Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye and Congresswoman Blackburn "debate" global warming issues.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:56 pm to greygatch
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:56 pm to greygatch
It is not a 9:1 ratio, but the press covers it as such. Man made is more sensational and alarmist thus drives ratings and coverage. Don't even get me started on university "research" and the results needed to produce the continued grants that provide your $$$$.
2
Posted on 2/16/14 at 3:59 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
LINK ]
I think of the 97% there is enough of a portion if the scientists that said, no I don't think we're adversely affecting the climate to say that calling it a consensus is premature.
[quote]Similarly, contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer claimed in Congressional testimonylast year that he's included in the 97 percent.
"There's a recent paper by John Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers which have been published in the scientific literature to see what fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming. Well, it turns out that the 97% consensus that they found, I am indeed part of and Senator Sessions mentioned he would agree with it too. And my associate John Christy, he agrees with it. In fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in that business. All are part of that 97% because that 97% includes those who think humans have some influence on climate. Well, that's a fairly innocuous statement."
These statements are all incorrect, ignoring a significant part of our research. They are based on one of the categories used in our study regarding "implicit endorsements" of human-caused global warming. A paper that was included in this category:
"Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause"
This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent.
However, this argument only considers one of the seven categories used in our study. Another critical category, the "implicit rejections" included any paper that (emphasis added):
"implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming"
Hence for example, one of Roy Spencer's five papers captured by our literature search was put in this category, because it proposes negative feedbacks will minimize future global warming. His other four papers fell into the 'no position' category; therefore, overall Spencer was not included in the 97 percent as he claimed in his testimony to US Congress. Rather, Spencer's research is included in the 2 percent of papers minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming (the final 1 percent of papers were uncertain about the cause). Spencer has also said, "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural," so his opinion is consistent with the 2 percent.
For those desiring papers with more explicit positions on the cause of global warming, we also used categories that only included papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming. We asked the scientific authors to rate their own papers, and of the papers in those categories (237 total), 96 percent agreed that humans are responsible for the majority of the current global warming.
Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming. Moreover, in order to be part of the 96 percent expert consensus, they must explicitly agree that humans are responsible for the majority of the global warming over the past half-century (a position the latest IPCC
The author is saying that "no to be a part if that 97% you had to have agreed with this this and this and the scientist is saying "I was included in the 97% even though I'm not on board"
I'm not saying that my opinion is authority here and I could be readibgnit wrong but if we don't think moving the goal posts is happening here I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:03 pm to beachreb61
quote:
It is not a 9:1 ratio, but the press covers it as such. Man made is more sensational and alarmist thus drives ratings and coverage. Don't even get me started on university "research" and the results needed to produce the continued grants that provide your $$$$.
Challenge: Name one academic/scientific institution that suggests humans have little to no impact on the environment.
I'm guessing you can't, but that's because all of these scientists falsify data for the money.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:06 pm to 3nOut
quote:
The author is saying that "no to be a part if that 97% you had to have agreed with this this and this and the scientist is saying "I was included in the 97% even though I'm not on board"
I'm not saying that my opinion is authority here and I could be readibgnit wrong but if we don't think moving the goal posts is happening here I don't know what to tell you.
The author of the study that claims the 97% figure is responding to a cable news channel program and a House of Parliament member who've accused him of including people in his figure who did not actually take a position on climate change. The entire article is a rebuttal of that charge, and an explanation of the methodology he used to reach his 97% figure. In sum, it's in support of the 97% figure.
quote:
Hence for example, one of Roy Spencer's five papers captured by our literature search was put in this category, because it proposes negative feedbacks will minimize future global warming. His other four papers fell into the 'no position' category; therefore, overall Spencer was not included in the 97 percent as he claimed in his testimony to US Congress. Rather, Spencer's research is included in the 2 percent of papers minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming (the final 1 percent of papers were uncertain about the cause). Spencer has also said, "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural," so his opinion is consistent with the 2 percent.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:10 pm to beachreb61
quote:
It is not a 9:1 ratio, but the press covers it as such. Man made is more sensational and alarmist thus drives ratings and coverage. Don't even get me started on university "research" and the results needed to produce the continued grants that provide your $$$$.
1) Of those who take a position, you're right, it's not 9:1. It's more like 90:1.
2) Global warming drives television ratings?
3) The same grant structure that helps support global warming research helps support just a/b every type of research. Are you taking the position that all academic research is suspect?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:20 pm to WheelRoute
Stand by my statement. And yes, the sky is falling drives news ratings more than business as usual. And all research is as suspect as the political motives of the group which provides the funding for such research.
ETA: when grapes were growing and wine was being produced in Greenland and England, who was responsible for global warming? This was many years before the industrial revolution.
I'll let you return to being a lemming now.
ETA: when grapes were growing and wine was being produced in Greenland and England, who was responsible for global warming? This was many years before the industrial revolution.
I'll let you return to being a lemming now.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:30 pm to greygatch
I live in her district and keep wondering how she is still getting elected. I can't remember one significant thing she had done in her time in office.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:55 pm to greygatch
Do you know why there are no fancy graphs to tell you how many billions of tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere by decaying vegetation in soil?
Because there's no money or power to be gained from scaring people over CO2 released from decaying vegetation. Or volcanoes.
Because there's no money or power to be gained from scaring people over CO2 released from decaying vegetation. Or volcanoes.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:55 pm to beachreb61
quote:
And all research is as suspect as the political motives of the group which provides the funding for such research.
Show your work. Let's see which specific grants to what institutions and the research they later produced is causing you such angst. I'm sure you've been wading through the data and are eager to disclose your results.
quote:
ETA: when grapes were growing and wine was being produced in Greenland and England, who was responsible for global warming? This was many years before the industrial revolution.
The trump card!
Posted on 2/16/14 at 4:59 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Do you know why there are no fancy graphs to tell you how many billions of tons of CO2 are released into the atmosphere by decaying vegetation in soil?
Try Googling. Surprise yourself.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 5:03 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
Try Googling. Surprise yourself.
I did.
Why are you being a little prick?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 5:09 pm to deeprig9
quote:
I did
Good. You may leave.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 5:27 pm to WheelRoute
You arent interested in critical discussion, or you wouldn't be acting like a smartass or posting piecharts of hyperole from MoveOn.
So let's get right in to ad hominem.
I lived in the Old Village for several years.
There are 3 types of people that live on Sullivan's Island.
1: Yankees
I don't think you are a yankee, yankees in the area don't care about the gamecocks.
2: 55 year old white people who spent their lives working hard and making good money.
3: The children of the 55 year old white upper middle class people who still live with their parents because every job they've been offered is beneath them, they are snot nosed visor wearing widepread-listening-to golfcart-riding little punks that need a hair cut and some work ethic.
Which category do you fall into?
So let's get right in to ad hominem.
I lived in the Old Village for several years.
There are 3 types of people that live on Sullivan's Island.
1: Yankees
I don't think you are a yankee, yankees in the area don't care about the gamecocks.
2: 55 year old white people who spent their lives working hard and making good money.
3: The children of the 55 year old white upper middle class people who still live with their parents because every job they've been offered is beneath them, they are snot nosed visor wearing widepread-listening-to golfcart-riding little punks that need a hair cut and some work ethic.
Which category do you fall into?
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 5:48 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Because there's no money or power to be gained from scaring people
I just really doubt that is their motive.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:10 pm to greygatch
Well I just really doubt that it isn't.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:19 pm to greygatch
quote:
I just really doubt that is their motive.
Dude, where the frick have you been? Of course that's their motive.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:22 pm to deeprig9
quote:
You arent interested in critical discussion, or you wouldn't be acting like a smartass or posting piecharts of hyperole from MoveOn.
MoveOn?
The chart was from James Powell's personal website. MIT PhD. Taught Geology at Oberlin. Served on the National Science Board by appointment from Reagan and Bush Sr.
quote:
There are 3 types of people that live on Sullivan's Island.
1: Yankees
I don't think you are a yankee, yankees in the area don't care about the gamecocks.
2: 55 year old white people who spent their lives working hard and making good money.
3: The children of the 55 year old white upper middle class people who still live with their parents because every job they've been offered is beneath them, they are snot nosed visor wearing widepread-listening-to golfcart-riding little punks that need a hair cut and some work ethic.
Keep thinking, rig.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:25 pm to greygatch
I never thought I'd say this, but I don't think you've spent enough time around academia.
Redacted
As you can imagine, the project was an abject failure. But for every great discovery, there are 1000 failures, you learn from others what not to do. You learn what doesn't work.
In the paper, and for the grant application for the next year's budget, how do you think that read?
"Everything was a failure, nothing worked, it was a waste of time."
Or
"Models showed significant potential for developmental studies further into redacted"
If any of the participants in the study were asked "Do you think this model is something worth pursuing?" the answer is always Yes.
Because if they said anything else, the money goes away and they all have to find another specialty.
Do you understand what I'm saying to you?
Do you understand what I mean when I tell you that the great majority of these climate scientists live paycheck to paycheck, and those paychecks come from grants that are specifically earmarked for climate change research?
Redacted
As you can imagine, the project was an abject failure. But for every great discovery, there are 1000 failures, you learn from others what not to do. You learn what doesn't work.
In the paper, and for the grant application for the next year's budget, how do you think that read?
"Everything was a failure, nothing worked, it was a waste of time."
Or
"Models showed significant potential for developmental studies further into redacted"
If any of the participants in the study were asked "Do you think this model is something worth pursuing?" the answer is always Yes.
Because if they said anything else, the money goes away and they all have to find another specialty.
Do you understand what I'm saying to you?
Do you understand what I mean when I tell you that the great majority of these climate scientists live paycheck to paycheck, and those paychecks come from grants that are specifically earmarked for climate change research?
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:32 pm to deeprig9
quote:
deeprig9
Interesting story, however, writing a grant application in such a way as to receive continued funding and publishing falsified results w/ conclusions that aren't supported by the data are two entirely different things.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 6:36 pm to WheelRoute
quote:
publishing falsified results w/ conclusions that aren't supported by the data
Scientists can pick and choose what data they include and what they omit. When they write their hypothesis after the experiment, after the data is collected, it becomes a shell game.
Three Card Monty.
Do you know what I mean when I say Shell Game or Three Card Monty?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News