homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:25 am
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 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:55 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
I don't really want to re-ignite the debate on this thread, mostly because I find the subject a bit boring :D, but I found this recent news story interesting. Basically it says that scientists are predicting an ice age in the next fifteen years because of solar ray patterns. To me what it says is that this whole issue is a little pointless if the Sun can so radically change our environment while we worry about carbon emissions, depleting the ozone, fossil fuels, etc.


Oh boy, haha. First of all, the astronomer/mathematician that pioneered the research hasn't published the research in a peer-reviewed journal yet, which could be due to a number of reasons (i.e. it's not reason enough alone to doubt her findings), but that still gives reason to wait before making grave and bombastic predictions. Second, the research found that magnetic waves and solar cycles (roughly 8-11 year long cycles of typical activity) could be correlated and and then solar activity (which is associated with sun spots) could be predicted; her research did not formally extend into climatology. Third, a Little Ice Age (actually The Little Ice Age) literally did occur during the Maunder minimum (a period of low solar activity) in the Medieval Ages, but it was far less a global ice age and more really just a particularly cold period in Europe; in essence, the LIA and the Maunder minimum are correlated, but the Maunder minimum may not have had a causal factor in the LIA as other factors may have. Fourth, and most importantly, global temperature reductions that would occur as a result of predicted lower solar activity would not be able to offset the predicted increase in temperature per climatologists' research; this is, of course, if the solar activity has any effect on climate at all, a relation that many scientists say remains obscure and inconclusive.

Bottom line: the media and non-scientists love to explode relatively benign scientific findings, so be skeptical of sensational claims. I'm pretty sure that the "mini ice age" buzz has been around for several years.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I just found out about this thread :). I will quickly add my two cents worth.

Quote:
1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.
4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.
5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.
8. The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases

I agree with all of these except 8. It is true that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, and it's true that humans emit CO2, but one thing I think scientists have failed to prove is that the AMOUNT of CO2 humans release is SUFFICIENT to cause climate change by itself. I looked for studies showing this UN year, but I found none. What I did find was 50 billion different internet sites devoted to making fun of people who are "climate skeptics" without ever actually providing any proof. Most scientific sites either cite the "consensus" that all scientists believe it or resort to childish name-calling against the other side.

Also, there are studies that show CO2 emissions are NOT enough to cause significant warming. For instance, this guy was a lead author for the IPCC, and a former global warming alarmist, but he recently did a study that showed the climate is not significantly altered by human-emitted CO2: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/forme ... n-climate/

Also, the main source that says climate change IS anthroprogenic is the IPCC, which is a corrupt and dishonest organization (abolish IPCC was pretty much the best case ever written :P).

Quote:
Are the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the The Royal Society of the UK, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society all wrong?

I don't necessarily know if their WRONG or not, I just don't think they've proven their case. Most of these organizations have not actually done their own independent studies as to whether climate change is real or not. They all cite the IPCC, which is known to completely ignore evidence it disagrees with.

This is why you can't always trust the scientific majority. Often times, one scientist or scientific/political organization will start some trend, and it'll become popular, and then no organization will want to disagree for fear of looking bad. One opener quote I love that I used for my abolish IPCC case was this one from Terry Moternson and Thane H. Ury:

Quote:
But history indicates that nearly all scientific breakthroughs have come from the minority who have been willing to challenge convention. Scientists should be the last to forget that the scientific majority has time and again been proven wrong

And also this one from Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker,

Quote:
If you look historically, almost all of the models at any given time that people have are wrong. So there's no particular reason why they shouldn't be at this time, and why should scientists be so stupid as to not realize this?

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:58 am
Posts: 641
Home Schooled: Yes
The point in citing scientific consensus is not to say that the consensus is always right, and dissenting scientists are always wrong. It's to point out that there's no reason for a non-scientist, such as yourself, who has not devoted his entire career to studying the phenomena in question, to argue the opposite.

Dismissing the collective millennia of experience these professionals have with the phenomena is not a thing to be done lightly, and is not to be done at all if one isn't trained or qualified or experienced or understands the phenomena.

It's insane that "I'm no scientist, but" a la Jeb Bush has come to mean "I, while not a scientist, have a better understanding of this than the vast majority of scientists" in our modern society.

_________________
Omaha NE


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
thephfactor wrote:
The point in citing scientific consensus is not to say that the consensus is always right, and dissenting scientists are always wrong. It's to point out that there's no reason for a non-scientist, such as yourself, who has not devoted his entire career to studying the phenomena in question, to argue the opposite.

Right, I realize that. However, there is still a large portion (18%) of climatologists that do not believe in anthropogenic warming, and there are unrefuted scientific studies showing that it isn't true. Also, most importantly, most climatologists' arguments have huge holes in them (like how do we know the amount of CO2 humans emit is enough to cause significant change?). So unless the scientific majority can respond to studies against them, and provide actual evidence for all the links in their argument, I'm not going to suddenly believe them just because they are the scientific majority.

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:38 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Cyberknight wrote:
Right, I realize that. However, there is still a large portion (18%) of climatologists that do not believe in anthropogenic warming, and there are unrefuted scientific studies showing that it isn't true.

This is, without a doubt, a 100% lie. It is well-known and well-documented that 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real (roughly the same percentage as scientists who believe smoking causes lung cancer).

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Hyper Static Union wrote:
This is, without a doubt, a 100% lie. It is well-known and well-documented that 97% of climate scientists agree that man-made climate change is real (roughly the same percentage as scientists who believe smoking causes lung cancer).

That 97% statistic is, without a doubt, a 100% lie. LOL, I knew someone would cite that stat. The study that everyone cites for the bogus "97%" statistic ACTUALLY showed that only 82% of climatologists believe it, but the people who conducted the study wanted to inflate the numbers, so they only counted people who had gotten more than half of their papers published in mainstream scientific journals, which was only 77 of the over 3,000 people surveyed.

Forbes wrote an article about how laughably sketchy this "97%" statistic is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... ensus-not/

The only other statistic cited in your link has nothing to do with how many scientists believe in anthropogenic warming. It merely states that 97% of SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE on the topic endorses the view that it is happening, NOT that 97% of scientists think it is. And it wasn't even specific to climatologists, nor was it even talking about actual studies, just published literature.

The hilarious thing is that NASA cited these two studies and didn't even bother reading their findings before they said what they concluded. This just goes to show you how unscientific these political organizations can be.

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:02 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Why is it bad to ensure the scientists you've polled have had at least half their papers published in scientific journals?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 1:47 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
^^^ This. Zimmerman/Dolan's methodology makes perfect sense; actually, if you read the paper, they breaks out respondents into a lot of different categories - which basically show that the more experience people have with actual climatology, the more likely they are to believe in anthropogenic global warming. The 97% number is just the most dramatic and oft-cited statistic (for the "high-producing professional climatologists" category).

Any way you slice it, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, and if you argue otherwise, you're fighting a losing battle. I've worked closely with climate scientists, and the overall ethos is definitely "yeah, there are a few doubters in the fringes, but anyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes this is a thing."

_________________
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 - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
+X wrote:
Why is it bad to ensure the scientists you've polled have had at least half their papers published in scientific journals?

Quite possibly because scientific journals don't want articles that critique global warming?

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
I didn't realize someone cited the Cook report. That was debunked. The WSJ reported that:

Quote:
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Also, the Cook study foudn the majority of PAPERS endorsed the view, not scientists, and again, it wasn't specific to climate scientists or studies.

+X wrote:
Why is it bad to ensure the scientists you've polled have had at least half their papers published in scientific journals?

1: You are completely missing the point. The point is that it is simply incorrect to say that "97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic warming." That is simply a lie. You can say that "97% of climatologists that get lots of their papers published believe it" but that's not what NASA said, is it?

2: The reason it makes no sense to only count people who have most of their papers published is, as hammy pointed out, scientific journals don't WANT to publish anti-global warming stuff, because it's not popular.

MSD wrote:
This. Zimmerman/Dolan's methodology makes perfect sense; actually, if you read the paper, they breaks out respondents into a lot of different categories - which basically show that the more experience people have with actual climatology, the more likely they are to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

So, only 77 out of 3,000 climatologists actually has experience in climatology? Sounds a bit sketchy to me. ;) Excluding people who did not get most of their papers published is a HORRIBLE measuring stick for whether they have "experience" or not. Lots of experienced scientists can't get their stuff published in mainstream scientific journals very easily, because again, the journals don't want to publish anti-global warming stuff.

MSD wrote:
Any way you slice it, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, and if you argue otherwise, you're fighting a losing battle.

18% don't believe it. That's almost ONE IN FIVE.

MSD wrote:
I've worked closely with climate scientists, and the overall ethos is definitely "yeah, there are a few doubters in the fringes, but anyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes this is a thing."

Problem is, that's simply incorrect. There are loads of scientists that actually DO know what they are talking about that doubt it.

For instance, I mentioned that Dr. Philip Lloyd, a former IPCC chairman, did a study that there's not enough CO2 emitted by human beings.

Also, William Kininmonth, a meteorologist and former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: http://web.archive.org/web/200708282326 ... change.pdf

Also, John R. Christy, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/ ... -color.pdf

Also, Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D in meteorology: http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=912

Also, Tim Patterson, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor: http://canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Also, here are 16 VERY credible scientists cited by the Wall Street Journal who do not believe it. A lot of them are climate scientists too: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

Also, the WSJ reported that

Quote:
Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

EDIT: There are arguments that the above statistic is slightly sketchy, and that it was calculated wrong and should be 44.8%. Also, some people argue you simply can't determine a good statistic based on available data, because the survey questions were statistically dependent. However, regardless of how off the statistic is, one thing is clear: a very large portion of the AMS does not believe in anthropogenic warming.

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:32 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
Nobody cited Cooke actually. His methodology was flawed, I think we all know that.

The broader point is that the majority of climate scientists believe man made global warming is an issue, and the more experienced they are the more likely they are to believe it's an issue. I think that says something.

I ran the case to abolish the IPCC two years ago guys lol. I know the arguments that are out there, but a lot of them are bunk. There is no vast conspiracy to silence climate change deniers- journals publish climate change deniers' papers consistently when they're well researched and factual. The reason why you don't see more if it is simple- there just aren't a lot of credible scientists drnying climate change who haven't been paid by a large corporation for their words.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:14 pm 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 877
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Me right now (clicky)
Image


I am indifferent to this whole issue. I think the term "Climate Change" is a misnomer for the theory it represents (the statement "the climate is changing" is non-falsifiable; outside of the perfect realm of mathematics, nothing is in stasis), that humans aren't treating the environment as well as they should, that there are many people (not necessarily scientists) who have overblown mankind's impact, and that much of what is publicized about climate change is hype used by politicians to get their constituents emotionally charged. Yes, I think we should be more responsible environmentally, but I really wish that we'd stop politicizing this topic. (In my field, the current equivalent is AI; in the past year, a couple of really smart people in unrelated fields have said AI will destroy mankind and now people are concerned... but no expert in AI actually believes that. :roll: )

HOWEVER: I hate it when people do dumb things with statistics and/or studies. So, I'm going to slap anyone who's done something stupid with numbers. ::slaps a fair number of people in thread::

Let's take a closer look here, first at NASA's climate change link about the 97% figure. They cite four studies (this, Blaire, is where someone cited Cook):

1) J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013)
Looking just at this study (not other people's critiques of it) I like it a lot. But, it appears to have been debunked... and I wrote up all of this before you guys posted, so I'm just going to post it anyway. :P

I feel it is misleading to say this study supports the idea that "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

At first glance, one would object to the 97% figure because this paper primarily compares number of published papers, not number of authors. However, the paper also gives percentages of the number of authors which (roughly) agree with the percentages based on number of published papers. So, we can ignore that difference and stick with the "percent of papers" numbers for consistency's sake.

This study does state that 97% of papers (sample size >> 1000) that assert an AGW belief (essentially climate change belief, for our purposes) endorse AGW. However, 35.5% of all papers were self-identified as "not expressing an opinion either way." So, the more accurate breakdown of is: 63% endorse AGW, 36% have no position, and 2% reject AGW. While very few papers deny climate change, there are many that do not hold a position either way.

Thus, I think it is misrepresenting the paper for NASA to use this paper to assert that "97% of actively publishing climate scientists" support the theory of climate change. ::slaps NASA writer::

The above was analysis assuming the report was actually valid; because it was famously debunked, I'll slap the NASA writer again. ::slap::


2) W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010)
I don't really like this study; it basically boils down to "we made a list of climate scientists, organized them by whether they agree or disagree with climate change, and then attacked the credibility of the people who disagree." Scientific decisions should be made based on the testable results of studies, not based on how knowledgeable the researchers were. ::slaps authors of paper::

This paper gathered climate researchers' names from statements supporting or dissenting the IPCC 4th Amendment (for our purposes, climate change). Then, they ranked authors by climate publication count and citation count in top 4 papers. You only get 97.5% affirmation when considering the top 200 researchers (ranked by number of publications); when considering all climate scientists who 1) signed a prominent statement for/against IPCC AR4 and 2) published 20 or more papers on the climate, we get a 90% affirmation rate. This could go either way (it's valid to ignore one-off researchers, but it's invalid to ignore researchers who are starting careers), so I won't slap anyone for that. :P

But... I still have mixed feelings on this; even though academics are ranked by citation count and number of publications, many academics feel that this is a poor rating system for measuring contributions.


3) P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22
This is just insulting. You take a sample of 3146, reject all but 79 (77 of whom agree that temperatures have risen in the past 200 years), and assert that 1) this is statistically significant, and 2) this means they agree with climate change. ::slaps study authors, NASA for citing it, and anyone who cited it in this thread once more for good measure::

First, let me respond to their sample size. I understand they were trying to constrain their numbers to only climate-related people, but... they rejected 97.5% of their sample, and concluded that 97% of the remaining respondents agreed with their assertion. :lol: Seriously, though, the study by Cook indicates that there are at least approximately 29000 active climate scientists. (I know that report was debunked, but I'm assuming that something like "number of scientists surveyed" is actually valid. If people dispute this, find another count of climate scientists and run it through the calculator as I did.) For ease of use, let's jump over to Survey Monkey's Margin of Error Calculator. If we desire a 95% confidence interval (which I believe is standard), this study has a 12% margin of error. It is my understanding that professional polling services aim for a 95% confidence interval with a 3% margin of error. Nowhere in this study do the authors provide a margin of error. ::slaps authors again::

Now, let me respond to their polling methodology. Their poll consisted of three questions shown to all people:
Quote:
Q1: "When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
Q2: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
Q3: Dependent on the answer to Q2.
Q4: "Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change."

Question 1 is a "verifiable fact" question; of course temperatures have risen since then! Question 2 isn't "verifiable fact," but it is nearly common sense--we're the dominant force on this planet, of course we're a significant contributor. I'd contend that even most "climate change deniers" would answer yes to Q1 and Q2. The important question that needed to be asked instead of Q1 is "Is the increase in global temperatures since pre-1800's levels outside of the bounds of 'normal climate cycles'?" Instead of Q2, they needed to quantify "significant" -- other studies say "contribute 50% or more towards CO2 emissions," etc. Interestingly enough, the "active climate researchers" (published 50% or more of peer-reviewed papers in last 5 years on climate-related topics) nearly always agreed with the "non-active climate researchers" (published less than 50% on climate-related).

FWIW, Q4 had an average response of 80%. This "sounds" more reasonable to me than a 97% rate of agreement... but that's just a gut feeling on my part, not anything supported by science.

Also, let's consider where they're comparing their results: They claim that 58% of the general population would have answered "yes" to Q2 based on this Gallup Poll. However, the actual Gallup Poll question is "I'm going to read you a list of environmental problems. As I read each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or not at all. How much do you personally worry about ... Global Warming or Climate Change." Summing the percentages for "a great deal" and "a fair amount" yields the "yes" value taken for Zimmerman's thesis. I'm pretty sure any fool can see these two questions are vastly different. ::slaps Zimmerman again::

Finally, it should be considered a sin to report percentages for any sample of size less than 100. ::one more slap::

As an aside, this paper is almost an editorial summarizing the work of Zimmerman's master's thesis (linky)... There's nothing wrong with it being a master's thesis, but I'm really surprised it's cited as often as it is when other papers exist; my understanding was that master's theses are typically lesser work that everyone ignores--only at the Ph.D. level do things typically get interesting.


4) N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004)
This isn't really much of a study, but rather a statement saying "the major climate scientist organizations have agreed to this." The one piece of research is the assertion that of 928 abstracts published between 93 and 03, every single one supported climate change. This is pretty damning evidence if correct, but it smells fishy to literally claim no dissent. No slaps, but I'm a bit confused on this one.


Responses to stuff from thread
Cyberknight wrote:
I didn't realize someone cited the Cook report. That was debunked. The WSJ reported that:

Quote:
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Also, the Cook study foudn the majority of PAPERS endorsed the view, not scientists, and again, it wasn't specific to climate scientists or studies.

+X wrote:
Why is it bad to ensure the scientists you've polled have had at least half their papers published in scientific journals?

1: You are completely missing the point. The point is that it is simply incorrect to say that "97% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic warming." That is simply a lie. You can say that "97% of climatologists that get lots of their papers published believe it" but that's not what NASA said, is it?

2: The reason it makes no sense to only count people who have most of their papers published is, as hammy pointed out, scientific journals don't WANT to publish anti-global warming stuff, because it's not popular.

This... is not how science works. Do you have any idea how much you sound like a conspiracy theorist to say "well, there are tons of people who agree with me, but they just can't publish their work." Journals don't get paid based on what they publish. In fact, it would be good for journals to publish controversial pieces so more people buy the article from them. Saying "it's ok for scientists to not publish in peer-reviewed journals, and we can cite that" makes about as much sense as saying "I can use baseballcrank.blogspot.com for my anti-terrorist debate evidence, since the establishment is holding him down!" "Scientists" who don't publish in peer reviewed journals aren't scientists, just like politicians who aren't in office aren't politicians. :roll:

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 is, they're saying "we're going to leave out anyone whose 'official' work for the past 5 years has not been primarily in climate change." 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.

Quote:
MSD wrote:
Any way you slice it, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, and if you argue otherwise, you're fighting a losing battle.

18% don't believe it. That's almost ONE IN FIVE.

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

Quote:
MSD wrote:
I've worked closely with climate scientists, and the overall ethos is definitely "yeah, there are a few doubters in the fringes, but anyone who actually knows what they're talking about believes this is a thing."

Problem is, that's simply incorrect. There are loads of scientists that actually DO know what they are talking about that doubt it.
[/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

MSD wrote:
This. Zimmerman/Dolan's methodology makes perfect sense; actually, if you read the paper, they breaks out respondents into a lot of different categories - which basically show that the more experience people have with actual climatology, the more likely they are to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

I highly doubt anyone read the whole paper; it's a 148 page master's thesis--only the summary is given in the article NASA cites. But, from the bit that I skimmed, the methodology seems to work out nicely. The main critique I have with the report is that the number of people sampled (for her final conclusion) is ridiculously small.

_________________
"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


Last edited by anorton on Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
+X wrote:
Nobody cited Cooke actually. His methodology was flawed, I think we all know that.

Actually, HSU did cite Cooke. He put this NASA link in his post (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that says 97% of scientists believe it, and the first footnote is "J. Cook, et al."

The second study is the one that only looked at scientific publications, not climatologists, and the third study is the Zimmerman one that actually only showed 82%. The final one, as anorton pointed out, isn't even a study. There isn't a single reliable study referenced by NASA.

+X wrote:
The broader point is that the majority of climate scientists believe man made global warming is an issue, and the more experienced they are the more likely they are to believe it's an issue. I think that says something.

Nobody's proven that though. More publications =/= more experience, as I already pointed out.

+X wrote:
I ran the case to abolish the IPCC two years ago guys lol. I know the arguments that are out there, but a lot of them are bunk. There is no vast conspiracy to silence climate change deniers- journals publish climate change deniers' papers consistently when they're well researched and factual. The reason why you don't see more if it is simple- there just aren't a lot of credible scientists drnying climate change who haven't been paid by a large corporation for their words.

I realize the IPCC is not as bad as a lot of people say it is, but it is fundamentally flawed because they make an express effort to cite MAINSTREAM views, rather than evaluating the science behind peoples' claims. If your report doesn't match the mainstream view on climate change, they pretty much ignore it, and go with he majority. At least, that's my understanding. (Also the fact that they said in their 2007 report that the ice caps would be gone by 2020 says a lot ;).)

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Last edited by Cyberknight on Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:29 pm 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 877
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Cyberknight wrote:
+X wrote:
Nobody cited Cooke actually. His methodology was flawed, I think we all know that.

Actually, HSU did cite Cooke. He put this NASA link in his post (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that says 97% of scientists believe it, and the first footnote is "J. Cook, et al."

The second study is the one that only looked at scientific publications, not climatologists, and the third study is the Zimmerman one that actually only showed 82%. The final one, as anorton pointed out, isn't even a study. There isn't a single reliable study referenced by NASA.

I'll agree that Cook is bad. The second study looks directly at climatologists. It is literally a critique of the credibility of people who signed certain documents. I don't think you can have a paper more about people than that one. Zimmerman does show 97%, but with what I'd call a statistically insignificant sample size (margin of error 12%). The final one... yeah. I don't know what to make of that--if you claim there's no dissent, it's like shooting yourself in the foot as far as credibility goes.

All that to say: I'm willing to believe a majority of active climate researchers believe 1) that the climate is changing (specifically, towards the warmer side) beyond natural fluctuations, and 2) humans are responsible for much of this. But, I do think it's been blown out of proportion to justify political moves by people on both sides of the aisle. So maybe not 97%, but I'd believe around 85-90% (within margin of error for Zimmerman).

_________________
"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: Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Yeah, I was wrong about the second study, it does look at scientists. However, the 90% statistic is super off. According to this site http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... s_Myth.pdf only 66% of the total agreed with IPCC findings. You only get 90% if you only count people who have published 20 papers on it. This is an extremely dumb way to determine the numbers for two reasons:

First of all, people who BELIEVE climate change and are active alarmists are obviously going to write more papers than people who DON'T believe it.

Second, and most importantly, how many papers you write has almost nothing to do with how credible you are. Doug Hoffman put it perfectly:

Quote:
If you habitually read climate related literature, as I do, you will find the same authors, in various combinations, publishing papers that are slightly different versions of each other. Another factor to consider is that scientists who are also university professors often publish papers done by students under their charge. This also contributes to publication bloat. Simply put, having a large number of publications does not mean that a scholar has anything noteworthy to say. Indeed, many great scientists published only a few seminal papers.

Additionally, this paper is extremely sketchy. This site http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/0 ... -pnas.html points out that they used Google Scholar which finds all sorts of publications that are "non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results." This site http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/e ... te-change/ points out that they only searched for "climate change" in ENGLISH, thus ignoring reports from non-English speaking countries.

Finally, the study is fundamentally flawed because it only looks at what people have WRITTEN about, which doesn't include scientists that don't publish their opinions. You can have a very credible, professional opinion about climate change without publishing it everywhere. And people are often afraid to publish stuff that contradicts the mainstream view. Spencer Weart, a highly respected climate scientists and historian, who said the paper should "never have been published", wrote:

Quote:
Many scientists might have been "unconvinced by the evidence" and yet chosen not to volunteer to sign a politicized statement that "strongly dissented" from the IPCC's conclusions -- which is the only criterion the authors of the paper had. What if they weakly dissented or are just, like many scientists, shy about taking a public stand?

Bottom line is this: 82% is the best statistic out there. It was a reliable survey of over 3,000 people. I haven't found anything better. Yes, 18% is a minority, but it's significant enough that I'm willing to ask for evidence before I believe the majority.

_________________
Check out my new website!

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


Last edited by Cyberknight on Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
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: 877
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: 1393
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: 1912
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 - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


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

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
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
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


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

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