Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you say so it must be true. But have you actually looked at it

No, what I say doesn't count for anything. Only peer reviewed papers can be relied on as evidence.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

if such a simple thing as consensus is a flagrant lie, what else is?

First, you kind of need to disprove the essential truth of the 'consensus' or whatever derisive term you choose to use for an undeniable supermajority of the subject matter experts. I don't believe you or anyone have ever done that yet. Simply prove that a significant percentage of climate scientists do not accept that AGW exists, and your case is made. Could be tough, because even you have accepted that AGW is occurring.

(you really are trolling, now, aren't you? Weather keeping you in port?)

[jackdale]

2013 Pie Chart

[Reefmagnet]

For the benefit of Tensen, Lake-Effect, Jackdale and all those others that seem to think I'm a troll (name calling?) let me use an analogy. A paper is a comment and an author is a friend in this analogy. Note that I use “liked” to provide the analogy for multiple authors per paper.

Let's say I'm addicted to Facebook. Furthermore, Let's say I love to post selfie's all day long.
I think I'm pretty damn hot, but I want to find out if my Facebook friends agree by doing a poll.
So here's my starting point for my research.

Firstly, I have so many friends, I'll need to filter them out. For example my Aunt Edna is in my friends list. Firstly, because I have so many friends, I randomly selected a subset that had to meet criteria based on comments attached to my selfies that indicated they thought I may be hot, which is ok. I then sent this subset to a bunch of my frat boy buddies for them to sort out further for me.

To cut a long story short, I managed to whittle down my subset of to a base 29083 friends that left a combined total of 12465 comments (excluding “likes” - that's why friends numbers are so high) and then further reduced this 11944 comments (rigid criteria is rigid criteria, after all).

So, here are my final numbers.

Comments on my selfies, that made no opinion of my hotness: 66.4% (7930) or 18930 friends
Comments indicating they may think I'm hot: 32.6% (3896) or 10188 friends
Comments saying I'm one ugly mofo or otherwise implied maybe I'm not that hot 1.0% (118) or 168 friends

Note the above are comments only. The actual number of friends that commented (and “liked”) in my filtered list is 29083.

Ok, now I messaged 8547 friends out of the above 29083 friends with a question regarding if their comment/like was true. Can't reveal exactly what I asked, but that's the basic gist of it. There were 2142 comment/likes in total included in this poll.

Righto, the results came in. 1200 friends replied. Again, I whittled the responses down to 1189 friends. 1189 have said they agreed with their comment(s) that I may be hot. Let that roll off the tongue... eleven hundred and eighty nine!

Here's that breakdown:
62.7% friends said I'm hot (746) representing 1342 comments/like or 62.7%
34.9% friends said they'd prefer not to say (415) representing 761 comments/like or 35.5%
2.4% friends told me I'm damned ugly (28) representing 39 comments/like or 1.8%

Don't you worry now that the ratio of responses is totally skewed around from the original 2/3 no opinion, 1/3 might think I'm hot opinion. Or that the ratio of friends to comments/likes has changed. Nothing suspicious or below the table here. Also don't worry that I didn't actually tell you the ratio's of hot/no idea/not hot in the polled 2142 comments / likes. Of course in this unbiased poll, I'm only going to work with the results of those that think I'm hot.

The biggest number is 97.2% I'm going to use that. I am truly a gift to mankind.

Whoa, hang on. I've just come to my senses. Thinking about it I could use a number of scenarios.

Out of 29083 friends I have 746 that have confirmed they think their comments saying I'm hot are true?

That's 2.57%. Crap!

Can't be right. Let's try this instead. And it is fairer, after all. I'll use my original filtered list of 8547 that I emailed.

That's 8.73%. Better, but still crap.

Ok, I'll just stick to the responses of 1189. Probably lost scientific credibility at this point, but who cares?

That's 62.74% Hmm. Not bad, but not flash.

Damn it with scientific principles. 97.2% it is.

I know declare that 97% of my friends that comment on my selfies think I'm hot.

Sounds all a bit silly, doesn't it?
I await your attacks upon my stupid analogy and the but... but... buts.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Non sequitur.

If there's something you have to say on this percentage, just say it. I'm not going to try and guess what your point is.

Ok, since no alarmist will bother reading the above, let alone accept it. Here is my non-scientific interpretation.

Original known ratio of authors (in filtered set):

Endorse AGW = 10188 / 34.8%
No opinion = 18930 / 64.6%
Reject AGW = 124 / 1.2%
Uncertain = 44 / 0.4%

Ratio of Endorse to other: 174:331

Sample set = 8547
Results obtained from set (including post filtering) = 1189
Supportive results = 746
Non supportive results = 443

extrapolated ratio 627:373

homogenized supportive value: 207
homogenized non supportive value: 393

Consensus after homogenization = 34.5%

Amazing, rather spot on with the raw data.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

2013 Pie Chart

Have you looked at a sample of the titles this NON peer reviewed assessment used?

A Reflection on Moral Distress in Nursing Together With a Current Application of the Concept

A South African perspective on livestock production in relation to greenhouse gases and water usage

A survey of temporal and spatial reference crop evapotranspiration trends in Iran from 1960 to 2005

Adult behavior of an ambrosia gall midge Illiciomyia yukawai (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and synchronization between its emergence and host plant phenology

Application of Models to Predict Methane Emissions by Dairy Cattle

Are lizards feeling the heat? A tale of ecology and evolution under two temperatures

And these junk science titles are the majority. Not the minority. See for yourself. Here's the link: http://www.jamespowell.org/resources...ruDec2013.xlsx

I'll also point out that for some reason (I haven't as yet fully investigated why) the "global climate change" search phrase is a trick used to filter out "denier" papers. John Cook uses the same technique.

Whilst you guys are quick to jump down the throats and query the credentials of "deniers", it may be about time you reassessed the quantity of intentional misinformation coming from pro-AGW sources.

[Lake-Effect]

(Sorry, I do still have a bit of a life)

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... stupid analogy ...

Climate science, and publishing research, isn't facebook. (Amen for that)

Again you're simply not supplying what would be an incontrovertible demolition of the consensus/97%/whatever argument - show us that there's a significant percentage ("x") of climate scientists who do not accept the AGW findings and conclusions.

We would take this number, and with our solar-powered calculators we would subtract your number x from 100, and we would then have to concede that 100 - x is much less than 97, and your point is made.

If you can't find a verifiable and significant value for x, or 100 - x is still pretty damn close to 100%, then you have to concede that there's a undeniably solid consensus among the best brains we have that study climate.

No analogies were tortured in the making of this argument.

Even your own reprocessing of the papers below supports the consensus:

Endorse AGW = 10188 / 34.8%
No opinion = 18930 / 64.6%
Reject AGW = 124 / 1.2%
Uncertain = 44 / 0.4%

Of the papers that express any opinion on AGW, you have

34.8 /(34.8 + 1.2 +0.4) = 95.6%

(Yes even climate scientists research and publish on other stuff besides AGW. When they're not attending Soshulist Konspiracy Kamp)

But there's no need for all this mathematical calisthenics over one source of data. Simply show us the percentage of AGW deniers within the ranks of the climate scientists.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(Sorry, I do still have a bit of a life)



Climate science, and publishing research, isn't facebook. (Amen for that)

Again you're simply not supplying what would be an incontrovertible demolition of the consensus/97%/whatever argument - show us that there's a significant percentage ("x") of climate scientists who do not accept the AGW findings and conclusions.

We would take this number, and with our solar-powered calculators we would subtract your number x from 100, and we would then have to concede that 100 - x is much less than 97, and your point is made.

If you can't find a verifiable and significant value for x, or 100 - x is still pretty damn close to 100%, then you have to concede that there's a undeniably solid consensus among the best brains we have that study climate.

No analogies were tortured in the making of this argument.

Let me get this straight.

Dissecting a peer reviewed paper that is widely accepted to be the source for the 97% consensus value that is even quoted by climate.nasa.gov and then showing by demonstration that it has falsified the result is not demolition of the 97% value?

Let me offer you this instead

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(Sorry, I do still have a bit of a life)



Climate science, and publishing research, isn't facebook. (Amen for that)

Again you're simply not supplying what would be an incontrovertible demolition of the consensus/97%/whatever argument - show us that there's a significant percentage ("x") of climate scientists who do not accept the AGW findings and conclusions.

We would take this number, and with our solar-powered calculators we would subtract your number x from 100, and we would then have to concede that 100 - x is much less than 97, and your point is made.

If you can't find a verifiable and significant value for x, or 100 - x is still pretty damn close to 100%, then you have to concede that there's a undeniably solid consensus among the best brains we have that study climate.

No analogies were tortured in the making of this argument.

Even your own reprocessing 0f the papers below supports the consensus:
Of the papers that express any opinion on AGW, you have

34.8 /(34.8 + 1.2 +0.4) = 95.6%



But there's no need for all this mathematical calisthenics over one source of data. Simply show us the percentage of AGW deniers within the ranks of the climate scientists.

What part of this don't you understand?

It's what you don't understand. The raw data is that only 34.8% of "climate scientists" are endorsing AGW. Believe it or not, that means 65.2% aren't endorsing AGW. That's an inconvenient truth.

If I asked 34.8% of climate scientists that authored, or participated in authoring, a paper claiming their "endorsement" of AGW but when asked later if they still stood by that stance and only 97.2% agreed I wouldn't have the moral deficiency to promote that 97% value as some kind of majority consensus. In fact, I'd be somewhat "alarmed".

Propaganda? You be the judge.



97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

it may be about time you reassessed the quantity of intentional misinformation coming from pro-AGW sources.

The average denier (which isn't necessarily you) is about the last person who should be pointing fingers at others over their sources of information.

Nonetheless.. I think most of us realize that the media and especially the various advocacy groups are not necessarily the most reliable sources of unadulterated facts.

So, I'm on your side with this. Let's just consider directly what the scientists are saying.

Do you know what most of the scientists are saying?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's what you don't understand. The raw data is that only 34.8% of "climate scientists" are endorsing AGW. Believe it or not, that means 65.2% aren't endorsing AGW. That's an inconvenient truth.

Wow, you can't even understand your own breakdown. First they're papers, not people, second, a paper that does not express an opinion on AGW cannot be counted either way.

Let's just toss this one source of the 97% number in the ash-can, and you can simply tell us straight-up the percentage of climate scientists who are not with the consensus.



[ and you are totally trolling. Go watch tv ]

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The average denier (which isn't necessarily you) is about the last person who should be pointing fingers at others over their sources of information.

Nonetheless.. I think most of us realize that the media and especially the various advocacy groups are not necessarily the most reliable sources of unadulterated facts.

So, I'm on your side with this. Let's just consider directly what the scientists are saying.

Do you know what most of the scientists are saying?

Yes. I also don't think climate scientists whom have multiplied in great proportion over the last 20 years - and all need to be clothed and fed - can be fully trusted to give us good non biased information. In this thread we've had supposedly peer reviewed BS on the Antarctic ice sheets, Great Barrier Reef and whatever else. Regardless of what Jackdale tells us, there's some definite fishy results coming from homogenized data That's not science. Science is exploring every possible theory. Claiming "consensus" and shouting down those that oppose your ideas is not science. That's religion.

I posted up some stuff yesterday that shows more correlation between population and CO2 emissions than does temperatures and CO2 emissions. The problem is population growth which will need to be addressed, hopefully in a non Soylent Green fashion, at some time in the not too distant future. (Note for Tensen: The corporate profits graph was to illustrate that world economies depend on population growth. Catch 22. There is actually another very disturbing graph - imo - that shows corporate profits versus employee pay packets rapidly diverging, but that's not for this discussion)

another problem I see recently is climate scientists telling us we're doomed in vast number isn't actually solving the problem.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow, you can't even understand your own breakdown. First they're papers, not people, second, a paper that does not express an opinion on AGW cannot be counted either way.

Let's just toss this one source of the 97% number in the ash-can, and you can simply tell us straight-up the percentage of climate scientists who are not with the consensus.



[ and you are totally trolling. Go watch tv ]

I'm home alone, getting up to mischief. If I don't do this I'd have to go mow the grass. And the music playing through the PC is very relaxing.

Back to business. 34.8% is AUTHORS. 32.6% is PAPERS. I do understand your confusion, however. That paper is a confusing mess.

Edit: I should note that the papers weren't all done by "climate scientists" regardless of the propaganda. That's a well known fact which is easily proved (the list of papers is available online).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes. I also don't think climate scientists whom have multiplied in great proportion over the last 20 years - and all need to be clothed and fed - can be fully trusted to give us good non biased information.

Not a good sign that you're jumping back a couple squares to the "corrupt scientist" canard. Who's really drunk the Koolaid here?

another problem I see recently is climate scientists telling us we're doomed in vast number isn't actually solving the problem.

You'll have to prove that. I haven't seen that 'we're doomed' from the scientists. Expressions of concern. yes. Again, you have some Koolaid on your breath.

Why won't you simply tell us how many climate scientists oppose the finding of AGW?

[sobraon]

I posted the dog chasing it's tail about 500 odd post ago, referring to Tensen's continual refusal to acknowledge anything other than his own belief and his habit of raising arguments that have been discussed and bedded.

The 97% crap has been refuted ad infinitum, however that just isn't good enough for a warmist. When I posted Richard Tol's summation of the Cook Paper Tensen dismissed it. Why? Because in his esteemed opinion I must really be desperate to be quoting an economist re. the climate. Not recognising that Tol is in actual fact a Professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the University of Amsterdam. He was also a co ordinating lead author of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. In my opinion, a person of very suitable qualifications to be commenting on the 97% consensus paper. Tensen on the other hand would rather quote the work of a Cartoonist.

He then tried to prop up his argument that Cook had no agenda by questioning that, "Nuccitelli, Green, Richardson, Winkler, Painting, Way, Jacobs, and Skuce all happened to share precisely the same "agenda" did they?"

To state the obvious, Yes they did. It was their work that Tol's is commenting on. Not just Cook's. It was their paper.

Tensen I note that you appear to be a little bit OTT in your defense of AGW. Just looking at your posts on this forum it is obvious that they have little to do with the Cruising lifestyle and more to do with the trolling agenda of a AGW protagonist.

I applaud Reefmagnet for courteously holding Tensen to account; however I feel Tensen has a tendency in his arguments to project a superior moral and intellectual high ground and is rudely dismissive of anyone with a conta view. Possibly best described as a 'Climatard'.

So while the battle rages into it's 1300th post I am going to celebrate this lovely warm day in the tropics by diving on my hull, prepping for the continuation of our journey to the high latitudes.

If only AGW was true, I could have saved 1000's of dollars on survival suits and thermals.

Garry
Home Page - www.sobraon.com