Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Al Gore reference was part of the multi quote to Spatula City's umpteenth straw man argument.
Oh the irony of bringing up Al Gore's name and then accusing me of ever having used a straw man argument.
Al Gore, his role as the president of fake science, his plan to steal everyone's money and his army of private jets is the ultimate go-to straw man argument of city-data deniers.
"This isn’t a terribly surprising result. As the authors acknowledge, Naomi Oreskes found the same overwhelming consensus back in 2004 (though with a much smaller sample size). The methodology underlying the two papers differs, especially in that Cook and colleagues used a web-based, randomized abstract distribution and review process — and polled individual authors as a second check on their categorization. But the result, like several survey-based papers published in the last few years, is essentially the same. Climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and they have agreed on this for some time."
I had put forth the challenge, yet again, about the fabricated claim constantly promoted by the warmists that there is a statistically sound basis for the claim that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. You responded to this discussion with the post above.
Of course the Cook study reference referred to in your link at the top, I have already responded to. But here it is again, since you apparently missed it, or just decided to ignore it.
To start with the conclusion first, the Cook Study does not even purport to represent that it supports the claim that "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. In fact, as anyone can see for themselves by following the link, all this study claims to be is a examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since when is a selective evaluation of literature on a topic a proxy for what all people associated with a particular field of study think? It never has been before. And it still is not now. Also, LOL, 66% of the sample is cast aside right off of the bat. And this is a problem, because this is the segment that skeptics such as myself would be publishing papers in.
The "survey" you linked talks about those who reject the AGW consensus. But what does that mean? That skeptics believe that the globe is not warming, the climate is not changing or that humans have no contribution to climate change at all? As you know very well, skeptics such as myself do believe that the Earth has warmed, that the Earth's climate has changed, and that humans have probably made some sort of contribution to our planet's climate situation. All of this has been posted here many thousands of times by skeptics such as myself. And you have seen it, many, many of those times. So do not pretend that you do not understand our position on this.
What we skeptics believe is that we do not have sufficient understanding to justify the sort of radical (leftist) agenda being promoted by the supporters of the extreme AGW alarmism hypothesis. In other words, our position is that we have no opinion other than that you people have gone completely over the top about this.
Skeptics who publish papers are to be found among the 66.4% noted above. And that whole segment is cast into the waste bin, straight away. This is clearly unacceptable and not a very scientific approach to evaluating this sort of question.
This is not a statistically sound poll of either all scientists or climate scientists. It is not even clear what kind of scientists this survey is specifically speaking of. And what about the rest of the scientists who have not published papers on this? What about their opinions? Apparently they do not count. They certainly have not been counted here.
All this shows us is that the hardcore ideological zealots who profess to have sound knowledge on this topic and who have published articles documenting their position favor the AGW alarmism hypothesis by 97%. That does not tell us what all scientists or all climate scientists believe on this topic.
And then you go on to cite the Oreskes paper in support of the 97% claim, which I correctly addressed with the comments below.
While I had not read the Oreskes paper before, I have now. It is a one-page essay published in Science magazine. Nowhere in it is there any suggestion that 97% of either all scientists or all climate scientists support the AGW Alarmism hypothesis. Here is a link to it, by the way:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/30.../1686.full.pdf
This is the source you cited. Apparently you did not read it either. It does not refer to a 97% level of consensus. In fact, it does not make any claim to have ascertained a precise level of agreement about the existing level of consensus among scientists on this topic at all. See for yourself.
So, we are back to square one. No statistically sound support exists for this false claim that 97% of either climate scientists or all scientists support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. Propaganda pushing organizations and individuals like NASA continue to promote this falsehood as scientific and trustworthy, when it clearly is not. We see that science is not the basis for this claim, as it also is not the case for many other claims that continue to be promoted by the AGW alarmists, including yourself.
Or, if I am wrong in supposing that you still think there is any support for this fabricated 97% number, feel free to say that there is no statistically sound support for it.
So, is there statistically sound support for this number, or not? And if so, where is it?
I had put forth the challenge, yet again, about the fabricated claim constantly promoted by the warmists that there is a statistically sound basis for the claim that 97% of either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. You responded to this discussion with the post above.
Of course the Cook study reference referred to in your link at the top, I have already responded to. But here it is again, since you apparently missed it, or just decided to ignore it.
To start with the conclusion first, the Cook Study does not even purport to represent that it supports the claim that "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. In fact, as anyone can see for themselves by following the link, all this study claims to be is a examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Since when is a selective evaluation of literature on a topic a proxy for what all people associated with a particular field of study think? It never has been before. And it still is not now.
Also, LOL, 66% of the sample is cast aside right off of the bat. And this is a problem, because this is the segment that skeptics such as myself would be publishing papers in.
The "survey" you linked talks about those who reject the AGW consensus. But what does that mean? That skeptics believe that the globe is not warming, the climate is not changing or that humans have no contribution to climate change at all? As you know very well, skeptics such as myself do believe that the Earth has warmed, that the Earth's climate has changed, and that humans have probably made some sort of contribution to our planet's climate situation. All of this has been posted here many thousands of times by skeptics such as myself. And you have seen it, many, many of those times. So do not pretend that you do not understand our position on this.
What we skeptics believe is that we do not have sufficient understanding to justify the sort of radical (leftist) agenda being promoted by the supporters of the extreme AGW alarmism hypothesis. In other words, our position is that we have no opinion other than that you people have gone completely over the top about this.
Skeptics who publish papers are to be found among the 66.4% noted above. And that whole segment is cast into the waste bin, straight away. This is clearly unacceptable and not a very scientific approach to evaluating this sort of question.
This is not a statistically sound poll of either all scientists or climate scientists. It is not even clear what kind of scientists this survey is specifically speaking of. And what about the rest of the scientists who have not published papers on this? What about their opinions? Apparently they do not count. They certainly have not been counted here.
All this shows us is that the hardcore ideological zealots who profess to have sound knowledge on this topic and who have published articles documenting their position favor the AGW alarmism hypothesis by 97%. That does not tell us what all scientists or all climate scientists believe on this topic.
And then you go on to cite the Oreskes paper in support of the 97% claim, which I correctly addressed with the comments below.
While I had not read the Oreskes paper before, I have now. It is a one-page essay published in Science magazine. Nowhere in it is there any suggestion that 97% of either all scientists or all climate scientists support the AGW Alarmism hypothesis. Here is a link to it, by the way:
This is the source you cited. Apparently you did not read it either. It does not refer to a 97% level of consensus. In fact, it does not make any claim to have ascertained a precise level of agreement about the existing level of consensus among scientists on this topic at all. See for yourself.
So, we are back to square one. No statistically sound support exists for this false claim that 97% of either climate scientists or all scientists support the left's AGW alarmism hypothesis. Propaganda pushing organizations and individuals like NASA continue to promote this falsehood as scientific and trustworthy, when it clearly is not. We see that science is not the basis for this claim, as it also is not the case for many other claims that continue to be promoted by the AGW alarmists, including yourself.
Or, if I am wrong in supposing that you still think there is any support for this fabricated 97% number, feel free to say that there is no statistically sound support for it.
So, is there statistically sound support for this number, or not? And if so, where is it?
Wow. Do you EVER stop making false claims, telling lies, misrepresenting what other posters write and making up strawmen arguments - even after you been caught out again and again? Unbelievable.
The link I posted was to some commentary in a blog article on the NASA website re the Cook study in response to another poster linking to the Cook study. It was NOT me 'citing' the Oreskes paper as you falsely claimed.
And you continue to tell lies about the Cook study which have already been refuted. Yet another paper which you clearly haven't even read. You obviously didn't learn your lesson after being caught out telling blatant bald-faced lies and having to retract them because you hadn't read an article you were trying to trash.
And he has clearly misrepresented what the reports say. Guess you didn't read them either. How am I the one who is 'lazy', when he's the one who clearly didn't even bother to read those reports? I knew what they actually said because I had read them (and a lot more). He only regurgitated what some tabloid press piece claimed NASA 'NOOA' {sic} and the Met Office said.
I've read them too, there has been a pause in warming, they all state it. Why do you and others keep denying it? I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar because sometimes it's gray and other times it has white clouds scattered about it.
I've read them too, there has been a pause in warming, they all state it. Why do you and others keep denying it? I could tell you the sky is blue and you'd call me a liar because sometimes it's gray and other times it has white clouds scattered about it.
A so-called 'pause' or slowdown in the rate of warming of mean global surface temperatures" does not mean "there hasn't been any global warming for 18 years" .
For goodness sake, each of the last few decades has been warmer than the decade before and most of the warmest years on record have been in the 21st century. And that's just surface temperatures. There has been no slowing in the rate of rise of ocean heat content. No slowing of the decreasing trend in the Arctic ice volume etc etc etc. And this is in conjunction with no outlier strong el Nino years like 1998, and with a very quiet sun for the past few 11 year cycles. Why ignore what NASA or NOAA are saying in the very same reports you are referring to? You can't just cherry-pick a phrase you like and ignore everything else and expect to be taken seriously.
Wow. Do you EVER stop making false claims, telling lies, misrepresenting what other posters write and making up strawmen arguments - even after you been caught out again and again? Unbelievable.
The link I posted was to some commentary in a blog article on the NASA website re the Cook study in response to another poster linking to the Cook study. It was NOT me 'citing' the Oreskes paper as you falsely claimed.
And you continue to tell lies about the Cook study which have already been refuted. Yet another paper which you clearly haven't even read. You obviously didn't learn your lesson after being caught out telling blatant bald-faced lies and having to retract them because you hadn't read an article you were trying to trash.
"Have you no shame sir? No shame at all?"
You bear false witness against me, yet again, apparently without hesitation or remorse.
And once again you have refused to answer the key question. So, in case you missed it, here it is again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Or, if I am wrong in supposing that you still think there is any support for this fabricated 97% number, feel free to say that there is no statistically sound support for it.
So, is there statistically sound support for this number, or not? And if so, where is it?
Would you please spare us the deflection and evasiveness antics, and just give us a straight-forward, no B.S. answer for a change?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and the Met Office said.