- Status
R
Rau
Guest
The study I quoted only counted those published papers that makes the connection clearly in the Abstract.
Really? What makes climate science a “leftish” issue?
R
Rau
Guest
The team of scientists that demonstrates the “Lie” you assert is being perpetrated by the best climate scientists in the world, the “lie” that has conned most of the governments of the world, will certainly win a Nobel prize and global adulation.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I am an environmental scientist. I know how this works.
Most of these people are not climate scientists much less “the best” climate scientists.
Sorta. A lot of governments go along with it because they have something to gain—and a pristine environment ain’t it.
:clapping:
Still believe in the merits of the Nobel prize and what the rest of the world thinks, I see.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I can guarantee you those authors did not read all of those studies, and your comment suggests you’ve only read the abstract itself, yet you’re arguing on their behalf?
Oh, just the fact that all the solutions to it—population control (ie euthanasia, contraception, abortion), giving up all of your natural rights and first world living status—which includes using machines with rare metals so you can post on Catholic Answers Forums----to the UN, DC and Brussels pretty much says it all.
And there’s this whole thing about the corrupt peer-review process in academia that has succeeded greatly in fooling people and their leaders as well as the funding mechanism that pretty much says you have to tow the line on 1) climate change by man is real and 2) only big government can fix it.
R
Rau
Guest
Is your specialty climate science? Have you published peer-reviewed papers in climate science? I’d be happy to read your published works in climate science if you are able to PM them to me.
R
Rau
Guest
They only needed to read the Abstracts! You are just making an assertion of yet more dishonesty.
WOW
sound like a script for the X-files. And I thought the primary solution was to lessen reliance on fossil fuels over time.Well the US government has decided to opt out (though even it is not making the case that the scientists are lying!!) and from what I read, there is so much activity in industry and elsewhere in the US that the US is on-board even if the government is not.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think there is anyway to convince one who does not want to be convinced. That 97% surely must include a little fabricated or biased data, and some of the science was conducted with a goal of getting more funding. So those that want to deny the conclusion of this majority of scientists will fix on that part, quoting it over and over as if that nullifies all climate research, except of course, those funded by the energy sector, which is excepted without scrutiny.
The perceived impact of global climate change on the lifestyle of Americans has elevated confirmation bias to the point it cannot be overcome. It may well be the downfall of civilization as we know it. The thing is, we are capable of finding solutions, but not when we choose not to even look. Pope Francis has spoken and he cannot even reach Catholics steeped in their own self-serving opinions.
E
Ender
Guest
Start with this fact from Cook’s own summary. In analyzing and categorizing just under 12k studies he found that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW.” So if research papers are used as proxies for scientists why doesn’t that matter? Why are we not justified in using Cook’s own study to insist that 66% of scientists have no position on MMGW?
Of the remaining third, Cook categorized them by the strength of their “endorsement”, including a category called “implicit endorsement.” How many of the 12k evaluated made it to an “explicit endorsement” category? Sixty-four. That includes all the papers in the two (of seven) highest categories: 1 “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
2 “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
Category 3, where the vast bulk of the “97%” live, is “implicit”…as determined by those looking for that outcome. It really is just not possible to take this stuff seriously.
If you find scientists acting acting like politicians is it any surprise that politicians behave less than admirably? I’m shocked.
I’m not sure you realize the connection between SkepticalScience and John Cook.*Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook. *(Wikipedia)
There is no near unanimous position. That’s a marketing slogan, not a scientific fact. But here are incidents I consider dishonest.
- The 97% consensus claim.
- Mann’s Hockey Stick
- The distortion of the peer review process
- The “Hide the Decline” chart
- Hiding from/resisting legal FOIA requests
- Various IPCC Assessment Reports ('95 summary written/changed after scientists had left, chart in the 3rd report no one could identify, citation of magazine articles in 5th AR)
- Scientists having to sue the IPCC to get their names removed from the list of “IPCC scientists”… which matters because of:
- The suggestion that every writer or reviewer for the IPCC believes in MMGW.
- The continual “adjustments” to the temperature record that always go only one way.
Fine, assess this.
It is not that the scientists are dishonest (at least most of them are not), it is that the public is getting a very skewed perception of what scientists actually believe. The issue is not only what the scientists believe but what the public believes - and the two are not at all the same.
Ender
R
Rau
Guest
These papers are ignored in the stats exactly because they don’t address the issue. If an astronomy paper fails to mention that gravity draws planets to their sun, do we conclude anything at all about the astronomer’s belief in the action of gravity on planets? No. We certainly don’t tag that astronomer as a non-believer! And we are not interested in the opinions of scientists (including must meteorologists) at large but of scientists in the relevant specialty - “climate scientists”.
So the scientists are not conspiring and they are not dishonest. They just failed to notice that we all THINK the vast majority of climate scientists say the same thing.
But if they realized, they’d set the record straight.
R
robertmidwest
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
Rau, Cook’s research was a strawman argument, learn to recognize it.
skeptics don’t dispute MMGW is actual science, they agree CO2 is a GHG and that man is increasing the levels. On that there is a consensus.
There is no consensus on how much warming we should expect. Cook failed to define this correctly in his research and most of the published climate research doesn’t even explore this topic.
Much of the published research takes a “what if” approach. If we warm along the worst case scenario, then it will have “x” degree of impact on their research topic (flora and fauna). Such research makes for interesting discussion but it doesn’t validate their given/(name removed by moderator)ut premise of extreme warming. They do the research that get’s funded and you won’t get funding to predict what happens with modest and gradual temp changes.
Fortunately we have the scientific method, it will eventually set things right. So far the actual data is showing we are warming at half the rate the IPCC predicted, not even close the worst case alarmist projections.
skeptics don’t dispute MMGW is actual science, they agree CO2 is a GHG and that man is increasing the levels. On that there is a consensus.
There is no consensus on how much warming we should expect. Cook failed to define this correctly in his research and most of the published climate research doesn’t even explore this topic.
Much of the published research takes a “what if” approach. If we warm along the worst case scenario, then it will have “x” degree of impact on their research topic (flora and fauna). Such research makes for interesting discussion but it doesn’t validate their given/(name removed by moderator)ut premise of extreme warming. They do the research that get’s funded and you won’t get funding to predict what happens with modest and gradual temp changes.
Fortunately we have the scientific method, it will eventually set things right. So far the actual data is showing we are warming at half the rate the IPCC predicted, not even close the worst case alarmist projections.
These papers are ignored in the stats exactly because they don’t address the issue. If an astronomy paper fails to mention that gravity draws planets to their sun, do we conclude anything at all about the astronomer’s belief in the action of gravity on planets? No. We certainly don’t tag that astronomer as a non-believer! And we are not interested in the opinions of scientists (including must meteorologists) at large but of scientists in the relevant specialty - “climate scientists”.
So the scientists are not conspiring and they are not dishonest. They just failed to notice that we all THINK the vast majority of climate scientists say the same thing.
E
Ender
Guest
No, you can make no assumption about what the astronomers believe who didn’t address the topic. Cook, however, does just that by lumping those who didn’t address the topic in with the 97% (he claimed) who did. If two-thirds of the scientists didn’t touch on the question how do they get listed with those who did? How can 97% of all climate scientists be said to believe something when 66% of them have said nothing at all on the question?
If I analyze 12k papers on astronomy and find one that addresses the question of life on other planets, and that paper concludes that life does exist in the universe, am I justified in claiming that 100% of astronomers believe in extraterrestrial life? This is exactly the same approach Cook took, so if you justify his claim you have to justify mine as well. That mine is obvious nonsense should at least suggest that his approach is bogus as well.
Ender
T
Theo520
Guest
Also, many of the papers on Climate change are “what if” papers. A botanist and a biologist assume the world tracks to RCP 8.5 and the earth warms >8C in a century. They get to use their expertise and imagination and forecast how their world will change.
They don’t assign a probability the to warming becoming real, they just prognosticate on the impact if it where to happen. This can be valid research, at least until you disconnect it from their assumptions. Cook counts all such research as part of the concensus but we don’t know what they believe about MMGW and in many cases they lack the expertise to comment on our influence to the climate system as a whole.
They do the research that gets funded, and nobody has funding to state the obvious, that if the temp doesn’t change then it won’t have a significant impact in their field.
R
Rau
Guest
I think in the case of the astronomer and gravity, we actually can… But what I am pointing out is that on the more contentious issue of the cause of climate change, Cook did NOT make any assumption. Those papers/scientists that don’t address the question don’t get counted - not for the proposition, and not against it!
No Ender, he did not. To quote Cook: “Many papers don’t bother to mention *whether *humans are causing global warming or not. Amongst the papers that did mention it (4,000 out of 12,000 papers examined), 97.1% endorsed human cause of global warming in their abstract”. You can watch him say these words here.
youtube.com/watch?v=7d8PwPHMKEw&feature=youtu.be
And it’s worth noticing in passing that as something becomes accepted within scientific circles, it will be less and less often explicitly stated in scientific papers. There is no basis to draw comfort from the fact that 8000 papers did not address the issue of human causation - it’s not the only scientific issue written about by climate scientists. But you can be sure that if a team of scientists discovers something to turn consensus on its head, they will - with due care - let us know.
Cook is not out there alone. He references 7 prior studies dating from 2004 to 2015, and who all - in their own studies - found the overwhelming portion (more than 91% in every study) supported the proposition that human activity is driving climate change. And as I pointed out earlier, the Cook-led review examined papers by scientists expert in climate change who published in peer-review journals only, not every scientist with an opinion. And his further result is that the more expert climate scientists are even more likely to stand by that view.
R
Rau
Guest
What if 4,000 papers conclude there was bacteria on Mars once, 120 papers say there wasn’t, and another 8,000 papers were not addressing that subject? That’s a closer analogy. Is it OK to say 97% of astronomers addressing the question of bacteria on Mars agree it once existed? I think so.
meltzerboy
New member
This might be good if they can get the best climate scientists on both sides of the issue to debate the merits. I don’t know if they can also get the best politicians to debate the political and social issues which stem from the idea of manmade global warming since I’m not sure there are any best politicians.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that is what he said. He did not claim that 97% of scientists endorsed MMGW - that claim was made by others, but that is what is now commonly believed. His best case is that 97% of one third of scientists took that position, even though only about 65 of the scientific papers he analyzed actually said that. The 4,000 number was arrived at by “interpreting” this position from the abstracts. All in all, Cook’s study provides no support for the belief that 97% of climate scientists believe man is responsible for most of the warming we have experienced.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Yes it would, but it would not be OK to suggest that 97% of all astronomers believed that, which is what is believed about Cook’s study. Whether Cook intended it or not, what is believed about his study is not at all what the study itself actually found (even if you accept that his “interpretations” of the summaries was accurate.)
Ender
- Status