The only person lying is the guy on the blog who thinks that 4 climate scientists is a large enough pool to challenge the findings in the peer reviewed paper that cited thousands of papers and scientists.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Global Warming & Earths Global Temperature Measurement
- Thread starter Heissonear
- Start date
The only person lying is the guy on the blog who thinks that 4 climate scientists is a large enough pool to challenge the findings in the peer reviewed paper that cited thousands of papers and scientists.
andypro7
Junior Member
Like I said, you want to say that 97% believe, and you don't care if they have to lie to get there.
The fact is, Cook lied about some of them. That is a fact. I'm sure they didn't interview all of them, so if he lied about 5 of them, it's almost certain he lied about more.
The burden of proof is on you, now that we know Cook is a liar.
But again, if you don't care that they lie, and wish to believe it anyway, just say so.
Upvote
0
Sorry, andypro7, but that is a lie.
You have linked to a blog quoting SEVERAL scientists stating that a few papers in the 12,000 papers analyzed were misclassified.
That does not invalidate the 97% figure found in several papers including Cook et al.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.
You remain ignorant about the papers that these SEVERAL scientists did not complain about
!Why is Idso not complaining about his other 17 paper in the Consensus Project, andypro7?
Is Idso implicitly stating that the classification is correct 17 out of 18 times
You have missed some basic statistics - a random sample will produce a mixed result, not a one sided result. A sample of 100 scientists with a 50% misclassification rate will give ~50 misclassified and ~50 classified correctly. But that blog does not list any classified correctly papers
ETA: You do know that every author with an email address in those 12,000 papers was asked to classify their own papers , andypro7?
That was 8,547 authors of whom 1,200 responded. We have to wonder why the authors in that blog are not contactable or did not respond!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The only lie is that 4 climate scientists are an adequate pool to accurately represent thousands of climate scientists listed in the Cook paper.
The burden is on you to show that he did lie about the thousands and thousands of papers, not just 4.
Upvote
0
Read what I wrote, andypro7 - it is about the consensus on AGW!
It is totally ignorant to state the that consensus on AGW is proof of AGW or global wreaming - it is an indication of how much confidence we can put in AGW happening.
The idiocy of thinking that global warming has to be "proven" is obvious - global warming since the beginning of the instrumental records is in the instrumental records
!The GW part of AGW is basic graph reading.
Upvote
0
That is false, as the study I linked to shows.
"Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming."
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Upvote
0
andypro7
Junior Member
Read what I wrote, andypro7 - it is about the consensus on AGW!
It is totally ignorant to state the that consensus on AGW is proof of AGW or global wreaming - it is an indication of how much confidence we can put in AGW happening.
The idiocy of thinking that global warming has to be "proven" is obvious - global warming since the beginning of the instrumental records is in the instrumental records
The GW part of AGW is basic graph reading.
Yep, I see it now....
Upvote
0
There is a global increase over the last 100 years. You are focused on short term noise which does not refute the long term climate trends.
I like to get my information from real scientists, not anti-science blogs.
Upvote
0
You only claim they are lying because of what anti-science bloggers say. Sorry, doesn't cut it. When pressed for real science, you go back to the old song and dance where we are only allowed to look at 18 years of climate data, as if that is the full picture. You will continue to think that a survey of just 4 scientists is enough to put a list of thousands of scientists in doubt. All of this to avoid the real science.
Upvote
0
And you once again miss the drastic uptick in temperature that matches the increase in human produced CO2.
Upvote
0
andypro7
Junior Member
No, I claim they are lying because the scientists themselves told us that Cook was lying.
Again, who was lying, Cook, or the scientists that say Cook was lying?
It's not me, it's one of them
And stop using the phrase 'real science'. Real science doesn't accept a paper that has been PROVEN to be a lying fraud.
Upvote
0
andypro7
Junior Member
I don't know. At least 6. Since he's the one who is lying, the burden of proof is on you.
But here's a real good assessment of it. Going to Cook's site and using Cook's own method, and his search function, it was found that just 65 of the over 12000 abstracts that show that human's were the main cause of warming.
On the other hand, 78 of the abstracts reject human responsibility.
That's 65 for and 78 (at least) against.
My calculator is broken, but I don't think that's 97%.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/
Upvote
0
Similar threads
