Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: 97%?????

  1. #1
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759

    97%?????

    Now that the President has taken it upon himself to prepare the US for Climate change, we should once again examine the consensus:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...climate-change

    A reminder of the peer reviewed paper questioning the 97% agreement:
    The 97.1 % consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 % but 0.3 %. Their claim of 97.1 % consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation that has been circulated on either side of the climate debate.

    Here is an abbreviated version of the press release summarising the above paper.

    The truth about the “97 per cent” claimed by Cook:



    Any time you here someone babble on about “97 per cent of climate scientists” you should conclude the speaker has no idea what they are talking about.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a..._false/#131753

    Link to the paper: http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/si...ogy%5B1%5D.pdf

    “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s imminent Fifth Assessment Report, who found the errors in Cook’s data, said: “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

    “It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”
    There is much wisdom in the highlighted statement...
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  2. #2
    Travel Squad
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,780
    In other news, the earth is at the center of the solar system.
    “If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.” Marcus Aurelius

  3. #3
    Call Kenny Loggins
    uncertainbyprinciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Danger Zone
    Posts
    1,661
    Looking at Cook et al, it would appear that, while it is twisting their words to say that 97% of climate scientists agree that we contribute to GCC, would you prefer that we just start saying only 0.7% of climate scientists reject that we contribute to GCC? That is an accurate representation of what Cook et al claims.

    Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
    change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
    AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
    Among abstracts expressing
    a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
    phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
    self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
    97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
    among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
    the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...8_2_024024.pdf

    Disclaimer: I don't read a lot of climatology literature of any kind, and am happy to admit that the Earth is a fantastically intricate system. I know that it was a much hotter place during the cretaceous when atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are now.
    Its all part of the process

  4. #4
    Travel Squad

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,525
    Would I expect most, or even a majority of climate research publications to discuss the broad scope of human induced climate change? No. Why? That's not the explicit focus of their research. They'll publish the research findings from their experiments/analysis, be it on atmospheric gas levels, wind speeds, current shifts, etc. Their research is one little piece in the large bundle of evidence that leads to the scientific consensus, which their undoubtedly is.

    Let's look at a well established (and formerly controversial) correlation. Smoking and lung cancer. If I pull up every research abstract from the last 20 years that mentions lung cancer in the title, how many do you think will mention smoking? Very few. Why? Because that correlation is not the focus of the research being published. It could be on new treatment pathways, new medicines developed, gene expression levels, etc., which is what that team of researchers were focused on. So if there's only mention of human induced lung cancer via smoking in 5% of abstracts (full disclosure that is an arbitrary number), does that mean that there isn't consensus in the cancer research field that smoking increases risk of cancer? Of course not.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Crawdad View Post
    Would I expect most, or even a majority of climate research publications to discuss the broad scope of human induced climate change? No. Why? That's not the explicit focus of their research. They'll publish the research findings from their experiments/analysis, be it on atmospheric gas levels, wind speeds, current shifts, etc. Their research is one little piece in the large bundle of evidence that leads to the scientific consensus, which their undoubtedly is.

    Let's look at a well established (and formerly controversial) correlation. Smoking and lung cancer. If I pull up every research abstract from the last 20 years that mentions lung cancer in the title, how many do you think will mention smoking? Very few. Why? Because that correlation is not the focus of the research being published. It could be on new treatment pathways, new medicines developed, gene expression levels, etc., which is what that team of researchers were focused on. So if there's only mention of human induced lung cancer via smoking in 5% of abstracts (full disclosure that is an arbitrary number), does that mean that there isn't consensus in the cancer research field that smoking increases risk of cancer? Of course not.
    Well said. Interestingly, the very point you make was explicitly explained in the study of all of available climate research. There was complete transparency on the breakdown of the articles.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  6. #6
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by uncertainbyprinciple View Post
    Looking at Cook et al, it would appear that, while it is twisting their words to say that 97% of climate scientists agree that we contribute to GCC, would you prefer that we just start saying only 0.7% of climate scientists reject that we contribute to GCC? That is an accurate representation of what Cook et al claims.



    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...8_2_024024.pdf
    It most certainly is an accurate representation of the data set, but does that mean the opposite is true, that 99.3% consensus?

    Quote Originally Posted by uncertainbyprinciple View Post
    Disclaimer: I don't read a lot of climatology literature of any kind, and am happy to admit that the Earth is a fantastically intricate system. I know that it was a much hotter place during the cretaceous when atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are now.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  7. #7
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Crawdad View Post
    Would I expect most, or even a majority of climate research publications to discuss the broad scope of human induced climate change? No. Why? That's not the explicit focus of their research. They'll publish the research findings from their experiments/analysis, be it on atmospheric gas levels, wind speeds, current shifts, etc. Their research is one little piece in the large bundle of evidence that leads to the scientific consensus, which their undoubtedly is.

