R
RGCheek
Guest
Don’t you know that Obama is a qualified scientist since he AGREES with AGW?
- Status
Consensus is not science.
Why would I call a meteorologist if I need a medical doctor?Well, good, he’s a renaissance man. If that’s your criteria, the next time you need a doctor, maybe you can call him.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So he probably knows a lot about business and broadcasting, not climate change.
Yes, as a broadcaster, not as a research scientist.
Citing his lack of a degree in Meteorology is not an attack on him personally. It is no character flaw of his that he does not have such a degree. He probably did the best he could with what was available to him. I’ll give him credit for that. But we were not discussing his character flaws. We were discussing the relevance of his disagreement with global warming to the best science available now. I don’t know why anyone would crow about this one dissenter while ignoring what the majority of climate scientists (and broadcast meteorologists) are saying.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If consensus is not science, then neither is citing one dissenting broadcaster science, yet I did not see you leaping to correct that misconception when it first surfaced.
I don’t need to.
My arguments do not depend upon consensus.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article you cited also says that 97% results from a particular type of search and that the slightest affirmation of “climate change” in the article results in it being added to the “97%” EVEN IF the article also contains contrary statements.
your article also refers to the following, for example:
“Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Source: DailyTech)”
One is reminded of the fact that in nearly every “nature show” one sees on TV, there is some kind of perfunctory bow to MMGW. It might be 59.75 minutes about the habits of wolves and 15 seconds saying something like “Due to climate change, wolves might have to change their habits” or something of the sort. But there’s no demonstration or even argument that it’s true. If one then looks at the credits, there is always some environmentalist outfit named as one of the funding sources. It has become obligatory, like saying “How are you?” upon meeting someone, even though there is really no interrogation as to one’s condition intended.
That’s what kind of “consensus” there is.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is classic misdirection from “What’s up with that”! What would most people think the above quote from What’s up with that meant? Wouldn’t you think that it means 32.6% of the papers agree with AGW and 66% disagree with AGW? Well, when you did deeper, you find that that is not what is meant at all! Here is the expanded quote (also from What’s up with that if you follow their link):
So now we see where the numbers came from. The 32.6% of papers did indeed endorse AGW, and 66.4% stated** no position** on AGW. But have you even looked at research papers on climate? There are often whole papers devoted to extremely narrow aspects of research, dealing with things like measurement methodology, heat transfer, whether patterns, etc. They are not all about the role of human activity, or even about the general question of the whether the earth is warming. So it is not at all surprising that 66.4% of the papers surveyed did not conclude that AGW was real because those papers were not about AGW. But it serves the purpose of What’s up with that to have us think that every paper is directed toward that one question. The fact that What’s up with that would stoop to such blatant misrepresentation of simple facts makes me doubt anything that comes from their website.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The same response I gave in my previous posting applies here too. The largest category (48%) of papers are classified as “neutral” only because they are not about MMGW, but are about other narrower aspects of climate research. It would be completely unjustified to assume that the authors of such papers, if asked explicitly about MMGW, would say “I don’t know. I’m on the fence on that question”. As strange as it may seem to CAF posters, the wide world of climate researchers are not all focused on the one question that seems to preoccupy so many here.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What arguments are those, exactly?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually, it would be unjustified to assume anything at all about what that 48% of the writers think or intended, and one wouldn’t without reading every one of them. Even then, depending on what they said and how they documented what they said, one might not know.
It would be unjustified to assume anything at all about the asserted “consensus” if the “head count” contains flaws such as those pointed out in the article. And even if there really is a truly studied (not knee jerk or self-aggrandizing) consensus, how many 'consensuses" have we seen historically that were both untrue and pernicious even though a majority held them?
This just goes on and on, but fortunately it seems to be headed for the political dustbin. And, in its current form, it should. There is the very speculative debate about GW, whether it exists and why, why it doesn’t seem to be happening, where the suspected extra heat goes, what the tree rings and tea leaves really tell us, on and on and on.
But political MMGW is potentially very damaging to economies and people. So, while it might be an interesting scientific subject and fun to debate (or believe unquestioningly) the political agendas lurking behind it must give one considerable pause.
E
estesbob
Guest
That despite the assertion that an increase in CO2 would lead to atmospheric warming there has been no such warming in 18 years even though the CO2 has increased significantly .
E
estesbob
Guest
Interesting. So what both the studies are saying is that 97% of those scientist who believe in man-made global warming believe in man-made global warming. One wonders why it’s not 100%?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Was that your first impression upon reading the article with that survey? Or did you first think, as WUWT no doubt intended, that 48% of the writers were indeed undecided themselves about global warming? I think it is important to call WUWT on this ploy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Where is your evidence that the survey systematically bypassed scientists only because they disagreed with global warming? Accusations are one thing. Backing them up is quite another.
E
estesbob
Guest
My evidence is I read them. And of course they also don’t take into account the fact there was a coordinated effort to prohibit the publishing of peer-reviewed articles questioning global warming .
E
Ender
Guest
As I said, this assertion is completely misleading and, as stated, is false. Go to your source and follow the link to the paper itself. There you will find this statement:* Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.*
So, out of the 12K papers they reviewed how many expressed no position? That would be 66.4%. If two-thirds of the papers expressed no opinion whatever how can anyone claim that 97% of them support AGW? You have, yet again, been deceived by those pushing the idea that man is responsible for global warming. At some point you ought to ask yourself why such deceit is thought to be necessary and why anyone should believe people who constantly distort the truth.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Care to share what you have read so we all can see your evidence?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is straightforward sampling theory. They sampled only the papers that expressed an opinion on AGW. Since there is no a-priori reason to believe that expressing an opinion on AGW correlates with agreeing with AGW, the sampled authors are taken as representative of all authors. As long as the sampling technique does not systematically bias the outcome, the sampling need not be of 100% of the population.
E
Ender
Guest
I wonder if you’ve thought this one through…if two thirds of the papers included in the survey were not about AGW, why exactly were they included? It’s pretty clear that the way this survey was presented is that over 12K scientific papers were reviewed and 97% of them support the theory of AGW. Even if your claim was correct it still seems that the results have been deliberately distorted to assert something that isn’t true.
That is *if *your claim is correct, but it seems you have been misled as well. This is the first sentence in the paper itself:*We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. *
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
You’re right about the blatant misrepresentation involved here, but it’s not from Watt’s Up With That.
Ender
- Status