• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climateers Can't Handle the Truth

longview said:
I was at a party last week with someone from NASA, we talked about AGW, they mentioned that NASA has an executive order
basically requiring people not to publish any results that are different than the stated IPCC position.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't that surprise me?
 
longview said:
I was at a party last week with someone from NASA, we talked about AGW, they mentioned that NASA has an executive order
basically requiring people not to publish any results that are different than the stated IPCC position.
Click to expand...

I did a quick search of Obama's EO's, but gave up. He has several related to climate change, but I didn't feel like wading through what would probably be hundreds of pages of text.
 
longview said:
They also mentioned, that they thought that was about to change, with Trump coming in.
Click to expand...

I can believe that.

Can you find out which executive order?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I did a quick search of Obama's EO's, but gave up. He has several related to climate change, but I didn't feel like wading through what would probably be hundreds of pages of text.
Click to expand...
The EO mentioned was an internal NASA EO.
 
jeffchap said:
Here's an interesting read on the origin of the oft cited "97%".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

What I can't believe is no matter how many times the facts of these studies are presented, the deniers of science (alarmists and warmers) stick to their religious like dogma.
Click to expand...

Good link, jeff.
I'm going to make sure it gets seen by falcata (below) because it nicely fleshes out the point we've been trying to make.
I hope it has an impact.


falcata said:
Thanks, sorry again for the confusion.

This is what you're looking for. There was an end-note right next to the claim on the source.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
I was at a party last week with someone from NASA, we talked about AGW, they mentioned that NASA has an executive order
basically requiring people not to publish any results that are different than the stated IPCC position.
Click to expand...

doncha just love when science and politics commingle?
 
falcata said:
Initially I was impressed with the source, but then I started to read further into what was basically their FAQ. The first thing they do is trash the methodology of the opposing study which I cited earlier,
Click to expand...
The methodology of the study you indirectly cited (you cited a reply to a comment on a study) was so bad it never should have been published.

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.

Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases 'global warming' or 'global climate change' - regardless of what type of publication they appeared in. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather incompetent amateurs with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" and "scuba diving". They were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.
Click to expand...

If there is something in this you would like to discuss, please let me know.
 
falcata said:
but then when elaborating upon their own it became obvious that they didn't care about the integrity of the information they were presenting. With sections such as:
Criticism: Some papers on the list do not argue against global warming.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument, as no paper on the list argues that there has not been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.

Criticism: Some papers on the list do not argue against climate change denial.

Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument, as no paper on the list argues that the climate does not change.
Click to expand...

After excerpts like this I began to become skeptical over how refined and focused this list really was.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand why these responses are phrased how they are. Anyone who truly understands this debate would not use misleading phrases ("climate", "climate change" or "global warming) when they are actually referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

falcata said:
In-fact here is an actual author of several of the papers that he cites stating that his own and that many of the papers that list consist of does not represent what the creator of your source intended.

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/...

Now his papers were subsequently removed, but I think it is clear that the author of the list does not understand the concept of what makes up a coherent scientific theory or hypothesis and merely inflates his list with non-relevant pieces and simply claims "straw-man argument" whenever he is called out on that fact.
Click to expand...
A "straw-man argument" is not a fact - I suggest you go look up the phrase. Roger Pielke Jr. falsely stated why his papers were included on the list, which is addressed in this rebuttal...

Rebuttal to Roger Pielke Jr. - "Better Recheck That List"

This further addresses the false claim about papers being removed from the list...

Criticism: Authors have demanded that their papers be removed from the list.

Rebuttal: In over seven years, only one "co-author" (Russell Dickerson) has ever contacted the editor with any such demands and he was using strawman arguments ("Please remove this article from your list of skeptics.") about why his paper ["Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases"] was included, despite it clearly stating in the disclaimer - "This is a bibliographic resource for skeptics not a list of skeptics." It was not worth investing the time to defend the real reason for its inclusion, that it supports the skeptic argument for CO2 not being the sole dominant human forcing as the IPCC has argued so the paper was removed. The lead author of this paper, Roger Pielke Sr. never made any such demands and stated in an email to the editor that their paper argues against the IPCC. Roger Pielke Jr. has never contacted the editor requesting any papers be removed and various papers he authored, mainly relating to incorrect attribution of natural disasters are included on the list.
 
falcata said:
No, it is still without a doubt intellectually dishonest.

Climate scientists are almost unanimous in the correlation of anthropogenic activities and our recent rise in overall all temperature, resulting in abnormal conditions throughout the world. Just because you have what is basically fringe individuals claiming otherwise whether because of their own delusions or selfish motives, does not mean that is a viable narrative deserving of equal respect to the overwhelming majority opinion.

Climate change deniers are just looking cop-out in order to freely produce and consume more finite corrosive resources and not feel bad about it. It is a popular narrative not because it has credence, but because it is convenient.
Click to expand...

Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv are hardly fringe individuals.
 
falcata said:
I literally gave one two posts after that.



If you can't accept NASA as a source I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, but let us read between the lines for a second.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
Click to expand...

Not very important, but still easily overlooked. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists. Not all scientists. Not even all climate scientists. Only the actively publishing climate scientists. And Very important is of course the 97%. 97% is NOT 100%!

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...

They do not state that climate change is caused by human activity, but they state that the chance that this is the case is 'Extremely Likely'. Almost the same, but not the same.

In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position
Click to expand...

2 issues.

Most organisations is not all organisations. And the second one is more worrisome actually. 'Leading Scientific Organisations'. That could be anything. It all really depends on the source here and could potentially be very biased.

The result of this kind of reporting is that NGOs will freely translate this. 97% is almost all right. So we can say all scientists. Actively publishing climate scientists are scientists right? So all scientists. Extremely likely is a bit like the 97% story, so this too will be translated freely and we then get something like this.

All scientists agree that climate warming is caused by human activity.

And they would prefer to say such things without any references to back up their claim. After all, who wouldn't trust Greenpeace right? Likewise, the people on the other side of the fence will take a report that falls in this 3% group and do exactly the same thing, creating a report with a total opposite conclusion and based on such reports you make a bold statement, and again, who wouldn't believe the president-elect right? So we need to be a little careful here.

And then you come with a NASA report. Now I will not go to the extend to say that NASA scientists can not be influenced in their reporting and research findings, but this is indeed one of the most reliable sources of data in relation to climate change.

There is some very reliable sources out there. There is a lot of data available. It often goes wrong when people, with different interests, are looking for information that they want to hear. We've heard it all before. The leaving out of information when quoting someone and consequently taking words said out of context showing the same people with a near opposite opinion all of a sudden. Taking only those reports that support what you want to hear or is in your own business interests. Especially when it comes to making money you will see that business men rather make a dollar today then 2 dollars tomorrow of which they are not sure and see any such changes to regulations as a direct threat to making money. There is a great interest for them in disproving these stories. And in the process of doing so it is not important anymore whether you report the truth or not. Or simply distort the truth in order to sway it in your own advantage. And all the above happens on both sides of the fence. And you know what? That is ok for the 'Average Joe' who has a small company around the corner and only needs to get food on the table, but it is very worrisome that even presidents lower themselves to this kind of behaviour. And then, we, 'the Average Joe' end up in a forum like this arguing with each other about who is right and/or wrong because none of us knows the truth anymore it seems.

Joey
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom