It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Theory cannot be considered to be a science any longer

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

But what about th epapers they didnt use because they didnt agree with the theory? there are quite a few who dispute the AGW convincingly form what i understand.


There were papers (abstracts at least) of presentations/posters which were 'skeptical' at the meeting (it is huge). That's what lead me to the question. So there were a few but my friends who knew the subject better said that they weren't being taken seriously any more.

There are few to none planetary scientists who dispute AGW significantly in reviewed journals.




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

John Cook was the lead author on the paper, but he wasn't the only author. Is the paper wrong or not? IOP's Environmental Newsletter is a peer reviewed journal, yes? You realize I quoted the methodology when I posted the link, right?

You're tired of what exactly?

iop Science, Environmental Research Letters


The 97% figure is clearly disingenuous, and its only use is for propaganda.

The only paper published by Mr. Cook in regards to climate science is this meta-analysis of published climate science.

By the standards you established earlier for people being allowed to criticize work, this guy is a complete and utter joke to be ignored. He is NOT a climate scientist.


True. He is doing social science, collecting data and presenting, not physical science. He isn't doing the science himself or validating the internal and external consistency and arguments of the papers.


I am pointing towards your disingenuous use of a number and hypocrisy in the sources you permit being brought to the table.


If he said that warming was occurring because of a natural cycle involving crystals from the moon, then yes his lack of professional training in the field is a good reason to not take him too seriosly.



-FBB



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: beenharmed

Did that come from a lexical bot?

journal.sjdm.org...



Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 5
49–563
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bull#
Gordon Pennycook

James Allan Cheyne

Nathaniel Barr

Derek J. Koehler

Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Abstract
Although bull# is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from p
hilosophers, its reception (critical or ingen-
uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation.
Here we focus on pseudo-profound bull#, which
consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true
and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented
participants with bull# statements consisting of buzzwords randomly orga
nized into statements with syntactic structure but
no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”).
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull-
# statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually r
elevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style,
supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among p
rofundity judgments for more conventionally profound
(e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “
Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These
results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type o
f bull# and that detecting it is not merely a matter
of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagu
eness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our re-
sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an
important component of pseudo-profound bull#
receptivity.
Keywords: bull#, bull# detection, dual-process theories, analytic thin
king, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial
ideation, complementary and alternative medicine.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

John Cook was the lead author on the paper, but he wasn't the only author. Is the paper wrong or not? IOP's Environmental Newsletter is a peer reviewed journal, yes? You realize I quoted the methodology when I posted the link, right?

You're tired of what exactly?

iop Science, Environmental Research Letters


The 97% figure is clearly disingenuous, and its only use is for propaganda.

The only paper published by Mr. Cook in regards to climate science is this meta-analysis of published climate science.

By the standards you established earlier for people being allowed to criticize work, this guy is a complete and utter joke to be ignored. He is NOT a climate scientist.


True. He is doing social science, collecting data and presenting, not physical science. He isn't doing the science himself or validating the internal and external consistency and arguments of the papers.


I am pointing towards your disingenuous use of a number and hypocrisy in the sources you permit being brought to the table.


If he said that warming was occurring because of a natural cycle involving crystals from the moon, then yes his lack of professional training in the field is a good reason to not take him too seriosly.



-FBB


Shouldn't folks hold their own sources up to the same standards as those they are denouncing?

About Mr. Cook from the waybackmachine:
( www.skepticalscience.com...) from 2007

He never worked as an academic nor in the field of physics.

People keep slamming other critics and then referring to this guy, but you only have to look over a few of his refutations to see that he completely plays down anything that is counter to his narrative. If you are as scientifically literate as you have presented yourself, just read a few and try to tell yourself he doesn't spice that coffee up a bit.

-FBB
edit on 7-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

edit on 7-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 102



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So what you're really tired of is having to re-muddy the waters every time someone clears them on the 97% consensus and why 97% is an accurate number?



I am pointing towards your disingenuous use of a number and hypocrisy in the sources you permit being brought to the table.


May I remind you that you yourself were just disingenuous and are doing exactly what I just stated at the opening of my reply?


The number which openly professed endorsement or against the consensus totalled about 33.7% of peer reviewed climate science papers.

The number which openly professed endorsement or against the consensus totalled about 33.7% of peer reviewed climate science papers.

Around 66% of the papers expressed no opinion.




So 54% from the group that refused to openly endorse the consensus in their abstracts expressed personal acceptance of the consensus after being contact. The 97% statistic comes from the 35% of papers which openly expressed their opinion in the abstracts of their papers.


The 97% number does not come from the 35% of paper which openly expressed their opinion in the abstracts. It comes from a combination of the endorsed in the abstract papers and the self rated papers.

What's with the "refused to openly endorse the consensus in their abstracts"? Seriously? How is that you're able to justify such a ridiculous claim? Is it refused or just didn't mention cause cuz duh? Obfuscation at it's most obvious!

If his paper were dealing with conducting science I might not accept it but it isn't. It's a paper that determines a percentage of common endorsement of whether a theory is accepted as the prevailing theory by the scientists that are doing work in the field that relates to theory.
edit on 12/7/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Trying to shame people to agree with something which is not science at all, but simply policy, and being passed as a "must be believed religion" is not going to help anyone but the world elite.

This is the only way the AGW religious lunatics can try to shame people to bow down to their lunacy.

You don't show evidence by shaming people. This is a red herring, attacking the messengers instead of arguing the actual science itself. Which the AGW religious lunatics never do.
edit on 7-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The 97% consensus claim has been debunked several times already... Yet you, among some others keep using that number simply because you can't debate the science.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Twisting ones words around with your claim of 'trying to shame people into.agreeing with you' is a dishonest debate tactic.

Using terms like 'relgious lunatic' also tells me you are not here to have an honest intellectual discussion.

In short, you are accussing those of us who understand and accept climate science, of the same dirty debate tactics you are guilty of.

You can't argue the science, hence your bizarre claims of shaming.people into believing AGW and dropping derogatory terms like religious lunatics.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: jrod

Trying to shame people to agree with something which is not science at all, but simply policy, and being passed as a "must be believed religion" is not going to help anyone but the world elite.



originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Kali74

The 97% consensus claim has been debunked several times already... Yet you, among some others keep using that number simply because you can't debate the science.


Make up your mind.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I literally just copy and pasted where the numbers come from and now you just make this up . . . .

((0.54)(0.66))+((0.97)(0.34)) does not equal 97% or 0.97.

You are only reading what you want to read. I already linked you to the locations where this is stated clearly in the study.

Please stop making things up to suit your agenda.

-FBB

//edit
Here I will post from the link you provided AGAIN how the numbers break down.

Study again


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.
(^ Here do you see this, it is for the 32.6% that expressed an AGW opinion)



So that is the first portion which you seem to be able to magically ignore.



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.

100-35.5 is 64.5

So only 64.5% of the authors of papers would openly support the consensus AGW theory as presented to them.

Now for the 66% that expressed an opinion....


Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.


This should be extremely clear to you now.

So please stop making things up, the author of the study is purposefully deceitful in the way they use the data they gathered.

//edit
edit on 7-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

edit on 7-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 102



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: beenharmed

I am sorry but I just did not understand your reply

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

So only 64.5% of the authors of papers would openly support the consensus AGW theory as presented to them.


No!

Read the paper again! Download the PDF and Look at Fig 1 and Fig 2. It is completely clear and not deceitful in any way.

iopscience.iop.org...

Look at the red curves---reject AGW---on the left and the right. Left is externally rated, the right is author rated.

The red curve---'reject AGW'---is infinitesimal on BOTH sides. The change from external rating to self-rating is that more of the papers which the external raters said "no opinion"---when rated by the authors themselves, flipped over to the "support AGW". That is, when self-rated, as opposed to externally rated, EVEN MORE papers support AGW.

And remember this was not asking authors "do you, as a scientist, accept AGW theory", it was asking "does this paper here which you wrote contribute to AGW acceptance or rejection" Many papers and research does not directly touch on that issue--there has been planetary science research on diversified topics for decades, and so rating that a paper expresses "no opinion" is completely normal.




Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no
position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations
where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather
than on matters about which everyone agrees’


Likewise---how many papers in Physical Review Letters express a view on the conservation of generalized relativistic 4-momentum? A tiny fraction. Why? Because nobody questions it any more---it's concretely settled and assumed.

edit on 7-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Not true. I just read the original paper in full text form. It's stronger than I thought.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: yuppa

But what about th epapers they didnt use because they didnt agree with the theory? there are quite a few who dispute the AGW convincingly form what i understand.


There were papers (abstracts at least) of presentations/posters which were 'skeptical' at the meeting (it is huge). That's what lead me to the question. So there were a few but my friends who knew the subject better said that they weren't being taken seriously any more.

There are few to none planetary scientists who dispute AGW significantly in reviewed journals.


Look man. i get it. protecting your friends is important,but they are wrong. Back on page 7 i read that link Fried brocolli left about the consensus. It makes alot of sense. the 07 percentiles a lie that your friends bought into because surely their fellows would not lie to them right? money makes liars out of alot of people. Government grants(tax free cash) is better than private companies pay outs.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?


out of the 66 percent sure.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

So only 64.5% of the authors of papers would openly support the consensus AGW theory as presented to them.


No!

Read the paper again! Download the PDF and Look at Fig 1 and Fig 2. It is completely clear and not deceitful in any way.

iopscience.iop.org...

Look at the red curves---reject AGW---on the left and the right. Left is externally rated, the right is author rated.

The red curve---'reject AGW'---is infinitesimal on BOTH sides. The change from external rating to self-rating is that more of the papers which the external raters said "no opinion"---when rated by the authors themselves, flipped over to the "support AGW". That is, when self-rated, as opposed to externally rated, EVEN MORE papers support AGW.

And remember this was not asking authors "do you, as a scientist, accept AGW theory", it was asking "does this paper here which you wrote contribute to AGW acceptance or rejection" Many papers and research does not directly touch on that issue--there has been planetary science research on diversified topics for decades, and so rating that a paper expresses "no opinion" is completely normal.




Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no
position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations
where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather
than on matters about which everyone agrees’


Likewise---how many papers in Physical Review Letters express a view on the conservation of generalized relativistic 4-momentum? A tiny fraction. Why? Because nobody questions it any more---it's concretely settled and assumed.


Saying 97% is not actually true though is it? It is 97% of the 65% which were willing to go on record.

That is not the same as 97%, stop lying.

The methodology and data of the study do not actually allow for your (mis)interpretation of the data.

Go ahead and lie to yourself and others, who cares if you had a room mate that did the science once upon a time. I study with people actually contracted by the large govt. institutions and can say for a fact that your justification wouldn't last a second when held to scrutiny.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?


out of the 66 percent sure.


But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...


and Purdue University just said this.

"...nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise...."

www.purdue.edu...

Standford had this to say

news.stanford.edu...





edit on 7-12-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?


No, it is 97% of the 64.5% that were willing to proclaim they supported the consensus model as it stands.

I have outlined clearly where these figures comes from and other members keep saying to look at graphs without looking at where the data for the graphs come from or what they even represent.

It is flat out denialism that is keeping the 97% statistic going.

It is disingenuous and the way it is used is pure, unadulterated BS.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: amazing
It appears to still be consensus? Yes?

Still around 97%?


out of the 66 percent sure.


But Yale just did a study and it appears that there is still consensus.

environment.yale.edu...



That is from the exact same guy that did the first study.

Mr. Cook the psychology PhD student that runs SkepticalScience.

It is not Yale . . . . and he still uses the 97% as if it represented 100% of climate scientists.

-FBB

//edit

Purdue


A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from nonclimate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.


Umm who cares what psychologists and sociologists have to say about the accuracy of climate science?

Seriously, this study is more about establishing a political narrative than pursuing any sort of truth.

Total waste of time
//edit
edit on 7-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join