• 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

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.

No, they aren't "almost unanimous". Far from it. There has been no recent rise in temperatures, not for 18 years. And no, there are no conditions out of the ordinary to speak of. Other than that you're golden.
 
That link worked but it merely repeated the 97% claim.
I was hoping for an original source that made the claim and described the methodology it used to arrive at the figure.
That 97% claim and others like it have a history of using methodologies that don't pass the laugh test.
Yet they keep being repeated without the slightest suggestion that those repeating them ever questioned how they were arrived at.
Have you?

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
 
No, they aren't "almost unanimous". Far from it. There has been no recent rise in temperatures, not for 18 years. And no, there are no conditions out of the ordinary to speak of. Other than that you're golden.

So basically just deny pivotal points of reality and you're golden, right Ponyboy?

What you're saying goes directly against quantitative data we have on exactly that. Where is your proof beyond your assertion?

climate change.jpg
World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles
 
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

Cool.
Thanks.
I'm part way through and came upon this beauty of a finding that consensus is 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I'm sure everyone agrees that's laughable and the explanation of the result is ...
The studies in table 1 have taken various approaches to selecting and querying pools of experts. Oreskes (2004) identified expressions of views on AGW in the form of peer-reviewed papers on 'global climate change'. This analysis found no papers rejecting AGW in a sample of 928 papers published from 1993 to 2003, that is, 100% consensus among papers stating a position on AGW.
That certainly goes a long way to explain a couple of things.
1) The pool of participants (peer-reviewed papers) was incredibly limited and beyond that selected only papers that took a position on AGW.
2) The climate change industry's attitude toward choosing papers for peer-review is self-limiting. Meaning, for example, the IPCC doesn't bother with papers that don't follow the dogma.

You'll find such self-selecting criteria is used throughout any study that arrives at anything like the 97% number and the link demonstrates that.

It's an example of a common practice by the AGW industry - Policy Based Evidence Making.
For example, the models they develop are created with the assumption that high CO2 levels result in warming, so naturally if you plug the right numbers into the models you get what you expect.
Being historically wrong notwithstanding.
 
Cool.
Thanks.
I'm part way through and came upon this beauty of a finding that consensus is 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I'm sure everyone agrees that's laughable and the explanation of the result is ...

That certainly goes a long way to explain a couple of things.
1) The pool of participants (peer-reviewed papers) was incredibly limited and beyond that selected only papers that took a position on AGW.
2) The climate change industry's attitude toward choosing papers for peer-review is self-limiting. Meaning, for example, the IPCC doesn't bother with papers that don't follow the dogma.

You'll find such self-selecting criteria is used throughout any study that arrives at anything like the 97% number and the link demonstrates that.

It's an example of a common practice by the AGW industry - Policy Based Evidence Making.
For example, the models they develop are created with the assumption that high CO2 levels result in warming, so naturally if you plug the right numbers into the models you get what you expect.
Being historically wrong notwithstanding.

Alright, so what are the other viable mediums for climate research and analysis if not peer-reviewed journals? There were still some dissenting ones present so why would that collusion allow them through if they are pitted against them?

Your example isn't really telling of anything though. Like most all scientists they have to normalize data, that was just an example of a single sample from a particular span of time where they found complete consensus. They did not hide that and explicitly described the circumstances coming to that point nor did they use that as their conclusion to the study.

I think you're grasping at that example for something to have issue with, but there isn't anything really wrong with it.
 
Alright, so what are the other viable mediums for climate research and analysis if not peer-reviewed journals? There were still some dissenting ones present so why would that collusion allow them through if they are pitted against them?

Your example isn't really telling of anything though. Like most all scientists they have to normalize data, that was just an example of a single sample from a particular span of time where they found complete consensus. They did not hide that and explicitly described the circumstances coming to that point nor did they use that as their conclusion to the study.

I think you're grasping at that example for something to have issue with, but there isn't anything really wrong with it.

Collusion is at the IPCC level. They simply don't accept any papers that don't follow the party line.
And the example of Oreskes "study" that found 100% consensus foreshadows the value of her results and is also not surprising that she chose that methodology, given how poorly applied it was.
Naomi Oreskes is notorious among the global warming crowd. In short, she's a nutball.
The fact that she couldn't find any peer-reviewed papers that didn't ally with all out AGW alarmism should have been a real big clue.


The point is that using the right selection methodology you can produce any results you want ... and they did.
Like I said earlier ... You'll find such self-selecting criteria is used throughout any study that arrives at anything like the 97% number
 
Collusion is at the IPCC level. They simply don't accept any papers that don't follow the party line.
And the example of Oreskes "study" that found 100% consensus foreshadows the value of her results and is also not surprising that she chose that methodology, given how poorly applied it was.
Naomi Oreskes is notorious among the global warming crowd. In short, she's a nutball.
The fact that she couldn't find any peer-reviewed papers that didn't ally with all out AGW alarmism should have been a real big clue.


The point is that using the right selection methodology you can produce any results you want ... and they did.
Like I said earlier ... You'll find such self-selecting criteria is used throughout any study that arrives at anything like the 97% number

But some have been let through, that's why it's not 100% for the overall conclusion of the study.

You can't have input from something that doesn't exist. Where are these droves of climate scientists who can't get their work published because of this conspiracy?

I'm sorry but where is your proof that points otherwise? Whether in the subject of climate change itself or how its respective information is released and distributed.
 
But some have been let through, that's why it's not 100% for the overall conclusion of the study.

You can't have input from something that doesn't exist. Where are these droves of climate scientists who can't get their work published because of this conspiracy?

I'm sorry but where is your proof that points otherwise? Whether in the subject of climate change itself or how its respective information is released and distributed.

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
 

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, 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.

After excerpts like this I began to become skeptical over how refined and focused this list really was. 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.

http://http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

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.
 
Wait, do they all variate the data in the same way then since they're overwhelmingly parallel in their findings?
The papers approach the issue differently, and none of them make the claim that "most" of the warming we see is "caused by man."

The three individuals listed at the bottom of the link are not scientists, and either ignorant to what the papers really say, or are intentionally distorting the facts.

What's wrong. Afraid I will burst your bubble?

Find one of those papers you think proves those NASA blogger's statements..

If that's the case why even give you a particular study, can't you tell me as a whole what is being misrepresented in these studies since you've broken them down?
Each study has a separate methodology which is misrepresented. One for example has question two asking if the scientist believes man has has a significant effect of the warming. In science, significant is around 5% unless otherwise stated. So the results of that one are that 97% of the scientists believe man has had at least a 5% effect on climate. 5% is not most.

Another has seven categories and only the first of the seven have can be used to say most of the warming is caused by man, but the 2nd and 3rd category are also added in to make a 98% claim.

What is the basis for this conspiracy? What is their motivation behind supposedly synthesizing this data? It's not like they're trying to be nefarious for no reason.
I don't claim a conspiracy. I have explained this before. These scientists are paid to write papers, so they do. They word them in such manners that the entity granting them money has something they can use, and so they will be granted money again. It is in the self interest of the scientists to make parts of papers ambiguous. If the scientist comes up with a paper they that disagrees with the purpose of the grant money, what to you think the chances of future grants are?

Follow the grant money. Not a conspiracy, but all in self interest.
 
LOL...

They keep modifying their statement. Now they say "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

This goes to the fact that more than 97% of the grants are paid for to show such things.

Again, follow the grant money.
 
Well the conclusions wouldn't be flawed or useless then, they would just have different inferences. I'm confused as to why this correlation would be the night and day difference for their funding. To your logic wouldn't it make more sense to produce results for a private source and receive compensation through those means?

Especially when studies that have been privately funded still have the same findings. I remember reading a piece about some Koch Bros. funded research that was intended to dissuade against climate change, but ended up correlating with the rest of the data. Funny how that worked out in the misinformation cartel you consider climate research.

Everyone's Talking About The Koch Brothers-Funded Study That Proves Climate Change Is Real - Business Insider

The amount of funding the other side gets from Koch's, Exxon, etc is probably under 2% of what the alarmists side gets.
 
That link worked but it merely repeated the 97% claim.
I was hoping for an original source that made the claim and described the methodology it used to arrive at the figure.
That 97% claim and others like it have a history of using methodologies that don't pass the laugh test.
Yet they keep being repeated without the slightest suggestion that those repeating them ever questioned how they were arrived at.
Have you?

That's why I asked for the study to be linked, and I would disassemble it.
 
That certainly goes a long way to explain a couple of things.
1) The pool of participants (peer-reviewed papers) was incredibly limited and beyond that selected only papers that took a position on AGW.
2) The climate change industry's attitude toward choosing papers for peer-review is self-limiting. Meaning, for example, the IPCC doesn't bother with papers that don't follow the dogma.

Thy just don't understand the nuances of the facts. Do they?
 
Science and consensus are not usually found together, but let's break down Nasa's statement to see what they are saying
all these scientists are agreeing with!
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
The IPCC warming is basically two parts, one based on well accepted Physics, and the second based on speculative models.
The Physics portion says that roughly .6 C of the observed .9 C could be from the added CO2, and that is what almost any
scientist would agree with. It is also not alarming.
The alarming portion of the IPCC's predictions is from the models which speculate that the CO2 warming will be amplified through a collection
of feedbacks to possibly cause much greater warming.
So far the data does not support the mid to high range of the IPCC's very broad prediction.
 
Climateers? Trumpateers? Can we stop with the childish dismissive labels please?

We're divided enough as it is in this country, whats the point of starting a debate if you're going to turn your opponents immediately off from wanting to hear out your arguments when you lead with an insult.

They can't stop because it is really all the average AGW disciple has at their disposal.
 
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, 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:



After excerpts like this I began to become skeptical over how refined and focused this list really was. 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.

http://http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-recheck-that-list.html

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.

Yes ... what you discovered was evidence of a practice of science which questions.

What we have on one side is religious-like dogma wherein the science is settled and it no longer questions. With that as the foundation, research practices will use methodologies that can only yield predetermined results ... the 97% silliness is a prime example ... using selection criteria that chooses only AGW adherents would necessarily conclude that AGW adherents adhere to AGW.

While the other side says, for example, climate always changes and sure there may be some influence of human CO2 on climate, but what about the overriding influence of, say, Nature with its known recurring climate patterns like PDO. As you saw, such studies that present alternatives exist and are typically, intentionally, excluded and ignored by the AGW crowd.

Which of the 2 sides would more likely tend to practice science?

BTW, can you point to one of the Assessment Reports for which the IPCC chose a paper that studied Nature/Solar influences on climate change?
I don't mean a statement in an AR that dismissed Natural influences as being insignificant.
 
Thy just don't understand the nuances of the facts. Do they?

Long ago it was pretty obvious that too many people simply repeat what they heard.
Hearing someone make that "97% consensus" claim up front serves as a good climate change bellwether in that regard.
Hearing it from someone under NASA auspices is also helpful to identify politicized government agencies.
 
I would say that I don't understand how NASA could allow such punditry, but look at how many divisions NASA has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_websites

The climate section is run by activists, but they do have some scientists involved:

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: About Us
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom