97% consensus fake news

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:36 am

Is the 97% climate consensus Fake News?

Meteorologists examine causes of weather change every day. Climate is the long-term change in weather. If a scientist does not understand how weather changes, he wont understand how climate changes. Meteorologists are the scientists most likely to understand if unusual weather extremes are weather or climate change. Thus they have been polled every year about climate change.

However most don’t respond. Basically three fourths of weather scientists choose NOT to get entangled in a political, non-scientific debate. In 2015 the response rate was 22%, just 32% in 2016 and in 2017 just 22%. And as true for most skeptics, most agreed climate change is happening. However the question is: What is the cause of that change?

Of 2017’s respondents, only 15% thought climate change was entirely due to humans, while 34% thought 60 to 80% could be attributed to human activity. However the survey did not separate human contributions to climate change from urbanization, deforestation, loss of wetlands or CO2 .
One fifth, or 21% thought changes were mostly or entirely natural while 8% admitted they just didn’t know.
So for ALL meteorologists surveyed only 11% actually claimed humans were mostly responsible for observed climate change: 22%(response) X 49% (attribution).

Image

The survey was done by advocates of CO2 warming at ClimateCentral https://goo.gl/zCTGea
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23844
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:35 pm

Still the dumbass, I see.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by xouper » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:17 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Still the dumbass, I see.
Still posting retorts devoid of any useful substance, I see.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:37 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Still the dumbass, I see.
Such a brilliant retort Gawd. You really have amassed an impressive skill set: Cut and paste and insults. Such a clever lad.

Do you disagree with the math?

Only 11% of those surveyed reported believing more than 50% of climate change is due to people. These results are very similar to other surveys of meteorologists.

Please show me some different math if you disagree.

I am sympathetic, It must be very unsettling to find that your consensus-safety-blanket does not exist, and now alas you must think for yourself.

You should see these results as a liberating present. Merry Christmas!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:11 am

This recent survey mirrors an earlier 2012 American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey. Of it 7,000 members only 1,862 responded (26%) Of those, only 52 % said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 % either think it happened but natural causes explaining at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Thus of the AMS' membership only 14% actually said they believe climate change is mostly human driven.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 13-00091.1
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:47 am

History Repeats Itself

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylo ... 6df999485d
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:02 pm

FTL: "The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming." //// Love to see the studies/theory/measurements supporting some but not all. Everything I've read, including I think even from Jimbo, is that without AGW....we would be in a cooling phase. And btw: humans are responsible for 100% of AGW.

How much closer to the sun have we gotten?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:15 am

All the media hype about wildfires being caused by rising CO2 is another example of Fake News used for climate fear mongering.

I discussed this in an interview for the Infectious Myth podcast.

Enjoy Y'all!

http://infectiousmyth.podbean.com/e/the ... es-010218/
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:40 pm

Poor Jimbo....caught up in either/or thinking. Its either all natural, or all agw. Just saw a report on the IPCC starting to estimate what percentage of some event, like the wildfires, is aggravated or intensified or more likely or for a longer period of time by AGW.

Logically........if the world is warming up.......ha, ha. Logically.......as the world is warming up........there are going to be areas that get wetter, and areas that get drier. What would logically happen in areas that are getting drier? If the trees and scrub can even continue to grow and not turn into a desert........how could wildfires not become more frequent and worse?

There's magical thinking, then not thinking at all. Then there is Jimbo. More than a bias.....a conscious intent.

Bad Jimbo.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:31 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:There's magical thinking, then not thinking at all. Then there is Jimbo. More than a bias.....a conscious intent.

Bad Jimbo.
ROTFLMAO. Boobo you are like a Geiger counter. As your lack of knowledge and science is increasing exposed, the more you engage in stupid ad Homs and psychobabble. ROTFLMAO

Regards fake consensus, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:15 pm

The process of literature review is always debatable and subject to error, bias, and push.

Only idiots argue "for" the consensus.

................................................................................... or against it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:34 pm

Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?

(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte

Abstract: Fear of anthropogenic "global warming" can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:13 pm

2008?

Hah, hah.

................................................. Going to google hit number 1048 to find a negative reference.

As always: NO LINK.

How many papers discussing earth quake hazards regurgitate basic knowledge about plate tectonics? Thats right Bad Jimbo.....scientific papers rarely discuss the basics, rather, they are assumed as their target audience is not the Science Denying wingbat minority.

Where is your list of record warms?????????????????

Silly Hooman. Cherry Picking all the way................
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23844
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:14 pm

Jimmy getting desperate?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:59 am

Peer-reviewed refutation

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis

Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)
Richard S. J. Tol

Abstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook's validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

97% consensus: citations

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:15 pm

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

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
1. 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.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
The NASA page has links to the various papers they cited.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:36 pm

Pyrrho, Have you read any of those papers you listed?

Start with Oreskes. She is not a climate scientist.She's a historian.

She searched a science data base using the key words ‘‘global climate change’’ and argued for a consensus because none of the abstracts she reviewed refuted global warming. But that is meaningless. No reasonable skeptic refutes the climate is changing. The question is what are the causes? There are hundreds of papers examining regional climate change that conclude they can not distinguish between natural change and anthropogenic change. Their abstracts would never argue for or agains global CO2 impacts because their studies never analyzed those mechanisms. Oreskes survey would never detect that uncertainty.

Of the 928 abstracts from her search she found, "Roughly 15 percent of the papers dealt with methods, and slightly less than 10 percent dealt with paleoclimate change." None of those papers explicitly confirm CO2 as the agent of change.
Only " 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position" that climate change is anthropogenic
while "an additional 5 percent proposed mitigation strategies." I have colleagues that teach mitigation strategies and they confess they are just accepting the global warming opinions and could not refute or confirm the claims.

Anyone who critically analyzes the surveys you listed would realize claims of 97% are indeed fake news!

I am curious Pyrrho you too seem to accept the "consensus" beliefs. Is that too a blind belief? If not what evidence do you find that unequivocally shows recent climate change is driven by CO2 and not natural variability?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:11 pm

Jim Steele wrote:Pyrrho, Have you read any of those papers you listed?
That would be a yes.
Start with Oreskes. She is not a climate scientist.She's a historian.
Not relevant. Her methodology is valid.
She searched a science data base using the key words ‘‘global climate change’’ and argued for a consensus because none of the abstracts she reviewed refuted global warming. But that is meaningless. No reasonable skeptic refutes the climate is changing. The question is what are the causes? There are hundreds of papers examining regional climate change that conclude they can not distinguish between natural change and anthropogenic change. Their abstracts would never argue for or agains global CO2 impacts because their studies never analyzed those mechanisms. Oreskes survey would never detect that uncertainty.

Of the 928 abstracts from her search she found, "Roughly 15 percent of the papers dealt with methods, and slightly less than 10 percent dealt with paleoclimate change." None of those papers explicitly confirm CO2 as the agent of change.
Only " 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position" that climate change is anthropogenic
while "an additional 5 percent proposed mitigation strategies." I have colleagues that teach mitigation strategies and they confess they are just accepting the global warming opinions and could not refute or confirm the claims.

Anyone who critically analyzes the surveys you listed would realize claims of 97% are indeed fake news!

I am curious Pyrrho you too seem to accept the "consensus" beliefs. Is that too a blind belief? If not what evidence do you find that unequivocally shows recent climate change is driven by CO2 and not natural variability?
I'll get back to you on that. It's the weekend. Also please do not use pejoratives on me. That would not end well.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:26 pm

Can one have a "blind belief" in a matter of science that is supported by 97.1 or 97.2 % of the experts in the field? Seems to me, that is the opposite of blind. The consensus of the opinion may prove later to be wrong (almost never the case, most well established "theories" are subsumed by a better one...eg Newton is not wrong so much as subsumed by Einstein who could be subsumed again).

What cracks me up on the vision thing is that right or wrong, the IPCC reports are well considered, based on sound theoretical, predictive, and tested facts, experiments, and predictions whereas the counter position without fail has no specific detailed supporting theory for its position, they make no predictions, and their counterpoints are all cherrypicked limited data fields.

Blind/Alarmist/Trolling: just inaccurate shibboleths against those who disagree.

Example repeated many times above: lots of record breaking cold weather events in the USA. But the variations in the Polar Jet Stream that is causing these cold events is also "causing" (or is a concomitant cause) many other areas to have record warm temperatures. Good news Item this morning on....forget the show....that the very pressure wave bringing the cold to the North East and Midwest is shoving the air out to the West and East causing these areas to be generally warmer than usual. Same show said most likely the variation in the jet stream is caused by reduced sea ice coverage at the pole allowing for warming that is causing the disruption: aka: very much AGW. As this sea ice continues to retreat, there is no reason not to expect more polar vortex/bombs in our future.

Same show I think said one of my favorites: "The Stone Age didn't end because of a lack of stones." but....no one had a vested interest in stones at that time. Sadly, today....too many AlreadyTooRich people do have a vested interest in keeping the world on Fossil Fuels. A real case of the few driving the many. Still surprising to me how easily people can be misled.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:46 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Her methodology is valid.
Given my criticism of her methodology (below) you need to supply a bit more analyses to refute those valid criticisms and back your claim her methodology is valid, unless we agree that only 20% have confirmed the global warming meme. That 20% refers to papers, including multiple papers that are written by a smaller percentage of researchers.
Jim Steele wrote:She searched a science data base using the key words ‘‘global climate change’’ and argued for a consensus because none of the abstracts she reviewed refuted global warming. But that is meaningless. No reasonable skeptic refutes the climate is changing. The question is what are the causes? There are hundreds of papers examining regional climate change that conclude they can not distinguish between natural change and anthropogenic change. Their abstracts would never argue for or agains global CO2 impacts because their studies never analyzed those mechanisms. Oreskes survey would never detect that uncertainty.

Of the 928 abstracts from her search she found, "Roughly 15 percent of the papers dealt with methods, and slightly less than 10 percent dealt with paleoclimate change." None of those papers explicitly confirm CO2 as the agent of change.
Only " 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position" that climate change is anthropogenic
while "an additional 5 percent proposed mitigation strategies." I have colleagues that teach mitigation strategies and they confess they are just accepting the global warming opinions and could not refute or confirm the claims.

Anyone who critically analyzes the surveys you listed would realize claims of 97% are indeed fake news!

Jim Steele wrote:I am curious Pyrrho you too seem to accept the "consensus" beliefs. Is that too a blind belief? If not what evidence do you find that unequivocally shows recent climate change is driven by CO2 and not natural variability?
Pyrrho wrote:.. Also please do not use pejoratives on me. That would not end well.
I am not sure what pejorative you refer to? If it is my use of the phrase blind belief, I do not consider that a pejorative because I know many pHd's who admittedly accept the global warming meme without ever engaging in critical analysis themselves. I have no idea whether or not you fall into that camp, so I was asking for your evidence. Your reply then dictates how we continue the discussion.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9950
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:49 pm

You know what? I refuse to participate in your mean-spirited discussion. I do not accept your attitude.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:55 pm

Pyrrho: its your decision, but I was looking forward to what you might post.

Contra: the only thing we spend on earth is time and money. Choose wisely.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:14 pm

Pyrrho wrote:You know what? I refuse to participate in your mean-spirited discussion. I do not accept your attitude.
Whooa.

Suit yourself, but there is nothing "mean spirited" intended. It has been my simple observation that many pHds hold climate change beliefs that are simply a matter of faith, not critical analyses.

I suppose if I criticize someone whose arguments you trust, you may think I am being "mean spirited" , but when I point out Oreskes flawed methodology, it is how science progresses whenever supported by evidence.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23844
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:16 pm

Pyrrho wrote:You know what? I refuse to participate in your mean-spirited discussion. I do not accept your attitude.
Hey, it's all he's got.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:25 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:You know what? I refuse to participate in your mean-spirited discussion. I do not accept your attitude.
Hey, it's all he's got.
Now here's another Gadwzilla example of what a mean-spirited discussion and bad attitude is.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:36 pm

Jimbo: I take you at your word. You haven't been socialized enough to know that calling someone "blind" is mean spirited.

.................Its why I call you worse.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:57 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jimbo: I take you at your word. You haven't been socialized enough to know that calling someone "blind" is mean spirited.

.................Its why I call you worse.
Indeed Boobo's comments have been far more pejorative, mean-spirited and slanderous. When I complained to the moderator about slanderous comments, Pyrrho replied my complaint was simply an attempt to shut down someone that disagrees with me. Go figure.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:19 pm

Its not hard to figure at all Jimbo. You need to pay attention to whom your audience is. Trading insults with fellow like minded combatants is definitely not how the general population talks to one another. Pyhrro is just leading by example. Every new post establishes a new conversation. Every new contributor is an innocent and should be regarded as the general population. You have become somewhat damaged by the exchange here. I envy you. You have the opportunity to review your own stimulus and responses, DECIDE who you want to be. How to present it. The essence of being human.

.........and like most humans, believe what you want to believe, and blame everyone other than yourself for what happens.

Its not fair. Yep, thats the whole point.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You haven't been socialized enough to know that calling someone "blind" is mean spirited.
I would argue that you are not self aware enough to recognize we are all blinded by our beliefs.

As Robert Oxton Bolt said " A belief is not something the mind possesses, it is something that possesses the mimd"

As the dictionary would state, "a blind emotion or belief is so strong that you do not question it in any way, even if it is unreasonable"
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ ... an/blind_1

I suspect we had all struggled with the difficulty of telling a friend a harsh truth to which they seemed blind. My best friends were those who did/do not mince their words.

Since we are all blinded by our beliefs, we will only see the greater truth when we engage in rigorous debate, and honest comments that can dissuade us from false or unfounded beliefs. Sadly truth often seems "mean-spirited".

Unfortunately, a belief in consensus makes it more likely we will adhere to a blind belief.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:23 pm

Jim Steele wrote: I would argue that you are not self aware enough to recognize we are all blinded by our beliefs.
Hah!!!!! Thanks for the confirmation. Now........work with it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:17 am

Well since no one else will, then Boobo why don't you step up and share your evidence that shows unequivocally why you believe CO2 is causing the recent changes in climate/weather. Remember consensus is not evidence!

And because there is more heat in the upper 10 feet of the ocean than the entire atmosphere, why ventilating heat from the ocean is not the driver of change?

or Why Oreskes survey tells us nothing more than that only 20% of the papers confirm Co2 warming.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:18 am

Jimbo: I'm not a scientist. I don't experiment or run studies. I don't have any evidence. What I do have is a literature search and reliance on what the consensus of experts have to say on this along with about everything else I believe to be the case.

Course.......when it comes to AGW, my common sense tells me that if you burn fossil fuels for 100 years that "something" is going to change. What I see is photos of glaciers melting all over the globe and sea level rising and the experts saying its because of Fossil Fuel burning. Makes sense to me.

Now....what I can see with my own eyes, and my common sense, is not evidence. I only have experts to rely on. When the experts dispute a fact, I normally hold off on forming an opinion. Not when there is overwhelming consensus that is in accord with common sense.

As stated here........there is evidentiary weight in my mind that when one side of an argument has a supporting theory and presents its facts and data in a holistic honest manner, I tend to believe them over the other side that uniformly has no supporting theory and constantly submits partial and misleading evidence.

I note you don't have any evidence that does not simply restate what you consider to be valid sources from other people. But you just aren't critical enough of what they tell you and what you pass along.

Its that Cherry picking and zig zag analysis and unbalanced data sets you consistently provide. This means: that even if you did turn out to be correct.........your arguments have been faulty on their face and not deserving of acceptance.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:14 pm

Carl Sagan writes, “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Arguments from authority carry little weight.


Here is an example of why "arguments from authority" carry little weight. The American Medical Association is among the list of organizations that form the consensus on climate change. None of their members have researched the causes of climate change, whether it is natural or anthropogenic. Their endorsement is a "spin-off" . They blindly trust the meme that has been pushed, and then speculate about possible health effects.

Far more informative, the editor of the Lancet suggests about half the peer-reviewed papers are likely false. https://goo.gl/fuYjdE

Other have published similar analyses. https://goo.gl/yudbdr , all showing why" authoritative endorsement" carries little weight

In contrast to medical research that is more rigoroulsy tested, global warming claims are far into the future and untestable.

As Einstein says "Never stop questioning" But you Dan persist with anti-science brownshirt tactics to shut down that questioning

We need more debate!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:57 pm

Argument from Carl SaganAuthority: Its called getting an education.

Everything you and I know is from Authority.

I asked you a while back if you accept Darwins Theory of Evolution........or do you flake out on it as well using all the arguments of the above.

There is Authority..................and lack of Authority. Note: you cherry pick by not dealing with the other elements of my rational selection.

Bad Jimbo.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:30 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Everything you and I know is from Authority..

Again you misunderstand the meaning of the fallacy of authority, which is the method you always use.

The fallacy happens when some one argues CO2 global warming catastrophes are true because Dr. X said so, or the consensus says so, or these agencies agree.That's th way you argue and that carries little weight. Unless you discuss the evidence and the methods of analysis.

In contrast read hundreds of papers and examine the evidence they present. I look for internal consistency. Contradictions. Unsupported assertions. Violations of laws of physics and biology. I then synthesize all that to drive at my conclusions regardless of what Dr. X claims. That is critical thinking.

For example I sought an official retraction of a paper with the bogus claim that climate change had killed a population of butterflies.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/American ... truth.html

I showed in 2 essays that the authors claims were contradictory to the butterflies basic biology and the authors had engaged in sins of omission. I revealed Parmesan's authority carried little weight.

I have made many analyses such is that, often challenging the authority of the authors based on evidence, while pointing to the evidence of presented by others.

But Boobo attack those analyses, based his his belief we are all gonna die from rising CO2, and uses the authority fallacy to argue that my analyses is wrong because the authors concluded otherwise. Again he uses only the fallacy of authority and fails to analyze the evidence reported to determine if their claims are valid or not.

Then Boobo fabricates more dishonest narratives such as "But you just aren't critical enough of what they tell you and what you pass along". But Boobo's dishonest narrative have been pointed out countless times.

So again Boob, what is the unequivocal evidence you have gleaned from the experts that our recent climate changes are due to rising CO2.

And to support your dishonest narrative aimed at character assassination, take any one of the essays I have posted demonstrate your bogus claim that I "wasn't critical enough".
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:32 pm

Bad Jimbo.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Bad Jimbo.
Another classic mean-spirited, science-lacking Boobo dodge!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I asked you a while back if you accept Darwins Theory of Evolution........or do you flake out on it as well using all the arguments of the above..
More Boobo misdirection with off topic comments

I taught evolution at both High School and College levels. I understand all the dynamics of evolution far better than you. I've discussed evolution of coral in essays posted here. http://landscapesandcycles.net/coral-bl ... ebate.html

But boobo "flakes" on all that trying to create more false narratives. Disgusting.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19316
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:07 pm

What evidence do you have of evolution other than that provided by Authority?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: USA

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:20 pm

The authorities you use are usually ideological driven and use faulty science. At this point it's been shown that you're in denial of where evidence points to despite many threads worth of discussion.