Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't failed to provide evidence that the Cook study was flawed because I never claimed that it was. What I claimed, and what is the truth, is that you and a whole host of other biased sources of patently unscientific information distorted the study's consensus findings from all scientists who submitted papers to all scientists. Do I need to quote from Skeptical Science again, or just go back and start cutting & pasting your own many posts which parrot it?

That is an outright lie. I have never said that. Try quoting me if you are going to accuse me.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't have my "own" views.

Maybe I am wrong; you are not a skeptic or cynic. You appear to be a sophist.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I might also suggest that The Great Warming by Brian Fagan be added to your references.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-gr...9781596913929/

https://www.amazon.ca/Great-Warming-.../dp/159691601X

what a bunch of useless drivel .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Go here: https://scholar.google.com/

Google isn't biased one bit

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/**...a36429-19.html

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is an outright lie. I have never said that. Try quoting me if you are going to accuse me.

Jack you do that he all the time usually with a word that will give you a way to weasel out of what you said just like a good politician.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Consider an idea that is easy to understand, but perhaps not easy to accept as possible reality (or easy to accept, but hard to hold on to). The idea is that some people simply cannot process the information you are presenting from the perspective that you are projecting it. No matter how hard you try to provide some people your cognitive lens (i.e. the manner in which you see things), they will not ever be able to see things as you do. They literally do not have the neural-wiring to do so. People assume pure logic is universal while it's actually relative. So appealing to "pure logic" only gets you so far...

It could also be that the person is just talking crap (i.e. falsehoods, strawmen, irrelevances, ad hominems). Repetition does not yield chocolate pudding.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It could also be that the person is just talking crap (i.e. falsehoods, strawmen, irrelevances, ad hominems). Repetition does not yield chocolate pudding.

True. At the same time, it stands to reason that all of us do what we do because we're ultimately trying to help others (well, at least 90%+ of people are). On the subject of CC, I reckon 97%+ of the interlocutors are ultimately 'loculating for the betterment of the whole.

So about or between all the falsehoods, strawmen, irrelevances, ad hominems, etc....there is a perspective that's trying to be conveyed to the receiver to help the receiver. It could be considered that the jabs are intended to rile the audiences' hormones to invoke a different thought stream--these techniques are in fact part of ordinary every day effective communication. Same with the bedazzlements, diversions, distractions.

Ineffective communication is where each side continues to broadcast all the same frequencies but at a higher wattage. Things resonate or they don't; increasing power doesn't help. But it helps me at least sleep better at night understanding that the crap talkers deep down are indeed trying to help...just that they/I can't figure out how to communicate. Understanding that I'm frequently wrong is what really helps me fall asleep knowing that my contributions are probably not the dependent variable in the discussion (to believe otherwise is a narcissistic manifestation...the world can get saved without me).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Consider an idea that is easy to understand, but perhaps not easy to accept as possible reality (or easy to accept, but hard to hold on to). The idea is that some people simply cannot process the information you are presenting from the perspective that you are projecting it. No matter how hard you try to provide some people your cognitive lens (i.e. the manner in which you see things), they will not ever be able to see things as you do. They literally do not have the neural-wiring to do so. People assume pure logic is universal while it's actually relative. So appealing to "pure logic" only gets you so far...

This has nothing to do with either party being right or wrong. Rather, that...by analogy...some people are wired as a PC, others as a Mac. Emulation can only get you so far. To my knowledge Jung was the first to write much on this idea...though Gary Larson's representation of the phenomenon is easier to understand, but maybe not to accept. Sometimes we're the man, sometimes we're Ginger...if you find yourself barking/instructing the same thing 3-4 times in a row without any appreciable effect, you might consider that 5-6+ times isn't likely to yield a better result:

You're probably right, but only because your proposition is far too logical. It's a sensible observation if for no other reason than it potentially explains much of the problem if I assume no bad intent. I could be incorrectly assuming deceit, deliberate misrepresentation, dishonesty, etc. because what I'm reading is not how I go about presenting my own thoughts, but I could very well not be understanding how my thoughts are being received. If so, then bad intentions may not be an appropriate assessment or accusation on my part, despite how convinced I am that others have purposely misled.

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has gone on in these threads. Same cast but with different partners, so that also supports your observations. And while the catalyst is usually two parties on opposing sides of the issue, I recall at least a couple of refreshingly productive and civil discussions with a couple of people who similarly opposed me on the underlying issue. These were the people I was able to learn from and them perhaps from me, and whether we also happened to agree on the underlying issues mattered not. This also suggests miscommunications not unique to this particular issue.

Another part of the problem -- or maybe an exacerbation of the same problem -- is the type of written, detached forum we're trying to communicate in. Add to that the assumptions one naturally makes about the motivations of another party who remains largely an unknown, and the relationship is fraught with potential error. Much of this gets remedied with face-to-face communications, and of course it's doubtful that the "courage" people display on the internet with their use of insults & perjoratives would survive long in person. The anonymous & therefore omnipotent "keyboard warrior" unique to our age I suppose.

All worthy of serious consideration, thanks. But you're right. Much easier to understand than to accept as reality. In fact, it's as illuminating as it is frightening that appeals to my sense of logic don't often carry the day. And by carry the day, I don't mean "winning" this or that (often ridiculous) "point," but rather overall comprehension at a basic level. In this discussion, I don't believe I've even been able to communicate what I agree or disagree on, and the replies have largely been robotic. In fact, the ones who understand and accept the reality you suggest are probably the ones largely sitting these threads out.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It could also be that the person is just talking crap (i.e. falsehoods, strawmen, irrelevances, ad hominems). Repetition does not yield chocolate pudding.

you may be correct but you keep repeating anyway

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The cognitive dissonance is entirely your own. HE WAS NOT INCLUDED.

Look at his claim at 3:34. https://youtu.be/Aou-mBhoeuE

Ohhhh Kaaaay . . .

"It turns out that the 97% consensus that they found I am indeed part of . . . and my associate John Christy, he agrees with it. In fact all skeptics who work in this business, all are part of this 97% because that 97% includes people who think humans have some influence on climate."

Like I stated (3-4x now so Singularity says it's beyond hope), it doesn't appear Spencer necessarily intended to testify that he and his fellow skeptics were ACTUALLY included in the Cook consensus. Instead, his testimony was that he & his fellow skeptics WOULD BE INCLUDED because papers that attributed human CO2 to "some" level of warming were counted as part of the consensus. The point being that the Cook consensus was overbroad because it included papers that "endorsed AGW."* Whether the Cook consensus actually included Spencer et. al's works is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that, under its own criteria for inclusion, the skeptics' studies would have been included. What's your problem? Looking for someone else to accuse of being a liar, or in this case a perjurer? Not enough that he's a Cornwall signer?

Let's see if you can put an end to yet another cycle of mindless pedantry and simply state -- in your own words and without citing more "data" & "methodology" -- what this latest tiff of yours is all about. Accuse me of nasty things if you'd like if it makes you feel better, but let's end the suspense and move things along. I'm sure you'll robotically cite the same "consensus" study again in the next thread as soon as someone brings up the "81 skeptics," and we'll get to go through this ridiculous exercise all over again.


*"We find that . . . 32.6% [of abstracts] endorsed AGW."
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't failed to provide evidence that the Cook study was flawed because I never claimed that it was. What I claimed, and what is the truth, is that you and a whole host of other biased sources of patently unscientific information distorted the study's consensus findings from all scientists who submitted papers to all scientists. Do I need to quote from Skeptical Science again, or just go back and start cutting & pasting your own many posts which parrot it?

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is an outright lie. I have never said that. Try quoting me if you are going to accuse me.

Here's the Cook consensus breakdown of its findings on the positions taken by scientists in their published studies (as summarized in the abstract):

66.4% - no position on AGW
32.6% - endorsed AGW
0.7% - rejected AGW
0.3% - uncertain about the cause of global warming

The now infamous 97.1% is only "among [rated] abstracts expressing a position on AGW." In other words, since 66.4% expressed no position on AGW, then 97.1% of the remainder that took a position (33.6%) endorsed AGW, not 97.1% of all the scientific papers. Bottom line = ~33% endorsed AGW.

When the scientists were asked to evaluate their own papers, however, the percentage taking no position (curiously) dropped from 66.4 to 35.5% and Cook claims that 97.2% of the papers that did express an opinion endorsed the AGW position. So in other words, 97.2% of ~65% endorsed AGW this time, but not 97.2% of all the scientific papers!

Bottom line = ~65% endorsed AGW.

And of course this was not a survey of scientists themselves, but only of published studies from an apparently unspecified number (as far as I could tell) of those scientists.

So from all of that (65% of science studies at best), we somehow then get to this:

"97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming."

Is this not what you, L-E and many others have been imploring us all to accept since the inception of these lengthy threads? How is this not a gross misrepresentation of the Cook study (which I have not claimed is necessarily "flawed")? Or is there some other explanation for a survey that resulted in 65% (at best) endorsement of AGW through scientific studies, to 97% endorsement of AGW by actual scientists.

[AllenRbrts]

Lately there have been tons of posts about Roy Spencer . Exile frequently uses him as an example of a skeptic. Which prompted me to go read more from his website.

First I found a couple of articles decrying deniers giving skeptics a bad name. I had posted a similar article much earlier on this thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/...nt-hold-water/

And

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/...hes-a-stinker/

I also found a chart where he shows that twice as much CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 is being created as showing up in the atmosphere. He points this out as “good” news but of course that other half is bring absorbed by the ocean decreasing the ph. I think this graph should address Exile’s frequently repeated question about the source of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere

Note, the graph is additional ppm/year, not total ppm.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...-at-mauna-loa/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming ...

“Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” ~ by David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract (paywall) ➥ https://archive.is/oHqcJ#selection-579.0-643.33

“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” ~ by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Open access ➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024

So a question arises. Are the scientific Journals suppressing views (per the 97.1% consensus claim of Cook et al), contrary to AGW, or are they not (per the 1% claim of Legates)?

A little perspective:
Germ theory states that many diseases are caused by the presence and actions of specific micro-organisms within the body. The theory was developed and gained gradual acceptance in Europe and the United States from the middle 1800s. It eventually superseded existing miasma and contagion theories of disease and in so doing radically changed the practice of medicine. It remains a guiding theory that underlies contemporary biomedicine.
How many (what percentage of) medical papers, discussing human disease, express an opinion on germ theory, or even mention it?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Lately there have been tons of posts about Roy Spencer . Exile frequently uses him as an example of a skeptic. Which prompted me to go read more from his website.

First I found a couple of articles decrying deniers giving skeptics a bad name. I had posted a similar article much earlier on this thread.
Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water « Roy Spencer, PhD

And

American Thinker Publishes a Stinker « Roy Spencer, PhD

I also found a chart where he shows that twice as much CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 is being created as showing up in the atmosphere. He points this out as “good” news but of course that other half is bring absorbed by the ocean decreasing the ph. I think this graph should address Exile’s frequently repeated question about the source of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere
Attachment 198365
Note, the graph is additional ppm/year, not total ppm.
Carbon Dioxide Growth Rate at Mauna Loa « Roy Spencer, PhD

Thanks for this info Allen, I'll take a look. I'm aware that Spencer differs not only from so-called "deniers," but also from some of his fellow skeptics. I've always thought the science was pretty well settled that the source of the additional CO2 was human, with most of it from fossil fuel emissions. I wouldn't doubt that there's skepticism on this issue, but I'm not sure what it entails. Or maybe I just forgot.

As I recall, the more significant issue is the relationship between CO2 and warming. Not whether that relationship has been long proven (as you've pointed out), but whether it's measurable. This seems to be the core of the controversy within the science over how much certainty exists over the IPCC's conclusion that CO2 is a "significant" contribution. As you presumably know, some believe it accounts for all the warming, whereas others (e.g. Spencer) only an inconsequential amount.

Am I stating the parameters of this debate correctly?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change” ~ by David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract (paywall) ➥ https://archive.is/oHqcJ#selection-579.0-643.33

“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” ~ by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Open access ➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024

So a question arises. Are the scientific Journals suppressing views (per the 97.1% consensus claim of Cook et al), contrary to AGW, or are they not (per the 1% claim of Legates)?

A little perspective:
Germ theory states that many diseases are caused by the presence and actions of specific micro-organisms within the body. The theory was developed and gained gradual acceptance in Europe and the United States from the middle 1800s. It eventually superseded existing miasma and contagion theories of disease and in so doing radically changed the practice of medicine. It remains a guiding theory that underlies contemporary biomedicine.
How many (what percentage of) medical papers, discussing human disease, express an opinion on germ theory, or even mention it?

Unless I botched the numbers Gord (always possible), I was only looking at the Cook study itself for my post. The consensus of scientific papers does not appear to be 97%, but rather 65% for the self-rated papers and 35% for the ones Cook & Co. (presumably) rated/reviewed. I haven't looked at either Newhaul's cite or yours on this issue, but from what I've seen it may be more about (biased) secondary sources creating the disparity, and maybe not the surveys themselves. As for differences between different consensus surveys, it should be noted that there may be a myriad of different "positions" scientists hold because they differ on the various aspects of the science. Not sure what criteria these different studies use (you'd think it would be the IPCC standard) but maybe that's a reason for the disparities as well. But I don't know.

I didn't understand your analogy to medical studies and germ theory.