• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Since the link goes straight to the Royal Society I see no reason to oblige you. Look or don't look. Learn or remain ignorant. Your call.:peace

I will read it tomorrow. I'm working on a paper.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I will read it tomorrow. I'm working on a paper.

Ah. Perhaps I can help. Dick and Jane are school age brother and sister. Sally is their pre-school little sister. Spot is the dog. Puff is the cat.:peace
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

What is more surprising than that is that with the expansion of the urban Heat Island effect, NASA adjusted the readings after 1970, after the spread of the paved areas to include the land stations, upwards.

I don't get that at all.

I'll apologize in advance for linking to WUWT.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product | Watts Up With That?
My problem is that there is no way of knowing if the raw data is corrected properly. Techniocally, it is no longer data once they adjust id for the assumed effects.

Food for thought warmers...

If the people in charge of these data corrections assume a slow warming, it becomes part of their adjustments...
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

A blog writing on the authority if a discredited weatherman. As threegoofs said, "next"

Until you produce a PEER-REVIEWED, ACADEMIC journal article, I'm not wasting a half hour of my time.



It actually takes about 5 minutes to look at all of the figures and read the captions.

The truth is a stubborn thing, as are facts.

You ignore them in order to maintain your beliefs.
 
Last edited:
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

My problem is that there is no way of knowing if the raw data is corrected properly. Techniocally, it is no longer data once they adjust id for the assumed effects.

Food for thought warmers...

If the people in charge of these data corrections assume a slow warming, it becomes part of their adjustments...



Exactly.

The data from pre-digital days, back when people would say it's about 40 looking at the little glass tube mounted loosely on the board with the little black lines hanging on the porch is a bit different than the temperature stations of today and very different from satellites that actual measure the global temperatures instead of measuring the temps in Irkutsk and extrapolating the one data point to create assumed temps across the arctic.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

It actually takes about 5 minutes to look at all of the figures and read the captions.

The truth is a stubborn thing, as are facts.

You ignore them in order to maintain your beliefs.

I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed article
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

A blog writing on the authority if a discredited weatherman. As threegoofs said, "next"

Until you produce a PEER-REVIEWED, ACADEMIC journal article, I'm not wasting a half hour of my time.



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

Ah. Perhaps I can help. Dick and Jane are school age brother and sister. Sally is their pre-school little sister. Spot is the dog. Puff is the cat.:peace



That sizzling sound is the burn.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I'm still waiting for the peer reviewed article

"Even if there are currently more explanations for the ‘pause’ than can possibly be the case (or combine curiously to produce a straight line for 16 years) other explanations are to be welcomed and scrutinised. Hence the interesting new paper by Cowtan and Way in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.":peace
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

This should put the 97% nonsense to bed for good.

[h=2]The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey[/h] Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Continue reading →:peace
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

This should put the 97% nonsense to bed for good.

[h=2]The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey[/h] Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Continue reading →:peace

Wow. This isnt just one survey: many confirm the 95-98% number. I expect more from you than this.

I'm sure you have provided us with another flogger-esque survey where they surveyed engineers in Alabama.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Wow. This isnt just one survey: many confirm the 95-98% number. I expect more from you than this.

I'm sure you have provided us with another flogger-esque survey where they surveyed engineers in Alabama.

The narrative speaks for itself.:peace
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Wow. This isnt just one survey: many confirm the 95-98% number. I expect more from you than this.

I'm sure you have provided us with another flogger-esque survey where they surveyed engineers in Alabama.

If you ask me if AGW is real, I would say yes. If you ask me if AGW is a significant part of global warming I would say no. It all depends on how you ask the questions and how you arrange the data. the 97% number is false for what it implies.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

If you ask me if AGW is real, I would say
are you freakin' kiddin' me?
We can't control the climate anymore than the tides. Consider this, if a wisp or two of oxidized carbon gas had the potential
to overwhelm the earth's carbon cycle and plunge us into conditions similar to those on Venus then it would have happened long ago.

Of course just like the ACA has nothing to do with healthcare the Global warming hoax has nothing to do with the climate and everything
to do with taxation and control.

Back in the 70's when I was a teenager we got dire warnings of a coming Ice Age? We all knew it was chicken little the sky is falling claptrap and nothings changed

hahahah oh yeah and there was peak oil now we've got more of the stuff than we can use?
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

If you ask me if AGW is real, I would say yes. If you ask me if AGW is a significant part of global warming I would say no.

Your opinion, which is less informed than virtually all climate scientists, is noted.

Please let us know your opinion on the feasibility of P-glycoprotein receptors allowing active drug excretion into the gut lumen and thereby increasing the apparent half life of hydantoins and related agents. We will all be fascinated by your opinion.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Your opinion, which is less informed than virtually all climate scientists, is noted.

Please let us know your opinion on the feasibility of P-glycoprotein receptors allowing active drug excretion into the gut lumen and thereby increasing the apparent half life of hydantoins and related agents. We will all be fascinated by your opinion.

Per #387 you may need to revise your "virtually all climate scientists" line.:peace
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Your opinion, which is less informed than virtually all climate scientists, is noted.

Please let us know your opinion on the feasibility of P-glycoprotein receptors allowing active drug excretion into the gut lumen and thereby increasing the apparent half life of hydantoins and related agents. We will all be fascinated by your opinion.
Sorry, I haven't studied that field like I have the climate sciences. I did a quick search. Are you looking for a cure for AIDS?
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Uh.... No. Multiple other studies have confirmed it.
Yes, multiple studies have confirmed the slight of hand they use in their interpretations.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Sorry, I haven't studied that field like I have the climate sciences. I did a quick search. Are you looking for a cure for AIDS?

I've been in the field for decades. Have done original research. I know the literature very well.

Yet I know that it makes sense to defer to the real experts in the field unless I am a peer- at the level where I can discuss this information personally and directly with the experts.
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

I've been in the field for decades. Have done original research. I know the literature very well.

Yet I know that it makes sense to defer to the real experts in the field unless I am a peer- at the level where I can discuss this information personally and directly with the experts.
Would you say you know enough in that field to call BS on what other researches say when appropriate?

What makes you think I don't understand the BS these climastrologists propagate?
 
re: about that '97 % " crap.... [W:105, 543]

Climate science is definitely still in its infancy, not past the crawling stage, yet to take its first baby steps, a million miles from being a settled science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom