You know it's gotta be "climate science".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/co...more-92998

Quote:A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

(09-03-2013 12:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You know it's gotta be "climate science".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/co...more-92998

Quote:A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

BWAHAHAHA!!!! What a f*cking idiot!! Perfect lib...

Now even the leftist UK Guardian is willing to publish rebuttals to the 97% consensus.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/b...al-warming

(09-03-2013 12:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  You know it's gotta be "climate science".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/co...more-92998

Quote:A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

If these loons are absolutely convinced that global warming is man made and there is nothing more to learn then they should move on to something else, right? They're just wasting time and resources if the science is already settled.

So one mans opinion constitutes 97% of the scientist feelings. Am I reading this correctly?

(06-06-2014 01:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So one mans opinion constitutes 97% of the scientist feelings. Am I reading this correctly?

Getting picky here, and I know it was just a choice of words, but I'm pretty sure scientists aren't supposed to have "feelings" when it comes to this stuff.

Know what I'm saying?

(06-06-2014 01:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So one mans opinion constitutes 97% of the scientist feelings. Am I reading this correctly?

No. Cook et al allegedly did studies to try and gauge a consensus.

But his methods were abysmal.

Nevertheless, they got published, and despite being critiqued and insistence that the paper be withdrawn, his number now constitute an urban legend.

But, it's gotten to the point where eco-loony UK Guardian is even willing to publish pieces pointing to flaws with the 97% consensus research. That's truly indicting.

Just scanned the article linked...So in the papers Cook used, only .3% used the term dangerous. I'd like to see a breakdown of conclusions made from said papers, broken down into groups like "Dangerous", "Potentially dangerous", "Neutral", "No threat" etc.

Otherwise, I'm intrigued and will look into this more later this weekend. But a name popped out from the article...Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist. After a quick look into this guy, I found this...

"In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research." and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[31]"

It's too bad we have so much damn special interest groups pumping money in on both sides.

This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

(06-06-2014 02:41 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

Actually, I thought that much of this was what Cook thought they implied.

(06-06-2014 02:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:41 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

Actually, I thought that much of this was what Cook thought they implied.

Has there ever been a straight up poll/survey done getting input from the top dogs worldwide in the field?

(06-06-2014 02:46 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:41 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

Actually, I thought that much of this was what Cook thought they implied.

Has there ever been a straight up poll/survey done getting input from the top dogs worldwide in the field?

Which field? Cook's study ultimately surveyed scientists from many different disciplines.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/ab...consensus/

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/do...ndings.pdf

(06-06-2014 03:09 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:46 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:41 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

Actually, I thought that much of this was what Cook thought they implied.

Has there ever been a straight up poll/survey done getting input from the top dogs worldwide in the field?

Which field? Cook's study ultimately surveyed scientists from many different disciplines.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/ab...consensus/

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/do...ndings.pdf

Yes I understand that, I mean the scientists that study this stuff every day....i.e. geophysicists, climatologists etc.

Thanks for the links by the way.

I'd be more interested to know how many of them think humans are causing a noticeable fraction of the warming - say, 20% or more. It's still almost as arbitrary as asking about "most of the warming", but if it was going to warm 2 degrees, let's say, and we make it 4 degrees, that would probably be significant. We wouldn't have to be responsible for ALL the warming, which is unlikely, or even most of it.

(06-06-2014 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd be more interested to know how many of them think humans are causing a noticeable fraction of the warming - say, 20% or more. It's still almost as arbitrary as asking about "most of the warming", but if it was going to warm 2 degrees, let's say, and we make it 4 degrees, that would probably be significant. We wouldn't have to be responsible for ALL the warming, which is unlikely, or even most of it.

So you'd like the questions to be something like:

What temp change (both hot and cold) would be significant?

In what ways would this be "significant"? (economics, health, food, biology, weather, coastlines, ocean impact) Which impacts are negative, which are positive?

What is the current rate of temp change?

Is it fairly monotonic? If not, how is temp change best described? Does this matter?

How long has this change been going on?

What portion of this change can be assigned to human activity? How reliable (to what probability) is this assignment? How was this reliability determined?

What portion of the temp change can humans change? How would this be done? What are the impacts of these steps?

(06-06-2014 03:42 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:09 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:46 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 02:41 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  This relates to what I was saying above....."It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that."

Actually, I thought that much of this was what Cook thought they implied.

Has there ever been a straight up poll/survey done getting input from the top dogs worldwide in the field?

Which field? Cook's study ultimately surveyed scientists from many different disciplines.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/ab...consensus/

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/do...ndings.pdf

Yes I understand that, I mean the scientists that study this stuff every day....i.e. geophysicists, climatologists etc.

Thanks for the links by the way.

Yea I think most scientists just don't know that much about climate if they're not in that field. Even if there was a "consensus" among scientists in other fields I wouldn't put that much stock in it.

(06-06-2014 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2014 03:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd be more interested to know how many of them think humans are causing a noticeable fraction of the warming - say, 20% or more. It's still almost as arbitrary as asking about "most of the warming", but if it was going to warm 2 degrees, let's say, and we make it 4 degrees, that would probably be significant. We wouldn't have to be responsible for ALL the warming, which is unlikely, or even most of it.

So you'd like the questions to be something like:

What temp change (both hot and cold) would be significant?

In what ways would this be "significant"? (economics, health, food, biology, weather, coastlines, ocean impact) Which impacts are negative, which are positive?

What is the current rate of temp change?

Is it fairly monotonic? If not, how is temp change best described? Does this matter?

How long has this change been going on?

What portion of this change can be assigned to human activity? How reliable (to what probability) is this assignment? How was this reliability determined?

What portion of the temp change can humans change? How would this be done? What are the impacts of these steps?

Mostly. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get much of an answer from a biologist, a geologist, or many other scientists in various fields.

(06-06-2014 02:38 PM)Doctor Krieger Wrote:  It's too bad we have so much damn special interest groups pumping money in on both sides.

The US Government alone, much less the rest of the globe has funded tens of billions of dollars to the 'other side'.

Has it never occurred to you that there is an incredible amount of money for the oil companies in 'green' energy? I don't care if you discover 'free' cold fusion tomorrow, we will be using oil globally for a generation at least... You think these energy companies are all putting out their commercials extolling how 'clean' they are because there isn't money in at least the APPEARANCE of being green?

You simply see that money comes from someone you don't like and assume you have an idea of what their agenda is. The Koch brothers, like most wealthy people have one agenda... to stay rich.

Here's another analysis of this material.

Climate 97% - REALLY!

All I'm reading are "gotcha" remarks. Who really cares if it's 97., 87, 77, 67........ the point is somethings happening. man made, natural or combination of the two. Big $$ industries that pollute have an obvious dog in the hunt, Big$$ clean industries and other special interest groups do as well.
Great we're all pissing all over each other over decimal points. Do some of you see some kind of evil conspiracy initiated by the left to force people to do something they don't want to or to spend $$ they don't want to?
The .03 % is just as ridiculous as the 97%. Unless you are psychotic you have to be able to see SOMETHING is happening world wide and it aint good.