Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…78101213…44

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,361 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Maybe you need more time, because you don't seem to know what you're saying now.



    By the way, I haven't lied about anything here and I've been fairly kind to those who have made errors, correcting them and giving them the benefit of the doubt.



    You said I lie.



    Point out a lie.



    And given that climate change is so important to you, what are you doing to reduce your own carbon footprint?


    Oh, I've just remembered. Nothing.
    Which, from my experience is universal to those who profess most concern about it, it's always someone else's responsibility to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Your insistence that there is no consensus is a lie


  • Options
    #273
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    So there you have it, a mathematician clueless about climate science knows it's real.

    Says the man who thanked this:
    jackboy wrote: »
    We can stop human causes of climate change but we cannot stop natural causes of climate change. There will always be massive climate change and there is nothing we can do about it.


  • Options
    #274
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »


    You said I lie.

    You are either mistakenly or deliberately distorting info - the former is ignorance, the latter is intellectual dishonesty

    e.g. if there are 1,000 scientific papers on a subject. And of those, 100 papers express a final conclusion (the other papers may have no remit to present conclusions). And of those 100 papers that present a conclusion, 90% are of conclusion X

    The scientific consensus supports conclusion X


  • Options
    #275
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Sweetemotion wrote: »
    Didn't 97% of scientists at one time also claim the the earth was flat?

    When the earth as claimed to be flat, there were no scientists.


  • Options
    #276
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,379 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Your insistence that there is no consensus is a lie


    It might be just a lack of understanding of basic maths and science and a predisposition to delusion and irrational, conspiratorial beliefs.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    feargale wrote: »
    Says the man who thanked this:

    You're really scraping the arse of the barrel for an argument.


  • Options
    #278
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Did the 86% endorse that climate-change wasn't AGW?

    They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.


  • Options
    #279
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.

    From the papers that provided a conclusion

    Well explained here

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    90% to 100%, the average is around 97%


  • Options
    #280
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,379 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.


    It's explained in the abstract of the article and ad nauseam elsewhere in this thread. It's a straw man discussion anyway.


  • Options
    #281
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,156 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.

    If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following:

    "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."

    So the calculation is:

    32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97%

    It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    They gave no response so where did they get the 97% from? It was just a nice round figure that they pulled out their arses.

    The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.

    Let’s say there are a lot of papers about crime. And some of those papers are about the reasons for criminality, the others are about the effects of crime.

    67% of papers are about crime but not looking into causes. They just mention crime.

    Let’s say that of the papers that do look for a reason for criminality 97% blame poverty or environmental issues, and 3% don’t.

    We could accurately say then that criminologists overwhelmingly blame the environment/poverty for crime. At 97%.

    The papers that didn’t reference the reasons don’t count. That’s not what they were about.

    5th time explaining remedial percentages.


  • Options
    #283
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following:

    "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."

    So the calculation is:

    32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97%

    It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.

    We keep pointing this out, they keep saying the figure is just plucked. Or we heard it from our teachers.

    This is literally the only debate on the Internet I’ve seen where someone links to something that refutes his main point, keeps linking to it, keeps getting schooled about it and yet keeps arguing the same discredited points.

    He also doesn’t understand samples or Bayesian mathematics. Haha. I mean if he doesn’t get percentages.


  • Options
    #284
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,379 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    We keep pointing this out, they keep saying the figure is just plucked. Or we heard it from our teachers.

    This is literally the only debate on the Internet I’ve seen where someone links to something that refutes his main point, keeps linking to it, keeps getting schooled about it and yet keeps arguing the same discredited points.

    He also doesn’t understand samples or Bayesian mathematics. Haha. I mean if he doesn’t get percentages.


    Debate is the wrong word. That implies some kind of discussion of opposing viewpoints. It's one person not understanding some basic concepts of mathematics and using that to derail everything. The only real debate on that topic is if it's a genuine lack of understanding or intentional.


  • Options
    #285
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following:

    "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."

    So the calculation is:

    32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97%

    It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.
    Yet the conclusion is that 97% of the worlds scientists agree which is total nonsense.


  • Options
    #286
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    Yet the conclusion is that 97% of the worlds scientists agree which is total nonsense.

    Semantics

    There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists

    Of those relevant scientists (who between them write a wide variety of papers on the subject) a portion have written a specific paper which comes to an overall conclusion on the subject

    97% of those conclusions point in one direction

    The argument for AGW is scientific consensus
    The argument against is a play on semantics and numbers


  • Options
    #287
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.




    I get it now Franz, you think 97% of 32.6% is greater than 66.4%.


    But you're also making things up.

    Please link to where it says in the study that


    The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.
    That is something that you have made up, because you have no idea what was actually in the papers beyond the search terms the authors used to search the abstracts.

    Whilst we have been told that they were all "climate papers", neither of us know whether they discussed reasons for anything, because the only words we do know they contained were in their abstracts and those words were 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

    If you have something to show that any of the studies show that they discussed the reasons for it I'd like to see it.


    Because, in Table 1, the research papers are categorised and none of them are listed as being research into the reasons why climate is changing.

    What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW.


    Do you want to suggest it is flawed research?



    If you do I might agree. It's disastrous for anyone trying to demonstrate a consensus.


  • Options
    #288
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    Yet the conclusion is that 97% of the worlds scientists agree which is total nonsense.


    I think people are finally beginning to realise that.


  • Options
    #289
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,183 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Semantics

    There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists

    Of those relevant scientists (who between them write a wide variety of papers on the subject) a portion have written a specific paper which comes to an overall conclusion on the subject

    97% of those conclusions point in one direction

    The argument for AGW is scientific consensus
    The argument against is a play on semantics and numbers

    Strangely 97% of climate scientists agree. It might be more because it's based on papers published. So if the paper agreed with the IPCC findings that climate change is real, caused by man and it's getting worse then it's in that 97%. I believe that something like 0.3% of the papers disagreed with the IPCC. the result did not express an agreement or disagreement. So there's 2.7% of climate scientists that might agree with the IPCC, it's just that they never expressed it in their papers.

    But we can say 97% agree, 0.3% disagree.


  • Options
    #290
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »
    What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW.

    1. How many of those 12,000 papers were specifically drafted to produce a "verdict"?

    2. Of those verdicts, how many endorsed AGW?

    3. Of those verdicts, how many didn't endorse AGW?

    Just because there are thousands of papers on a subject e.g. evolution, it doesn't mean that each one is drafted to reach a specific conclusion - many will be about an aspect of evolution with no such remit to produce a "verdict" or to "endorse" it

    If you don't understand this concept - it has now been explained
    If you do understand this concept - you are being deliberately obtuse and pedantic


  • Options
    #291
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,530 ✭✭✭jackboy


    feargale wrote: »
    Says the man who thanked this:

    If you are going to drag my post into the argument at least say why you disagree with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    I get it now Franz, you think 97% of 32.6% is greater than 66.4%.

    No, as I explained in a way a child could understand the 66.4% of papers were not about the causes of climate change. The fact that you can’t understand this is irrelevant to the facts of the matter. You could ask a ten year old to explain it perhaps.
    But you're also making things up.

    Please link to where it says in the study that



    That is something that you have made up, because you have no idea what was actually in the papers beyond the search terms the authors used to search the abstracts.

    We know those papers were not about the causes of climate change because that was what the abstract said. It said it repeatedly. In simple language.
    Whilst we have been told that they were all "climate papers", neither of us know whether they discussed reasons for anything, because the only words we do know they contained were in their abstracts and those words were 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

    We know that the 64% didn’t discuss the reasons for climate change because the paper literally said it.
    If you have something to show that any of the studies show that they discussed the reasons for it I'd like to see it.


    Because, in Table 1, the research papers are categorised and none of them are listed as being research into the reasons why climate is changing.

    What we can agree on, is that of almost 12000 abstracts analysed, the researchers found that just 32.6% endorsed AGW.


    Do you want to suggest it is flawed research?

    I’m suggesting that it showed that 97% of papers addressing the causes of climate change said that human activity was the cause.

    If you do I might agree. It's disastrous for anyone trying to demonstrate a consensus.

    The only disasterous thing here is your massive misunderstanding of simple percentages.


  • Options
    #293
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    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.

    The fact that scientists don’t respond doesn’t of course make them deniers. It means they didn’t respond.

    By the way I won’t try to explain sampling sizes abd Bayesian maths here because you barely understand high school mathematics. But if a sample of 14% of a population agree to a level of 97% with a proposition the chances of the entire group only agreeing with that proposition at 50% or less (or whatever you think) is vanishingly small.


  • Options
    #294
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    Do you genuinely not realise that this 97.1% figure you're quoting is just 97.1% of the papers that expressed a position on AGW?

    It is not 97% of the papers that were analysed, nor is it 97% of scientists.

    No I fully realise that. Firstly i never claimed 97.1% of scientists. I said 97.1% of papers that expressed an opinion because those are the only papers that matter

    Jesus wept.

    Anyway it’s good that you agree now.


  • Options
    #295
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,259 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Apples and oranges are fruit = 100%
    Apples 62%
    Oranges 38%

    So we are not discussing fruit we are only discussing oranges.
    In this case oranges are papers on climate change.
    97% of those discussing oranges agree that the disease affecting oranges is man made.


  • Options
    #296
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    From the papers that provided a conclusion

    Well explained here

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    90% to 100%, the average is around 97%


    Which is 97% of the minority of papers which were analysed.


    The vast majority, as the authors kindly remind us, did not.


    Therefore it would be terribly misleading if anyone were to claim that 97% of the papers analysed endorsed the AGW theory and even more ludicrous to use it to suggest that 97% of scientists do.


  • Options
    #297
    Dakota Dan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Dakota Dan


    Grayson wrote: »
    Strangely 97% of climate scientists agree. It might be more because it's based on papers published. So if the paper agreed with the IPCC findings that climate change is real, caused by man and it's getting worse then it's in that 97%. I believe that something like 0.3% of the papers disagreed with the IPCC. the result did not express an agreement or disagreement. So there's 2.7% of climate scientists that might agree with the IPCC, it's just that they never expressed it in their papers.

    But we can say 97% agree, 0.3% disagree.

    What about the other 2.7%?


  • Options
    #298
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    No I fully realise that. Firstly i never claimed 97.1% of scientists. I said 97.1% of papers that expressed an opinion because those are the only papers that matter


    Matter to whom?

    Did the authors say they were the only ones that matter?


    Why did they include the other ones if they didn't matter?

    Glad you're quickly distancing yourself from endorsing the "97% of scientists" slogan.


  • Options
    #299
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,183 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Dakota Dan wrote: »
    What about the other 2.7%?

    We don't know since their papers did not make any conclusion. The scientists themselves may agree or disagree, it's just that their results didn't support either side.


  • Options
    #300
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »








    I’m suggesting that it showed that 97% of papers addressing the causes of climate change said that human activity was the cause.


    Why?


    The causes of global warming are not included in the research analysed:


    Table 1. Definitions of each type of research category.


    Category Description Example
    (1) Impacts Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity '...global climate change together with increasing direct impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, are affecting the population dynamics of marine top predators'


    (2) Methods Focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included in the other categories 'This paper focuses on automating the task of estimating Polar ice thickness from airborne radar data...'


    (3) Mitigation Research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels 'This paper presents a new approach for a nationally appropriate mitigation actions framework that can unlock the huge potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in dispersed energy end-use sectors in developing countries'




    (4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate 'This paper discusses the use of multimedia techniques and augmented reality tools to bring across the risks of global climate change'


    (5) Opinion Not peer-reviewed articles 'While the world argues about reducing global warming, chemical engineers are getting on with the technology. Charles Butcher has been finding out how to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas'


    (6) Paleoclimate Examining climate during pre-industrial times 'Here, we present a pollen-based quantitative temperature reconstruction from the midlatitudes of Australia that spans the last 135 000 years...'








  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Semantics

    There are millions of scientists in the world, naturally not all of them are climatologists, meteorologists


    So you're adding yourself to the growing number of posters who are refusing to endorse the 97% of scientists claim.


    Progress.


Advertisement