradicts your position and making snide comments about it that show how little understanding you have on the topic.

If you have evidence that supports your position that man made co2 causes global warming and climate change I'm sure the IPCC would love to have it.

There isn't any. Scientists looked at co2 and temperatures, decided man made co2 was causing it and now are stuck trying to prove it, and trying every trick in the book in the process.

They've had 20 years to come up with it and they can't.

They don't have it and neither do you.
Dr. Ed has explained it to you.

Make up your mind about "the pause" yet?

You went with the 40 of the best chummy peer reviewed papers which said it didn't happen, then Nasa said it did, then it didn't, then it did........

No wonder people just laugh at the scientific consensus bullology now.
People that know a little about it that is, and all it takes is a little knowledge, and yes it is dangerous when a little knowledge starts toppling the pack of cards.

The scientists can't get their stories straight.

And if nature isn't going to plan, the figures are fiddled.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/hiatus-in-rise-of-earths-surface-air-temperature-likely-temporary/

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasa-finds-global-warming-hidden-indian-and-pacific-oceans/

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Bunch of chancers.

Master of the Omniverse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You reply to pretty much everything though, including your own posts

Somebodys got to back up my magnificence,and it has to be somebody of superior intelligence,hence moi.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Eventually he'll figure out that most people have him on ignore

Another fake "fact".
They're stacking up fast.

And the "believers" will believe it.

Please explain how you know most people have him on ignore?

Was it in a peer reviewed paper?

Master of the Omniverse

dense wrote: »

Another fake "fact".
They're stacking up fast.

And the "believers" will believe it.

Please explain how you know most people have him on ignore?

Was it in a peer reviewed paper?

I think they would rather we just go away,because of course the debate is over according to them,have heard this many times now,in fact we shouldnt even have a platform to speak.

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

If you have evidence that supports your position that man made co2 causes global warming and climate change I'm sure the IPCC would love to have it.

There isn't any. Scientists looked at co2 and temperatures, decided man made co2 was causing it and now are stuck trying to prove it, and trying every trick in the book in the process.

They've had 20 years to come up with it and they can't.

They don't have it and neither do you.
Dr. Ed has explained it to you.

Make up your mind about "the pause" yet?

You went with the 40 of the best chummy peer reviewed papers which said it didn't happen, then Nasa said it did, then it didn't, then it did........

No wonder people just laugh at the scientific consensus bullology now.
People that know a little about it that is, and all it takes is a little knowledge, and yes it is dangerous when a little knowledge starts toppling the pack of cards.

The scientists can't get their stories straight.

And if nature isn't going to plan, the figures are fiddled.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/hiatus-in-rise-of-earths-surface-air-temperature-likely-temporary/

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasa-finds-global-warming-hidden-indian-and-pacific-oceans/

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

Bunch of chancers.

You're doing it again. You're posting evidence that supports global warming.

And Ed Berry is a crank who thinks the best way to explain the carbon cycle is to drastically over simplify it so that it can magic CO2 out of nowhere and then declare that its not his job to account for that CO2 that popped into existence.

He has zero chance of getting his paper into a peer reviewed journal of any reputation because his carbon cycle model is a huge step backwards from what we already have.

Master of the Omniverse

Akrasia wrote: »

You're doing it again. You're posting evidence that supports global warming.

Scientists are just being scientists,lets make it up when it doesnt fit.Were intlectuals,the masses will believe anything we say because they are just dumb bottom feeders.Scientists ha e pretty much ****ed this planet up singlehandedly,with little thought of the consequences.

dr.fuzzenstein

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Scientists are just being scientists,lets make it up when it doesnt fit.Were intlectuals,the masses will believe anything we say because they are just dumb bottom feeders.Scientists ha e pretty much ****ed this planet up singlehandedly,with little thought of the consequences.

Oh god.
Meanwhile, here's some kittens.

Master of the Omniverse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Oh god.
Meanwhile, here's some kittens.

Let me see,who invented the nuclear bomb?Of which there must be oh I dont know,thousands,tens of thousands.Let me guess,yes scientists.Nuclear power stations?Yep,its their work.Yet they wont release teslas technology into the public domain ,because that might be beneficial to humankind.Nah,cute kittens dont cut it.Maybe a pleasant distraction for some,just imagine some little kitty thatz just been irradiated,not cute for much longer,its skin starts peeling and haoemmoraging,the organs start to fail because the body doesnt know what to do with radioactive particles and decides to store them in vital organs and bone marrow,ofcourse eventually death.So science has alot to answer for,and I I choose not to believe everything they put out there when theyve been caught out over so many things,and you may decide to believe the fairy stories of science,but I wont give up on you till you know the truth.

PopePalpatine

pitifulgod

Me thinks that the Master would like to bring back smallpox and polio.... What's science ever done for us? :pac::pac:

Master of the Omniverse

pitifulgod wrote: »

Me thinks that the Master would like to bring back smallpox and polio.... What's science ever done for us? :pac::pac:

I dont have to.The Gates foundation is doing their best to bring back polio .

Mod-Banned

pitifulgod

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I dont have to.The Gates foundation is doing their best to bring back polio .

Once again, this is nonsense.....

Master of the Omniverse

pitifulgod wrote: »

Once again, this is nonsense.....

http://www.healthfreedoms.org/has-bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-cause-over-47000-paralysis-deaths/

Master of the Omniverse

pitifulgod wrote: »

Once again, this is http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073

pitifulgod

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

http://www.healthfreedoms.org/has-bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-cause-over-47000-paralysis-deaths/

Vaccine conspiracies from dodgy sites, it's the most I would ever expect of you in fairness... :rolleyes:

Master of the Omniverse

pitifulgod wrote: »

Me thinks that the Master would like to bring back smallpox and polio.... What's science ever done for us? :pac::pac:

Im glad you mentioned smallpox.When canada was first being colonised, smallpox was used to eradicate the local tribes, the colonial powerz wanted their land.So they would send in their holy man (priest) with gifts for the tribes,jewellery,cooking utensils,maybe some firewater,and blankets.Except the blankets would come from a deceased victim of smallpox,and the tribe would be wiped out.So this has been going on for a long time.

Master of the Omniverse

pitifulgod wrote: »

Vaccine conspiracies from dodgy sites, it's the most I would ever expect of you in fairness... :rolleyes:

If you bothered to read it properly,you would see that the report came from the times of india,and there are I.dian supreme court investigations.Just like the scientists,you ignore the data.

Ken.

Mod-Master of the Omniverse thread banned. Reason-Trolling.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

You're doing it again. You're posting evidence that supports global warming.

And Ed Berry is a crank who thinks the best way to explain the carbon cycle is to drastically over simplify it so that it can magic CO2 out of nowhere and then declare that its not his job to account for that CO2 that popped into existence.

He has zero chance of getting his paper into a peer reviewed journal of any reputation because his carbon cycle model is a huge step backwards from what we already have.

The models you've pinned your stripes to are faulty.

Please stop for one moment and look at what you're saying and hoping for:

That your precious pal reviewed system will reject his paper.

Yet, the very same precious buddy system routinely admits dozens of papers consisting of actual gibberish:

https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

It has accepted an awful lot of rubbish so far without anyone in the science or the real world noticing, so if his paper IS rejected as you are predicting and hoping, it will just go to prove it's a closed shop.

Is that the model you promote for scientific research?

Looks like it is.....

It's also clear that you bear a personal grudge against him, as evidenced by you calling him a "crank".

Yet, in your dealings with him, which are there for all to see, you can't deny that he's been very polite to you (in the context of demonstrating to you how your claims of AGW are completely false and unfounded).

In my own experience, anyone who needs to deliberately complicate issues needs to do so for a reason.

To deliberately complicate and confuse.

Can you confirm that that is your agenda?

And that he has treated you politely?

Subcomandante Marcos

"EVERYONE'S WRONG EXCEPT FOR MY FRIEND ED!"

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The models you've pinned your stripes to are faulty.

Please stop for one moment and look at what you're saying and hoping for:

That your precious pal reviewed system will reject his paper.

Yet, the very same precious buddy system routinely admits dozens of papers consisting of actual gibberish:

https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

Conference proceedings are not the same as peer reviewed papers.

Ed Berry is a crank because he gets the scientific process completely backwards.

He wants to disprove global warming for ideological reasons, so he tries to manufacture a case against global warming

The actual scientific method is to draft your conclusions based on the evidence and the data.

Here's what ed Berry has to say on the purpose of his paper
"But my goal here is to present a logical argument that can be used in court to overturn the EPA Endangerment Finding."

It has accepted an awful lot of rubbish so far without anyone in the science or the real world noticing, so if his paper IS rejected as you are predicting and hoping, it will just go to prove it's a closed shop.

Typical anti scientific conspiracy theory attitude.
~if my theory passes peer review, it means it is valid, if my paper is rejected, it proves that peer review is worthless~

It's also clear that you bear a personal grudge against him, as evidenced by you calling him a "crank".

Yet, in your dealings with him, which are there for all to see, you can't deny that he's been very polite to you (in the context of demonstrating to you how your claims of AGW are completely false and unfounded).

He is polite, but that doesn't mean he's not a crank.
""Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

In his scientific explanation for a new model of the carbon cycle, he spends more than half the post ranting about Al Gore and Donald Trump.

His 'physics model' is flawed because he just pretends that nature will automatically make inflows equal to outflows, and he just hand waves away the CO2 residence time evidence to say that CO2 is only resident for 4 years ignoring the mountains of evidence that the adjustment time of CO2 is much longer than 4 years.

This is the last I'm going to say about Ed Berry.

If you still think I'm wrong or don't believe me, why not head over to Real Climate and discuss this in the comments section with Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's GISS
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/

In my own experience, anyone who needs to deliberately complicate issues needs to do so for a reason.

In my experience, people who want to over simplify complex problems do so because they haven't properly thought their arguments through and are happy to stop looking as soon as they find an explanation that fits their agenda.

Akrasia

James DillHole of the telegraph and Breitbart and a bunch of other tabloid rags, darling of the climate 'skeptic' movement been reviewed by Snopes (again) and surprise, they have found that he's a lying piece of sh1t who copies his information from other sources that are also lying pieces of sh1t

https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

On 24 October 2017, Breitbart.com’s James Delingpole published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing.

Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations.

The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

This is the standard that is acceptable to 'skeptics' while they pretend to be fact checking legitimate scientific bodies like NASA and NOAA and HADCRU and Berkley Earth and the IPCC etc

I'm in a bad mood this morning. I watched the new Blue Planet last night and it is sickening to think that so many of these amazing species could be gone before my grandkids get to my age while these scumbags who run these blogs and write for these 'media' organisations are deliberately lying and spreading doubt to prevent the appropriate action to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm in a bad mood this morning. I watched the new Blue Planet last night and it is sickening to think that so many of these amazing species could be gone before my grandkids get to my age while these scumbags who run these blogs and write for these 'media' organisations are deliberately lying and spreading doubt to prevent the appropriate action to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

And presumably your post will conclude the thread, since reporting and silencing the crazies and the less knowledgeable means that there is no more dialogue or information getting through.

I can subscribe to global warming blogs and follow scientific journals if it's an unchallenged exposé I'm looking for, don't really look for that on a discussion forum.

LordSutch

Jet engines spewing out noxious fumes at high altitude, farting cows by the million, volcanoes chucking out massive clouds of volcanic gas, diesel engines . . . . .

What to do?

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

And presumably your post will conclude the thread, since reporting and silencing the crazies and the less knowledgeable means that there is no more dialogue or information getting through.

I can subscribe to global warming blogs and follow scientific journals if it's an unchallenged expos'm looking for, don't really look for that on a discussion forum.

I didn't silence anyone

There is still plenty to discuss about global warming. CT nonsense doesn't add to the discussion imo, but if people genuinely believe these things, I'm happy to talk about it.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

I didn't silence anyone

There is still plenty to discuss about global warming. CT nonsense doesn't add to the discussion imo, but if people genuinely believe these things, I'm happy to talk about it.

Yes, I believe you, and all your posts have been respectful and informative.

That's not the case with some other posters who, rather than discuss as you do, like to throw in snide comments or images, and must be doing the silencing (unless the Mods are taking the initiative, which boils down to the same).

I think it helps to see all sides, outrageous, middle-of-the-road, amateurish, and knowledgeable.

edit : I could explain but it would be very long winded and boring.

B0jangles

Why the heck should posters like Akrasia, who has put serious effort into their posts be required to be polite to posters who have repeatedly accused them of being a liar, a fake and many other insults?

Why do you require a much higher standard of discourse for what might be described as the pro-science posters?

Mountainsandh

B0jangles wrote: »

Why the heck should posters like Akrasia, who has put serious effort into their posts be required to be polite to posters who have repeatedly accused them of being a liar, a fake and many other insults?

Why do you require a much higher standard of discourse for what might be described as the pro-science posters?

Did I just ask Akrasia to be polite ?
I either really badly worded my post, or you just jumped to your own conclusions.

You could just say : "the other poster was rude and personal with Akrasia, I think it's right he's gone". I would have double checked the posts and maybe agreed with you.

Tbh I tend to overlook the posts that look like they don't have much substance and would pay more attention to something that has a link and some worthwhile ideas, I don't really read threads like this as point scoring exercises.

I think it is legitimate to question whether someone is telling the truth, or ignoring some important bits, in this context, if it's not worded in an insulting manner of course.

edit : I had a look at the poster's posts, and I couldn't really find the personal insults you seem to imply. Plenty of rants about how scientists are fake and lying in his opinion, but these are not personal insults. Repetitive, and maybe a bit of inflammatory posting, but not really personal that I can see. Maybe said insults were deleted.

Subcomandante Marcos

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Did I just ask Akrasia to be polite ?
I either really badly worded my post, or you just jumped to your own conclusions.

You could just say : "the other poster was rude and personal with Akrasia, I think it's right he's gone". I would have double checked the posts and maybe agreed with you.

Tbh I tend to overlook the posts that look like they don't have much substance and would pay more attention to something that has a link and some worthwhile ideas, I don't really read threads like this as point scoring exercises.

I think it is legitimate to question whether someone is telling the truth, or ignoring some important bits, in this context, if it's not worded in an insulting manner of course.

Master of the Omniverse isn't gone because he was rude, he was thread banned because he was clearly trolling. Using science fiction movies as evidence of why scientific discussion is wrong, linking to David Icke as a source, calling people shills. He was talking complete nonsense.

Mountainsandh

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Master of the Omniverse isn't gone because he was rude, he was thread banned because he was clearly trolling. Using science fiction movies as evidence of why scientific discussion is wrong, linking to David Icke as a source, calling people shills. He was talking complete nonsense.

Alright, that makes more sense.
I didn't see the use of science fiction movie as a source.

Talking nonsense, maybe, but I'm not sure it's trolling really, on AH.

Subcomandante Marcos

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Alright, that makes more sense.
I didn't see the use of science fiction movie as a source.

Talking nonsense, maybe, but I'm not sure it's trolling really, on AH.

He told us to watch the movie GeoStorm to understand how Fukushima was to blame for ice melting in Colorado.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Conference proceedings are not the same as peer reviewed papers.

Ed Berry is a crank because he gets the scientific process completely backwards.

He wants to disprove global warming for ideological reasons, so he tries to manufacture a case against global warming

The actual scientific method is to draft your conclusions based on the evidence and the data.

Here's what ed Berry has to say on the purpose of his paper
"But my goal here is to present a logical argument that can be used in court to overturn the EPA Endangerment Finding."


Typical anti scientific conspiracy theory attitude.
~if my theory passes peer review, it means it is valid, if my paper is rejected, it proves that peer review is worthless~

He is polite, but that doesn't mean he's not a crank.
""Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

In his scientific explanation for a new model of the carbon cycle, he spends more than half the post ranting about Al Gore and Donald Trump.

His 'physics model' is flawed because he just pretends that nature will automatically make inflows equal to outflows, and he just hand waves away the CO2 residence time evidence to say that CO2 is only resident for 4 years ignoring the mountains of evidence that the adjustment time of CO2 is much longer than 4 years.

This is the last I'm going to say about Ed Berry.

If you still think I'm wrong or don't believe me, why not head over to Real Climate and discuss this in the comments section with Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's GISS
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/



In my experience, people who want to over simplify complex problems do so because they haven't properly thought their arguments through and are happy to stop looking as soon as they find an explanation that fits their agenda.

I get that you went in with all guns blazing about the IPCC and "peer reviewed literature" but were cut down with simple physics and logic, so I can understand the decision to not pursue your debate:

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/fork-road-climate-change-debate/#comment-43270

It might be good to step back from your over reliance on dodgy peer reviewed research.

You seem to believe that all that is "peer reviewed" is true, and that climate scientists are a breed apart, incapable of being wrong or having ulterior motives, that hiding under a badly leaking consensus umbrella is the way to go.

It would be naive to continue to believe that.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.



The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.


Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals.

Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/william-reville-something-has-gone-very-wrong-with-science-1.2245846?mode=amp

"Many a statistical fairytale" could have been written with Cook et al's study in mind, who masterminded the game changing consensus project.

Something had to be dreamt up to create the impression that the science was settled, so something was dreamt up.

Something that the really clever "I would of" generation could easily understand.
A big f**k off statistic that would be easy for them to remember.

Cook et al surveyed 12,000 scientific papers on the topic of climate change and global warming and found just 32% of papers endorsed the AGW theory.

Yet, that paper is cited as THE paper which shows that there is consensus amongst 97% of scientists.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

It has become one of the most read pieces of research, probably due to it constantly being debunked, proof again that lots of fake papers pass peer review.

The attention it gets must be more damaging to the CAGW lobby than good.

But it proves that climate scientists and a US president can not only feed off rubbish statistics but also have no problem feeding them to others.

It would be most refreshing if a proponent of CAGW were to acknowledge the dodgy stats and ethics of Cook et al.


Did you say something about EPA endangerment?

Yes you did.

Something about "yes we can" and his co2 crusade?


BTW, was someone looking for a list of extinct animals to mourn over?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals

Mountainsandh

dense wrote: »

You seem to believe that all that is "peer reviewed" is true, and that climate scientists are a breed apart, incapable of being wrong or having ulterior motives, that hiding under a badly leaking consensus umbrella is the way to go.

It would be naive to continue to believe that.

+1
I get that from some posts here too.

In my experience, people who want to over simplify complex problems do so because they haven't properly thought their arguments through and are happy to stop looking as soon as they find an explanation that fits their agenda.

Ironically the point that has been repeated throughout the thread is :
- human CO2 is the cause of it all
- this is not debatable anymore

- over simplify
- stop looking as explanation fits agenda

dense

Does anyone take the Guardian, the UK newspaper in which one of Cook et al's conspirators Dana Nuccitelli has an unfettered platform to promote the 97% untruth?

Whenever he writes, the comments published reflect the readers' staunch belief in the 97% and CAGW.

Comments usually range, in a narrow spectrum, from "we are killing the planet", to "we need to stop burning fossil fuels, yesterday".

There's a rich irony at play, that goes undetected, with the readers urging everyone to switch to a different lifestyle, a more sustainable, less environmentally damaging one, one where consumerism is frowned upon and preaching to others is normal.

The Guardian profiles it's readers.

It finds that:

Guardian readers are generally wealthy with a definite sense of financial nous and an interest in investment ideas.

Guardian readers are twice as likely as the average GB adult to holiday 2-6 times a year.

They are 30% more likely than the average adult to have travelled by plane in the last 12 months.

They are far more likely to have an interest in financial services advertising and twice as likely as the average adult to be interested in reading about personal finance in newspapers

They spend more than the average adult on groceries; an astonishing £87 million in total every week, and their food buying habits tend towards quality, healthy produce.

Guardian readers are stylish and like spending a lot of money on clothes. In the last year Guardian readers spent a staggering £457m on clothing, footwear and accessories.

They are more likely than the average adult to own the latest items, such as laptops with blu-ray layers, wireless internet radios and digital music streamers.


https://www.theguardian.com/advertising/advertising-guardian-readership-profile

We need to stop doing all of these things we're doing, they say.

No friends, those ABC1 readers, they want YOU to stop doing all the nice things you're doing.

They need suckers to take up the slack.

And they're awfully sure that the planet is going to burst into flames at any moment.

Dana has told them that 97% of scientists say it's so.