Climate Change News collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is broad scientific consensus on the first 1C in warming from CO2 doubling

After that, even the IPCC lacks a consensus with some predicting an additional 0.5C in warming while others project it will be as high as an additional 8C in warming.

There is no consensus where it really matters.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The discarded papers were not “already sampled.” It is more like having a list of telephone numbers that you want to call to ask them a polling question. But for 2/3 of those phone numbers, when you called them, there was no answer. It is statistically justified to assume that the people who did not answer their phone likely would have answered similarly to those 1/3 who did answer their phone. The fact that 12K papers were in the initial computer screen does not mean that those authors had been “already sampled.”
Click to expand...
What percentage of scientists are undecided? What number did Cook discover? In fact that category doesn’t appear in his results despite the fact that it is ludicrous to believe it doesn’t actually exist, and it doesn’t exist there because if he put a number to it the entire reason for his survey would be destroyed.
If you don’t know where a document came from, you also don’t have any confidence in its level of official approval.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic you’re backing away from the one comment you’ve made I completely agree with. Documents put out by organizations usually represent the opinions of the authors, and not that of their organization. That is, it is only the authority and reputation of the author that is relevant.
Have you ever seen a paper where the author said “I am undecided” on this issue? I don’t suppose there are many.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen a (new) complex issue of science where the bulk of the scientists are not in fact undecided? That is surely the case here as well, even though Cook assumed they don’t exist.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The discarded papers were not “already sampled.” It is more like having a list of telephone numbers that you want to call to ask them a polling question. But for 2/3 of those phone numbers, when you called them, there was no answer. It is statistically justified to assume that the people who did not answer their phone likely would have answered similarly to those 1/3 who did answer their phone. The fact that 12K papers were in the initial computer screen does not mean that those authors had been “already sampled.”
Click to expand...
What percentage of scientists are undecided? What number did Cook discover?
Click to expand...
There is no way to even estimate that number from reading abstracts unless an author writes “I am undecided” about this issue. If someone is undecided, he would likely not write it in an abstract.
In fact that category doesn’t appear in his results despite the fact that it is ludicrous to believe it doesn’t actually exist, and it doesn’t exist there because if he put a number to it the entire reason for his survey would be destroyed.
Click to expand...
No, the reason he could not put a number to it is because the abstracts give no information about that number.
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If you don’t know where a document came from, you also don’t have any confidence in its level of official approval.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic you’re backing away from the one comment you’ve made I completely agree with. Documents put out by organizations usually represent the opinions of the authors, and not that of their organization.
Click to expand...
No, you have to distinguish between documents “put out by organizations” (meaning through their official public channels) and documents that are internal memos. The former usually do represent the view of the organization, while the latter, not necessarily.
Have you ever seen a paper where the author said “I am undecided” on this issue? I don’t suppose there are many.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen a (new) complex issue of science where the bulk of the scientists are not in fact undecided? That is surely the case here as well, even though Cook assumed they don’t exist.
Click to expand...
You can speculate all you want, but other studies (not Cook) that use a direct survey method substantially confirm the Cook result without the uncertainly of how many are undecided. Theo520 posted on such survey a while back in this thread and that survey came up with an agreement percentage of 81%. It isn’t 97%, but the difference between the two is not enough to change totally how we view climate change positions.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is no way to even estimate that number from reading abstracts unless an author writes “I am undecided” about this issue. If someone is undecided, he would likely not write it in an abstract.
Click to expand...
If there is no way to even estimate the number of undecided scientists how reasonable is it for Cook’s paper to infer that 97% of them support AGW? You’re right, that number cannot be reasonably estimated, yet Cook’s paper did give such an estimate: zero.
No, you have to distinguish between documents “put out by organizations” (meaning through their official public channels) and documents that are internal memos. The former usually do represent the view of the organization, while the latter, not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Using the USCCB as an example, this claim is demonstrably false. They put out all sorts of documents “through official channels” that don’t begin to represent the views of the US bishops. It represents nothing more than the personal view of the particular sub-group that put it out, which in all likelihood may not even include the imprimatur of a single bishop.
 
Ender said:
Using the USCCB as an example, this claim is demonstrably false. They put out all sorts of documents “through official channels” that don’t begin to represent the views of the US bishops. It represents nothing more than the personal view of the particular sub-group that put it out, which in all likelihood may not even include the imprimatur of a single bishop.
Click to expand...
I don’t even think there is a Priest today that would deny global warming and climate change, and I think even we agree it’s too different things.

Papers put forward their peer review critiques, but cannot undo the scientific studies that prove it’s real. To think the Catholic church is against science is an archaic belief, perhaps She had errored in matters of science but science does not claim to be undertaking these studies in the light of Theology, nor vice versa.

Anyone should be able to read the sign of the times. God gives us what we need when we need it and we need a voice of reason, but right now it is crying in the wilderness…Why would a Catholic who believes God warns HIs people in ways we read about thousands of years later in splendorous awe, and once again are stupified HIs people could not hear, see, or understand.

Amazing.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You can speculate all you want, but other studies (not Cook) that use a direct survey method substantially confirm the Cook result without the uncertainly of how many are undecided. Theo520 posted on such survey a while back in this thread and that survey came up with an agreement percentage of 81%. It isn’t 97%, but the difference between the two is not enough to change totally how we view climate change positions.
Click to expand...
No, just the top two categories (70%) would equate to what Cook has implied with his research.

70% indicates all the science is not settled.
 
Theo520 said:
No, just the top two categories (70%) would equate to what Cook has implied with his research.

70% indicates all the science is not settled.
Click to expand...
The thing with the Cook paper is it does not claim that 97% of climate scientists believe man is responsible for global warming; that claim is left to its adherents to make. This is what the paper claimed:

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.

That is, the paper never claimed 97% of all climate scientists believed in AGW. That is just another false assertion made to bolster the alarmist position.
 
Ender said:
The thing with the Cook paper is it does not claim that 97% of climate scientists believe man is responsible for global warming;
Click to expand...
Cook and the broader community encouraged that misrepresentation of the actual research in the media. It was agenda driven research used to get that magical consensus %
 
Last edited:
Regarding wind power, consider this:

Global energy demand, meanwhile, has been growing at about two per cent per year for the last 40 years. So, just to provide sufficient wind power to cover that increase in demand, how many wind turbines would need to be built?
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area [half the size of] the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area [half] the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
Click to expand...
This takes wishful thinking to a whole new level.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
No, you have to distinguish between documents “put out by organizations” (meaning through their official public channels) and documents that are internal memos. The former usually do represent the view of the organization, while the latter, not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Using the USCCB as an example, this claim is demonstrably false. They put out all sorts of documents “through official channels” that don’t begin to represent the views of the US bishops. It represents nothing more than the personal view of the particular sub-group that put it out, which in all likelihood may not even include the imprimatur of a single bishop.
Click to expand...
When you use the word “demonstrably” we expect you to “demonstrate” which you did not do. You just claimed that the USCCB documents do no represent the bishops. We could get into a whole side discussion about the USCCB, but that would be off topic and have nothing to do with the authenticity of the NASA website and other NASA publications (which are consistent). To the extent that there is such a thing as the position of NASA, it is defined by those public pronouncements. So claiming that they are not representative is tautologically false.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You can speculate all you want, but other studies (not Cook) that use a direct survey method substantially confirm the Cook result without the uncertainly of how many are undecided. Theo520 posted on such survey a while back in this thread and that survey came up with an agreement percentage of 81%. It isn’t 97%, but the difference between the two is not enough to change totally how we view climate change positions.
Click to expand...
No, just the top two categories (70%) would equate to what Cook has implied with his research.

70% indicates all the science is not settled.
Click to expand...
“The science is settled” is not the claim. There is, at present, a consensus is the claim. That’s not quite the same thing. I would say that 70% is pretty close to a consensus too. (But science is never settled.)
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
When you use the word “demonstrably” we expect you to “demonstrate” which you did not do. You just claimed that the USCCB documents do no represent the bishops. We could get into a whole side discussion about the USCCB, but that would be off topic and have nothing to do with the authenticity of the NASA website and other NASA publications (which are consistent). To the extent that there is such a thing as the position of NASA, it is defined by those public pronouncements. So claiming that they are not representative is tautologically false.
Click to expand...
No, when you claimed that the opinion of authors within an organization represented their opinion alone I think you pretty much nailed it. I know you wanted that to apply only to a particular document you chose to diminish, but that’s the way large organizations work. That’s certainly the way the IPCC works.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
“The science is settled” is not the claim. There is, at present, a consensus is the claim. That’s not quite the same thing. I would say that 70% is pretty close to a consensus too. (But science is never settled.)
Click to expand...
Maybe you should spend some time at Cook’s propaganda site.
He’s convinced the science is settled
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
When you use the word “demonstrably” we expect you to “demonstrate” which you did not do. You just claimed that the USCCB documents do no represent the bishops. We could get into a whole side discussion about the USCCB, but that would be off topic and have nothing to do with the authenticity of the NASA website and other NASA publications (which are consistent). To the extent that there is such a thing as the position of NASA, it is defined by those public pronouncements. So claiming that they are not representative is tautologically false.
Click to expand...
No, when you claimed that the opinion of authors within an organization represented their opinion alone I think you pretty much nailed it.
Click to expand...
You are still ignoring the major qualification that makes a document authoritative - namely that it is published on an official public channel, such as their website. An internal document written by one person in an organization to others in the organization does not pass that qualification. And remember, we don’t even know if that PDF file even came from anyone at the CIA. But even if it did, it does not represent the CIA because it was never approved for outside publication on any official channel.
 
Last edited:
There are clear, definite ways to show a document came from a particular site or agency. When in doubt, contact that source.

The CIA has strict document handling. Anything approved for release was approved by someone. It then has a statement or some wording, like Unclassified, to show it was approved for release. And the date when.
 
Exactly! In the case of the document in question, it was never released, and we don’t even know if the document is fake, since the link was not the CIA.
 
Why is the opinion of guest blogger Larry Hamlin worth posting in world news? Sure, he quotes a lot of facts, but none of those facts support any of his opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top