[PublicAnimalNo9]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Aren't numbers fun to play with though? Just like the claim that human and chimp DNA was 95% the same.

Actually they figure humans and bonobos share almost 99% of the same DNA and Cips are just a pube less

That's the funny thing though. The 95% claim was made after just 5% of genomes had been compared.

When you leave out little facts, it can change the entire dynamic of a claim.
For example, if we leave out the little, "unimportant" facts, we can say that the Biblical Cain was the worst mass murder in human history. He killed off 25% of the known human population at the time.

[Zipperfish]

peck420 peck420:

Joke of a survey.

Actual survey: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

From survey:

$1:

Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers.

Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4
No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) —
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4

It should be noted in the article (gee, I wonder why it isn't?) that the majority of those that took the survey answered that they had 'No AGW position' (66.4%).

However, of those that 'have a position', 97.1% answered that they do 'Endorse AGW'.

Umm, the survey was conducted on papers, not scientists. Of the ~12,000 papers reviewed concerning global warming, two-thirds toook no position. Of the remaing one-third of the papers that explicitly took a position, almost all of them endorsed AGW.

Although I do agree that studies such as this are kind of useless except as a communication tools for AGW advocates.

Also, it bears mentioning that there have been several other stuides and surveys identifying general consensus, which are referenced in this study.

You can see it on this site too. There's a few guys here opn this site with science backgrounds and, despite their varying political inclinations, I've noted they are more-or-less on side with AGW. Those with no science background, on the other hand, tend to go with what their political instincts--deny if they are the right, accept if theya re on the left.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Umm, the survey was conducted on papers, not scientists.

Yet the horseshit propaganda title is that 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming.

It doesn't mention jack about papers in the title, does it? And even if it did, it would still be a lie.

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My bad.

$1:

Umm, the survey was conducted on papers, not scientists. Of the ~12,000 papers reviewed concerning global warming, two-thirds toook no position. Of the remaing one-third of the papers that explicitly took a position, almost all of them endorsed AGW.

Although I do agree that studies such as this are kind of useless except as a communication tools for AGW advocates.

Also, it bears mentioning that there have been several other stuides and surveys identifying general consensus, which are referenced in this study.

You can see it on this site too. There's a few guys here opn this site with science backgrounds and, despite their varying political inclinations, I've noted they are more-or-less on side with AGW. Those with no science background, on the other hand, tend to go with what their political instincts--deny if they are the right, accept if theya re on the left.

We basically agree.

I think my comments were not well written. I was trying to bash the article (primarily) for its representation of the study, not so much the study itself.

Although, I will never accept a study that is sponsored by a very biased outlet. That goes for both sides. That is why I called the study a joke.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Umm, the survey was conducted on papers, not scientists.

Yet the horseshit propaganda title is that 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming.

It doesn't mention jack about papers in the title, does it? And even if it did, it would still be a lie.

I think Professor Chomsky wrote the horseshit title. Take it up with him. The study itself doesn't make that claim. Although 97% probably isn't that far off.

They realy should take a more Bayesian statistical approach if you ask me. They should ask scientists who are publishing in related fields what the probability is that AGW is real. Most scientists, myself included, get uncomfortable with yes or no questions, since physical science is inherently probabilistic. So if someone asks me if I believ in AGW is real, I say "Probably."

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Charles Darwin

[Thanos]

They're probably correct about AGW but they didn't do themselves any favours with all the imminent doomsday "this will happen!" scenarios that have been flogged for the last 20 years. Can't even watch National Geographic channel anymore because of this endless AGW apocalypse that's being pushed throughout all of their programming. And having guys like James Hansen push some neo-hippy nonsense as the only solution doesn't make them look any better either. I'm personally convinced that more and better technology, as well as a commitment to geo-engineering, can eliminate the worst of the effects, but the hi-jacking of AGW by the hardcore environmentalists has pretty much made "we must get rid of all fossil fuels!" as the only policy option that is allowed to be considered.

The scientists should be made to have a poll that asks "are you willing to ban the use of all fossil fuels, and accept the virtual end (with all the misery and death that will ensue) of a modern civilization that is made possible ONLY through the use of fossil fuels, in order to reverse the effects of AGW?" and submit it to the public just to see what the response will be.

[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

I am sure that 97% of all scientists believed that the sun revolved around the Earth five hundred years ago.

Guess -> Theory -> Experimental proof.

This is how science works. You see something; you guess as to how it works, you develop a theory as to how it works then you devise experiments proving the theory acts in nature as you guessed it should work. If it doesn't you are wrong, and you go back to 'guess'.

500 years ago, they stopped at 'guess'. That's not science, and they weren't 'scientists'. If you'll recall, they were priests and bishops that excommunicated people for not believing the Earthcentric solar model. Religion, not science.

Now we have a government that just unfunds your research if you have the wrong ideas

[fifeboy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Aren't numbers fun to play with though? Just like the claim that human and chimp DNA was 95% the same.

Let me think on that a while

[DanSC]

I tend to distrust claims of scientists "believing" in anything.

I, like a lot of scientists, thinks emissions from hydrocarbons burned as fuel contribute significantly to the rising average global temperature, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise with new data.

[Thanos]

Opinion column here detailing how Europe's green policies are magnifying the worst effects of their economic and unemployment crisis with massive increases in heating costs. And they're full of shit on CO2 as well in Europe because coal-fired power-plants are replacing the nuclear plants that are being shut down thanks to decades worth of hardcore anti-nuclear paranoia.

As long as AGW is controlled by the most radical members of the environmentalist movement then there will be no progress made on this issue.

[N_Fiddledog]

jj2424 jj2424:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Eagerly awaiting the usual "but who wrote this review" bs from the righties...

Egg on your face.

Anyway why would we care who wrote up the press release review when the interesting author is the one who organized the paper itself. It's John Cook again. Which means it's more BS from SkepticalScience.com.

SketicalScience.com is kind of the MediaMatters of the Climate blogosphere.

Basically Cook got all his Climate Kidz together and said "let's put on a survey".

But seeing as what we're really talking about here is a climate blog's opinion pretending it's science, it's fair to hear the opinions of the other blogs who might disagree with the spinning eyed, indoctrinated, irregulars of SkepticalScience.com.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i- ... -it-means/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/f ... dorse-agw/

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The study itself doesn't make that claim. Although 97% probably isn't that far off.

I've not met a single academic, climate-scientist or other, who denies AGW. If they're out there, they're not running in academic circles. It's not something you hear of anywhere but on FOX or the internet.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

[
I've not met a single academic, climate-scientist or other, who denies AGW.

Define "denies AGW". Do you mean like another one of those Bogus 97% studies claimed "doesn't believe there's such a thing as climate change"?

Of course, scientists on both sides believe there is climate change. The claim they don't is the silly thing alarmists try to have you believe when they talk about consensus.

If you however are saying all "academic, climate-scientists or other" believe man is heating the climate to a predictable apocalypse, then, not that it really matters as consensus is not science, but nevertheless bullshit. No they're not.

Interesting enough I was just reading something concerning this paper we're discussing...

Here's #10 from The twelve clues that good science journalists ought to notice: concerning the phoney consensus paper from Cooks' internet KookZ.

$1:

10. You want authority? Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists who agree, including 9,000 PhDs, 45 NASA experts (including two astronauts who walked on the moon) and two Nobel Prize winners in physics.

Skeptics don’t issue press releases saying we outnumber and outrank the believers. Perhaps we should, but skeptics prefer to argue the evidence. Cook ignores the authorities that don’t suit him. Skeptics get Nobel Physics prizes, but believers only seem to get prizes for Peace. Phil Jones is one of the most expert of expert climate scientists, but he couldn’t create a linear trendline in Excel. Some skeptics, on the other hand, got man to the moon.

No wonder the public don’t think there is a consensus. There is no consensus among scientists.

Cook makes out that the public have been fooled by a deliberate campaign, but unless devious skeptics can cover continents in floods and snow, it could be that the public can see the failure of the models with their own eyes.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks- ... -fall-for/

[Public_Domain]

[N_Fiddledog]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

N_Fiddledog, the "A" in AGW implies he was talking about man-made climate change.

Doesn't matter. Both sides agree there too. Climate change exists and anthropogenic factors exist. It's like this...

$1:

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... ensus-not/