Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is global warming just another End-of-the-World delusion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lucy Stulz" data-source="post: 63302549" data-attributes="member: 328376"><p>No. </p><p></p><p>PopTech has missed the greater picture clearly visible in the statistics. He is claiming that the SELECTION methods of Anderegg et al. are so bad that it calls into question the idea that there is a solid scientific consensus on the topic.</p><p></p><p>If PopTech is only interested in tossing the 97% figure then will he be OK if HIS analysis shows a 90% figure? Or how about 86%?</p><p></p><p>In almost any scenario PopTech's over the top antics must be backed up by some real indication that the numbers from Anderegg WILL RESULT in an analysis that is SIGNIFICANTLY and dramatically different from a "Good" analysis.</p><p></p><p>And again, to take the approach PopTech is taking flies in the face of basic experience. There are almost no climate scientists who don't believe in AGW!</p><p></p><p>If the numbers were just reversed somehow all these great climate skeptics are invisible. </p><p></p><p>The basic science is pretty solid and has been for ~100+ years. The evidence has been repeatedly established over the past 50+ years of global warming. The science just keeps coming back to this.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, there are questions still unanswered. No, it isn't perfect. </p><p></p><p>But PopTech is mongering doubt. </p><p></p><p>I would be much more impressed if HE'D DO AN ANALYSIS using any given scientific citation index and showed, statistically, how Anderegg et al. or ANY OF THE OTHER analyses showing similar results, are ALL WRONG.</p><p></p><p>I'm tired of his hackneyed saw of "liars" and "computer illiterates".</p><p></p><p>SHOW us the goods.</p><p></p><p>He has failed to appreciate the power of statistical analysis. Even if the values of Anderegg et al's searches were different due to poor search criteria etc. they would have to be EXTRAORDINARILY off the mark to result in such horrific errors that PopTech seems to see.</p><p></p><p>And, again, that should be trivial for PopTech to PROVE mathematically.</p><p></p><p>That is, of course, if he's UP TO IT. Or if he's just another blogger who likes to play "critic" but can't do the stuff he criticizes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucy Stulz, post: 63302549, member: 328376"] No. PopTech has missed the greater picture clearly visible in the statistics. He is claiming that the SELECTION methods of Anderegg et al. are so bad that it calls into question the idea that there is a solid scientific consensus on the topic. If PopTech is only interested in tossing the 97% figure then will he be OK if HIS analysis shows a 90% figure? Or how about 86%? In almost any scenario PopTech's over the top antics must be backed up by some real indication that the numbers from Anderegg WILL RESULT in an analysis that is SIGNIFICANTLY and dramatically different from a "Good" analysis. And again, to take the approach PopTech is taking flies in the face of basic experience. There are almost no climate scientists who don't believe in AGW! If the numbers were just reversed somehow all these great climate skeptics are invisible. The basic science is pretty solid and has been for ~100+ years. The evidence has been repeatedly established over the past 50+ years of global warming. The science just keeps coming back to this. Yeah, there are questions still unanswered. No, it isn't perfect. But PopTech is mongering doubt. I would be much more impressed if HE'D DO AN ANALYSIS using any given scientific citation index and showed, statistically, how Anderegg et al. or ANY OF THE OTHER analyses showing similar results, are ALL WRONG. I'm tired of his hackneyed saw of "liars" and "computer illiterates". SHOW us the goods. He has failed to appreciate the power of statistical analysis. Even if the values of Anderegg et al's searches were different due to poor search criteria etc. they would have to be EXTRAORDINARILY off the mark to result in such horrific errors that PopTech seems to see. And, again, that should be trivial for PopTech to PROVE mathematically. That is, of course, if he's UP TO IT. Or if he's just another blogger who likes to play "critic" but can't do the stuff he criticizes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is global warming just another End-of-the-World delusion?
Top
Bottom