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.

 

SkepticalScience and Disingenuous Information - Dr. Curry

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
And while we argue about Climate Scientists...we don't get more fuel efficient cars, or easier access to solar, or cut our ties with Saudi Arabia and we don't get less air pollution and cheaper energy and easier access to electric cars and better public transportation etc and we spend billions on subsidizing oil companies.




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

97%+ of the the scientists who study this is a hell of a lot more than some of the scientists.

Go ahead and live in lala land, keep the blinders on and pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory.

My opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say.

Your reply to me is quite juvenile, but I guess juvenile knee jerk responses are what is popular on ATS these days.

Care to.offer any actual science that refutes what I wrote about CO2?



edit on 14-12-2015 by jrod because: add

edit on 14-12-2015 by jrod because: i



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Was not directed at you, as your confirmation bias prevents you from even considering that the 'climate scientists' might be right.

Overall the Earth is losing ice and the Antarctica ice gain, is more about overall surface area gain and not so much volume gain. Also the Antarctic is observing a warming trend. This suggests that eventually that Antarctica will see ice loss, but only time will tell.

So do you think the observed rising CO2 levels is not something we should be concerned about?

Do you think radiative forcing if CO2 is not proven?
(that is what my post was about, all you did was rant about Antarctic ice because it casts doubt about AGW to the lay reader).


So clearly you missed the entire point of my comment.

It doesn't seem as though anyone has much to say that is on topic.

There are plenty of threads to "argue" the science, mods may as well shut this down or link to one of those with the way this is going.

-FBB

//edit
P.S.
It is currently being debated if the shelf is rising or falling.
If it is falling, that means that a large portion of sea-level rise has a mysterious source which is not accounted for by the models. But people like yourself who want to "discuss the science" will just revert to saying non-sense like "but its still a warming trend" as if that has anything to do with the actual science being debated in the field. You want to claim you have the answers right now and they are settled when the satellite to make the measurements hasn't even been launched yet . . . its disingenuous like the source cited in my OP.
//edit

edit on 14-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

97%+ of the the scientists who study this is a hell of a lot more than [I] some of the scientists[/I].

Go ahead and live in lala land, keep the blinders on and pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory.

My opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say.

Your reply to me is quite juvenile, but I guess juvenile knee jerk responses are what is popular on ATS these days.

Care to.offer any actual science that refutes what I wrote about CO2?


Do you have a source for the 97% of scientists?

Would you link to it and explain why you feel it is a good source?

At least that would be close to on-topic.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The 97% figure has been cited over and over from various credible sources. Try google or ATS's search engine if you truly want to know where the 97% figure comes from.

Its pointless to cite again, especially for you because like any half way intelligent troll you will come up with some BS statistical fallacies that at best becomes a circle jerk of words and debating semantics....where no science will be addressed.

I challenge the aware and information seekers of ATS to do their own research on the 97% figure and come to their own conclusion.

Do not take what trolls like myself and -FBB write as the Gods honest truth, do your own research!!

Both of us are pretty good at debate and manipulation 'tactics.'


edit on 14-12-2015 by jrod because: del



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

The 97% figure has been cited over and over from various credible sources. Try google or ATS's search engine if you truly want to know where the 97% figure comes from.

Its pointless to cite again, especially for you because like any half way intelligent troll you will come up with some BS statistical fallacies that at best becomes a circle jerk of words and debating semantics....where no science will be addressed.

I challenge the aware and information seekers of ATS to do their own research on the 97% figure and come to their own conclusion.

Do not take what trolls like myself and -FBB write as the Gods honest truth, do your own research!!

Both of us are pretty good at debate and manipulation 'tactics.'



Are you really going to call me names?

I asked that you provide YOUR source and why YOU think that it is a good source, this has nothing to do with where someone else posted it on ATS or their reasoning.

I am asking you.

If you are going to challenge people on the science you should have no problem explaining something as simple as this, but instead you resort to calling me names and telling me to look it up . . . It makes me doubt you know what you are talking about and doubt you know why you believe that statistic.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Claiming to post links to valid scientific sources is not the same as actually providing links to valid sources that dispute AGW.

Remember I've argued both sides of the fence on this topic. What I try to argue now on the climate threads is backed up by science and observations.

I'm older, more rational, less emotionally attached to an argument than I used to.be.

So again I challenge you to bring some science to this discussion that counters the AGW theory!


edit on 14-12-2015 by jrod because: add



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Claiming to post links to valid scientific sources is not the same as actually providing links to valid sources that dispute AGW.

Remember I've argued both sides of the fence on this topic. What I try to argue now on the climate threads is backed up by science and observations.

I'm older, more rational, less emotionally attached to an argument.

So again I challenge you to bring some science to this discussion that counters the AGW theory!



So that is no.

Why am I not surprised?

-FBB



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Is NASA.not a good enough source?

climate.nasa.gov...

We already know you dont like skeptical science, but here is their take on the 97%:
www.skepticalscience.com...

The Guardian is a good source too:
www.theguardian.com...

What does the weather underground say?
www.wunderground.com...

I'm standing by for your bastardization of statistics to.make your claim that the 97% figure is bogus.

ps, you are in denial if you claim that you do not troll here



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli
Is NASA.not a good enough source?

climate.nasa.gov...

We already know you dont like skeptical science, but here is their take on the 97%:
www.skepticalscience.com...

The Guardian is a good source too:
www.theguardian.com...

What does the weather underground say?
www.wunderground.com...

I'm standing by for your bastardization of statistics to.make your claim that the 97% figure is bogus.

ps, you are in denial if you claim that you do not troll here


As for your Guradian survey, that is the same one that was done by Mr. Cook (the founder of SkepticalScience). Also it does not actually ask the opinion of whether the researchers agree with the AGW consensus model. It asks if they feel their data supports the model. The methodology does not target opinions it was designed to identify the theories which researchers feel their studies support. ------- not about climate scientists opinions.

The weather underground
www.pnas.org...


We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate
publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not
comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire cli-
mate science community
, we have drawn researchers from the most
high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore,
we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed re-
searchers in CE and UE groups.


So clearly this is more what the leading authorities, but even they do not claim the study is representative of all climate scientists.

The NASA source is good because it explicitly outlines that the it is based on the observed data and not on the opinions of scientists. Although it does link to Mr. Cook's study they do actually cite its findings properly unlike many (ehemmmmm no names) members of this forum.

Do you understand the difference between the statements, "climate scientists agree" and "climate research?"


Further, why did you immediately jump to challenging me to prove AGW wrong? Where have I been challenging the concept of radiative forcing (I can actually do the calculations)?

Oh that's right . . . I have been calling out poor usage of climate research by preachers like you.

That was the point of this thread and posts in other threads which you, it seems, continue to miss.

-FBB

PS
You still didn't explain why you think that the studies where good to support your claim, so I will assume it is the standard appeal to authority.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I think the whole treaty was a feel-good pr stunt and little else.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Why do a need to explain why NASA is a good source of information?

Especially to a troll.....



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

As a question (rather than an argument) do you think the huge volcanic chain, that appears to be currently very active, under Western Antarctica is significantly contributing to the huge loss of ice in that region? (as opposed to climate change per say).

I realise this is on a tangent to the Op but at the same time i feel it is a tangent that fits. In all honesty, i personally am still not too sure where i stand on climate change. Pollution is a simple one - we are poisoning our planet. However, i genuinely believe climate change is much much harder to prove. For starters, we really only have the last few hundred years of observable recordings to go on. Whilst we can take cores for (allegedly) hundreds of thousands of years, this is a new science and history shows us that when new sciences come along, they need evaluating as our understanding is refined. For example, what we know to be "true" today, may well turn out to be "false" tomorrow.

The lady in question appears to question rather than to accept. Surely this is the de facto position for any scientist?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

97%+ of the the scientists who study this is a hell of a lot more than some of the scientists.

Go ahead and live in lala land, keep the blinders on and pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory.

My opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say.

Your reply to me is quite juvenile, but I guess juvenile knee jerk responses are what is popular on ATS these days.

Care to.offer any actual science that refutes what I wrote about CO2?


First off, the 97%-claim is total garbage, and if you're one of those still spewing that nonsense, then quite frankly you deserve juvenile responses.

When are you going to stop ignoring the fact that I agree with some of the AGW science--like how we are having an effect on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere--and in doing so, stop telling me to refute everything that you say? But just because you subscribe to the theory that our effect on the CO2 rise is substantial, and I differ on that opinion, does not mean that (A) I'm living in "lala land" or (B) that my responses are knee-jerk reactions.

Again, I'll reiterate the reality of life--some climate scientists support and contribute to the theory of AGW, and some do not. Just because a majority support it does not make it a fact when there is plenty of scientific data out there that counters the narcissistic claims that we humans are capable of "destroying" the planet through our affect on a chemical compound that makes up .04% of our atmosphere and isn't even close to being the main driver of the greenhouse effect on our planet.

So again, you can continue to try to defend your obnoxious claim that your "opinion on climate science is based on science and what the people who actually study this say," and that I and others who are skeptical about the AGW theory just "pretend that only some of the climate scientists agree with AGW theory," but until you can admit to yourself that your view that there is only a tiny dissenting view in the scientific world is not reality, your comments on here lack any real credibility with me and, apparently, quite a few others.

But just for fun...


The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.


Source

That link goes on to cite three studies that show a lack of a 97-percent consensus, and closes with a conclusion to which I subscribe:


Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.


Jrod, knee-jerk reactions are not my style when it comes to forming and expressing my views, whether you accept that or not--I can't control how you perceive my responses to your comments. But that said, how in the warming world can you still regurgitate the 97% fallacy and expect me to take you seriously? How can you expect any of us to take your assessment of the science seriously if you can't even get the "consensus" issue correct?
edit on 15-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
So you also think NASA is full of crap with the 97% figure?

I could cite scores and scores of citations from credible universities that back up the 97% figure but not at the moment because I'm hungover and got a headache

The people who actually study this agree that AGW is real. While keyboard warriors like you won't accept AGW.

Still waiting for one of you to post some actual science that disputes AGW.......
edit on 15-12-2015 by jrod because: ps, you still.have nothing thatvdisputes the 97%+ claim

edit on 15-12-2015 by jrod because: you cited a right wing nut job opinion piece...figures national review lol



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Why do a need to explain why NASA is a good source of information?

Especially to a troll.....


Because you linked to the same study three times and thought you were linking to three different sources.

Further that study didn't say what you thought it said.

The second study you linked to explicitly states that it does not say what you were claiming it said.

Finally, your clear lack of effort in understanding what you are denouncing everyone else for means that your accusations carry no weight. If you could justify why you think a study linked to by NASA claims what you think it claims, that could be verified and you could regain credibility.

Until then, you are just behaving like a childish school bully calling people names.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
So you also think NASA is full of crap with the 97% figure?


Yes...for exactly the same reasoning as I posted (because it's valid in that scenario, too). NASA's claim is based on John Cook's study, which in my comment has been shown to be a gross exaggeration (and, IMO, ideologically driven distortion) of the actual truth.

You still think the 97% figure holds water? And then you still think that a collective belief in something makes it true? Using the 'bandwagon' logical fallacy is an extremely transparent tactic.


I could cite scores and scores of citations from credible universities that back up the 97% figure ...


Sure, you could, but the point is that the methods by which they come to these conclusions are flawed, invalidating their results (which have been proven to be a gross exaggeration based on selective data).


The people who actually study this agree that AGW is real.


And the people who delve deeper into their studies than just running with their conclusions seem to agree that their claims are crap. This is how I do my research--I don't just take results at face value, I actually research data-collection methods, methods of experimentation, methods of reporting, etc., and then I come to a conclusion on my own.

So, while you're still waiting for people "actual science" that refutes (or opens results up for debate, which should be enough for someone so scientifically minded as you claim to be) what you believe, those of us you seem to be waiting on sit shaking our collective head wondering why you don't just take an hour out of your day to look it up for yourself.

Spoon feeding something to someone who doesn't want it is a lesson in futility, which is why we don't spoon feed you information that is readily available on websites other than skepticalscience, the website run by the same John Cook who created the bogus claim of the 97% consensus. Give the internet a look...the information that you seek is only a search away.
edit on 15-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I actually think the 97% figure is on the low side. You disregard what NASA says yet run with a right wing source? That is what I call willful ignorance.

www.msnbc.com...

Can you name anyone who actually studies this stuff who disagrees with AGW?
edit on 15-12-2015 by jrod because: add



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Look man, you cite the source instead of the way it was determined to be wrong (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself), then you call it out for being a politicized source by posting up a politicized source in rebuttal.

Again, I ask you--why would I engage any further with you by doing the legwork when I've more than proven your claim of 97% consensus is a statistic derived through deceptive means by an ideologically driven individual who owns and maintains a site focused solely on debunking the said scientific numbers that you ask/tell people that they need to supply to you.

Hell, man, if your writhing and twisting wasn't so comical to behold, I'd have nearly punched by computer screen by now due to the frustration of dealing with an individual who can't see the forest through the trees, or at the very least, accept that one of his foundational arguments (which is a logical fallacy...remember the bandwagon thing) is based on BS studies and tactics used to arrive at such a "consensus."

I emphasized in bold the results of "David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research," and how he recreated Cook's study--a recreation that found that only 1% of those published papers that had an opinion on the cause of climate change supported Cook's claim. So, a professor who used to head the Center for Climatic Research tells you that Cook's claim is inflated by 970%, and you don't even budge an inch--not only that, but you double down and say that "the 97% is on the low side?" And then you tell me to "name anyone who actually studies this stuff who disagrees with AGW" after I provided you a link that links to multiple studies that say or imply just that?

Yes, I'm the one being willfully ignorant. You, sir, are being absolutely logical. How could I have confused the two...

And for the second and final time (and you should have read this for yourself by now, since I'm providing you links so that you don't have to spend your precious life minutes doing your own research)--NASA's claim is based on Cook's study, which has been shown to be absolute garbage by the former head of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research (amongst other people who have actually looked at his study in depth).

If you continue to appeal to authority just because it's NASA, that doesn't make you right, especially in the light of everything that points to the basis of their claim being a falsified/sugar-coated study.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Also, all that link does is tell us that the rate of "explicit rejection," which is what the author of that study searched for, is very low. But to take that claim then tell me that this equates to 99% of scientists being in agreement with AGW theories, let alone that it also means that they all see it as an imminent threat to mankind and that we should force action on people to try a curb the rise of (insert scary thing here) and save the planet is not just ludicrous, but again, about as anti-scientific as you can get.

What about those scientists who are skeptical about the claims of AGW theories, but don't offer "explicit rejection?" Yeah, you don't know, because they never report on that number...instead, like is noted in that story about the study (which, not surprisingly, doesn't link to the actual study so that we can make our own decision as to the outcome and methods), the author assumes that, well, here's the quote from the link:


All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.


He figured...but didn't know, apparently. So, a study fueled by apparent assumptions and only searching for "explicit rejection" noted in published papers shows a 99% "consensus"--well, no sh*t, when you cook the books like that, you can come up with any result that your preconceived ideologies desire.

edit on 15-12-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join