|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:10:14
|
Minority of published climate research supports MMGW.
| Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." |
I encourage everyone the trust the science and not the propaganda.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 19:52:11 [Permalink]
|
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You, Jerome, have fallen for the sort of statistical windowing fallacy that you've berated others for accepting (have you forgotten your baseball stat analogies?).
Adding the above numbers to the original results gives us the true "total papers" (1,456) figures:Explicit or implicit agreement: 934 (64%)
Neutral papers: 485 (33%)
Reject consensus: 32 (2%) (Yeah, their numbers add up to only 99%, too. I don't have the exact counts, so I don't know where the missing five studies go.)
But worse than your falling for what you've warned against, Jerome, is that you've picked a tremendously biased source who thinks that the actual consensus is a "watered-down version" of itself. And the article claims that this new thing somehow contradicts the "90% likely" figures from the IPCC report. How? We're not told.
Where is the science we're supposed to trust? There's nothing but propaganda in Asher's article. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:03:00 [Permalink]
|
Are you now stating that 64% is a world wide consensus?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:08:31 [Permalink]
|
| As has already been posted here, not everyone buys Schulte's analysis. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:21:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are you now stating that 64% is a world wide consensus?
|
And now for something unpleasantly familiar. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:26:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
As has already been posted here, not everyone buys Schulte's analysis.
|
The point of this thread is that there is not a "world wide scientific consensus" that man is the cause of global warming. Arguing over over percentages is moot. The claim of a WWSC is debunked because climate scientists are not in agreement based on either sides numbers.
Just to reminded those reading: consensus is defined as a "general agreement", with a synonym being "unanimity". Websters
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 20:45:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Are you now stating that 64% is a world wide consensus? |
No, I'm stating that 99.79% of the papers which express an opinion about it (which was 100% until 2003) constitutes a consensus.
A consensus need not be unanimous, Jerome. Argumentum ad Websters is a crock and you should already know that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 23:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Try a scientific dictionary, Jerome. This is deja vu all over again, as you have already had the scientific definition of consensus explained to you most meticulously. Now you're just being dishonest, trying to sneak in the same definition you tried long ago. This has been quite annoying for a long time.
You remind me of Humpty Dumpty: "There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all." |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 04:15:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
As has already been posted here, not everyone buys Schulte's analysis.
|
The point of this thread is that there is not a "world wide scientific consensus" that man is the cause of global warming. Arguing over over percentages is moot. The claim of a WWSC is debunked because climate scientists are not in agreement based on either sides numbers.
Just to reminded those reading: consensus is defined as a "general agreement", with a synonym being "unanimity". Websters
|
You missed the point. There is still a human element in this. In particular, once the articles have been selected, Schulte has to determine if they are for, neutral, or against MMGW. And what's clear is that Schulte has erred in his review and assigned articles into the wrong categories. Thus, his analysis if flawed. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 13:23:41 [Permalink]
|
A rebuttal from Oreskes
The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal.
...
The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed.
...
The piece misrepresents the results we obtained.
...
The Schulte piece misrepresents my own interpretation of the severity climate question, as well as that of the scientific societies whose positions we compiled.
...
The EPW press release accuses my paper of being "outdated." It is in fact a crucial element of the paper that the study that it goes back to 1993.
...
The author is a medical researcher.
...
Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author.Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again. |
I summarized the points here. I encourage reading the entire article for more specific information. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 08/31/2007 13:27:15 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2007 : 17:59:58 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks, Pleco. This is what I gathered, too-- that Schulte misrepresented pieces as being neutral (or anti-MMGW) when in fact the opposite was true. And that a medical researcher probably isn't the best guy to go determining the results of a climate science study. (Let me know the next time you want a climate scientist planning your cancer treatment!) |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:09:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Try a scientific dictionary, Jerome. This is deja vu all over again, as you have already had the scientific definition of consensus explained to you most meticulously. Now you're just being dishonest, trying to sneak in the same definition you tried long ago. This has been quite annoying for a long time.
You remind me of Humpty Dumpty: "There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all." |
|
I could not find any "scientific definition" of consensus that is different from Websters definition. Could you please point it out to me?
The Alice quote is wonderful; and much like my sig it is misunderstood and really means the reverse of your point.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Thanks, Pleco. This is what I gathered, too-- that Schulte misrepresented pieces as being neutral (or anti-MMGW) when in fact the opposite was true. And that a medical researcher probably isn't the best guy to go determining the results of a climate science study. (Let me know the next time you want a climate scientist planning your cancer treatment!)
|
Oreskes is a historian. Why would a historian be more valid than a researcher? Please spell out how a historian is to be trusted and a researcher is to be made fun of. Could you point out were Schulte misrepresented his research?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:20:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
A rebuttal from Oreskes
I summarized the points here. I encourage reading the entire article for more specific information.
|
Amazingly Oreskes posts a rebuttal for an article published on August 29, 2007 11:07 AM, on August 31, 2007 1:50 PM. What a great historian, the ability to dissect research in in about 51 hours. Those must have been a couple of long nights.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:30:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You, Jerome, have fallen for the sort of statistical windowing fallacy that you've berated others for accepting (have you forgotten your baseball stat analogies?).
Adding the above numbers to the original results gives us the true "total papers" (1,456) figures:Explicit or implicit agreement: 934 (64%)
Neutral papers: 485 (33%)
Reject consensus: 32 (2%) (Yeah, their numbers add up to only 99%, too. I don't have the exact counts, so I don't know where the missing five studies go.)
But worse than your falling for what you've warned against, Jerome, is that you've picked a tremendously biased source who thinks that the actual consensus is a "watered-down version" of itself. And the article claims that this new thing somehow contradicts the "90% likely" figures from the IPCC report. How? We're not told.
Where is the science we're supposed to trust? There's nothing but propaganda in Asher's article.
|
Is not the newer science more likely to be closer to the truth? According to the more recent information concerning climate research that give an explicit opinion, the figures are 38 support MMGW (54%), and 32 reject the consensus (45%).
All the number manipulation in the world will not change the phrase "world wide scientific consensus" to being truthful in a talk about MMGW.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2007 : 15:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Thanks, Pleco. This is what I gathered, too-- that Schulte misrepresented pieces as being neutral (or anti-MMGW) when in fact the opposite was true. And that a medical researcher probably isn't the best guy to go determining the results of a climate science study. (Let me know the next time you want a climate scientist planning your cancer treatment!)
|
Oreskes is a historian. Why would a historian be more valid than a researcher? Please spell out how a historian is to be trusted and a researcher is to be made fun of. Could you point out were Schulte misrepresented his research? |
If you bothered to actually read the full text of the link in question (ahem) you'd have found your answer. If you're too lazy to do so, here (highlight):As a historian of science I am trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and my specific expertise is in the history of earth science. This past summer I was invited to teach a graduate intensive course at Vienna International Summer University, Vienna Circle Institute, on Consensus in Science. I do not know why a medical researcher would feel qualified to undertake an analysis of consensus in the earth scientific literature. Oops. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
MMGW Dubunked Again!
