Australian Politics Forum

# Gold Member Offline A fool is certain: an ignorant fool, absolutely so Posts: 2603	Majority Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant. Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?
Back to top	IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #1 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:59am

You should be asking how was this consensus formed...???

Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell

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?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-...

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Innocent bystander

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #2 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Majority
Reply #3 - Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:14pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

Can you substantiate that assertion?
What does it have to do with scientists?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139651
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #4 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 1:47pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

True.

"Fifty one percent of the 18,829 people across 23 countries who took part in the survey said they were convinced there is an afterlife and a divine entity, while 18 percent said they don't believe in a god and 17 percent weren't sure."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-beliefs-poll-idUSTRE73O24K20110425

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Majority
Reply #5 - Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

More people believe that there is a god than don't so what god do you believe in?

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

Can you substantiate that assertion?
What does it have to do with scientists?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 1:47pm:

True.

"Fifty one percent of the 18,829 people across 23 countries who took part in the survey said they were convinced there is an afterlife and a divine entity, while 18 percent said they don't believe in a god and 17 percent weren't sure."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/us-beliefs-poll-idUSTRE73O24K20110425

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #6 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:23pm

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

That's a really good point.
This begs two questions:
1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus?
2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying?

What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #7 - Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:39pm

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

That's a really good point.
This begs two questions:
1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus?
2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying?

What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk.

But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself.

Just think if it was the other way around...??

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Majority
Reply #8 - Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

That's a really good point.
This begs two questions:
1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus?
2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying?

What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk.

But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself.

Just think if it was the other way around...??

Reasonable people would accept that none of us is qualified to judge. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that those who reviewed Cook 2013 and approved it for publication in Environmental Research Letters are qualified.

Vuk11 evidently believes, fervently, but he's no better qualified than you or I, Ajax.

Judging by the desperation to disprove the majority, I take it that the tacit answer to the question: # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

...
Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

is that a majority of scientists is as significant as any other majority.

Reinforcing the consensus is the fact that, as far as I know, no major scientific body disagrees.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #9 - Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:13am

# wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:39pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

# wrote on Oct 11^th, 2013 at 3:59pm:

How many people are there in the world? Is 18,829 a credible sample size? How many countries are there in the world? Is 23 a credible sample size? Is 51% of 18,829 a majority of the world?

What does any of this have to do with scientists?

That's a really good point.
This begs two questions:
1. Is 12 000 + papers, many of which 5/6/7 to a single author a credible sample size for a world wide scientific consensus?
2. Would a survey not be discarded if it skewed results and refused to heed the complaints of the authors it was surveying?

What I mean about question two is in the Cook et al survey, only 8% of the 12 000+ papers (12 000+ papers no authors, even authors would be a small sample size wouldn't you say?) were classified as "explicit endorsements". Of that 8% many authors came forward and complained about miss-classification, also how many have been miss-classified and haven't come forward? For them to manipulate such a small numbers, in spite of miss-classification charges, to stretch out such a small amount of papers and call it 97% of a survey where 12 000 papers were reviewed is ridiculous. Add on the bias of the people actually reviewing the papers. Add on the bias of discounting "no opinion" papers despite specifically saying they would be counted as no votes, whilst putting that 8% into a graph whilst NOT showing a graph of the total paper results is ludicrous IMO.

Most reasonable people would agree with you Vuk.

But I don't think # is very reasonable otherwise he would spot the fraud himself.

Just think if it was the other way around...??

Reasonable people would accept that none of us is qualified to judge. Any reasonable person would acknowledge that those who reviewed Cook 2013 and approved it for publication in Environmental Research Letters are qualified.

Vuk11 evidently believes, fervently, but he's no better qualified than you or I, Ajax.

Judging by the desperation to disprove the majority, I take it that the tacit answer to the question: # wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

...
Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

is that a majority of scientists is as significant as any other majority.

Reinforcing the consensus is the fact that, as far as I know, no major scientific body disagrees.

Any paper that has to come back and defend its findings after they have been refuted by peer review experts in the field must surely have conspicuous errors.

How can you fail to aknowledge this.............????????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #10 - Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am

# wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

From the smallest club, through company boards to the governments of our states and nation, the significance of majority is recognised. Perversely, those in denial about global warming assert that a majority of scientists is insignificant.

Is majority insignificant, merely because it involves scientists?

No, majority is vitally important for making decisions in clubs, company boards and governments. Because those institutions operate on the will of the voters. Deciding where to go for your holidays is also something where a majority is useful.

HOWEVER, majority is totally meaningless in science, because science is based on evidence and fact, not on the will of the voters.

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Majority
Reply #11 - Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:40am

Ajax wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:13am:

...
Any paper that has to come back and defend its findings after they have been refuted by peer review experts in the field must surely have conspicuous errors.

How can you fail to aknowledge this.............????????

Anything can be attacked. That doesn't mean that the attack is valid.

You have not substantiated the expertise of those who supposedly refuted Cook 2013. You have not even been able to link to any peer-reviewed journal in which the so-called refutation was published.

If you can find the relevant publication, then we'll need to consider the relative standing of the relevant journals. Outside the denyosphere, the so-called refutation hasn't raise so much as a ripple. From what I've seen the paper in question was written solely for denialists. Nobody else takes it seriously. It's up to you the establish its credibility.

Back to top

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Majority
Reply #12 - Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:54am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

... majority is totally meaningless in science, ...

What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science?

The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus.

Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you.

That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #13 - Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:22am

# wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:54am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

... majority is totally meaningless in science, ...

What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science?

The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus.

Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you.

That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though.

That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise...

But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest..

p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Majority
Reply #14 - Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:54am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 9:22am:

# wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:54am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

... majority is totally meaningless in science, ...

What is majority? Is it a statistic? Do statistics have no place in science?

The fact of the consensus offends the denialist faithful. The fact that the consensus hardens by the day whips them into frenzies of further denial. Doesn't change the facts though.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:32am:

Since science is 'majority based', does that mean that the Earth is flat, at the centre of the Universe, and the Sun orbits the Earth???

I presume you're getting confused over Galileo and Copernicus.

Galileo was a scientist who had the temerity to elevate science over the dominant religious orthodoxy. He didn't discover anything new; if you look into it, you'll find that the Greeks knew that the earth is round, centuries before Christ. Copernicus, I'll leave to you.

That you don't know the difference between science and religion does your credibility no good. It probably explains your denialism though.

That you can't spot sarcasm isn't that much of a surprise...

But being confused over 'majority' when that's the thread title that YOU chose is just ridiculous. And selectively quoting a response to your OP is being deliberately dishonest..

p.s Not 'denialism'...skepticism.

scepticism is a Greek word, it means being able to think and question what is happening in the world around you and temper that understanding with experience and wisdom. It is a critical element in the scientific method.

that kind of rules you out doesn't it you smelly freaked up weasel stench clown maggot

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged