homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue May 30, 2017 1:56 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1376
Home Schooled: Yes
I just realized anorton responded to a bunch of my stuff. :)

anorton wrote:
In any event, though, this is a non-issue; the Forbes' link that someone posted misconstrues Zimmerman, et. al,'s statement on peer review. The study rejected people who did not publish more than 50% of their peer-reviewed work in the past 5 years on climate change related topics.

That's an absurd standard. There are tons of climate scientists that are perfectly knowledgeable about the issue that don't write about it constantly. You don't have to have published more than half your stuff on climate change in order to be credible.

anorton wrote:
"Scientists" who don't publish in peer reviewed journals aren't scientists, just like politicians who aren't in office aren't politicians.

Fine, but you still don't have to publish 50% in order to be credible. I mean, they eliminated over 97% of their data pool. Are you telling me over 97% of climatologists aren't credible and aren't "real" scientists? Or did the survey not even ask climatologists in the first place? Did it ask ALL scientists, and then eliminate the non-climatologist ones?

anorton wrote:
It's even more of a non-issue because the respondents who weren't eliminated according to this criteria responded nearly exactly the same way.

??? Then how come only 82% of the total responded that they thought climate change was anthropogenic? Are you saying that they eliminated people based on some other criterion? If so, what was it?

Quote:
https://medium.com/conquering-corporate ... b489a39d1a
^ It's like you took #2 straight from there. :P

LOL, I guess so. :P It's just that if you say "1 in 5" it sounds a lot bigger than "18%."

Quote:
Cyberknight, examples != statistics. The fact that you found 21 scientists who agree with you isn't impressive if there are 29000 climate scientists out there already. :P

I wasn't saying these were statistics. They aren't. Someone said that NO ONE credible doesn't believe in ACC, and I was refuting that. Also, I incidentally did have a statistic in there. 44.8% of people in the AMS doubt that it's happening.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:13 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 852
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Cyberknight wrote:
I just realized anorton responded to a bunch of my stuff. :)

I was wondering when you'd notice. :P

Quote:
anorton wrote:
In any event, though, this is a non-issue; the Forbes' link that someone posted misconstrues Zimmerman, et. al,'s statement on peer review. The study rejected people who did not publish more than 50% of their peer-reviewed work in the past 5 years on climate change related topics.

That's an absurd standard. There are tons of climate scientists that are perfectly knowledgeable about the issue that don't write about it constantly. You don't have to have published more than half your stuff on climate change in order to be credible.

I don't know if the 50% number is really absurd. Researchers may spend a year or two on a paper -- if you write 4 papers in 5 years, I think requesting that two of them be on climate change is ok. However, I'd like it better if the study said something like "if, in the past 10 year period, there was a 5 year period during which 50% of your work was cc-related"--this would account for people who may have been field experts recently enough to have a valid opinion, but perhaps not current experts.

Quote:
anorton wrote:
It's even more of a non-issue because the respondents who weren't eliminated according to this criteria responded nearly exactly the same way.

??? Then how come only 82% of the total responded that they thought climate change was anthropogenic? Are you saying that they eliminated people based on some other criterion? If so, what was it?

See here, page 37 of the study (45 of the PDF). It was pretty close, but yeah, the non-experts did have a lower agreement rate.

I'll drop the other three points, so they flow NEG. :lol:

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1376
Home Schooled: Yes
anorton wrote:
See here, page 37 of the study (45 of the PDF). It was pretty close, but yeah, the non-experts did have a lower agreement rate.

I was not aware that the study questioned people who were not climate scientists. Any idea what the results were for JUST the people who listed themselves as climate scientists? (These charts are very confusing, so I can't figure out :P).

Also, I know we've been harping on this study a lot, :P but I just discovered another argument against it from WattsUpWithThat. This guy http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/a ... sus-claim/ argues that the statistic really should be 95%, not 97%, because they calculated the data wrong.

So it's actually 95%, and there's a 12% margin of error as you pointed out, so there could be as many as 17% of scientific experts don't believe it, even if you only count the ones that publish more than half their stuff on climate change.

PS: These people who wrote the report apparently didn't study grammar in high school: "A higher percentage of ACRs have PhD’s."

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:04 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Cyberknight wrote:
I was not aware that the study questioned people who were not climate scientists. Any idea what the results were for JUST the people who listed themselves as climate scientists?
97% :P. Those 77 are the climatologists; climatologists may not identify specifically as "climatologists", but rather geophysicists, atmospheric scientists, etc., so the 50% criterion is how they decided who could reasonably be considered a climatologist. If more than half your papers are in climatology journals, you're a climatologist. That's what the 50% thing is about.

In other words, they didn't survey 3,146 climatologists and then throw out all but 77 of them. They surveyed 3,146 people, of a variety of professions, and only 77 of them were actually climatologists. Those 3,146 people included professions like petroleum geologists and hydrologists that have almost nothing to do with climate change. That's why people cite the 97% figure, not the 82% figure.

Is this still a less-than-ideal sample size? Yes - but I think people overestimate how many active climatologists there actually are. There are tens of thousands of scientists whose work contributes to climate research in various ways, but the number of people who study large-scale climatology full-time isn't that large. (For comparison, my current subfield - marine environmental micropaleontology - has strong climate applications, but I wouldn't really call it "climatology", and there are... like... eight people in it.)

Factor in low response rates, and it's definitely a figure that matches up with what I've observed personally about climate scientists. Climate scientists don't constantly think "oh, these are my colleagues that believe in global warming, and these are my colleagues that don't." It's kind of a non-issue; people argue back and forth about various specific issues, and they're aware of a few researchers who have a reputation of being contrarian, but the overall question of "is global warming a thing?" is pretty much settled.

(Side note: Meteorologists are not climatologists. Meteorologists study weather, not climate; they're concerned with what happens three days from now, not three decades from now. It's like asking a gunsmith for his opinion on how to win the Iraq war. Related fields, with some expertise that cross-applies, but very different.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:58 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1367
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
MSD wrote:
(Side note: Meteorologists are not climatologists. Meteorologists study weather, not climate; they're concerned with what happens three days from now, not three decades from now. It's like asking a gunsmith for his opinion on how to win the Iraq war. Related fields, with some expertise that cross-applies, but very different.)

How accurate have they been in the past? (looking 30 years ago)

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1376
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
97% :P. Those 77 are the climatologists; climatologists may not identify specifically as "climatologists", but rather geophysicists, atmospheric scientists, etc., so the 50% criterion is how they decided who could reasonably be considered a climatologist.

But that simply isn't true. According to the report, they ASK YOU if your main area of expertise is climatology. Of the people who they ASKED, who RESPONDED that they were climatologists, regardless of how many papers they'd published, how many were skeptics? That's what I'm trying to find out.

Quote:
(Side note: Meteorologists are not climatologists. Meteorologists study weather, not climate; they're concerned with what happens three days from now, not three decades from now. It's like asking a gunsmith for his opinion on how to win the Iraq war. Related fields, with some expertise that cross-applies, but very different.)

Ummm, this doesn't make that much sense. A climatologist may be more "concerned" with finding out what's going to happen three decades from now, but the question is: HOW do they find that out? By looking at what's happening NOW. By examining the exact same data that meteorologists look at. I see know reason why a meteorologist would not be able to make as a good a prediction as a climatologist, they both have access to the same data.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:59 am 
Offline
McNixmunk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:55 pm
Posts: 1065
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Grove City College probably
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
(Side note: Meteorologists are not climatologists. Meteorologists study weather, not climate; they're concerned with what happens three days from now, not three decades from now. It's like asking a gunsmith for his opinion on how to win the Iraq war. Related fields, with some expertise that cross-applies, but very different.)

Ummm, this doesn't make that much sense. A climatologist may be more "concerned" with finding out what's going to happen three decades from now, but the question is: HOW do they find that out? By looking at what's happening NOW. By examining the exact same data that meteorologists look at. I see know reason why a meteorologist would not be able to make as a good a prediction as a climatologist, they both have access to the same data.

The models and data used for short term, localized weather predictions are fairly different from those used for the global climate over many years. The two areas of study have to look at very different factors...

A meteorologist might take into account how a certain mountain range will affect the local weather in his area, or predict the path of a storm cell. You think this is the same thing as studying the climate?

_________________
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we are doomed to repeat them for the first time. - Ken M

"Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth" - Albert Camus


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:04 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Cyberknight wrote:
MSD wrote:
97% :P. Those 77 are the climatologists; climatologists may not identify specifically as "climatologists", but rather geophysicists, atmospheric scientists, etc., so the 50% criterion is how they decided who could reasonably be considered a climatologist.
But that simply isn't true. According to the report, they ASK YOU if your main area of expertise is climatology.
Picking hairs - I mean, yes, there was a self-reporting component, but the 50% criterion a way of quantitatively verifying it, basically.

Some respected climatologists may self-identify as, e.g., geophysicists, while some random seismologist with a big head might self-identify as a climatologist because he "reads a lot about it, yeah." So it helps to have a way of deciding mathematically if someone is an active specialist in climatology.

But:
Cyberknight wrote:
Of the people who they ASKED, who RESPONDED that they were climatologists, regardless of how many papers they'd published, how many were skeptics? That's what I'm trying to find out.
Great question. :) 88%.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:15 pm 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't really have an opinion either way on this used. But I hear that 97% number *a lot* and haven't been able to find a primary source. Could somebody show it to me?

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:39 pm 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 852
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
I don't really have an opinion either way on this used. But I hear that 97% number *a lot* and haven't been able to find a primary source. Could somebody show it to me?

Masked Midnight wrote:
I on my phone, but it's the Cook study.

Eh. Ok. It's sort-of the Cook study. The NASA "Climate Change" webpage links to four articles, each of which describe numbers in the high 90s. One of these is the Cook study, which nearly everyone in this thread seems to agree is bunk. I discuss the other three articles here; although I disagree with its methodology to some extent, I think that the Zimmerman study is the best primary source with a final result of around 97%.

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited