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

Akrasia wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense

As opposed to this?

Akrasia wrote: »

10,312%

dense wrote: »

In my opinion a big part of the problem for people is that they have been fed this 97% line by their teachers, lecturers and others who they trust, and who should know better, even a POTUS.

It cannot be expected to be easy for people to come to terms with the realisation that it is fake.

And that accounts for the refusal to acknowledge it to be so.

No the 97% line came from the very paper you linked to. That’s the first time I heard it.

And indeed the paper said that 97% of the papers who gave an opinion on climate change were in agreement that it was anthropogenic.

You don’t get percentages though.

dense wrote: »

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.

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.

Why are you moving goalposts here? We were talking about your link. The link that showed that 97% of papers that expressed an opinion said that human activities caused climate change.

(By the way you don’t understand sampling either but I’m not going down that rabbit hole).

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The link that showed that 97% of papers that expressed an opinion said that human activities caused climate change.

Do you accept that just a third of the published 11,944 papers that were examined endorsed AGW?

And that the vast majority of climate research examined in this study did not attribute any climate change or global warming to human activities?

The answer to both questions, as we know, is yes.

It is clear that the almost thirty thousand authors mentioned in this study have not formed any scientific consensus endorsing AGW.

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'.

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.

Therefore anyone that tells you that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for climate change is lying. They have zero knowledge of why they say, it is just because they heard someone else saying it.

They are making it up, for reasons best known to themselves.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Care to address this, climate change deniers, or you simply can't and are going to cling to the *possibility* of an inflated percentage being out there?

Its good to question things,but that's not what the climate change 'skeptics' are doing. They question the facts they don't like, and blindly accept the 'facts' that they do like even when those 'facts' are produced out of the asses of unqualified bloggers and shills.

dense wrote: »

As opposed to this?

That didn't make sense on purpose, your sentence didn't make sense in spite of you trying your best to be clever.

dense wrote: »

Do you accept that just a third of the published 11,944 papers that were examined endorsed AGW?

Accept? why the need to accept it, it's stated in the paper. It's a fact.

And that the vast majority of climate research examined in this study did not attribute any climate change or global warming to human activities?

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
The majority of studies didn't discuss attribution in their abstract, so they were out of scope for the study.
It is extremely likely that these out of scope studies also attribute climate change to human activity elsewhere in the paper, but not in the extract, or at least have implied acceptance by not stating anywhere that humans aren't causing the climate change that their paper is exploring, but the researchers didn't want to make assumptions, so they excluded these studies from the data.

I'll explain this to you in a way that a 10 year old would understand

Lets say I have a field with a hundred animals, they are all either sheep or goats.
I want to know how many sheep are girls and how many are boys, So I get all the animals to walk through a gate.
Whenever a goat walks through the gate, I put them in one pen called Goats
Whenever a boy sheep goes through the gate, it goes in a pen called boy sheep.
Whenever a girl sheep goes through the gate, it goes in a pen called girl sheep

At the end, there are
40 goats
30 boy sheep
30 girl sheep.

What percentage of Sheep in that field were girl sheep?

I'll give you a moment to think about it.

Do you have an answer?

It's 50%

But what about the goats? Surely because there were 40 goats in there too, they should be included in the figures? Nope, because goats weren't part of the question, they don't count, they are out of scope for the study, we only care about the girl sheep and the boy sheep.

The first part of the study was to pick a field to count, that field happened to include non sheep animals, so the 2nd part of the study was to exclude the non sheep and isolate the relevant subjects for the study (sheep) And the actual findings of the study was the proportion of boy sheep to girl sheep

In this climate study the field is 'all the climate change studies published in x period

The goats are all the climate change studies that don't express anything related to attribution in their abstract

The boy sheep is that one solitary ram in the field, the climate skeptic paper that challenges the consensus in the extract, surrounded by all the breeding ewes (the papers that endorse the climate change consensus in their extract)

The answer to both questions, as we know, is yes.

It is clear that the almost thirty thousand authors mentioned in this study have not formed any scientific consensus endorsing AGW.

'Clear' only to a moron who can't understand basic concepts

Therefore anyone that tells you that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for climate change is lying. They have zero knowledge of why they say, it is just because they heard someone else saying it.

Therefore, you are a laughing stock and a joke because you have proven multiple times that you are incapable of understanding very basic sampling and a clearly explained methodology

Now, I sit back and wait for someone to make a joke about people who believe in climate change all being sheeple.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'll explain this to you in a way that a 10 year old would understand

'Clear' only to a moron who can't understand basic concepts

Therefore, you are a laughing stock and a joke because you have proven multiple times that you are incapable of understanding very basic sampling and a clearly explained methodology

The quality of the debate has deteriorated.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Care to address this, climate change deniers, or you simply can't and are going to cling to the *possibility* of an inflated percentage being out there?

Who is a climate denier?
Nobody denies that some scientists think mankind can manipulate and control the climate at will, and in various locations simultaneously, and make it more amenable. All one has to do for this to kick in is emit less C02.

This, they believe will prevent the climate from changing in the future and also set "global warming" to a level that everyone is happy with.

I can't recall what temperature they want it set at, but that's not a biggy!

No one has denied any of this!

There are a couple of things that still have to be ironed out like how adjusting C02 output wont stop the volcanos from melting the ice from underneath Antarctica

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-volcanic-source-major-antarctic-glacier.html

or prevent places like Houston from flooding due to a combination of bad planning and it slowly sinking into the sea

https://m.chron.com/news/article/New-app-shows-exactly-where-Houston-is-sinking-11300108.php

Could always try a raindance for that.

dense wrote: »

The quality of the debate has deteriorated.

do you know the difference between sheep and goats?

Wanderer78

Akrasia wrote:

do you know the difference between sheep and goats?

Akrasia, you have the patience of a saint, and the knowledge to support it, I'd be after giving up long go

dense wrote: »

Do you accept that just a third of the published 11,944 papers that were examined endorsed AGW?

And that the vast majority of climate research examined in this study did not attribute any climate change or global warming to human activities?

No. About 60% of the papers referenced climate change but didn't say anything about a cause. That wasn't what those papers were about. Of the rest of the papers that did talk investigate the cause ( the only ones we are interested in) 97% blamed human activity.

I've explained this before and either you don't get it or you don't pretend to, even though the synopsis of the article itself said the same thing.

Either way your claim is incorrect.

Therefore anyone that tells you that 97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for climate change is lying. They have zero knowledge of why they say, it is just because they heard someone else saying it.

Therefore anybody who doesn't understand that 97% of the papers that were dealing with cause blamed human activities doesn't understand maths. Or indeed English since the summary at the bottom said exactly what I am saying.

They are making it up, for reasons best known to themselves.

Its pretty simple though. The actual paper you linked said the opposite of what you think it said. Thats your problem with simple percentages though.

Akrasia wrote: »

Its good to question things,but that's not what the climate change 'skeptics' are doing. They question the facts they don't like, and blindly accept the 'facts' that they do like even when those 'facts' are produced out of the asses of unqualified bloggers and shills.

Its important to keep plugging away at the stupid statistics though. Or their sub secondary school understanding of simple percentages. Otherwise we will be worn down with mere stupidity and repetition of previously debunked claims.

dense wrote: »

The quality of the debate has deteriorated.

Given your inability to understand basic mathematics, it's never been that good.

dense wrote: »

Who is a climate denier?
Nobody denies that some scientists think mankind can manipulate and control the climate at will,

Nobody says that. If we could manipulate at will then it wouldn't be an issue, would it?

and in various locations simultaneously, and make it more amenable. All one has to do for this to kick in is emit less C02.

Again a strange almost Orwellian wording here. Scientists are not saying that the climate will get more amenable with less carbon dioxide but that it will get worse with more. This is elementary stuff.

This, they believe will prevent the climate from changing in the future and also set "global warming" to a level that everyone is happy with.

Nobody thinks that climate is affected only by humans over the long term. In this short term though carbon dioxide levels absolutely do cause greenhouse effects. Its physically impossible for that not to happen.

I can't recall what temperature they want it set at, but that's not a biggy!

What scientists want is to slow the global warming caused by human activity to a manageable level. About 1-2 degrees above the temperature of pre industrial society at best.

There are a couple of things that still have to be ironed out like how adjusting C02 output wont stop the volcanos from melting the ice from underneath Antarctica

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-06-volcanic-source-major-antarctic-glacier.html

Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that carbon dioxide reductions will do that.

or prevent places like Houston from flooding due to a combination of bad planning and it slowly sinking into the sea

https://m.chron.com/news/article/New-app-shows-exactly-where-Houston-is-sinking-11300108.php

If Heuston is sinking anyway thats a different problem to one caused specifically by global warming but could be a problem exacerbated by global warming.

Could always try a raindance for that.

You want to try a rain-dance to stop Heuston sinking, go right ahead.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No. About 60% of the papers referenced climate change but didn't say anything about a cause.

Franz, you're digging a hole here.
You are either genuinely mistaken or deliberately misleading by making up figures now. I hope it's the former.

100% of the 11944 of the climate papers refered to climate change or global warming.

(It would have been a pretty safe bet that climate research papers were going to contain references to climate change or global warming.)

32% of them endorsed AGW.

66% didnt.

Therefore the majority of papers analysed did not demonstrate a scientific consensus endorsing AGW.

Therefore there is no consensus and no justification for anyone to claim that 97% of scientists endorse the AGW theory.

You have been fed one of the biggest lies in history, courtesy of climate science and it's cheerleaders.

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'. 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.

gargargar

dense wrote: »

100% of the 11944 of the climate papers refered to climate change or global warming.

(It would have been a pretty safe bet that climate research papers were going to contain references to climate change or global warming.)

Yes but they express no opinion on AGW. That is the point. The rest of the argument you make is based on a deeply flawed understanding of the percentage calculation.

Dohnjoe

gargargar wrote: »

Yes but they express no opinion on AGW. That is the point. The rest of the argument you make is based on a deeply flawed understanding of the percentage calculation.

Correct.

It's a red flag technique (trick) used to distort information.

gargargar wrote: »

Yes but they express no opinion on AGW. That is the point.

Wrong 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

In the same study, the vast majority of scientists contacted by the authors, (86%) made no response when invited to rate their position on AGW.

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

Keep it coming guys.

dense wrote: »

Franz, you're digging a hole here.
You are either genuinely mistaken or deliberately misleading by making up figures now. I hope it's the former.

100% of the 11944 of the climate papers refered to climate change or global warming.

(It would have been a pretty safe bet that climate research papers were going to contain references to climate change or global warming.)

32% of them endorsed AGW.

66% didnt.

Therefore the majority of papers analysed did not demonstrate a scientific consensus endorsing AGW.

Therefore there is no consensus and no justification for anyone to claim that 97% of scientists endorse the AGW theory.

You have been fed one of the biggest lies in history, courtesy of climate science and it's cheerleaders.

100% of those animals were in that field
30% of them were female sheep. Doesn't make 70% of them male sheep

dense wrote: »

,

Wrong 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

In the same study, the vast majority of scientists contacted by the authors, (86%) made no response when invited to rate their position on AGW.

Keep it coming guys.

What's the expected response rate to an external survey? It's about 10-15%

What do you think the 14% response rate proves? Some kind of conspiracy? That they were suppressed? or that the authors didn't release the results they didn't like?

Dense is either really really stupid, or a troll/shill

Dense decided to call dense'self Dense.

Who am I to argue.

Akrasia wrote: »

What do you think the 14% response rate proves?

It proves that 86% of the scientists contacted did not endorse the AGW theory when given the opportunity.

What do you think it proves?

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense is either really really stupid, or a troll/shill

Dense decided to call dense'self Dense.

Who am I to argue.

What is that sort of thing supposed to achieve Akrasia?

Accusing me of being stupid, a shill?

Who's paying me?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

It proves that 86% of the scientists contacted did not endorse the AGW theory when given the opportunity.

Did the 86% endorse that climate-change wasn't AGW?

dense wrote: »

It proves that 86% of the scientists contacted did not endorse the AGW theory when given the opportunity.

What do you think it proves?

I don't think it proves anything. How could non response to a survey be proof of anything?

dense wrote: »

What is that sort of thing supposed to achieve Akrasia?

Accusing me of being stupid, a shill?

Who's paying me?

You might be doing it for free, but you're someone's useful idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.[1][2] The term was originally used to describe non-Communists regarded as susceptible to Communist propaganda and manipulation.[1]

I didn't have time to answer a telephone survey the other day, if the survey included a question about climate change, then by your definition, I had a chance to 'endorse climate change' and didn't, therefore I don't agree with the consensus view.

You are a conspiracy theory motivated wingnut who is too dazzled by individual contrarian talking points to notice the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

I normally don't get mad about people like you, if you want to believe in aliens or flat earth or oppose fluoridation of water, off you go, but climate change is serious and by the time it's so obvious that even people like you agree that it's happening, it will be way too late to do anything about it.

I don't know if you believe the world is flat or not, if you do, i'm not surprised, if you don't you're not far off their level of scientific ignorance.

Akrasia wrote: »

You might be doing it for free, but you're someone's useful idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I didn't have time to answer a telephone survey the other day, if the survey included a question about climate change, then by your definition, I had a chance to 'endorse climate change' and didn't, therefore I don't agree with the consensus view.

You are a conspiracy theory motivated wingnut who is too dazzled by individual contrarian talking points to notice the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

I normally don't get mad about people like you, if you want to believe in aliens or flat earth or oppose fluoridation of water, off you go, but climate change is serious and by the time it's so obvious that even people like you agree that it's happening, it will be way too late to do anything about it.

I don't know if you believe the world is flat or not, if you do, i'm not surprised, if you don't you're not far off their level of scientific ignorance.

I could be wrong but it seems like you're reacting badly coming to terms with the fact that no scientific consensus has ever been demonstrated.

Having read this thread, people can understand for themselves the fakery involved in climate science and the lengths to which activists will go to try to persuade people that a consensus exists.

What might excuse or explain such behaviour would be an admission that no such consensus exists, but such is the weight and urgency of the problem that climate activists are forced to use every avenue to persuade the public that there is a consensus, even when there is not.

The ball is in your court with that.

dense wrote: »

I could be wrong but it seems like you're reacting badly coming to terms with the fact that no scientific consensus has ever been demonstrated.

Having read this thread, people can understand for themselves the fakery involved in climate science and the lengths to which activists will go to try to persuade people that a consensus exists.

What might excuse or explain such behaviour would be an admission that no such consensus exists, but such is the weight and urgency of the problem that climate activists are forced to use every avenue to persuade the public that there is a consensus, even when there is not.

The ball is in your court with that.

You're right, apart from all the studies showing a consensus, and the fact that every national academy of science, and every university science dept, and every scientific body of any relevance accepting the consensus. You're right, I'm grumpy because I can't demonstrate a consensus.

Or maybe I'm angry that people like you lie and distort the facts on an issue that is literally life and death for millions of people alive today and future generations, not to mention the ecological catastrophe it will cause