Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A consensus is an agreement on one particular question. The only way that you can try to fight the consensus is to try to change the question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Writer claims Trump raped her
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The only valid links that you provided negated your views. Or have you forgotten already? I guess if one wants to keep oneself in denial forgetting when one refutes oneself that can be helpful.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL, maybe I should have used a smiley, but they seem a little ham handed to me at times. Yes it can be frustrating. On another thread a certain poster is trying to use abusing terminology in his evolution denial. I don't think either has fooled anyone.
ecco
Veteran Member
At the following site is a detailed paper on how the Consensus Project did its study. (my emphases)
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Environmental Research Letters
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Environmental Research Letters
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard.
Here is an example of his making comments with nothing to substantiate them.
Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.
He does not give a single example of a scientist that he actually spoke to. I suppose his assertions are good enough for science deniers like you. But to rational people who are interested in facts, we need more than just the assertions of people like Curry and now Tol.
ecco
Veteran Member
Your link takes us here.
judith curry - Google Scholar Citations
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Skimming through the list I found only one article where she is the sole author. On the rest, she is just one of many authors. Also, from the brief description, it is impossible to know what conclusions can be drawn from the article.
The article...
Judith CurryClimate Forecast Applications Network, Reno, Nevada
...cannot be read by me unless I pay $35. Perhaps you can summarize its findings.
Perhaps you can also list the academic credentials of the co-author, Lewis.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Nope, by not agreeing it is not a consensus.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The denial is that there is no consensus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your reading comprehension cannot be that bad. Do you need a qualifier? Fine, it is a general agreement.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Correct, you are in denial. Whew! Finally we are getting somewhere. The first step in correcting one's errors is to recognize them in the first place.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Do you know there is a difference between a news media article and a published paper, if you were observant you would have noticed there was a link to the paper that provides the supporting evidence. Unfortunately the paper is not free, but at this link, there is a sample of things that he brought to light... Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Scientists normally collaborate on research projects, you obviously are not familiar with the way science works.Your link takes us here.
judith curry - Google Scholar Citations
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Skimming through the list I found only one article where she is the sole author. On the rest, she is just one of many authors. Also, from the brief description, it is impossible to know what conclusions can be drawn from the article.
The article...
Nicholas LewisBath, United KingdomThe Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity
Judith CurryClimate Forecast Applications Network, Reno, Nevada
...cannot be read by me unless I pay $35. Perhaps you can summarize its findings.
Perhaps you can also list the academic credentials of the co-author, Lewis.
I wish you could do your own searches, you waste my time....
"Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science. He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al. Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate – print version at J.Climate or preprint here)."
Nic Lewis
Peer reviewed publications
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If that were to be correct, then the NAS would have concluded much the same-- but they haven't.
And when I looked into the source you used in your post #631, it is a right-wing source, not a scientific one.
ecco
Veteran Member
Richard S.J. Tol who did the "study" has a Ph.D. in Economics and lists himself as a Professor of the Economics of Climate Change.
Is that a title he made up?
If we are to believe his CV, in 2005 he was:
- Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal
- Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
- Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University
- Editor, Energy Economics Journal
- Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute
- Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University
Among the authors of papers that were ostensibly misclassified by Cook are a Ph.D. Economics, a Ph.D. Rocket Science, a Ph.D. Geography, a Ph.D. Physics, a Ph.D. Astrophysics
I may have missed it, but I don't see where Tol provides and actual statistics other than ...
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study
He doesn't say how he selected his sample.
He doesn't say how big his sample was.
He doesn't say how many people agreed with the original researcher's evaluations.
All he does is show a few that disagreed with the original researcher's evaluations.
It's interesting that none of the people in his "sample" is credentialed in any fields related to climate science.
Also, most of his "papers" are published on Popular Technology . net.
My emphases in the following.
Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Factual Reporting: MIXED
The 97% consensus on global warming
Link to this page
What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
ecco
Veteran Member
OK Here is what one of my searches found.
Let's take a good look at which side to the argument is deceitful...
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
08/22/2009 05:12 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition“ project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Support HuffPost
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
08/22/2009 05:12 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
To say that the oft-touted “30,000 Global Warming Petition“ project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.
Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Support HuffPost
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
ecco
Veteran Member
This is your expert? Someone who has a math degree and who "started to learn about climate science".
Nic Lewis
Nic Lewis’ latest paper is something of an achievement – not so much in conclusions which follow on from previous papers- i.e. sensitivity is likely to be low- the real achievement is havingJudith Curry as a co-author who has finally slain her uncertainty monster.
Nic Lewis’ latest paper is something of an achievement – not so much in conclusions which follow on from previous papers- i.e. sensitivity is likely to be low- the real achievement is havingJudith Curry as a co-author who has finally slain her uncertainty monster.
As of 2014 Nic was a blogger at Climate Audit. A BLOGGER!
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I really don't understand your point, I pointed out that a msm commentary providing the salient aspects of a science paper is not the same as the full unabridged paper itself, the Guardian newspaper article is one page, the paper otoh is much more voluminous and it contains all the data, methodologies, statistical analysis, a so forth.
The messenger is not the point, the material is directly factual Tol's material, no other narrative.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No, the title is not made up.Richard S.J. Tol who did the "study" has a Ph.D. in Economics and lists himself as a Professor of the Economics of Climate Change.
Is that a title he made up?
If we are to believe his CV, in 2005 he was:
- Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal
- Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
- Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University
- Editor, Energy Economics Journal
- Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute
- Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University
Among the authors of papers that were ostensibly misclassified by Cook are a Ph.D. Economics, a Ph.D. Rocket Science, a Ph.D. Geography, a Ph.D. Physics, a Ph.D. Astrophysics
I may have missed it, but I don't see where Tol provides and actual statistics other than ...
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study
He doesn't say how he selected his sample.
He doesn't say how big his sample was.
He doesn't say how many people agreed with the original researcher's evaluations.
All he does is show a few that disagreed with the original researcher's evaluations.
It's interesting that none of the people in his "sample" is credentialed in any fields related to climate science.
Also, most of his "papers" are published on Popular Technology . net.
My emphases in the following.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htmPopular Technology - Media Bias/Fact CheckNotes: Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately none of them are within the field of climate science. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
The 97% consensus on global warming
Link to this page
What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page
No, none of his papers are published on Popular Technology.
100% of people believing in something does not make it true.
This poll shows that you can't fool all of the people, only those who trust external sources for the truth. The fox is running the agw hen house.
Climate change opinion by country - Wikipedia
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Wow, thank you for that.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Haha, almost all scientists comment or do blog posts on science blogs, he also comments and does blog posts on Dr Curry's blog, are you serious?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
My point is that when one stands back and looks at the "woods" instead of just some "trees", we well know that climate change has led to the global warming that has been taking place over the last century especially, and that it is mostly caused by human endeavor. The NAS, which is as close here in the States as an official monitor of scientific evidence, has concluded as such without reservation, and they are the main scientific group that advises our federal representatives and justices.
Other groups, including NASA, NOAA, and even our own DoD, have also concluded much the same. The only opposition of such comes from status quo and/or right-wing sources, many of the latter being heavy into what we call "pseudo-science", namely having a desired conclusion being the driving force of which evidence is to be touted and/or fabricating "evidence". This is not at all a new tactic with them as this disingenuous approach goes back many decades, and probably even further.