    Let's look at a well established (and formerly controversial) correlation. Smoking and lung cancer. If I pull up every research abstract from the last 20 years that mentions lung cancer in the title, how many do you think will mention smoking? Very few. Why? Because that correlation is not the focus of the research being published. It could be on new treatment pathways, new medicines developed, gene expression levels, etc., which is what that team of researchers were focused on. So if there's only mention of human induced lung cancer via smoking in 5% of abstracts (full disclosure that is an arbitrary number), does that mean that there isn't consensus in the cancer research field that smoking increases risk of cancer? Of course not.
    Please help me out then, what is the consensus they are agreeing on?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Well said. Interestingly, the very point you make was explicitly explained in the study of all of available climate research. There was complete transparency on the breakdown of the articles.
    You can help as well?
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    Please help me out then, what is the consensus they are agreeing on?



    You can help as well?
    Unfortunately, I am not sure that I can. Red Crawdad explained it as well as it can be explained.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  9. #9
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Unfortunately, I am not sure that I can. Red Crawdad explained it as well as it can be explained.
    Everyone is agreeing to something, but they don't know what it is? Certainly with all the consensus evidence (what is it, 12,000 papers) you should be able to define or quantify what they are agreeing on?
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    Everyone is agreeing to something, but they don't know what it is? Certainly with all the consensus evidence (what is it, 12,000 papers) you should be able to define or quantify what they are agreeing on?
    I don't know if you honestly don't understand it, or, like the authors of your "peer reviewed journal" (snicker), you understand the results but are sowing confusion because you don't like those results.

    I'll explain it again, just in case it is the former.

    The study that is being criticized surveyed 12,000 papers on climatology. About two thirds of those papers did not express a position on AGW -- those studies clearly should not be included in the sample size because they do not express a position either way. (Unless of course, one is being intentionally disingenuous, in which case they should be embraced wholeheartedly) Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed AGW either explicitly or implicitly. To confirm that there was no error in their methodology, the authors then sent surveys to the authors that did express a position on AGW. Those authors that responded (roughly half) endorsed AGW at the same 97% level.

    Now this struck a nerve with your boys, who are well-known Exxon-funded climate deniers, whose salary depends on creating an illusion of scientific controversy. Their paper is not a peer-reviewed paper in a climate journal, it is a polemic written with inflammatory rhetoric. A quick search online demonstrates that their attacks on the methodology of the authors of the Cook study are not new, and that they have already been fully rebutted.

    In any event, the Cook study cited numerous surveys and polls of climatologists, all of which support the notion of consensus. You're welcome to post a survey of actual climate scientists that contradict those results.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  11. #11
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    I don't know if you honestly don't understand it, or, like the authors of your "peer reviewed journal" (snicker), you understand the results but are sowing confusion because you don't like those results.

    I'll explain it again, just in case it is the former.

    The study that is being criticized surveyed 12,000 papers on climatology. About two thirds of those papers did not express a position on AGW -- those studies clearly should not be included in the sample size because they do not express a position either way. (Unless of course, one is being intentionally disingenuous, in which case they should be embraced wholeheartedly) Of those that did express a position, 97% endorsed AGW either explicitly or implicitly. To confirm that there was no error in their methodology, the authors then sent surveys to the authors that did express a position on AGW. Those authors that responded (roughly half) endorsed AGW at the same 97% level.

    Now this struck a nerve with your boys, who are well-known Exxon-funded climate deniers, whose salary depends on creating an illusion of scientific controversy. Their paper is not a peer-reviewed paper in a climate journal, it is a polemic written with inflammatory rhetoric. A quick search online demonstrates that their attacks on the methodology of the authors of the Cook study are not new, and that they have already been fully rebutted.

    In any event, the Cook study cited numerous surveys and polls of climatologists, all of which support the notion of consensus. You're welcome to post a survey of actual climate scientists that contradict those results.
    You are avoiding the central question (snicker - wow did I actually type that...) of what did they actually endorse since they sent a questionnaire it should be easy to quantify?
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    You are avoiding the central question (snicker - wow did I actually type that...) of what did they actually endorse since they sent a questionnaire it should be easy to quantify?
    No I answered it directly.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  13. #13
    How's your search for surveys of climate scientists coming? If Cook et al messed up so badly, it should be a piece of cake coming up with a survey showing wide disagreement amongst climate scientists. Maybe Exxon did an in-house survey you could use?
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  14. #14
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    12,759
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    How's your search for surveys of climate scientists coming? If Cook et al messed up so badly, it should be a piece of cake coming up with a survey showing wide disagreement amongst climate scientists. Maybe Exxon did an in-house survey you could use?
    That is essentially the links and paper in the OP, but yes, you don't need to prove anything, it is up to me to prove it false.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    That is essentially the links and paper in the OP, but yes, you don't need to prove anything, it is up to me to prove it false.
    Actually, the content of your OP did nothing of the sort.

    I have an idea! Maybe you could do an informal survey of the authors of your article by googling them for their views. Then, you could claim that 100% of scientists surveyed do not believe in anthropogenic global warming!
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II








Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •