"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Grayson wrote: »

Couple of things. I know little about climate science however I'm qualified in maths and statistics. So I can look at all the data and the consensus from a mathematical viewpoint and determine the yes, it's fecking real. It's not that hard really.

Also, the person I know who is worst at maths but shouldn't be, is an engineer. He and his entire class were useless. I remember tutoring them on stuff they should've been able to do at leaving cert level. I can only assume that a lot of engineering courses are not as heavy in maths and derivations as they used to be.


I don't get how someone can come on here and claim that they know more than all the experts about climate science. They read a few articles and suddenly think they're party to a truth no-one else knows about. It's like anti vaxxers, flat earthers or people who claim to know the secret of the moon landings.
And the thing is that it's equally as useless arguing with them about it. It doesn't matter what proof you give a flat earther they'll still believe that the earth is flat And it'll be the same with climate change deniers. .

Well engineering is an unprotected term. The engineering course I did was effectively applied physics. 95% of the course was mathematical, but not all engineering courses are like that.

xckjoo wrote: »

Ok. I've some time when I'm waiting for something so I'll bite for one reply.





Where is this admitted in the link? You've just linked to the FAQ page.

On the page I linked to, surprisingly enough:

These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5°C in the US mean for the period from 1900 to 1990.

Nobody could ever demonstrate any "warming" outside of that half degree manually added for the period. Man made warming eh?



And going on what George Lee and his supporters say, we just need to adjust in at least a half degree or so to our own records so that we can claim we've broken temperature records in our recent drought, which was nothing more than a cyclical recurring weather phenomenon.


https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0630/974393-weather-heatwave-ireland/

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/faculty-social-sciences/news/analysis-historical-records-shows-ireland-prone-drought

Recently uncovered weather records, dating back to the beginning of the 19th century, reveal that, historically, Ireland is remarkably prone to drought. According to Dr Conor Murphy, Maynooth University Department of Geography, the records show that the last 40 years have been unusual due to the absence of persistent drought events, which have occurred frequently over the last two centuries. Dr Murphy discussed the recently uncovered records in an opening keynote at the 9th ACRE Workshop and Historical Weather and Climate Data Forum at Maynooth University today.

The historical records demonstrate that Ireland was subject to persistent multi-season drought episodes in the 1800s, 1820s, 1850s, 1880s and, in the twentieth century, in the 1920s, 1930s, 1950s and 1970s.

Not forgetting the 1995 (EPA link below) one or the 2018 one.


https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/flows/EPA_Assessment_of_1995_Drought2.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiBlefuusncAhXMDMAKHZzoDUQQFggQMAA&usg=AOvVaw0dpizCBXuxgJsSQJmZsW0e

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ill take this one.

In the abstract this is the first paragraph



So that was a search for papers that mentioned global warming. For instance could have been

"Global warming and its effects on Agriculture"

or

"Global climate change and its effects on soybean production in the US"

67% of these papers were, as the abstract said, neutral on the causes of global warming, since that wasn't the remit of the articles. They were talking about the effects of it.


Of the rest who did give an opinion ( in other words the actual papers examining the cause).



Therefore



and

And, 9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas.

Dakota Dan wrote: »

So there you have it, a mathematician clueless about climate science knows it's real.

Where did he say that, and what are your credentials?

I've a feeling we're arguing here with people who don't understand percentages.

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah yes. I was supposed to pick out the one line from a page of text that you decided to focus on. How foolish of me.

So it literally states in the source you used to backup your claim that it has no relevance to the global values.

Less of the goalpost moving please, I was speaking about the US temperature record and I didn't mention global values.
Nice tactic.

I asked what warming has occurred in the US outside of the adjustments.

If you can't supply an answer that's fine and no point in going further with it.



I'd also asked if it's right that journalists with an agenda here in Ireland should be claiming that our recent heatwave broke temperature records.


