Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10581 - 10600 of total 28493 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
Abstract

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.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Like everything else about this scam, complete distortion of the reality.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:33pm PT
Well duh. 67% took no position and were reporting results. There's lots of study on how climate dynamics work. No need to state a position.

Scientists don't argue about whether the earth is round or not either.

Do ya really think they are fence sitters?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:35pm PT
You are an idiot.

66% had no position on the ANTHRO FORCING position. Thus they concluded there is Climate Change and they do NOT KNOW what is causing it.

A completely different story that you and this OP are presenting.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
Bullsh#t.

If a scientist in Antarctica is reporting data gathered in an experiment, he's not expected to give an opinion on AGW, he's just reporting results.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:37pm PT
You lose.... again!

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

Spencer, Christy, both Pilke SR and JR etal are all part of that 66.4%. Deniers as you all call them.

The truth.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
^^what an idiot^^

You mean Spencer and Christy et all won't take up a position when they publish a peer reviewed paper?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:43pm PT
If a scientist in Antarctica is reporting data gathered in an experiment, he's not expected to give an opinion on AGW.

Then DO NOT include him/they in your 97% CONSENSUS.

Make that clear.



But of course you will not as it totally destroys the concept of distorting the truth and the false concept of the "97% Consensus".


You mean Spencer et all won't take up a position when they publish a peer reviewed paper?

Just like the majority 66.4%, they just report the data. Which clearly states they do not truly know the cause of it all.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
Bullsh#t

They are there to gather data in the study of climate change.

No need for them to state a position in every paper.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:49pm PT
There is "Climate Change".

And there is the bullshet position of Anthro Climate Change. Which you and the others here clearly state you agree with.

Two different positions.

One science (66.4%) and the other(32.6%) which distorts the science in order to perpetuation a political ideology that mandates restructuring social and economic manners throughout the world in order to supposedly "mitigate" the AGW.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:57pm PT
I wonder how many of the scientists mentioned in the following link are counted as among the 97.1% consensus? I know of at least five other scientists from another source who were falsely counted as part of the consensus. One of them had 111 of his papers falsely attributed.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 20, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

They rated their own papers in the followup study, Lord Sumner.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:04am PT
The EU has already determined that the Green Subsidization, Carbon Taxation and Credits process is a complete farse. That it does not work in any way shape or form to mitigate shet.

It just makes higher incomes, companies and portions of gov't richer.

Those in the lower income brackets (34%) that can not afford the system get totally fkd. Germany and Spain proved that.





They rated their own papers in the followup study, Lord Sumner.

Again DUMBASS, that was ONLY 32.4 % of the lot.

No where near the supposed 97% you all declare here.

The truth.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:11am PT
Click onto this link to hear testimonials from the five scientists i mentioned as being falsely counted among the 97.1% consensus. I wonder if this is just the tip of a huge and rotten ice berg calved off from one of the melted poles?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

What, no explanation?
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:28am PT
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021647222_sealevelsxml.html
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 12:39am PT
NATURE:

Sea levels could rise more than 3 feet by 2100, new report says

There is that word. "COULD".

That also comes from the 32.4% that are "PRO" Anthro.

That word "COULD" was used some six years ago regarding an ICE FREE ARCTIC prediction by this time next month that so of many you PRO ANTHRO believers grabbed onto and believed. That will NOT materialize. Just as most if not ALL of the "COULD's" that have been proposed over the last 30 or so years have NOT.

That word "COULD" is indeed the basis of the AGW hysteria. Fact is, ONLY 32.4% of the Climate Science field utilize or actually believe it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 01:30am PT
WOW!

You AGW fanatics do know who Schneider is/was.

Oh the irony of the hypocrisy!


" ...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to choose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when."
S. Schneider 1977 Regarding the predicted imminent Ice Age.

And then this public statement some 21 years later:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well.

And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 21, 2013 - 02:16am PT
Lots of road building up in the Arctic these days on top of permafrost.
If the road surface is made with light colored material rather than black
asphalt an entire meter of ground stays frozen that would otherwise melt
and have to be dealt with.

Adaptation will not be allowed if the AGW tards have their way.




dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:08am PT

That word "COULD" is indeed the basis of the AGW hysteria

Chief Hypocrite, you're the one who is the most hysterical on this thread.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:25am PT
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.

Here is a perfect example of the distortion that continues:


Leaked U.N. Report: Humans 95% Responsible for Climate Change



By RL Miller | Takepart.com NatureEnvironment

A leaked draft of a forthcoming report from the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change finds that scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-u-n-report-humans-95-responsible-climate-231345298.html

Which one is it.

Humans are 95% Responsible


OR


Scientist are 95% sure Humans are causing GW




...which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
S. Schneider, Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989



Yup. Them Pro AGW scientist gotta do their best to blow completely fabricated hysteria based shet up the gullible arses of the Fortmentals out there. Then the Fortmentals will buy it and join the clan of the completely ignorant cloned geoengineered food ingesting fools.

dirtbag

climber
Aug 21, 2013 - 09:30am PT
Chief Cherry Picker.

Messages 10581 - 10600 of total 28493 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews