T
Theo520
Guest
most of the research articles that show up here seem to focus on the impacts given the climate is warming.
When I post research on the warming itself, you’ve ignored it like the plague.
- Status
When I post research on the warming itself, you’ve ignored it like the plague.
S
stavros388
Guest
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
T
Theo520
Guest
Why did you ignore the clear point i made.
They cherry picked to just sample the people publishing extensively.
Their conclusion is invalid, they assume it’s ok to dismiss all the experts who aren’t frequent publishers.
This indicates they don’t think the other people in the sample have the brains to understand what is published.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
You should read more of the linked article. What drops the consensus is including those in a group only one third of which had a phd and only a tiny fraction of which had a phd in a relevant science.stavros388:
Why did you ignore the clear point i made.
They cherry picked to just sample the people publishing extensively.
Their conclusion is invalid, they assume it’s ok to dismiss all the experts who aren’t frequent publishers.
This indicates they don’t think the other people in the sample have the brains to understand what is published.
It’s not that those not included didn’t have the brains. They didn’t have the relevant expertise. If 95% of cardiologists tell you that you are in danger of a heart attack, it’s nonsense ignoring the advice because there were no dentists included in the survey.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Do you think the articles that are cited in this forum are representative of a research on climate change? I think not.LeafByNiggle:
most of the research articles that show up here seem to focus on the impacts given the climate is warming.
E
Ender
Guest
It is always easier to attack the source rather than confront the data, or attack the argument, but given that Germany’s renewable problems are so well known it’s not difficult to find other sources. This Forbes article for example.
“After deciding to exit nuclear energy, it seems as if Ms. Merkel’s coalition stopped its work,” a former German environmental minister told The New York Times last year. “There is great danger that this project will fail, with devastating economic and social consequences.”
A year later the project is failing – resulting in what one German industry expert termed a “chaotic standstill.”
Here’s what “green energy” results in:
Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.
Other than that, great plan.
F
Freddy
Guest
If you keep posting articles by far right conservative pundits then I will just have to keep pointing out that there is inherrent bias.Freddy:
It is always easier to attack the source rather than confront the data, or attack the argument, but given that Germany’s renewable problems are so well known it’s not difficult to find other sources. This Forbes article for example.
Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
“After deciding to exit nuclear energy, it seems as if Ms. Merkel’s coalition stopped its work,” a former German environmental minister told The New York Times last year. “There is great danger that this project will fail, with devastating economic and social consequences.”
A year later the project is failing – resulting in what one German industry expert termed a “chaotic standstill.”
Here’s what “green energy” results in:
Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.
Other than that, great plan.
The piece was written by Howard Rich who was one of the founders and the chairman of Americans for Limited Government, a right wing conservative group.
And it’s an article that admits that there is nothing wrong with renewable energy per se. It’s pointing out the pitfalls of incorporating it into existing systems whilst maintaing supply. Maybe you’d be better off addressing how we wash the baby efficiently without throwing it out with the bathwater.
The last few argument seem to gave gone thus:
There is nothing wrong.
But there is a consensus that says there is.
But they don’t include everyone in the consensus.
Only those with relevant expertise.
But people don’t want it.
The links you post saying that are obviously biased.
But it doesn’t work in Germany.
Renewable energy works fine. Incorporating it into existing systems can be a problem.
You should put those goalposts on a track. It’ll be a lot easier for you to move them.
So where to next? Shall we discuss incorporating renewables into existing systems? How best to achieve this? Add some time frames? Discuss the type of back-ups required? A carrot or stick approach? Economies of scale?
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
haven’t we already had that discussion?
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
ROFL, they are rationalizing.
The other people in the survey were also practicing cardiologists or working in the field (your analogy), they just don’t focus on publishing. So yes, they are implying many of them don’t have the smarts to understand what they are publishing. Some cardiologists write papers and others don’t, Very convenient to just exclude them from the analysis.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
According to Friedman, the categories are depicted by Cook as follows…
And rebutted by Friedman here…
https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-cooks-response-to-my-criticism.html
Basically, Friedman’s argument is (paraphrased) that the 97% figure lumps together categories 1-3, when only category 1 can reasonably fit Cook’s “main cause.” Categories 2 and 3 were papers saying or implying that human action was a cause—“contributed to” in the language of the example. Category 1 contained 64 papers, or 1.6%, not 97%.
That also means more papers (categories 5-7) that explicitly or implicitly reject the claim that human activity is responsible for half or more of global warming than claim human activity is the “main” cause, i.e., = or > than half the cause of warming.
Only Level 1 corresponds to “the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” (emphasis mine) Hence when John Cook attributed that view to 97% on the basis of his Cook et. al. (2013) he was misrepresenting 1.6% as 97%. Adding up his categories 5-7, the levels of rejecting of AGW, we find that more papers explicitly or implicitly rejected the claim that human action was responsible for half or more of warming than accepted it. According to Cook’s own data, 97 percent of climate scientists were NOT in agreement that Humans are the primary cause of warming .
Cook attempted an answer to Friedman on another blog.
And rebutted by Friedman here…
https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-cooks-response-to-my-criticism.html
Basically, Friedman’s argument is (paraphrased) that the 97% figure lumps together categories 1-3, when only category 1 can reasonably fit Cook’s “main cause.” Categories 2 and 3 were papers saying or implying that human action was a cause—“contributed to” in the language of the example. Category 1 contained 64 papers, or 1.6%, not 97%.
That also means more papers (categories 5-7) that explicitly or implicitly reject the claim that human activity is responsible for half or more of global warming than claim human activity is the “main” cause, i.e., = or > than half the cause of warming.
Only Level 1 corresponds to “the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” (emphasis mine) Hence when John Cook attributed that view to 97% on the basis of his Cook et. al. (2013) he was misrepresenting 1.6% as 97%. Adding up his categories 5-7, the levels of rejecting of AGW, we find that more papers explicitly or implicitly rejected the claim that human action was responsible for half or more of warming than accepted it. According to Cook’s own data, 97 percent of climate scientists were NOT in agreement that Humans are the primary cause of warming .
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
That scratching noise? You hear it? Like…somebody scraping something? A barrel? Is is part of a barrel?Freddy:
ROFL, they are rationalizing.
The other people in the survey were also practicing cardiologists or working in the field (your analogy), they just don’t focus on publishing. So yes, they are implying all of them don’t have the smarts to understand what they are publishing.
E
Ender
Guest
Bias is not synonymous with untruth. Like I said, Germany’s problems with green energy are obvious. Maybe you should spend more time studying the subject than looking up the bona fides of the people writing the articles. Anyway, here are some more:
Germany has launched a renewable-energy revolution, and it’s paying a fortune to achieve it.
These articles are really too numerous to support any reasonable doubt that Germany’s green energy plan has serious problems.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
Freddy, try responding with content or refuting
Ad hominem shouldn’t be your only tool
Ad hominem shouldn’t be your only tool
F
Freddy
Guest
Bias should be the very first thing you should check. There’s an implication in what you say that you accept it exists in the article to which you linked. And it seems not to matter to you. Yet you claim that scientists are less than honest in publishing their findings because of worries regarding funding. Alarm bells go off everywhere when someone denies one argument because of bias but then ignores it when they make their own.Freddy:
Bias is not synonymous with untruth. Like I said, Germany’s problems with green energy are obvious.
And you have moved from denying climate change to pointing out economic problems associated with the solution. Which is a well known problem and one which we can discuss.
Do you have any solutions? Other than ‘destroy the industry’?
F
Freddy
Guest
It isn’t. I tend towards a little light hearted sarcasm when the discussion calls for it. And the discussion sometimes calls for it when I have given a response to an argument and I get the same one presented yet again.
I have no objections if you want to keep repeating yourself. But don’t expect me to do it too often.
Maybe you have some (name removed by moderator)ut on how to solve Germany’s problem in integrating renewable energy into existing systems?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Lumping together categories 5-7 and comparing them to category 1 is not justified because they do not represent exact opposites sides of a single question.
The only valid criticism I have heard of the Cook survey is the summary characterization of what the 97% really means. So for those who oppose the Cook survey, how would you fill out this sentence:
Of all the papers that expressed an opinion on global warming, ___ % of them believe _____________.
And since we are interested in what scientists think, pick a position where you can fill in a percentage of 50% or greater.
E
Ender
Guest
First, bias is pretty much inevitable. If you’re able to distinguish a good argument from a bad one it really shouldn’t matter too much. Second, if you’re serious about eliminating and ignoring biased articles you should start by discarding Cook’s “study”. If you can’t do at least that then you have no grounds to suggest that bias is a problem.
No, I didn’t; that was someone else’s argument. If, however, the claim is made that scientists can be bought the charge would apply universally, and not simply to those who line up on one side of the issue.
This in no way describes my position, which can be summarized like this: the climate is changing; man’s contribution is small; “the solution” will not solve anything and will be a costly disaster.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It is pretty clear from Cook’s own data. The only legitimate conclusion regarding the 50% or greater cause is category 1 from the data – 1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%HarryStotle:
Lumping together categories 5-7 and comparing them to category 1 is not justified because they do not represent exact opposites sides of a single question.
The only valid criticism I have heard of the Cook survey is the summary characterization of what the 97% really means. So for those who oppose the Cook survey, how would you fill out this sentence:
Of all the papers that expressed an opinion on global warming, ___ % of them believe _____________.
And since we are interested in what scientists think, pick a position where you can fill in a percentage of 50% or greater.
The percentage is 1.6%
Not even Cook properly and accurately represents the only possible conclusion since he has continually misrepresented the 97% claim. That hardly makes him credible as an honest researcher.
- Status