Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

That is a blatant lie which makes a liar out of you!

Maybe they don't all endorse it, just that their conclusions confirm it.

If I'm really bored, I'll re-read the article again and we can debate who's a better reader.

 

[cynic]

Maybe they don't all endorse it, just that their conclusions confirm it.

If I'm really bored, I'll re-read the article again and we can debate who's a better reader.

That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.

Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!

The conclusions of the other 64.8% authors, based upon their paper abstracts alone, most certainly did not contain the requisite 62.2% (i.e. 97 - 34.8 = 62.2) endorsement.

In fact, the majority (>60%) of the papers/authors (those assessed as having taken no position on AGW), were subsequently (and conveniently) excluded from the final calculations. Hence the totally bogus results.

And let's not forget that none of the endorsement criteria required a catastrophic perception of AGW.

But if an apocalyptic fantasy has become so important that the published facts no longer matter, well I believe that there may still exist, some specialised facilities, designed to cater for those who are no longer able to remain engaged with reality.

 

[luutzu]

That figure was based upon the assessment of the paper abstracts using specific criteria to determine whether there existed, implicit or explicit, endorsement or rejection, or no position taken.

Based upon your postings, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have probably only read the abstract for Cook's paper. Please do me the courtesy of reading the entire paper before replying to this post!!

The conclusions of the other 64.8% authors, based upon their paper abstracts alone, most certainly did not contain the requisite 62.2% (i.e. 97 - 34.8 = 62.2) endorsement.

In fact, the majority (>60%) of the papers/authors (those assessed as having taken no position on AGW), were subsequently (and conveniently) excluded from the final calculations. Hence the totally bogus results.

And let's not forget that none of the endorsement criteria required a catastrophic perception of AGW.

But if an apocalyptic fantasy has become so important that the published facts no longer matter, well I believe that there may still exist, some specialised facilities, designed to cater for those who are no longer able to remain engaged with reality.

Sooo... if it turns out that 97% of peer-reviewed papers on CC confirm it, you'd take their words?

I thought you don't care for consensus or science and stuff, so what does it matter if it's 34% or 97% or 100%. It just doesn't feel like rampant deforestation, air and water pollution etc. could possibly affect the Earth.

 

[cynic]

Absolutely not! I believe I have already posted a phrase to the effect that science and consensus are distinctly different things.

Unlike yourself, I do not consider popularity of opinion to be a valid substitute for rigorous scientific proof.

My reason for reading this paper, was simply to find out whether or not the critics, decrying its claimed findings, were correct. I can now recognise that those decrying the findings had ample justification in so doing!

 

[luutzu]

Absolutely not! I believe I have already posted a phrase to the effect that science and consensus are distinctly different things.

Unlike yourself, I do not consider popularity of opinion to be a valid substitute for rigorous scientific proof.

My reason for reading this paper, was simply to find out whether or not the critics, decrying its claimed findings, were correct. I can now recognise that those decrying the findings had ample justification in so doing!

Nobody ever said anything about consensus equal proof or scientific validity.

It just so happen that this 97% "consensus" came about from a simple count of the conclusions of all Climate Science research ever published. So unless you yourself can go through each one of those papers and point out where the flaws and fludgings are, shall we assume then that the scientific community that reviewed each of those paper's methodology, results etc. etc. and found it to be up to scientific research standard... that they know what they're reviewing?

 

[cynic]

Nobody ever said anything about consensus equal proof or scientific validity.

It just so happen that this 97% "consensus" came about from a simple count of the conclusions of all Climate Science research ever published. So unless you yourself can go through each one of those papers and point out where the flaws and fludgings are, shall we assume then that the scientific community that reviewed each of those paper's methodology, results etc. etc. and found it to be up to scientific research standard... that they know what they're reviewing?

It just so happens that those things you are saying occurred, in actuality didn't occur at all!

Have you read Cook's paper yet!!?
Because it sounds like you still have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about the basis for the claims to scientific consensus.

 

[luutzu]

It just so happens that those things you are saying occurred, in actuality didn't occur at all!

Have you read Cook's paper yet!!?
Because it sounds like you still have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about the basis for the claims to scientific consensus.

Yes, and you're still wrong.

 

[cynic]

Yes, and you're still wrong.

Huh!??
About what exactly?!!

Was I wrong about that, 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement, figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?

 

[luutzu]

Huh!??
About what exactly?!!

Was I wrong about that 34.8% of authors AGW endorsement figure in table 3 of Cook's paper?

Alright, let's go through the paper... Man, the things I do for science and humanity.

[
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook et. al. 2013... Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.]

Your beef is with that 66.4% of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW, right?

Before we go into what Cook et. al. says about that, let's use our brain for a bit...

What does "express no position" mean to you? Literally, the abstract express no opinion. It does not mean that those 66.4% of papers are saying there is no such thing as AGW - which is what you are implying. It simply mean that their paper express no opinion on it, either for or against.

Why would a paper express no opinion on AGW? Perhaps the paper is not looking to express any opinion on AGW, that just because they have the keywords Cook et. al., uses does not mean the aim of their paper was to answer AGW, its causes or such.

In other words, not expressing an opinion regarding the causes of CC, its existence etc., does not mean the paper is implying one way or another regarding AGW.

Now, for the papers does express an opinion on AGW... they express it because they're paid to do so by the UN and China, or perhaps express an opinion because that's the aim of their research thesis...

Of those that express an opinion in the abstract, 97.1% "...endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Pretty straight forward.

 

[cynic]

Alright, let's go through the paper... Man, the things I do for science and humanity.

[
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook et. al. 2013... Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp)

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.]

Your beef is with that 66.4% of abstracts that expressed no position on AGW, right?

Before we go into what Cook et. al. says about that, let's use our brain for a bit...

What does "express no position" mean to you? Literally, the abstract express no opinion. It does not mean that those 66.4% of papers are saying there is no such thing as AGW - which is what you are implying. It simply mean that their paper express no opinion on it, either for or against.

Why would a paper express no opinion on AGW? Perhaps the paper is not looking to express any opinion on AGW, that just because they have the keywords Cook et. al., uses does not mean the aim of their paper was to answer AGW, its causes or such.

In other words, not expressing an opinion regarding the causes of CC, its existence etc., does not mean the paper is implying one way or another regarding AGW.

Now, for the papers does express an opinion on AGW... they express it because they're paid to do so by the UN and China, or perhaps express an opinion because that's the aim of their research thesis...

Of those that express an opinion in the abstract, 97.1% "...endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Pretty straight forward.

I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.

It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.

Of the 1200 authors who replied to a self assessment invitation, the level of AGW endorsement was higher, but still fell a long way short of the 97%.

Again I reiterate only 34.8% author endorsement, was discovered, based upon the abstracts.

The findings cannot support Cook's claim to the existence of a 97.1% scientific consensus for the simple reason that he doesn't have a sound basis for claiming to know what the AGW position of the 60+% of papers and authors (excluded from his tally) would have been.

Even if he had treated the 1200 self assessment responses as a crosssection for statistical purposes, the results would still fall 30+% short of the mark.

Cook was clearly either being incompetent or dishonest in his conduct when producing that paper.

 

[basilio]

The overwhelming reason 66% of the abstracts didn't expressly support AGW was because this was a given for the authors. Abstracts are short and to the point. Adding redundant information is a no no.

For a practical example of this ask yourself "How many scientists researching Plate Tectonics would explicitly note their support of the theory in the Abstract "

Check out the results.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
Posted on 4 May 2017 by dana1981

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus papers, showing that with a variety of different approaches, we all found the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 90–100%.

Most of the critiques of our paper claim the consensus is somehow below 97%. For example, in a recent congressional hearing, Lamar Smith (R-TX) claimed we had gone wrong by only considering “a small sample of a small sample” of climate studies, and when estimated his preferred way, it’s less than 1%. But in a paper published last year, James Powell argued that the expert consensus actually higher – well over 99%.

We thus had three quite different estimates of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming: less than 1%, 97%, or 99.99%. So which is right?

Testing the 97% approach with plate tectonics
Yesterday, the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society published our response to Powell, led by Andy Skuce. To determine who’s right, we turned our sights on the theory of plate tectonics.

In his critique of our study, Powell argued that on scientific theories as settled as human-caused global warming or plate tectonics, scientists don’t bother to state the obvious. In our 97% paper, we examined how many studies endorsed, rejected or minimized, or took no position on human-caused global warming.

In his study, Powell only looked at papers explicitly rejecting the human cause; he assumed that the rest endorsed the consensus. And, he argued, applying our approach to another settled scientific theory like plate tectonics wouldn’t yield any results, because Powell assumed no scientist would bother to state something so obvious. If our approach weren’t valid for plate tectonics, Powell argued that it wouldn’t be valid for global warming either.

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position. In short, of the papers taking a position, we found 100% consensus on plate tectonics in our sample of the peer-reviewed literature. Our method worked.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-consensus-97-99-plate-tectonics-hoax.html

 

[cynic]

The overwhelming reason 66% of the abstracts didn't expressly support AGW was because this was a given for the authors. Abstracts are short and to the point. Adding redundant information is a no no.

For a practical example of this ask yourself "How many scientists researching Plate Tectonics would explicitly note their support of the theory in the Abstract "

Check out the results.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?
Posted on 4 May 2017 by dana1981

Four years ago, my colleagues and I published a paper finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused global warming. Since then, it’s been the subject of constant myths, misinformation, and denial. In fact, last year we teamed up with the authors of six other consensus papers, showing that with a variety of different approaches, we all found the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is 90–100%.

Most of the critiques of our paper claim the consensus is somehow below 97%. For example, in a recent congressional hearing, Lamar Smith (R-TX) claimed we had gone wrong by only considering “a small sample of a small sample” of climate studies, and when estimated his preferred way, it’s less than 1%. But in a paper published last year, James Powell argued that the expert consensus actually higher – well over 99%.

We thus had three quite different estimates of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming: less than 1%, 97%, or 99.99%. So which is right?

Testing the 97% approach with plate tectonics
Yesterday, the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society published our response to Powell, led by Andy Skuce. To determine who’s right, we turned our sights on the theory of plate tectonics.

In his critique of our study, Powell argued that on scientific theories as settled as human-caused global warming or plate tectonics, scientists don’t bother to state the obvious. In our 97% paper, we examined how many studies endorsed, rejected or minimized, or took no position on human-caused global warming.

In his study, Powell only looked at papers explicitly rejecting the human cause; he assumed that the rest endorsed the consensus. And, he argued, applying our approach to another settled scientific theory like plate tectonics wouldn’t yield any results, because Powell assumed no scientist would bother to state something so obvious. If our approach weren’t valid for plate tectonics, Powell argued that it wouldn’t be valid for global warming either.

So we tested our approach by looking at 331 papers from the journals Geology and the Journal of the Geological Society, checking whether they endorsed, rejected, or took no position on the theory of plate tectonics. Using our method, we found 29% of the papers’ abstracts included language that implicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, while the rest took no position. In short, of the papers taking a position, we found 100% consensus on plate tectonics in our sample of the peer-reviewed literature. Our method worked.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-consensus-97-99-plate-tectonics-hoax.html

Still totally overlooking the key point!

The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!

The obvious shortcomings of Cook's approach are no excuse for presenting a dodgy result.

The research findings in Cook's paper cannot logically support his claim to the existence of the purported 97% consensus for the simple reason that 60+% of the authors/papers were excluded from the final calculation!

This convenient claim to the effect that "everybody believes, so therefore it's okay to presume roughly 60% were probably largely agreeable" is utter nonsense which has no place in the true practice of science.

 

[luutzu]

I made no implications about the >60% no position, other than it was incorrect to discount them in the final calculation.

It might not even be possible to know whether an absence, or presence, of endorsement by those authors exists, without further clarification from the authors themselves.

Of the 1200 authors who replied to a self assessment invitation, the level of AGW endorsement was higher, but still fell a long way short of the 97%.

Again I reiterate only 34.8% author endorsement, was discovered, based upon the abstracts.

The findings cannot support Cook's claim to the existence of a 97.1% scientific consensus for the simple reason that he doesn't have a sound basis for claiming to know what the AGW position of the 60+% of papers and authors (excluded from his tally) would have been.

Even if he had treated the 1200 self assessment responses as a crosssection for statistical purposes, the results would still fall 30+% short of the mark.

Cook was clearly either being incompetent or dishonest in his conduct when producing that paper.

Should read their Discussion. But let me sum it up for you regarding the 66%...

Each scientific research paper aims to advance or, in rare cases, replicate a controversial study to either confirm or disprove its findings. But overwhelmingly, research are conducted to move human understanding a bit forward.

In other words, scientists tend not to go out there to see if the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System, whether or not the Earth is flat, or if there is such thing as Climate Change and if it is caused by human activity. i.e. It's old news, established facts... let's move on and further human understanding on other aspects of Climate Science.

And btw, Cook et. al.'s paper isn't the only one. There are at least 6 others.. and they all find very similar results.

 

[luutzu]

Still totally overlooking the key point!

The same creative argument could be put forward about whether or not water is wet!!

The obvious shortcomings of Cook's approach are no excuse for presenting a dodgy result.

The research findings in Cook's paper cannot logically support his claim to the existence of the purported 97% consensus for the simple reason that 60+% of the authors/papers were excluded from the final calculation!

This convenient claim to the effect that "everybody believes, so therefore it's okay to presume roughly 60% were probably largely agreeable" is utter nonsense which has no place in the true practice of science.

Put another way...

Say Cook does a keyword search of scientific papers containing the word "Sun" or "Solar System". He's interested in answering whether or not the Sun is hot or cold.

Of all the papers whose abstract matches his keywords, 99% of them does not take a position on whether the Sun is hot or cold, does not give indication of whether or not it's hot or cold. That is, the authors discusses other aspects of the Sun and Solar System.

Only 1% of paper discuss the Sun's temperature or conclude as to whether or not it's hot or cold. And of that 1%, all agrees that the Sun is hot.

Following your logic, 99% of scientific studies on the Sun or solar system couldn't agree on whether or not the Sun is hot or cold. So we just don't know.

 

[cynic]

Put another way...

Say Cook does a keyword search of scientific papers containing the word "Sun" or "Solar System". He's interested in answering whether or not the Sun is hot or cold.

Of all the papers whose abstract matches his keywords, 99% of them does not take a position on whether the Sun is hot or cold, does not give indication of whether or not it's hot or cold. That is, the authors discusses other aspects of the Sun and Solar System.

Only 1% of paper discuss the Sun's temperature or conclude as to whether or not it's hot or cold. And of that 1%, all agrees that the Sun is hot.

Following your logic, 99% of scientific studies on the Sun or solar system couldn't agree on whether or not the Sun is hot or cold. So we just don't know.

Still missing the point!

What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof).

He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!

 

[luutzu]

Still missing the point!

What you are highlighting is the fundamental and logical flaw in Cook's approach to discovery/confirmation of consensus (or lack thereof).

He assumed that a consensus existed and then used that assumption to justify his exclusion of 60+% of the collated data from consideration, thereby biasing the results in favour of his opinions, and defeating the entire point of the exercise!!

Should he also include all papers on "Science" and "Change" too?

Did those 66% of papers deny or disagree with CC and its causes? No. They just did not discuss the issue at hand. So why should they be counted?

I mean, not all papers on CC aim to discuss its causes. Just as not all papers on the Sun and Solar System does not aim to discuss its temperature.

Anyway, have you had a chance to check out my Sydney Harbour Bridge yet?

 

[cynic]

Should he also include all papers on "Science" and "Change" too?

Did those 66% of papers deny or disagree with CC and its causes? No. They just did not discuss the issue at hand. So why should they be counted?

I mean, not all papers on CC aim to discuss its causes. Just as not all papers on the Sun and Solar System does not aim to discuss its temperature.

Anyway, have you had a chance to check out my Sydney Harbour Bridge yet?

This is getting lamer and lamer.

His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.

One of those reasons is the assessment criteria don't require subscription to the catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in AGW endorsement.

A further reason is that the search criteria were limited to the point that only 11,944 (of 12,465 papers originally selected) were entered into consideration. By Cook's own admission "11,944 papers is only a fraction of climate literature".

The method was demonstrably subjective in relation to the assessment of the abstracts. 33% of the endorsement ratings failed to achieve consistency, prior to allowing communication between those "independent" assessors with 16%, endorsement rating disagreement remaining thereafter.

The 14% response to self assessment, produced vastly different results, further demonstrating the shortcomings of the abstract assessment methodology.

And to top it all off, Cook then decides that it's okay to ignore the 60+% no position papers, because he likes to somehow believe that most of them would endorse AGW!!!

Now one can construct as many inapt analogies as one likes, around widely agreed scientific viewpoints on tectonic plates and solar temperature, but they are irrelevant to catastrophic climate change, etc. for the simple reason that widespread uncertainty and disagreement is evidenced by the heated disputes that continue to emerge from many members of the scientific community.

 

[luutzu]

This is getting lamer and lamer.

His paper is unable to demonstrate the widespread claims to the existence of near absolute scientific consensus of catastrophic AGW for several reasons.

One of those reasons is the assessment criteria don't require subscription to the catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in AGW endorsement.

A further reason is that the search criteria were limited to the point that only 11,944 (of 12,465 papers originally selected) were entered into consideration. By Cook's own admission "11,944 papers is only a fraction of climate literature".

The method was demonstrably subjective in relation to the assessment of the abstracts. 33% of the endorsement ratings failed to achieve consistency, prior to allowing communication between those "independent" assessors with 16%, endorsement rating disagreement remaining thereafter.

The 14% response to self assessment, produced vastly different results, further demonstrating the shortcomings of the abstract assessment methodology.

And to top it all off, Cook then decides that it's okay to ignore the 60+% no position papers, because he likes to somehow believe that most of them would endorse AGW!!!

Now one can construct as many inapt analogies as one likes, around widely agreed scientific viewpoints on tectonic plates and solar temperature, but they are irrelevant to catastrophic climate change, etc. for the simple reason that widespread uncertainty and disagreement is evidenced by the heated disputes that continue to emerge from many members of the scientific community.

 

[noco]

The Global Warming debate is over.......It has been proven to be a scam, a farce and full of lies set up by the UN....The models presented are contrary to the actual happenings.

End of story.

Time to close the thread.

 

[wayneL]

Actually I agree with the 97% consensus.

97% of scientists agree that the best way to get funding is to be pro AGW. There is no money in scepticism