S
sps49
Guest
Declamatory, ostentatious and inaccurate adjectives will not help your cause. Depending on how sloppy and careless you set your analysis boundaries, everything kills humans.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is not an instance of argument ex silentio because the conclusion is based not on the silence but on what those scientists who did express an opinion said. Otherwise we would have to throw out all the polls as arguments ex silentio because they draw conclusions about all voters from the responses of the few that were polled. This 97% conclusion is just as valid as the polls that say Trump leads Ted Cruz in Iowa.
T
Theo520
Guest
Perhaps you should take a look at how Life Expectancy has improved in India and China, with their modernization and use of cheap energy. Life expectancy increases in spite of air pollution.
Personally, I urge them to have both. For very modest cost increases they can turn on exhaust scrubbers and reduce much of their air pollution, as we have in the developed world.
Life Expectancy at Birth in China, Europe, USA and India: 1950-2100 (Both Sexes)
http://www.china-profile.com/data/figures/fig_WPP2010_L0-Both_1.gif
L
Lynxdk
Guest
Flint Michigan is your backyard, and still you quibble?
Carry on then.
Carry on then.
T
Theo520
Guest
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
In real global warming scenarios, the temperate zones expand a significant distance northward as they did during the Medieval Warm Period. It is well known that the Vikings were growing wheat and raising cattle on the southern coast of Greenland between the 10th and 14th centuries. Something that hasn’t come close to happening since and from indications so far, does not appear to be happening anytime soon.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And that’s just name calling.
Calling out when a study is being dishonest?
My apologies, but I simply do not have any other words for a study of a portion of written papers being portrayed as a analysis of opinions of all scientists.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I said before, the extension of the results of a subset to all scientists is standard statistical sampling. It is done all the time with no dishonesty. It is not much different from a poll in Iowa of 6,000 people claiming to accurately represent the views of all likely voters in Iowa.
T
Theo520
Guest
Leaf, that works when your initial sample is done properly, with integrity. That was not the case with Cook’s ‘research’
When followup was done with scientists who wrote the papers, many disagreed with Cooks assumptions on their beliefs about AGW and man’s contributory role.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How many? And from which category?
They are still passing off one thing as another.
In this case, papers written is being used as a substitute for actual opinions.
This is not 'statistical sampling ’ of the scientists or their opinions.
A statistical sampling would be to actually survey a cross section of the scientists.
At best it is a statistical sample of papers written, not scientists opinions.
Passing it off as anything else is dishonest.
T
Theo520
Guest
Cooks methodology has been soundly rebutted, but you knew that I expect
.97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them
Here are a couple examples that highlight his questionable methodology
‘Estimating future sea level changes from past records’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; “No Position on AGW”.
Question: Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Dr. Morner: “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%”
**Question: **Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
E
Ender
Guest
Save it. No one is making a choice between money or lives. The discussion here has been explicitly about whether wind turbines are a financially reasonable investment.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
You were the one who asserted that we should assume the opinions of those who expressed no opinion at all would be the same as those who explicitly stated a position.
*Is there any reason to think that the “unexpressed” opinions are going to differ substantially from the “expressed” opinions? *(#250)
It is your argument I was referring to as logically invalid, not Cook’s. His is invalid for a different reason.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Gathering data via statistical sampling is a completely separate operation from analyzing that data. The fact that Cook may have done his sampling properly (admittedly an open question) says nothing whatever about whether the data he collected were analyzed properly. There is no rational way to get from “he collected the data properly” to “thus he analyzed it properly.” Ferd has pointed to a significant problem with Cook’s conclusions, a problem in data analysis that is not rebutted by asserting there were no problems in data collection.
Ender
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Okay, be very afraid. But I’m more concerned about my immortal soul and the damage I’m doing to it by NOT mitigating CC to the best of my ability.
We all have our various fears. Spiders is not one of mine, even tho they have 8 legs
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Right on!
E
Ender
Guest
That you believe not mitigating climate change is immoral makes it immoral for you; you are obligated to act in accordance with your conscience. It does not, however, make it immoral for anyone else not to behave as you do. Since I believe the allegations about climate change are grossly overstated, and that the mitigation efforts being proposed would engender true and completely unnecessary hardships on millions, my conscience obliges me to oppose you. For me, it would be a sin to support actions I believe are harmful. My sin would be in doing what you propose.
Now, one of us is surely mistaken about the extent of man’s impact on the climate, but as mistakes are not sins, there is no moral difference between your position and mine. You may make whatever scientific argument you can to support your position; that’s how this topic needs to be addressed, but don’t try to make this a choice between good and evil. There is no moral dimension in resolving questions of science.
Ender
- Status