The thing(s) with climate change

[Theo520]

The below story is worth skimming. I guess being a climate hysteric means never having to say you’re sorry.

Al Gore’s Doomsday Clock Expires

 

[lynnvinc]

This site comes up with different numbers.“ROI = .04157 or 4.15 %. This is a fairly low number for ROI. Generally companies will require an ROI of 8% or higher if they are to invest in an idea/product.”

“Therefore, the Break Even Point in our example is 24.05 years.”
I wonder: do wind turbines last 25 years?

Ender

To me human lives are more important than money

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

This criticism of the 97% figure is a good example of how statistics can be misinterpreted. First there is a misunderstanding of the significance of the number 11,944. This number is essentially meaningless. It is the number of papers that passed the first-level computerized search of papers based on keywords in the abstract. If different keywords were chosen, there would be a different number instead of 11,944. So the number is irrelevant since it depends on an arbitrary choice of keywords.

Next there was a further selection based on more careful examination of the papers to eliminate those papers that passed the first-level screen, but turned out upon closer examination to be irrelevant papers. These would be papers that did not address the question of global warming at all, but passed the first-level screen because they had a keyword hit in their abstract. For example, a paper on calibration techniques for remote temperature sensors used in satellite measurements is clearly not intended to address the question of global warming. Yet it might have global warming mentioned in its abstract because global warming research is one chief area in which calibration of satellite temperature measurements is applied. So such a paper is dropped from the pool. After papers like this were eliminated, the number remaining was about 4,000. This is the true number of papers in the study that actually addressed questions about global warming in some way or another. The 4,000 number is much more relevant than the 11,944 number, so stop referencing 11,944 in your calculations.

Of the 4,000 papers that remained, it is not surprising that many of them did not take a position on all the questions in the survey. Academic papers are about many interesting topics, and most of them do not take positions on questions that are essential political, such as “what should be done about global warming?”. This is not really a scientific question. It ought to rely on science, but it is not the kind of question that scientists generally deal with. So your category of “the highest level of endorsement” is a category that one would not expect to be well represented in as set of academic papers on global warming. But if you look at the other categories in the survey, you find substantial agreement on levels of endorsement that many here in this forum disagree with. So how about explaining that. Why do so many people here disagree with the “lowest level of endorsement” of global warming theory, such as the fact the global warming is even occurring at all? That is where I think the 97% figure does challenge the thinking of many here who deny what 97% of the scientists agree about.

I will stop referencing the 12,000 when they drop it from their abstract and quit tying it to the 97%. It is the very first number to appear therein.

I am also not inclined to think that throwing away 8,000 articles, 2/3rds of their initial data, was innocent. Sorry, these guys ain’t got no credibility.

I also don’t like the way they encourage others to misconstrue their findings. Cook even misrepresented his first paper in another paper. But when Obama totally misrepresented their findings in his twitter post, why didn’t Cook et al correct the record?

Regarding what skeptics in this forum believe, I can’t comment. I am a luke-warmer mahself. But I don’t begrudge others their more skeptical opinions. They have ample justification.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will stop referencing the 12,000 when they drop it from their abstract and quit tying it to the 97%. It is the very first number to appear therein.

The article is quite clear about the meaning of the number of articles used at each stage. They mentioned the initial number of hits just for compete transparency. The 97% is clearly stated as a percentage of papers that took a position on global warming. They never said that there were 12,000 papers that took a position on global warming.

I am also not inclined to think that throwing away 8,000 articles, 2/3rds of their initial data, was innocent. Sorry, these guys ain’t got no credibility.

Your inclinations, then, are misguided. Throwing away 8,000 articles that have nothing to do with the global warming question is exactly the right thing to do in this case, and is no smoking gun.

I also don’t like the way they encourage others to misconstrue their findings. Cook even misrepresented his first paper in another paper. But when Obama totally misrepresented their findings in his twitter post, why didn’t Cook et al correct the record?

I don’t know what misrepresentations you are talking about, but if you are talking about things that happened after the paper was released, such considerations can have no relevance to the mathematical truths given in the paper.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

…I don’t know what misrepresentations you are talking about, but if you are talking about things that happened after the paper was released, such considerations can have no relevance to the mathematical truths given in the paper.

From 229:

Yet somehow this less than startling finding has turned into an overwhelming endorsement of the full GW hypothesis. In no small part this is due to the dishonest misrepresentations of the authors themselves. In another paper, Bedford and Cook (2013), John Cook states: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Yet we know this is a patently false characterization of that study’s principal finding. Because they collapsed categories of agreement into one, the most they can claim is that 97% endorse the view that human emissions are causing some warming.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

From 229:

Yet somehow this less than startling finding has turned into an overwhelming endorsement of the full GW hypothesis. In no small part this is due to the dishonest misrepresentations of the authors themselves. In another paper, Bedford and Cook (2013), John Cook states: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Yet we know this is a patently false characterization of that study’s principal finding. Because they collapsed categories of agreement into one, the most they can claim is that 97% endorse the view that human emissions are causing some warming.

This was indeed a misrepresentation of the results. Are you then willing to accept the more moderate claim that 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are** a** cause?

 

[vz71]

97 percent of articles matching a specific set of rules is a much different thing than 97 percent of scientists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

97 percent of articles matching a specific set of rules is a much different thing than 97 percent of scientists.

Granted it is not exactly the same. But it is the most practical way of estimating what 97% of scientists think. The practice of statistical sampling is well-established and well-understood. There is no reason to abandon it now.

 

[Theo520]

From 229:

Yet somehow this less than startling finding has turned into an overwhelming endorsement of the full GW hypothesis. In no small part this is due to the dishonest misrepresentations of the authors themselves. In another paper, Bedford and Cook (2013), John Cook states: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Yet we know this is a patently false characterization of that study’s principal finding. Because they collapsed categories of agreement into one, the most they can claim is that 97% endorse the view that human emissions are causing some warming.

Didn’t many of the paper take the line that GW will cause xyz problems (GW was a given)?

Thus, they speculated on possible effects but provided no validation of the underlying AGW science.

 

[Ender]

This was indeed a misrepresentation of the results. Are you then willing to accept the more moderate claim that 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are** a** cause?

I would not accept it as even Cook’s paper itself doesn’t make that claim. Here is what they asserted in their abstract:*Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
*We only know (even accepting their dubious characterization) that 97% of those expressing an opinion believe man has contributed to global warming, but we have no idea at all what percentage of scientists have expressed any opinion on the matter.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would not accept it as even Cook’s paper itself doesn’t make that claim. Here is what they asserted in their abstract:Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
We only know (even accepting their dubious characterization) that 97% of those expressing an opinion believe man has contributed to global warming, but we have no idea at all what percentage of scientists have expressed any opinion on the matter.

Ender

Is there any reason to think that the “unexpressed” opinions are going to differ substantially from the “expressed” opinions? And don’t we want just the expressed opinions? A scientist who has not expressed an opinion on the matter probably has not thought about it very much. Perhaps he is not really in that particular field. His opinion as a “casual observer” is not worth much more than the average person’s opinion on that question.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

This was indeed a misrepresentation of the results. Are you then willing to accept the more moderate claim that 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are** a** cause?

yes

 

[Ender]

Is there any reason to think that the “unexpressed” opinions are going to differ substantially from the “expressed” opinions?

Absolutely. A person who has not expressed an opinion may be one who feels the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion either way. Given that two thirds of all the papers examined failed to offer any opinion at all it would be ludicrous to simply assume that a failure to say anything should be taken to mean they agree with those who have taken a position.

And don’t we want just the expressed opinions? A scientist who has not expressed an opinion on the matter probably has not thought about it very much. Perhaps he is not really in that particular field. His opinion as a “casual observer” is not worth much more than the average person’s opinion on that question.

My perception of science is that nothing can be said about what is or is not true until there is sufficient evidence to make a compelling case for or against. Absent such evidence the only rational position is not to take a position. You defend your position with nothing more than pure invention. You cannot (justifiably) infer anything at all from what someone doesn’t say.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Absolutely. A person who has not expressed an opinion may be one who feels the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a conclusion either way. Given that two thirds of all the papers examined failed to offer any opinion at all it would be ludicrous to simply assume that a failure to say anything should be taken to mean they agree with those who have taken a position.
My perception of science is that nothing can be said about what is or is not true until there is sufficient evidence to make a compelling case for or against. Absent such evidence the only rational position is not to take a position. You defend your position with nothing more than pure invention. You cannot (justifiably) infer anything at all from what someone doesn’t say.

Ender

The theory of statistical sampling says otherwise.

 

[lynnvinc]

Climate change skeptics really ought to get past their blockages (whatever is the root cause of them) to look at the various knock-on effects from climate change. Such as increased spread of mosquito-borne viruses under wetter and hotter conditions in many areas from climate change. See: “What You Need to Know About Zika And Climate Change” at climatecentral.org/news/zika-virus-climate-change-19970

 

[Ender]

The theory of statistical sampling says otherwise.

The theory of statistical sampling says nothing whatever about the informal logical fallacy of an argument from silence (argument ex silentio) “where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.”

Ender

 

[Theo520]

Climate change skeptics really ought to get past their blockages (whatever is the root cause of them) to look at the various knock-on effects from climate change. Such as increased spread of mosquito-borne viruses under wetter and hotter conditions in many areas from climate change. See: “What You Need to Know About Zika And Climate Change” at climatecentral.org/news/zika-virus-climate-change-19970

Lynn, I’m much more afraid of the spread of super fast giant spiders, promised by catastrophic global warming

The scariest thing about global warming? Giant, super-fast spiders
New research suggests that climate change could make spiders not only **more numerous **but larger and faster on their feet

The Telegraph - Telegraph Online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph

Forget floods, droughts, sea-level rise and even the melting polar ice caps. Here’s a really compelling reason to worry about global warming. Spiders.

 

[Lynxdk]

The simple FACT that most of the problems being blamed for Climate whateverness, are also things Poisoning us, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat… and we have Plenty of alternatives!

If there’s folks who think there’s not enough “money” I hope you don’t think you’re Godly, saying such things.

If we can’t look after our fellow brethren, Every Single Human Being on the Planet, then what right have we to ask God to look out for Us?

I’m sick of people making up Excuses to IGNORE THE WILL OF GOD.

It’s Disgusting!

Sean, with a Message from the Holy Spirit,

via

The Maverick Jesuit.

P.S. We’re already in The Apocalypse. Greek meaning. Look it up.

P.P.S. The Pope knows who Mercy is.

P.P.S. Even Ken Ham knows who I am.

 

[Theo520]

Actually, the thing being blamed for Climate Change is the same thing that has extended our productive life, provided us with plenty of food, great comfort, and enabled innovation in many areas
- cheap energy

The simple FACT that most of the problems being blamed for Climate whateverness, are also things Poisoning us, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat… and we have Plenty of alternatives!

If there’s folks who think there’s not enough “money” I hope you don’t think you’re Godly, saying such things.

If we can’t look after our fellow brethren, Every Single Human Being on the Planet, then what right have we to ask God to look out for Us?

I’m sick of people making up Excuses to IGNORE THE WILL OF GOD.

It’s Disgusting!

Sean, with a Message from the Holy Spirit,
via
The Maverick Jesuit.

P.S. We’re already in The Apocalypse. Greek meaning. Look it up.
P.P.S. The Pope knows who Mercy is.
P.P.S. Even Ken Ham knows who I am.

 

[Lynxdk]

EXPENSIVE energy.

Cheap energy, would not be at the cost of human lives.

I hope that was your point =)

Take a look at Flint, if it wasn’t.