People seem to think it's fine to spread fake news and have no issue with it.

xckjoo wrote: »

What's that got to do with man-made climate change? Once again, did you not read the full page? From the last line:

So it sounds like these scientists believe in man-made climate change.

They also cite a requirement for us to become more resilient to natural variability.

....and ensure that we become more resilient to both natural climate variability and human caused climate change.

Emphasis, as they, mine.





Which means they too are sceptical of the UNIPCC's position which is that natural variability can't explain the alleged global warming/climate change that they've observed and blame human activities for 110% of it.

dense wrote: »

Just to clarify, before you go any further, how many climate scientists are there?

No idea. How would I count all the climate scientists. Also irrelevant to your link.

The number please, and then what exactly you believe that 97% of them have said?

I did not know the number. Neither do you. What we know is that the link you posted showed that 97% of the papers on the causes of climate change said these changes were caused by human actions.

(Or voted on, whatever it is you think they've done.

Who said anything about voting. I’m referencing your link.

Was there a conclave somewhere that I haven't heard about where they all met?

No. I was referencing the link you posted. You clearly didn’t understand it. Why would I need to talk about a conclave?

Take your time, and it's a question open to the floor.


That's how debate works, right?


We can do groupthink later and bring the Pope into it for a bit of credibility maybe.

I didn’t have to take much time to post answers to you about the link you posted, and clearly didn’t understand. As for groupthink - the definition of groupthink isn’t somebody who disagrees with you.

Maybe you can brush up on percentages the next time you post a link.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No idea. How would I count all the climate scientists. Also irrelevant to your link.





I did not know the number. Neither do you. What we know is that the link you posted showed that 97% of the papers on the causes of climate change said these changes were caused by human actions.



Who said anything about voting. I’m referencing your link.




No. I was referencing the link you posted. You clearly didn’t understand it. Why would I need to talk about a conclave?




I didn’t have to take much time to post answers to you about the link you posted, and clearly didn’t understand. As for groupthink - the definition of groupthink isn’t somebody who disagrees with you.

Maybe you can brush up on percentages the next time you post a link.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’re too kind. I don’t think he gets percentages or indeed understands what “vanishingly small” means.

Franz, you have been unable to demonstrate how my understanding is lacking; just saying so doesn't make it so.

Let me now explain in some detail why I am right.

Here's the study that we're debating:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

11,994 climate abstracts were analysed, with just 32.6% of them being found to endorse AGW.

That does not equate to 97% of scientists. Or, maybe people think it does?

If so, maybe they could explain why?

But 97% is a favoured statistic, it carries weight for people who are impressed with high percentages, and so it comes up again in the same study:

To make the research even more preposterous, Cook et al decided to email 8.547 (29.39%) of the 29,083 authors of the 11,994 papers being analysed in order to further elicit their position on AGW.

The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals.

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).

Why or how this 8547 were chosen is not explained, but in any event just 1,200 responses were received.

That Franz, is just 4.13% of the total 20,983 authors.

After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

If anyone would like to help me to understand how or why they think the opinions of 97.2% of 4% of 29,083 climate scientists equates to "97% of scientists" or demonstrates a consensus, I'd be most grateful.

dense wrote: »

Franz, you have been unable to demonstrate how my understanding is lacking; just saying so doesn't make it so.

Let me now explain in some detail why I am right.

Here's the study that we're debating:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

11,994 climate abstracts were analysed, with just 32.6% of them being found to endorse AGW.

That does not equate to 97% of scientists. Or, maybe people think it does?

It equates to 97% of all the papers that discussed the causes of climate change. 67% referenced climate change but didn’t talk about the reasons climate change was happening. Those papers were probably about the effects of climate change. The ones that did address the reasons for climate change were 97% in favour of human activity being the reason. Not only have I explained this before the link itself makes that clear.

If so, maybe they could explain why?

Just did.

But 97% is a favoured statistic, it carries weight for people who are impressed with high percentages, and so it comes up again in the same study:

97% is the number of papers that, having an opinion on climate change, blamed human activity. Again spelt out in the link.

To make the research even more preposterous, Cook et al decided to email 8.547 (29.39%) of the 29,083 authors of the 11,994 papers being analysed in order to further elicit their position on AGW.





Why or how this 8547 were chosen is not explained, but in any event just 1,200 responses were received.

That Franz, is just 4.13% of the total 20,983. If anyone would like to help me to understand how or why they think the opinions of 97.2% of 4% of 29,083 climate scientists equates to "97% of scientists" or demonstrates a consensus, I'd be most grateful.

This is your misunderstanding of stats, and percentages again.

The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%.

The 4% is the number answering the emails. That’s itself a misreading number as of course there are more than one author to a paper so you don’t need multiple authors to answer.

But it’s irrelevant. The whole email bollocks is more typical goalpost moving, similar to the way children argue.

The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%. That’s all you need to know. That was your link, and nobody else brought it up.

You posted a link that clearly refuted your own position but couldn’t work out what the paper data even though it explained in fairly remedial fashio what the consensus was.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%. That’s all you need to know.

Wrong, again.

Papers analysed that endorsed AGW accounted for just 32.6%

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

A link to verify what you're claiming here might be useful.

Here's the study again:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Would you explain to the people who are reading this why you are claiming that 97% of the papers analysed attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity?

TheQuietFella wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html

Does anyone remember this legend, in my book anyway and my regard for him is not reflected on his opinions on Global Warming but he paid the price for what he believed so again the spin is on what people are being 'asked' to promote!

Similar to the recent case of an Australian Professor fired for disputing the quality of research about the Barrier Reef.

“What the university has done is outrageous and will stain its reputation forever.

JCU has shredded the idea that Australian universities have any sort of commitment to scientific integrity and free academic inquiry.

JCU’s actions prove the depth of the crisis confronting Australia’s universities.



The search for truth has been replaced by unquestioning allegiance to group-think,” said John Roskam, Executive Director of the IPA.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/professor-peter-ridd-sacking-outrageous

And he's not the only one

He not only questioned the science behind climate change warnings but the impact of abandoning fossil fuels on human progress on a continent that's lowest in production of carbon emissions and the neediest in terms of economic development.

For his questioning of climate orthodoxy, Rossiter, an adjunct professor at American University, was sacked via email from his position with the Institute for Policy Studies. That organization says it is committed to something called "climate justice," a notion that Rossiter questioned. He believes that position dooms the African continent to reliance on green energy sources such as wind and solar that are erratic and unreliable.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/caleb-rossiter-fired-for-climate-views/


And not terribly dissimilar is the story concerning Lennart Bengtsson, former director of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

Here's more of this 97% research using tiny numbers of scientists.

It's from the classic Doran and Zimmerman survey,

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjf98S3u8vcAhWLbMAKHZgHANsQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw1IugCK9OwVfccdWILyM2kg


cited in the junk consensus building research from Cook et al that Franz and I have been discussing.

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total).



Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

Q1 was whether respondents believed temperatures had risen and Q2 was whether they believed human activities were responsible.



How many scientists?


79. Or, 77. Less than 80.
(There's two unaccounted for, presumably missing in action.)


Less than 80 climate scientists.

But it hits the 97% target and that is what is important to those who wish to brainwash the uninformed public about the existence of a scientific 97% "consensus".



It is also important for members of the public who wish to be brainwashed. Here is a badge they can cut out and wear or just show to their unconvinced friends:






Below, the lead author of the Cook et al study invites those who do not possess the ability to perform critical analyses to believe that 79 climate scientists equates to 97% of climate scientists and that 97% of 32.6% is a consensus.

https://mobile.twitter.com/johnfocook/status/978661241098067969


The rest of the 97% studies there are of similarly phoney methodology.

If you've fallen for all of this 97%,of scientists stuff, please, the only thing I can say is be wary of nice people calling to your house and offering to clean your gutters.