Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #15 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #16 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

The title says "Deniers nailed...."

Does anyone know what we are supposed to be "denying"

Well, progs is denying that the planet is warming. God knows what aspects of reality you are denying.

and despite your refusal to respond to this on repeated occasions, that is also the positino of Phil Hughes of CRU. Hansen contineus to state that the earth is still warming and his record for data manipulation and statistical fraud is unbeleivable. however his cohort (Hughes) admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 16 years.

'critical reasoning' would address this as a high priority. Cheerleading however, would ignore it.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #17 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

'consensus' is the stupidest argument ever made for ACC. is there any other discipline that argues from consensus? no. and even then it has to be transparently obvious to anyone with a grain of critical reasoning ability that 10000 scientists can consensually be wrong while one can be right. Einstein was the calssic example when consensus was against his theory - but he was right.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #18 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:13pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

'consensus' is the stupidest argument ever made for ACC. is there any other discipline that argues from consensus? no. and even then it has to be transparently obvious to anyone with a grain of critical reasoning ability that 10000 scientists can consensually be wrong while one can be right. Einstein was the calssic example when consensus was against his theory - but he was right.

And Observational Science

These guys looked at the composition of Greenhouse gases. Saw that water was too hard to convince people - so they picked the next gas off the rank which is CO2

They looked at temperature changes and decided to link the two together

200 years ago savages observed as the fire mountain blew its top - crops died

so they decide worship and human sacrifice was the way to go

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #19 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #20 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:22pm

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

sounds like my fart has more credibility than that survey

at least 100% of the people who sample it will attest to feeling nausea and light headedness

'consensus' is the stupidest argument ever made for ACC. is there any other discipline that argues from consensus? no. and even then it has to be transparently obvious to anyone with a grain of critical reasoning ability that 10000 scientists can consensually be wrong while one can be right. Einstein was the calssic example when consensus was against his theory - but he was right.

Well it was pretty smart short term. It is a bit like as a kid 'Im gonna get my brother on to you', until your brother finally turns up and he is a 10 pound weakling, wet.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #21 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:32pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

goldie, that's another misrepresentation of the facts. Do you make this up as you are going. The survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists of which there were 3146 respondents. Of those respondents only 76 classified themselves as climatologists actively publishing in peer reviewed journals.

This result is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. Andregg (2010) finds between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus.

Quote:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:43pm by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #22 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:39pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:14pm:

gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

I can tell you why they didnt respond. They would have been ridiculed by the other 76 as if 50000 dropped on them

goldie, that's another misrepresentation of the facts. Do you make this up as you are going. The survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists of which there were 3146 respondents. Of those respondents only 76 classified themselves as climatologists actively publishing in peer reviewed journals.

So he is correct. Only 76 responded (that mattered from what we hear from the cult). Of those 76, what was the percentage that agree with the cult? Of the others, what was the percent. Of the total, what was the percent that didnt bother to get harrassed and didnt respond?

Look below

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:59pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #23 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.

I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved.
So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

much much more

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scien...

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:58pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #24 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:54pm

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

“..and I do not think that a consensus has anything to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’”

“..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained.

Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory.

Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.

Believing their results is an act of faith…”

much reading to be done
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:02pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #25 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:58pm A consensus, just like the temperature rising, is proof of nothing.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #26 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.

I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved.
So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists...

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

much much more

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scien...

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

It's a sample, progs. And Doran is not the only survey.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #27 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:07pm

MOTR wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.

I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved.
So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists...

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

much much more

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scien...

You see MOTR. 97% of 77 is 75. Dam this is getting funny, I must admit.

It's a sample, progs. And Doran is not the only survey.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

Nice graph. Can I make my own. Where are the numbers apart from what could be 10000 sent, 3000 respondents and 77 climate scientists who answered, make up the numbers.

FAIL.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #28 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm Perhaps you could do your own peer reviewed survey. Or, even easier, progs, how about you name one scientific body of national or international standing that does not accept the planet is warming largely due human activity.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #29 - Dec 30^th, 2012 at 10:24pm Even if all scientists really did agree that would still be proof of nothing, we may as well start facing mecca and praying to allah if all it takes is a consensus to tell us what to do.
Back to top	IP Logged