about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Oh, yes. That was a slam dunk. Clearly it shot down any paper from a second rate journal like PNAS.

I guess I withdraw my objections, and as I walk around today, I have the satisfaction of knowing that gravity is proven because I am sticking to the ground.

If you stopped "sticking to the ground", that would be a pretty strong piece of evidence that there was a problem with the idea of gravity.

If the Temperature stopped rising, or if it actually cooled, or if Ice Ages actually started and the advance of glaciers commenced consistently for 5 million years every time CO2 reached its peak, that might be a pretty strong piece of evidence that there was a problem with the idea of AGW.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Seems to me that referencing current scientific literature is a positive things in most areas where scientific things are discussed.

Referring to what you "believe' or how highly qualified scientists are practicing 'climastrology' and dont understand the 'basics of chemistry' is a bit.. errr. disingenuous, to be kind.

That being said, I still have my points that have gone unanswered, (at least unanswered in a coherent post).

1) Multiple studies have shown most scientists and especially published climatologists overwhelmingly believe in AGW as a problem.
2) Most scientific organizations have issued statements concurring with #1
3) Many top journals have published editorials concurring with my point in #1, thus showing the editors of the journal are included in the 97%
4) Browsing virtually any climate or interdisciplinary scientific journal will reveal that most papers take AGW as a matter of accepted fact.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but all of these points say the same thing.

"I don't know anything about this and I have no understanding of why the evidence I can see does not match the predictions that I present, but somebody told me this is correct so I',m just going to say, 'Amen' and spread the word.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I'd especially like to hear about the multiple bias and reason for unreliability, especially in the Anderegg study:
Expert credibility in climate change

But that might take actual analysis and work rather than just outright dismissal, so I dont think you'll see it.

They;ve actually published the psychological issues with deniers in a paper a few months ago. Its paywalled, but you'll get it with University access.
NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
Psychological Science May 2013 24: 622-633

Interestingly, there is no psychological studies of people who accept current science. I wonder why? Oh. Thats right. Because thats normal and logical behavior. Dude!

Why were previous interglacials warmer while the CO2 that they produced was lower?

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

So what you are saying is that there IS a consensus, you just dont care. Becasue earlier you were arguing there was no consensus...seems like you moved the goalposts to say the consensus is just not important.

Here's a good example of a consensus:

The consensus of American voters said that the Obama could create a system by which all of the people in the country could be insured for $2500/year less per policy than it cost 3 years ago, that everyone could keep their plan if they liked their plan and could keep their doctor if they liked their doctor. About a third of that consensus also believed that the insurance would be free.

Consensus clearly proves only that many who are wrong can share the same flawed opinion.

You need to present proof that supports the notion, not proof that there are those who also are as wrong as you. We are seeing the effect of that cause in various other arenas of politics outside of the political arena of AGW.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

So what is completely unreliable about a study published in PNAS? Or does that not mean anything to you because you dont want to beleive the findings??

Who conducted the survey and by what methodology? What was the margin of error? What the universe of respondents?

Because the survey would almost certainly be of those who the study organizers felt were qualified to respond, that is a filter that by its use would corrupt the outcomes. Anything that eliminates randomness of the surveyed eliminates accuracy.

"Dewey Wins!"

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

He's got the right post. Trouble seeing past your flag buddy? :lol:


##################
##################



Code certainly was implying that recent warming has been a purely natural phenomenon, which I denied his graphs suggest. When something is described as "a criminally deceptive tool of the agenda driven watermelons," you kinda want to know or guess why this 'deception' is so despicable, do you not? But as it turns out, even if Code's interpretations of his graphs were strictly accurate, he has neither shown where any reputable "agenda driven watermelon" has stated anything contrary to that, and nor has he shown that his correction to the allegedly 'misstated' information is contrary to that 'agenda' so as to imply deception. On the contrary, as I've pointed out, whatever else may be said of them his graphs seem to favour an AGW conclusion.


But getting into the specifics, if you wish, it turns out that Code's interpretations of his graphs are not strictly accurate. They are blatantly inconsistent at best. He said, as you quote, that:
"the temperature of the globe seems to have increased by 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years"
And so they did; from 2000 years ago to the present there was roughly a 0.7 degree increase according to his second graph. According to that graph there was a roughly one degree increase from 400 years ago to the present, but that's okay I guess. "In the last 2000 years" can officially mean 2000 years ago to the present.

But then he said:
"The temperature has DECREASED by more than that over the last 8000 years."
So "over the last 8000 years" must also mean 8000 years ago to the present. Right? Wrong. He only gets his greater decrease if "over the last 8000 years" suddenly means "the greatest decreasing interval during that period." In fact he is ending his "over the last 8000 years" on that very point 400 years ago which would've given us that one degree increase!

Whether you spin it as the greatest increase vs. greatest decrease in the past 2-8k years, or the change in the last 2k years vs. the change in the last 8k years, recent warming wins out. Code got his claim - from this source which Flogger considers so unreliable whenever he doesn't see his kind of flag above it - by the blatantly inconsistent comparison of first finding the greatest decrease and calling it "over the last 8000 years," and then finding a period in which the increase has been smaller to call "in the last 2000 years."

Splitting hairs?

The temperature has both risen and fallen across the length of the Holocene.

It seems to waggle in about a 1 or 2 degree range.

If the notion of AGW is correct, then the impact of the rising CO2 should produce an undeniable and dramatic departure for historical norms and that difference is not in evidence.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Who conducted the survey and by what methodology? What was the margin of error? What the universe of respondents?

Because the survey would almost certainly be of those who the study organizers felt were qualified to respond, that is a filter that by its use would corrupt the outcomes. Anything that eliminates randomness of the surveyed eliminates accuracy.

"Dewey Wins!"

Interesting that you've been so adamant that there is no evidence whatsoever and the quality is poor, and it's all biased, and certainly not real, etc etc....

Yet you never actually glanced at the abstract of the study referenced to see that it was a survey of the literature and not a poll of scientists!

Derp.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Interesting that you've been so adamant that there is no evidence whatsoever and the quality is poor, and it's all biased, and certainly not real, etc etc....

Yet you never actually glanced at the abstract of the study referenced to see that it was a survey of the literature and not a poll of scientists!

Derp.

Speaking of literature. Wheres that Peer review showing empirical proof of human culpability for current warming ? Since its not in AR 5 where is it then ? :waiting:

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I'm surprised that catastrophists haven't named this Pearl Harbour II.

The list is growing, Canada, Australia and now Japan.

Looks like climatologists are now winning against the climastologists.

 

[Threegoofs]

about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105]

Speaking of literature. Wheres that Peer review showing empirical proof of human culpability for current warming ? Since its not in AR 5 where is it then ? :waiting:

I can't find any clearer way to tell you that the studies ARE compiled in AR5, but you just don't understand the basics of scientific argument well enough to understand that.

As a fun exercise, how about if you show me the empirical study that shows covalent bonds exist?

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I can't find any clearer way to tell you that the studies ARE compiled in AR5, but you just don't understand the basics of scientific argument well enough to understand that.

As a fun exercise, how about if you show me the empirical study that shows covalent bonds exist?

Yes, we understand how you like to run with the expert Cherry Pickers.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Yes, we understand how you like to run with the expert Cherry Pickers.

By that you mean 'the vast majority of scientists' and 'all significant scientific organizations', I assume.

I'm guilty then.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I can't find any clearer way to tell you that the studies ARE compiled in AR5, but you just don't understand the basics of scientific argument well enough to understand that.

No they arent the AR5 premise is entirely climate model based and is therefore non empirical by its very nature . I dare you to prove me wrong ? :waiting:

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

By that you mean 'the vast majority of scientists' and 'all significant scientific organizations', I assume.

I'm guilty then.

And that laughable, phoney, 97% BS.

Do you have any integrity?

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

And that laughable, phoney, 97% BS.

Do you have any integrity?

Oh, I think it's quite clear who has the integrity issues here.

Denying a consensus exists is just ludicrous.

 

[Lord of Planar]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Oh, I think it's quite clear who has the integrity issues here.

Denying a consensus exists is just ludicrous.

I accept that there is consensus. It just isn't, in honest terms, 97%.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I accept that there is consensus. It just isn't, in honest terms, 97%.

Oh. So I'm sure you have studies to give us a more accurate figure!

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Oh. So I'm sure you have studies to give us a more accurate figure!

Politics is about opinion polls not science and this has always been political, especially for you.

 

[code1211]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Interesting that you've been so adamant that there is no evidence whatsoever and the quality is poor, and it's all biased, and certainly not real, etc etc....

Yet you never actually glanced at the abstract of the study referenced to see that it was a survey of the literature and not a poll of scientists!

Derp.

It really doesn't matter, does it? Is this the same discredited survey where the actual percent is 35%?

The key to this is not whether or not everyone is wrong together, but whether or not they can employ their belief system to create a scientific discipline.

So far, they have not.

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

It really doesn't matter, does it? Is this the same discredited survey where the actual percent is 35%?

The key to this is not whether or not everyone is wrong together, but whether or not they can employ their belief system to create a scientific discipline.

So far, they have not.

You mean the same study were they showed the opposition (your) view was in the low single digits?

 

[ethanUNC]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Politics is about opinion polls not science and this has always been political, especially for you.

What evidence do you have against AGW? You have been quibbling about little things for so long and attempting to find holes in AGW that I have never seen any real evidence come from you.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

What evidence do you have against AGW? You have been quibbling about little things for so long and attempting to find holes in AGW that I have never seen any real evidence come from you.

My position requires none thats not how it works. I could promote a hypothesis that purple elephants inhabit Pluto and just because you couldnt disprove it wouldnt automatically make it so.

The burden of proof is entirely yours

 

[AngryOldGuy]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

The burden of proof is entirely yours

One side deals in facts the other fantasy Which do you think will win?

 

[Threegoofs]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

My position requires none thats not how it works. I could promote a hypothesis that purple elephants inhabit Pluto and just because you couldnt disprove it wouldnt automatically make it so.

The burden of proof is entirely yours

Yes. And we then would show you the DNA evidence of those elephants, and you would say its not relevant. We would show you photos and you would say its the wrong shade of purple. We would display witnesses and you'd say they were lying. We would get 97% of astrobiologists to state that they exist and you would deny,deny,deny because it might cost you money.

 

[flogger]

re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Yes. And we then would show you the DNA evidence of those elephants, and you would say its not relevant. We would show you photos and you would say its the wrong shade of purple. We would display witnesses and you'd say they were lying. We would get 97% of astrobiologists to state that they exist and you would deny,deny,deny because it might cost you money.

The problem you have is that the AGW hypothesis is almost as tenuous as my purple elephant one. Both are based on subjective opinion not empirical science as your inability to find such science has demonstrated :waiting:

Frankly based on the evidence to date a better analogy for AGW amongst more objective realists would be 'dont piss down my neck then tell me that its raining' :roll: