• 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!

Consensus on Consensus

Threegoofs said:
Just saw a metaanalysis on consensus has been published. Here's a nice graphic showing the overwhelming weight of evidence that tells us that denial of AGW is a fringe position.
Click to expand...

Yes, denial of AGW is lunacy. AGW is real. The debate should be opn how strong AGW is vs. Nature.

Every time you use this 97%, then lie about it saying these show AGW is the greatest of the warming effects, it just shows your ignorance to the topic, and the facts said.
 
MrT said:
A research team has confirmed that 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is caused by humans. That is the link to the actual paper, but you can review discussions of the article from Science Daily and Michigan Tech University.

The point of this research is to further emphasis that the strongest level of consensus is found amongst the experts in this field.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that 97% of all scientists assert that 100% of all climate change is caused exclusively by humans?

This is absurd on its face.

Did humans create the Sun? The rest of the solar system influences? Cosmic Rays? The tilt and rotation of the Earth? The Milankovich Cycles?

You are erecting a straw man and using misleading half truths to do it.
 
MrT said:
No.



The only person creating a straw man here is you.
Click to expand...

So, you are now saying that the 97% of the scientists that agree on something are not in agreement with what you said they were agreeing with.

What, exactly, are they all agreeing on?
 
code1211 said:
So, you are now saying that the 97% of the scientists that agree on something are not in agreement with what you said they were agreeing with.

What, exactly, are they all agreeing on?
Click to expand...

97% of actively publishing climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and that humans are playing a significant, read: non-random and causative, roll in that warming. The amount of warming that can be attributed to humans is probably more than 50%, but the number of actively publishing climatologists that agree with that specific claim is probably closer to 80% of climatologists.
 
MrT said:
97% of actively publishing climatologists agree that the Earth is warming and that humans are playing a significant, read: non-random and causative, roll in that warming. The amount of warming that can be attributed to humans is probably more than 50%, but the number of actively publishing climatologists that agree with that specific claim is probably closer to 80% of climatologists.
Click to expand...


Okay. So the 97% immediately becomes 80%, but that is only a probable. Beyond that, the universe of "scientists" is suddenly reduced to not only Climatologists, but those climatologists that are "actively publishing".

Beyond all of that, the impact may or may not be 50% of the warming.

So the 97% of scientists that hold a consensus opinion on this is really based only on a sub set of all scientists and the part of that sub set that hold the consensus opinion may be 80%. This sounds like it's considerably less than 97% of all scientists. The consensus opinion that they hold may be that the impact of man's causation may or may not be 50% of the whole.

According to the link below, the writer says that climatologists are "not a well-defined profession; rather it is an interest that cross-cuts among many groups."

Interestingly, whenever there is a doubter, he is dismissed as not being a credentialed climatologist and yet there are very few credentialed climatologists.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-climatologists-in-the-world-are-there

Never fear, though, the 97% claim is exactly in keeping with the majority of statements made in support of this topic. We don't know who supports it, how many support it, exactly what "it" is, what impact man may or may not be having and finally if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

All we know for sure is that white men are bad and there has to be a massive transfer of wealth controlled by a defined group of politicians who will administer billions of dollars and don't need any oversight.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
code1211 said:
Lots of ridiculousness attempting to pick apart a non-dogmatic statement specifically because it uses non-dogmatic language
Click to expand...

97% of climatologists accept the basic tenets of AGW - that the Earth is warming and that humans are a causative factor. Several studies and institutions support that assertion.

Move on.
 
MrT said:
97% of climatologists accept the basic tenets of AGW - that the Earth is warming and that humans are a causative factor. Several studies and institutions support that assertion.

Move on.
Click to expand...

If they don't all agree on exactly the same thing in particular, then there is no consensus. If they did all agree on the same thing in particular, that would be a basis for your assertion.

Just a gang of like minded folks who really don't understand what is going on and and who all seem to share a foggy agreement regarding a thing that is not understood.
 

[h=1]The Fable of a Stable Climate[/h] Translation from the Dutch book review “Het Sprookje van een stabiel klimaat” by Hans Labohm. Posted on the climategate.nl blog. My loyal readers know him as co-author of my blog: the geologist, paleoclimatologist and climate sceptic Gerrit van der Lingen, an antipode of Dutch origin who has been living in New Zealand for many years.…

22 hours ago April 26, 2016 in Climate Myths.
 
code1211 said:
Just a gang of like minded folks who really don't understand what is going on and and who all seem to share a foggy agreement regarding a thing that is not understood.
Click to expand...

You've described deniers perfectly.

Scientists, however, are a bit clearer. If you look at their organizations, which pretty much broadcast consensus issues, its about as clear as it gets. I'll put the link in, but since you never seem to click on it, I'll cut and paste in a Haysian manner too. I had to edit it significantly because of the character limit - there are about 200 organizations in all, including every single major scientific organization on the planet.

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologiststal Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]The Fable of a Stable Climate[/h] Translation from the Dutch book review “Het Sprookje van een stabiel klimaat” by Hans Labohm. Posted on the climategate.nl blog. My loyal readers know him as co-author of my blog: the geologist, paleoclimatologist and climate sceptic Gerrit van der Lingen, an antipode of Dutch origin who has been living in New Zealand for many years.…

22 hours ago April 26, 2016 in Climate Myths.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

There were some excellent points in this link that I had not heard before - among them being the inability to get answers to questions that were asked over a year ago, with regard to the Kyoto protocol, with promises they would be forthcoming in a few days! I wonder what the problem is... :thumbdown:
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

There were some excellent points in this link that I had not heard before - among them being the inability to get answers to questions that were asked over a year ago, with regard to the Kyoto protocol, with promises they would be forthcoming in a few days! I wonder what the problem is... :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

You're on to something.:mrgreen:
 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/inside-climate-propaganda/

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?
Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.
It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.
A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.
The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”. . .
 
Jack Hays said:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/inside-climate-propaganda/

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?
Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.
It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.
A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.
The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”. . .
Click to expand...

It's called 'Scientific consensus'.
 
Jack Hays said:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/01/inside-climate-propaganda/

Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?
Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.
It’s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.
A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.
The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”. . .
Click to expand...

Notice how all those reputable sources say the same thing ? Suspicious !!

Obviously, this lack of proof of a conspiracy is proof of a conspiracy !!
 
Jack Hays said:
I see you didn't read the article.
Click to expand...

When your leading source for why I should disbelieve the LA Times, The Associated Press, The Weather Channel and all local media is the "Washington Free Beacon," then it shouldn't surprise you when people refuse to even bother reading the article.
 
MrT said:
When your leading source for why I should disbelieve the LA Times, The Associated Press, The Weather Channel and all local media is the "Washington Free Beacon," then it shouldn't surprise you when people refuse to even bother reading the article.
Click to expand...

If you choose to remain uninformed that is your business.

A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) has been called “highly influential,” a “pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,” the recipient of “prestigious awards” for “high-impact investigative stories” on important environmental issues.

The Washington Free Beacon, National Review and Energy in Depth offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a “mouthpiece” for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firm’s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can “to usher in the clean energy economy.”
 
Jack Hays said:
If you choose to remain uninformed that is your business.
Click to expand...

If you want to keep looking for confirmation bias of your previously held belief that a conspiracy exists, that is your business.
 
MrT said:
If you want to keep looking for confirmation bias of your previously held belief that a conspiracy exists, that is your business.
Click to expand...

You are the only one to mention a conspiracy. What the article describes is merely a highly-effective PR operation.
 
[h=1]To whom it may appall[/h] Posted on 01 May 16 by Brad Keyes • 38 Comments
Not unforeseeably, a CliScep post I wrote last week caused some umbrage. But truth is an absolute defence against a charge of umbrage, so the purpose of this followup is to assure anybody whose feelings may have been hurt that their grievance is indeed with reality, not me. Reader, unless you’ve been living under a … C
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]To whom it may appall[/h] Posted on 01 May 16 by Brad Keyes • 38 Comments
Not unforeseeably, a CliScep post I wrote last week caused some umbrage. But truth is an absolute defence against a charge of umbrage, so the purpose of this followup is to assure anybody whose feelings may have been hurt that their grievance is indeed with reality, not me. Reader, unless you’ve been living under a … C
Click to expand...

There's a nice little bit in the link above I feel the need to put here, since the AGW crowd doesn't read unless it's right under their noses, and even then they're likely not to understand it.

"[Scientific epistemology in 10 seconds: opinion is not evidence; expert opinion is not evidence; majority opinion is not evidence; consensus is not evidence; unanimous opinion is not evidence. What Scientists Think™ means literally nothing, to 2000 decimal places, in science. Papers on said question are scientifically worthless, by definition, and the act of writing such papers can only be motivated by an intention to glamor the gullible with baubles. Nobody has ever offered an innocent explanation for such papers (a challenge from which even the culprits are smart enough to silently back away every single time), because there is none.]"
 
After nine years Svensmark's seminal paper still makes the hit parade.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during March 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-readAstronomy & Geophysics


Apr 8, 2016 - Most-Read Articles during March 2016 .... Henrik Svensmark ... the starry heavens A&G (2016) 57 (1): 1.22-1.25 doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atw038.
 
Jack Hays said:
After nine years Svensmark's seminal paper still makes the hit parade.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during March 2016[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-readAstronomy & Geophysics


Apr 8, 2016 - Most-Read Articles during March 2016 .... Henrik Svensmark ... the starry heavens A&G (2016) 57 (1): 1.22-1.25 doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atw038.
Click to expand...

Except the readers are deniers.

If it was worthwhile, it would be cited a lot. It's not.

As it is, lots of the citations are references showing marginal viewpoints...
 
Threegoofs said:
Except the readers are deniers.

If it was worthwhile, it would be cited a lot. It's not.

As it is, lots of the citations are references showing marginal viewpoints...
Click to expand...

Better guess would be that the physics is beyond most climate scientists' grasp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom