Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

The part where 34.8% is the actual 100% of papers with a position on AGW, 97% of which said Yay. Wait, I can comprehend that confusing bit about 34% is the actual 100% of relevant papers.

Again, if we follow your logic, we might as well cite all scientific papers on all things ever published and say that 0.000000000001% if science holds no position on AGW.

It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.
Cook's faulty methodology and personal bias is no excuse for the exclusion of 60+% of papers!

 

[luutzu]

It is still only 34.8% endorsement of AGW that was found via Cook's assessment of the abstracts of the papers selected for that study.
Cook's faulty methodology and personal bias is no excuse for the exclusion of 60+% of papers!

No, it's not 34.8% endorsement. It's 34.8% of paper containing the keywords that upon examination hold any position on the cause of AGW. Of that 34.8%, 97% came to the conclusion of Yay, we're screwing up the place.

You sure that branch haven't fallen already, just you cannot remember what happen one windy day gardening?

 

[cynic]

No, it's not 34.8% endorsement. It's 34.8% of paper containing the keywords that upon examination hold any position on the cause of AGW. Of that 34.8%, 97% came to the conclusion of Yay, we're screwing up the place.

You sure that branch haven't fallen already, just you cannot remember what happen one windy day gardening?

No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!

Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!

34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!

It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!

34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!

 

[explod]

No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!

Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!

34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!

It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!

34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!

What does FTSEing mean?

 

[cynic]

What does FTSEing mean?

Four letter acronym beginning with "F" with ing added to the end.

I am sure you can figure it out.

 

[luutzu]

No they didn't say anything about "screwing up the place"! That wasn't in the criteria!!

Stop making stuff up to suit yourself and read the FTSEing paper fully!

34.8% of authors AGW endorsement was all Cook found!!!

It's there in black and white in table 3 of his paper!

34.8% is over 60% short of 97%, for the simple reason that he chose to dismiss a similarly huge chunk of data, because, like yourself, it didn't suit his FTSEing religion!!

32.6% of all abstracts.
BUT 97.1% of abstract with AGW position.

Why is that so hard to understand?

To follow your logic, it'd be like saying that only 50% of Males have a penis because both Males and Females are Males.

Again, it is obvious that research with keywords Cook and others used - contains "Climate Change" etc., - does not necessarily mean it take any position on AGW.

You cannot count a no position to be a position. No means No.

 

[cynic]

32.6% of all abstracts.
BUT 97.1% of abstract with AGW position.

Why is that so hard to understand?

To follow your logic, it'd be like saying that only 50% of Males have a penis because both Males and Females are Males.

Again, it is obvious that research with keywords Cook and others used - contains "Climate Change" etc., - does not necessarily mean it take any position on AGW.

You cannot count a no position to be a position. No means No.

View attachment 71155

You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!

34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.

Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!

 

[luutzu]

You cannot count 97 to 98% of no positions as yes, but Cook has effectively done that!

34.8% of authors, based upon Cook's assessment of abstracts, endorsed AGW.

Those are facts that I understand perfectly well!

No he didn't. Those 66.4% of papers that held no position were discounted in a study on what are the position on AGW.

It's in black, white, table and charts up there dude.

 

[cynic]

No he didn't. Those 66.4% of papers that held no position were discounted in a study on what are the position on AGW.

It's in black, white, table and charts up there dude.

Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!

That is in black and white!!!

His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis.

He hasn't done that!!

He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!

And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.

 

[luutzu]

Then his conclusions cannot support the claim that 97% of scientists are in agreement with his purported AGW consensus, because he only counted 35.4% of them!!!

That is in black and white!!!

His conclusions could only be valid, if he could somehow demonstrate that those scientists, not recognised as holding an AGW position, were somehow in roughly 97 to 99% agreement with the AGW hypothesis.

He hasn't done that!!

He simply tried to justify his conclusions by opining that they probably were!

And by the way, your whale analogy from a post or two ago makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't even understand how it could possibly relate to my logic. This comes as no great surprise since this dialogue has alerted me to the fact that your concept of logic is clearly very different from mine.

What whale analogy? Male?

Seriously, don't know how else to put it. You're nuts.

 

[cynic]

What whale analogy? Male?

Seriously, don't know how else to put it. You're nuts.

Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.

34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.

But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.

 

[luutzu]

Religious zealots often hold that perception of heretics.

34.8% AGW endorsement by author, is all that could honestly be claimed to have been found in that study. And even that result is somewhat dubious to those whom cared enough to read past the paper's abstract.

But it seems that those sharing in Cook's religious zeal, do like to perceive it very differently.

You do realise that there's at least half a dozen other, independent, research papers that found similar results to Cook and others, right?

So... What percentage of human males have breasts? 50%. Right?

 

[cynic]

You do realise that there's at least half a dozen other, independent, research papers that found similar results to Cook and others, right?

So... What percentage of human males have breasts? 50%. Right?

So!!

Are they any more reliable than Cook's failed effort at distribution of climate propaganda?

You do of course realise, that a lot of scientists have protested very loudly, that they are in disagreement with the claims to the existence of a scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW/CC.

But then you'll probably just dismissively accuse them of lies, bs, or being nuts, as you seem so inclined to do, whenever someone contests your religion.

 

[Knobby22]

So!!
You do of course realise, that a lot of scientists have protested very loudly, that they are in disagreement with the claims to the existence of a scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW/CC.

A lot??? Bull. Provide evidence.

 

[Knobby22]

Looks like we might break another record for arctic melt.

 

[basilio]

Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion. After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.

 

[SirRumpole]

Knobby I'm not so sure about this introduction of CC reality to such a cerebral (!!!) discussion. After all what's the point of showing just how quickly our world is melting when Cynic and co are absolutely certain it isn't real.

The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.

 

[noco]

The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.

It sure does and there has been plenty of graph comparisons to the false models put out by the Alarmists.

I have plenty more up my sleeve and I will start posting them just for you Rumpy.

 

[noco]

The graph looks like a pretty accurate representation of Cynic & noco's credibility levels on AGW.

Now what would we do without the Sun.

Here is some interesting reading about the Sun's cycle......I hope it is not heavy for you Green Alarmist to understand.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/15/cosmic-rays-on-the-rise-as-solar-minimum-approaches/

 

[cynic]

A lot??? Bull. Provide evidence.

Actually you are quite correct to call me out on the inaccuracy of that post!

"A lot" is indeed a terrible understatement when a single petition claims to have been supported by more than 31,000 scientists.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

That's more than all the author's (including the 60+% omitted from the final calculation) in Cook's bogus paper!