That’s fine. All it means is that listening to the experts more often than not is better than listening to non-experts.LeafByNiggle:
Except “more correct” does not translate to 97%
Ah, but they have.
You mean calibration, which was entirely justified.
Of course other experts question the results. That’s how science works. The scientists are skeptical, as they should be. And so they question.
If you lived by that principle you would have to accept that you are unqualified to “pass judgement” on the scientific validity of results from the experts on either side of the debate. Yet, you believe yourself qualified to determine which side is correct. Richard Lindzen, among numerous others, is far more qualified than you are to “pass judgement on the results”, yet you believe yourself to be a non-expert who is qualified to pass judgement on his findings.
No, I don’t have to pass judgement on the scientific validity of their results. I only need to know how to count.
The classification of papers into categories 2 and 3 is akin to reading tea leaves. Both categories involve suppositions and inferences. Category 1 is the only one with specific criteria that can be rigorously applied. That probably explains why only 1.6% of the papers were in that group.
Initially, 27% of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed; these were then resolved by a third party.
Yes, the categories are meaningless given that categories 1,2, and 3 are treated exactly the same as if they all explicitly endorsed AGW when in fact at most 1.6% could legitimately be put in that group.
Why would anyone bother? What is the purpose of counting how many scientists believe something when the whole purpose of such an effort is not to add anything to the science but precisely to eliminate a discussion of the science entirely?
Except that is a false dichotomy. It isn’t a choice between experts and non-experts. There are plenty of experts who don’t agree with the so-called consensus.
I’ll say it again. The author had no problem with renewable energy. Only the way it is incorporated into existing systems. That was what the article was about. Nothing less. So I take it that you likewise have no problem with renewables except as they are introduced into the existing energy grid.
Why don’t you count the number of scientists with lucrative research grants premised on the assumption that global warming is a serious threat and compare that to the number of lives that will be adversely affected by green new deals and such. That ratio might give pause.
But responding to information determined by scientific methods and acting on it most definitely is. Luckily for the future of the planet, your views are in a distinct minority and that minority is shrinking on a daily basis.LeafByNiggle:
Perhaps because science is not determined by consensus.HarryStotle:
Do you mean the papers counted in categories 1, 2, and 3 were terribly mis-categorized? I would need to see evidence of that before I would believe it. Or do you mean the categories themselves are meaningless? I think they carry as much meaning as one could expect from a survey.
If the Cook survey is so bad, please tell me how one would go about properly assessing the beliefs of scientists? Assume you had a sufficient budget and could hire assistants, just as Cook did. How would you conduct a fair survey of this question?
As another question, please tell me why none of the various groups and organizations and people that have criticized the Cook survey have attempted to conduct any kind of proper survey to show how it is done? Hmmmm?
Whether or not the planet is “lucky” to be at the mercy of climate alarmists has yet to be shown. Counting chickens etc., etc.
It slips out now and then. ‘Group think’, ‘political agenda’, ‘socialism’. You aren’t arguing the science. You are tilting at political windmills.LeafByNiggle:
Sounds dogmatic. I didn’t think science was supposed to operate by dogmatism.PhilipJames:
A non-expert is not qualified to pass judgement on the scientific validity of results from experts.LeafByNiggle:
Unless the ‘experts’ base all their models on a fundamentaly flawed assumption: that the sun and ghe are reaponsible for current Earth temps…
I would have assumed that science might have learned from the Galileo episode, plate techtonics, Big Bang Cosmology, germ theory, and a host of other cases in point, when consensus turned out to be a huge trap. This time it is different.
Funny, the “this time it will be different” seems to have come at the nexus of climate science with Green New Deal socialism. Both claiming this time things will be different. Socialism will work (it won’t be so murderous) and the consensus in science is correct (science will save the planet) – this time.
The vast increasing majority deem it to have been confirmed. The shrinking minority considers it still an open question. I think we’ve already passed the point where the minority views are granted any substance.Freddy:
Whether or not the planet is “lucky” to be at the mercy of climate alarmists has yet to be shown. Counting chickens etc., etc.
I have argued the science plenty. You wouldn’t know that having joined like 5 days ago. (Welcome to the forums!)
And you accuse me of doing politics rather than science!!!HarryStotle:
The vast increasing majority deem it to have been confirmed. The shrinking minority considers it still an open question. I think we’ve already passed the point where the minority views are granted any substance.Freddy:
Whether or not the planet is “lucky” to be at the mercy of climate alarmists has yet to be shown. Counting chickens etc., etc.
Yup. Very little discussion on the practical problems of incorporating renewables in these parts. But plenty of politics. I’ll leave you to it.Freddy:
And you accuse me of doing politics rather than science!!!HarryStotle:
The vast increasing majority deem it to have been confirmed. The shrinking minority considers it still an open question. I think we’ve already passed the point where the minority views are granted any substance.Freddy:
Whether or not the planet is “lucky” to be at the mercy of climate alarmists has yet to be shown. Counting chickens etc., etc.
I hope not! They (wind turbines) are an eye sore.
Real environmentally friendly !
The politics and the science are intrinsically intertwined precisely because the alarmists are driving wholesale political mayhem.
The problem of incorporating miscellaneous energy sources into an existing grid is “a problem”. Pointing out problems with renewable energy was my intention. That the particular article only addressed one such problem does not suggest there are not many others. It is literally impossible for solar/wind sources to replace the existing fossil fuel plants generating electricity. Beyond that the cost would be astronomical, and the damage to the environment colossal.
For centuries the windmills in Holland have been featured in artwork, post cards, photographs. I have seen windfarms in Minnesota and I find them picturesque. But I suppose that is a matter of personal tastes. Tell that to the people of Holland.
This is where I am to at this point.
you are intentionally misreading the paper. It clearly shows the different figures for the whole sample vs the group of frequent publishers.