AGW denial is anti-science

[Gadgetmac]

Let me explain it to you again stew as you appear to be a little hard of thinking.

How does the number of approved papers definitely reduce if I remove (say) just the geologists papers from this:



You don't know the percentage of papers written by geologists that agree or disagree with AGW.

Please demonstrate your assertion.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

Let me explain it to you again stew as you appear to be a little hard of thinking.

How does the number of approved papers definitely reduce if I remove (say) just the geologists papers from this:



You don't know the percentage of papers written by geologists that agree or disagree with AGW.

Please demonstrate your assertion.

For the hard of thinking or reading, I said the 97% fails, and the number of papers that support it when you remove the 'unqualified' ones. I didn't say the 97% falls to a lower percentage.

I don't know the percentage of papers written by geologists, but agree or not, by your own criteria, they are not fit to comment.

[Gadgetmac]

So it's STILL 97% of published papers that support AGW then.

My "beloved" percentage holds, we agree!

Here's another survey which shows it was 97% and rising and took account of 4,000 published papers and was confirmed by the authors of the papers themselves.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...

Instead of my 97% what percentage do you think it is and why?

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

So it's STILL 97% of published papers that support AGW then.

My "beloved" percentage holds, we agree!

Here's another survey which shows it was 97% and rising and took account of 4,000 published papers and was confirmed by the authors of the papers themselves.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...

Instead of my 97% what percentage do you think it is and why?

Can you please explain how the original 97% came to be?
And why you ignored the other points I made.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

So it's STILL 97% of published papers that support AGW then.

My "beloved" percentage holds, we agree!

Here's another survey which shows it was 97% and rising and took account of 4,000 published papers and was confirmed by the authors of the papers themselves.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...

Instead of my 97% what percentage do you think it is and why?

Can you please explain how the original 97% came to be?
And why you ignored the other points I made.

The Oreskes survey I believe. Since expanded upon by others.

And your percentage is? And your backup for that is?

[Gadgetmac]

Here's some more surveys and their findings:



(and yes I cut and pasted it for speed)

[RobM77]

Jinx said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, another classic. This one we saw with Brexit a few times: you've scoured an enormous report for tiny mistakes or criticisms and assumed that invalidates the entire message. You're also trying to swallow and appraise a lot of highly technical data and commentary and assuming you're better qualified for the job than someone who's spent their lifetime studying it.You're a business development manager, not a climate scientist.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 10:19

none so blind indeed. I am not sure what an old job title has to do with anything and next up you'll probably be after my qualifications (Maths, Physics and Chemistry A-levels and Mathematics and Philosophy degree but obviously nothing relevant to climate science (tm)). If time spent doing something makes one an expert then my 20 years in Data should count for something no?
But you are right I am not a climate scientist and pretty damn glad I'm not; as having to swallow the cagw line just to keep my job would be a burden I would struggle to bear.

You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.

When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20

[Gadgetmac]

Come on stew, what's your percentage and why?

Here's a little more from NASA's site:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[RobM77]

Gadgetmac said:

Come on stew, what's your percentage and why?

Here's a little more from NASA's site:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The other thing that's similar to creationism is that they string "what ifs" together and somehow expect them all to be true in the precise direction that supports their existing bias. Climate change deniers will always assume that any mistakes in climate models all, by coincidence, make the anthropogenic effects less. The vested interest is of course a passion for cars, just as religion is for creationists.

The other common thread is selective hindsight. Just because you can point to individual predictions of past climate science that have been slightly inaccurate doesn't make them all inaccurate, or make the average Joe better at prediction than an expert.

As it happens, all these models will come out with a prediction not as a unitary thing, but as a spectrum with a distribution of probabilities.

One other effect I've noticed is the confusion of politics with science. Just as people confuse Apple or BMW's crass marketing with the companies' engineering focus, people confuse political policy with climate science. Just because someone accepts AGW, doesn't mean they accept or condone the political policies that come out of it all. Someone actually said to me the other day on General Gassing that marketing told him everything about a car, and he ignored a car's actual engineering merits - that's not an exaggeration, that's exactly what he said.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

So it's STILL 97% of published papers that support AGW then.

My "beloved" percentage holds, we agree!

Here's another survey which shows it was 97% and rising and took account of 4,000 published papers and was confirmed by the authors of the papers themselves.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/e...

Instead of my 97% what percentage do you think it is and why?

Can you please explain how the original 97% came to be?
And why you ignored the other points I made.

The Oreskes survey I believe. Since expanded upon by others.

And your percentage is? And your backup for that is?

Ok, and the Oreskes report was blown apart many times. The original 928 papers in the search were whittled down to around half of that as the they expressed no view of 'humans did it'. The rest were whittled down again, and the remaining, I think leaving around 250 or so? And of those...97%.



So can we go back to the other topic at hand- why is it only ok for people with 'climate science' qualifications can argue against CAGW?

[RobM77]

stew-STR160 said:

So can we go back to the other topic at hand- why is it only ok for people with 'climate science' qualifications can argue against CAGW?

For the same reason cancer diagnosis is best done by doctors, or air-crash investigation is best done by teams of pilots and aeronautical engineers! Do you think plumbers and accountants would do better?

To give you an example, I'm an Astrophysicist/physicist by training and have worked with mathematical modelling and data science since. This qualifies me to comment on Apollo conspiracy theories and I can tell you: the vast majority are just simple misunderstandings of the physics and engineering involved. Years ago PH had a huge thread running where lots of posters argued that we didn't go to the moon, and they were all doing so purely from a position of ignorance. The "Climate Change: the debate" thread on this sub-forum is exactly the same thing for climate science.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:41

[stew-STR160]

RobM77 said:

stew-STR160 said:

So can we go back to the other topic at hand- why is it only ok for people with 'climate science' qualifications can argue against CAGW?

For the same reason cancer diagnosis is best done by doctors, or air-crash investigation is best done by teams of pilots and aeronautical engineers! Do you think plumbers and accountants would do better?

Ok, I'll play- climate science, as a course/degree/qualification, is a relatively new thing, as in the last couple of years. Prior to that, it involved many fields, inc geology etc.

So now, 'climate science' is held above all else by the faith. Anyone who argues against it and doesn't have a 'climate science' qualification is to be ignored, even if they are more aware of what's going on and have been involved in the business for decades.

The point still stands- it seems as if one can only argue against CAGW if they have a 'climate science' qualification. Yet anyone can support it.

[stew-STR160]

RobM77 said:

To give you an example, I'm an Astrophysicist/physicist by training and have worked with mathematical modelling and data science since. This qualifies me to comment on Apollo conspiracy theories and I can tell you: the vast majority are just simple misunderstandings of the physics and engineering involved. Years ago PH had a huge thread running where lots of posters argued that we didn't go to the moon, and they were all doing so purely from a position of ignorance. The "Climate Change: the debate" thread on this sub-forum is exactly the same thing for climate science.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:41

The post was edited when I was replying-

Great stuff. So surely as someone with your knowledge and experience, you should have the deductive ability and reasoning to see the malpractice by some within the AGW camp.

As per the other posts, it would be that you can't argue against CAGW as you're not qualified to, but you can agree with it. How does that even make any sense?



The moon landings happened. Earth is an oblate spheroid. Elvis is dead.

My own ETA- climate change is real(always has been). Humanity is having an effect on the planet(like every other life form). I do not agree with the alarmist scare stories.

Edited by stew-STR160 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:52

[Gadgetmac]

So stew, 3rd time of asking, what's your perceived percentage of scientists/published papers that agree with AGW and how do you arrive at it?

I've given you mine, it's because the surveys are showing this to be true.

Over to you.

[kerplunk]

cymtriks said:

In response to the OP:

Reading the comments of the AGW believers on various threads it is striking to me how similar the way they argue is to those opposing evolution. I found it impossible to engage with theists (strangely I never found an evolution denier who wasn’t religious, just like it seems I never find a left wing AGW denier) because they would never directly address weaknesses in their own arguments. Their modus operandi was to try to find some inconsistency in the theory of evolution and claim that proved the whole theory was wrong, without ever recognising the massive problems with their own belief system, which dwarfed any problems with evolution.

The same applies to AGW believers. Taking as one example, natural variation. They assume through out that CO2 can affect global warming (some serious climatologists dispute that), but it is not enough to raise that as a possibility. They would need to show that their theory accounts for the increase in temperature over the past century better than alternative theories linking it mainly to increase in sunspot activity. However, and crucially, given that sunspot activity has increased and is known to be a climate driver they would also need to prove why the dramatic increase in sunspot activity has not led to an increase in global temperatures.

What is most frustrating about believers is that they dispute and ignore any evidence of Natural GW but uncritically accept anything that suggests the opposite. I would take them more seriously if they were as skeptical of studies that didn’t support their beliefs.

You seem to be unaware that solar activity has been in decline since at least the nineties. We had an extra long/low solar minimum in 2009 followed by a weak maximum - record warm years have followed, no sign of cooling.

Your general gist would have more credibilty if you also acknowledged that natural factors could be *masking* the true extent of AGW but when did you ever hear an AGW 'sceptic' acknowledge that uncertainty runs in two directions? You follow the familiar pattern of thinking that uncertainty over natural factors is your special friend, when in reality that uncertainty serves nobody well/ can be called on by either 'side'.

[Jinx]

RobM77 said:

You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.

When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20

I think you're funny. But humour is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need to be an expert to point out flaws in climate science where those flaws fall into specialisations (e.g. mathematics and data collection) other than climate science (check out https://climateaudit.org/ for an example of this maxim). To sugggest that the hallowed halls of Climate science (tm) even approach the rigor of Astrophysics is to have little understanding of the nascent state of climate science as a discipline.
So climate science is so complicated only a climate scientist can understand it? That is not how science works - as Einstein may have said:

possibly Einstein said:

If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.

I have been reading much around climate science since 2001 - 18 years of listening to "their reasoining" and checking their logic - hence my "god of gaps" assessment earlier. One thing stands out still - without amplification from water vapour there is no catastrophic global warming (that is the science). As yet there is no evidence of any amplification.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

So stew, 3rd time of asking, what's your perceived percentage of scientists/published papers that agree with AGW and how do you arrive at it?

I've given you mine, it's because the surveys are showing this to be true.

Over to you.

Between 0 and 100%. I came to this figure by consulting the back of my eyelids. You're welcome.


Meanwhile, when pointed out to you how the Oreskes report 97% came to be, you chose to ignore it. Maybe because it wasn't 100% of the original 928? Who knows.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

So stew, 3rd time of asking, what's your perceived percentage of scientists/published papers that agree with AGW and how do you arrive at it?

I've given you mine, it's because the surveys are showing this to be true.

Over to you.

Between 0 and 100%. I came to this figure by consulting the back of my eyelids. You're welcome.


Meanwhile, when pointed out to you how the Oreskes report 97% came to be, you chose to ignore it. Maybe because it wasn't 100% of the original 928? Who knows.

So you have no idea what percentage it is and you don't agree with all of the surveys carried out you just "know" they are all wrong.

That about sums up all of your arguments, ever.

97% and rising Stew. And I have some evidence behind me.

[Jinx]

Gadgetmac said:

So you have no idea what percentage it is and you don't agree with all of the surveys carried out you just "know" they are all wrong.

That about sums up all of your arguments, ever.

97% and rising Stew. And I have some evidence behind me.

Surveys <> evidence. Surveys = sample that may or may not support a position. What was the sample size compared with the population?

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

So stew, 3rd time of asking, what's your perceived percentage of scientists/published papers that agree with AGW and how do you arrive at it?

I've given you mine, it's because the surveys are showing this to be true.

Over to you.

Between 0 and 100%. I came to this figure by consulting the back of my eyelids. You're welcome.


Meanwhile, when pointed out to you how the Oreskes report 97% came to be, you chose to ignore it. Maybe because it wasn't 100% of the original 928? Who knows.

So you have no idea what percentage it is and you don't agree with all of the surveys carried out you just "know" they are all wrong.

That about sums up all of your arguments, ever.

97% and rising Stew. And I have some evidence behind me.

Let's repeat the cycle shall we- the recent article/paper with 11,000 'scientists' who signed it as in agreement with a climate emergency...Mickey Mouse, hundreds of students, lawyers, etc etc. I believe the paper, or publicly available original list of names was withdrawn after it came to light just how rubbish it was.

So, that about sums up the argument. Anyone can agree with it, but only suitably qualified people can argue against it.

I didn't say 'they are all wrong'. I'm merely trying to point out to you, as have many others before, that it's not as clear cut consensus as you think it is.