Science Not Settled

[swansont]

You need to carefully read all the studies and weasel words people use surrounding these studies.

 

Though the 97.4% agree mankind influences global warming, that number is not accurate to use when saying human activity is the cause of warning.

 

Is it proper to include anyone as expressing mankind has a "significant" impact on the climate as implying mankind is "the primary" reason? How many scientifically mined people are here? Think about the scientific definition of “significant.”

 

Isn't that a bit disingenuous, and shouldn't we be careful about the integrity of such authors?

 

Since the context is differentiating between those who claim that humans have had no effect and those who do, I would say no, not at all.

[Wild Cobra]

You seem to be playing word games, but that doesn't change the fact that human activity is currently the primary driver of climate change. Continuing to deny this well established fact only makes you look blind and/or foolish, and that's true regardless of how good of an engineer you might be in other arenas.

 

I understand that what you say is the consensus. I do not blindly follow consensus. That type of faith becomes like a religion. Don’t get me started on that one!

 

I am not the one playing word games. The alarmists are. They use weasel words to imply exaggerated results. What you call word games is me pointing out theirs!

 

Nice of you to use a decade old graph…

 

Even the IPCC and other groups acknowledge those values have changes. Please keep up.

 

I am not denying anything. I am acknowledging the facts. The facts are scientists do not know with 100% certainty. I have not quantified the levels in the same manner. I have only stated things like CO2 cannot be more than 0.55 degrees for a doubling, and solar is at least half the warming we have seen.

 

You say I look blind and/or foolish? You should look in a mirror. You have not addressed my explanations. Instead you apply insults. Talk about bad form…

 

Did you even read the paper I linked? If anyone is a denier, it is those of you dismissing a well written paper. To do so, you deny real science.

Please do yourself a favor. Stop looking blind and/or foolish by understanding what is said, instead of parroting consensus.

 

You know, at one time, most people believed the world was flat. People like you, trusting the so-called consensus. How did that turn out?

[iNow]

You know, at one time, most people believed the world was flat. People like you, trusting the so-called consensus. How did that turn out?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_modern_myth

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_modern_myth

I say "at one time" and you cherry pick an era. Please stop wasting my time.

 

Are you implying there never was consensus the earth was flat?

[iNow]

I'm saying human activity is the current primary driver of our rapidly changing climate.

[swansont]

I have only stated things like CO2 cannot be more than 0.55 degrees for a doubling, and solar is at least half the warming we have seen.

 

True. Thus far, you have only stated that. Not much in the way of science.

I say "at one time" and you cherry pick an era. Please stop wasting my time.

 

Are you implying there never was consensus the earth was flat?

Was that a scientific consensus? No? Please stop wasting my time.

[iNow]

Nice of you to use a decade old graph…

It's not 10 years old, though.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

[Arete]

I am not the one playing word games. The alarmists are. They use weasel words to imply exaggerated results. What you call word games is me pointing out theirs!

 

So, just so we're straight, you're not contradicting the veracity of those studies, but taking issue with the fact that you personally consider humans having "a significant impact" on the climate being distinct from humans "causing" climate change?

 

Cause that would seem like a bit of a strawman argument to nitpick, if you ask me.

[Wild Cobra]

 

So, just so we're straight, you're not contradicting the veracity of those studies, but taking issue with the fact that you personally consider humans having "a significant impact" on the climate being distinct from humans "causing" climate change?

 

Cause that would seem like a bit of a strawman argument to nitpick, if you ask me.

I am at odds with using the word "significant" and inflating the meaning of it to "most." I am not questioning the results of the polls and numbers, but the methodology and intellectual lie of how they are being portrayed.

 

There is a NASA link I'm sure you all have seen that states something like 97% of the scientists agree we are causing most of the warming. They reference three sources, none of which say that. The closest one is the poll that asks something like if mankind’s activities are a significant cause for global warming.

 

My answer would be yes. I would be counted as part of the 97%, but then authorities using these material effectively lie about what they mean.

 

Changing the word "significant" to "most" becomes a lie. Anyone doing so is either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant

 

sig·nif·i·cant

adjective \sig-ˈni-fi-kənt\

: large enough to be noticed or have an effect

: very important

: having a special or hidden meaning

Full Definition of SIGNIFICANT

1

: having meaning; especially : suggestive <a significant glance>

2

a : having or likely to have influence or effect : important <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits>

b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>

 

So tell me. If something large enough to be noticed, does that constitute "most?"

 

If something is large enough to have influence or effect, is that "most?"

 

I am amazed at the level of logical fallacies, weasel words, etc. that are allowed in climatology.

[Arete]

There is a NASA link I'm sure you all have seen that states something like 97% of the scientists agree we are causing most of the warming.

 

Except the link that my statement, which you quoted referred to was this published paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024 not a NASA website, so as I suggested, you're rather blatantly strawmanning.

 

 

I am amazed at the level of logical fallacies, weasel words, etc. that are allowed in climatology.

 

Tu quoque.

[Wild Cobra]

It's not 10 years old, though.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Those are the same modelling, but not from the same place. The one in post 100 ends abiout 2003/2004. The link you gave says it was last modified 12/19/12.

 

Interesting.

 

They are also simulations (models,) and from Hansen et al 2007.

 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_3.pdf

 

Except the link that my statement, which you quoted referred to was this published paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024 not a NASA website, so as I suggested, you're rather blatantly strawmanning.

 

 

 

Tu quoque.

LOL...

 

This logical fallacy rule is a pain. It is subject to perception.

 

In some cases, how does anyone know if the wording is true or not?

 

As for your linked paper, same basic concept applies.

 

I find it annoying when someone only links the abstract, when the full paper is available online. I cannot help to assume that a person was lead to a paper without reading or understanding it, but just being a faithful follower.

 

Here is the full paper:

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

 

OK, if you look at table 2:

 

(1) Explicit endorsement

with quantification

 

(2) Explicit endorsement

without quantification

(3) Implicit endorsement

(4a) No position

(4b) Uncertain

(5) Implicit rejection

(6) Explicit rejection without

quantification

(7) Explicit rejection with

quantification

 

Please note, that only (1) quantifies the level of CO2, yet they use conditions 1-3 to justify the 97% or so which is then stated as "most."

 

How can anyone claim this with integrity, when not quantified?

 

I see so many instances where climate scientists completely lack integrity in the presented results from their methodology

 

Back to the paper. Table 3 shows 34.8% of the authors endorsing, 64.8% with no position or uncertain, and 1.2% rejecting it. So they take the endorsing and rejecting, and come up with this high percentage. The actual endorsing including no quantification is 34.79%, but they pretend the no opinion or don’t know, don’t matter.

 

What is most of those giving no opinion are afraid to, for loss of job, etc. Look at how anyone who disagrees with consensus is treated. In such a hostile climate (pun not intended,) why add to the hostility if it has no bearing on your paper?

 

This inflating of the 34.79% to 98%, or what ever thy use is crazy. It would be like saying president Clinton won with 53.45% of the vote when he only had 43.01% of the vote in 1992.

[iNow]

So, basically:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, in response:

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by iNow

[Wild Cobra]

So, basically:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, in response:

 

Wow...

 

You are full of unsourced logical fallacies today.

 

Give me some time, I will point out the errors when I find the source material.

 

In the mean time, please stop posting unsourced logical falacies as fact.

So, basically:

 

 

 

 

I'll start with this one.

 

The good 'ol pie chart by blogger James Powell. You should read his methodology:

 

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

 

He uses key word searches, then eliminated the ones he can find rejecting AGW.

 

Please show me where the AGW is quantified in his methodology.

 

Oh...

 

His biography:

 

http://www.jamespowell.org/Bio/Bio.html

 

Not that this is so important, but remember this when you wish to dismiss a work because it isn't done by a climatologist.

 

Just what is this suppose to mean? I see it a the logical fallacy called a "Red Herring." Nearly all of us who you would call deniers aren't saying global warming isn't real.

[Dekan]

The climatologists agree with all the other climatologists.

What else can they do? They have to protect themselves from ridicule.

 

It's possible that some, maybe even most of them, have secret doubts.

[iNow]

The climatologists agree with all the other climatologists.

What else can they do? They have to protect themselves from ridicule.

 

It's possible that some, maybe even most of them, have secret doubts.

You obviously have no idea how science actually works. Scientists practically get off and cream their shorts by being able to prove other ideas and long-held / well accepted scientific models and theories wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

 

 

 

 

OK, I basically addressed the Doran and Zimmerman 2009, but in order.

 

Farnsworth & Lichter:

 

I couldn't find a free article for the 2011 work, but it is very similar to their 2009 work:

 

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Lichter/publication/228124877_The_Structure_of_Evolving_US_Scientific_Opinion_on_Climate_Change_and_its_Potential_Consequences/links/0deec521cea60a1ac7000000

 

There is really no quantification of what percentage anthropogenic warming is to be considered.

 

 

Anderegg et al.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

 

I don't see anything in this paper that distinguishes between any AGW effect to mostly, or even largely.

 

Here is the more definitive one, Doran and Zimmerman. The one I spoke of using the question "significant." Please look up the differences in definitions between "significant" and "largely." They are not equal in meaning. Here is the paper:

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2009EO030002/asset/eost16685.pdf?v=1&t=i1o6v62s&s=1b50f775f812c37cf40d674eff42a1cf27a65294

 

Seriously... Logical Fallacy Alert... These two question are almost always misconstrued by alarmists:

 

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

 

 

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

Anyone understanding the basics will agree temperatures have risen since the 1800, and agree mankind has a significant role in climate change.

 

Again, "significant" does not mean "largely" or "mostly." Isn't using such deceptive practices a logical fallacy which is forbidden here?

 

 

 

 

The fourth one, Bray & Von Storch:

 

http://www.academia.edu/2365610/A_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_and_Climate_Change

 

I find question #9 (Q11) on page 21 very revealing, but a topic for a different thread.

 

Question 20 (Q56), page 46:

 

20. How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is

occurring now?

 

93.8% was to the affirmative, rating it a 5, 6, or 7 on a scale of 1 to 7. Note however, "natural or anthropogenic." This is the only combination I found that fits to the 94% in the bar graph. If I missed something, feel free to show us.

 

The next on, 21/(Q57):

 

21. How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a

result of anthropogenic causes?

 

Hmmm... How would I answer that? Predicting the future is difficult. Until the sun recently quieted down, it had been relatively stable for 50 years. Since most the thermal inertia is now equalized, I would say yes to the anthropogenic, but that would assume the sun remains stable. Anyone have a time machine?

 

Anyway, 83+% answered 5, 6, or 7.

 

Oh...

 

1 to 7, 1 is "not at all" and 7 is "very much." Therefore, if these results are any above 1, that might be what is being looked at. Using 2 to 7, is 98.649%. 3 to 7 is 95.672%, and 4 to 7 is 88.915%. This question doesn't match the 94%, only the previous one that includes "natural."

 

These are the only pertinent questions I saw for the bar graph.

 

 

The last one. STATS/Harris Interactive:

 

 

LOL....

 

Looking for this one, I found your agenda driven source:

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/98-of-most-published-climate-scientists-argue-climate-change-is-man-made-but-who-cares-what-does-sarah-palin-say/

 

It takes me back to a US News Report I already found, but no active source link.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern

 

I don't see a quote to support the bar, but this is close:

 

Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming."

 

Now before going all gaga on this one, look up the definition of substantiate. It too does not imply "largely."

 

So, in summary, none of these sources support the contention of "largely" as portrayed in the bar graph.

[swansont]

 

You are full of unsourced logical fallacies today.

 

…

 

Not that this is so important, but remember this when you wish to dismiss a work because it isn't done by a climatologist.

 

Just what is this suppose to mean? I see it a the logical fallacy called a "Red Herring." Nearly all of us who you would call deniers aren't saying global warming isn't real.

 

The analysis doesn't require that one be a climatologist (so your red herring claim is in fact a red herring), and the deniers are the ones saying that global warming isn't real. i.e. they deny that anthropogenic global warming is taking place. Hence the name.

 

What is an unsourced logical fallacy, anyway? Most of those infographics have sources listed. (also: those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Your tactic of "the best defense is a good offense so I'll just call everything a fallacy" is quite transparent)

[Wild Cobra]

He posted graphics with no sourcing of their origins, and the implication of the graphics are misleading.

[iNow]

Gish gallop time...

[swansont]

He posted graphics with no sourcing of their origins, and the implication of the graphics are misleading.

 

The graphics contained the sources. And I don't think they are misleading. You're nitpicking about e.g. what "significant" and "largely" mean, which raises the question of whether the objections are deliberate obtuse or not.

Gish gallop time...

 

Indeed.

[Wild Cobra]

 

The graphics contained the sources. And I don't think they are misleading. You're nitpicking about e.g. what "significant" and "largely" mean, which raises the question of whether the objections are deliberate obtuse or not.

 

 

 

Not all of them did, and no links were give.

 

As for the deliberate changing of a term from significant to largely or mostly. If the science is sound, then why must they mislead?

 

Words have meaning. To improperly use them in scientific conversations or links is either being intellectually dishonest, or ignorant.

 

Again, if the science is sound, why not just state the facts, instead of inflating them?

 

The second graphic had no sourcing, and was compiled by a blogger.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Essay]

I think 'significant' means 'most' in this case, especially when you consider how one-sided, and long-term, the anthropogenic forcing is compared with the natural background forcings that only vary around their geological averages over time.

 

I am at odds with using the word "significant" and inflating the meaning of it to "most." I am not questioning the results of the polls and numbers, but the methodology and intellectual lie of how they are being portrayed.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant

 

sig·nif·i·cant

adjective \sig-ˈni-fi-kənt\

: large enough to be noticed or have an effect

: very important

: having a special or hidden meaning

...

 

So tell me. If something large enough to be noticed, does that constitute "most?"

 

If something is large enough to have influence or effect, is that "most?"

....

 

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." -APS

(American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review; Workshop Framing Document; Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee1, December 20, 2013)

===

 

Also, there is this free, educational, publication from 2011.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13111

 

"...increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years."

-National Research Council, 2011

===

 

Thirty million years of evolution! In terms of climate and ocean acidification...

That sounds "significant" to me; it is before the 'temperate zone' (upon which agriculture depends significantly) developed and good agricultural soils evolved.

 

~

[Phi for All]

The climatologists agree with all the other climatologists.

What else can they do? They have to protect themselves from ridicule.

 

It's possible that some, maybe even most of them, have secret doubts.

 

!

Moderator Note

Dekan, please stay focused on this topic. If you want to discuss your overall displeasure regarding the integrity of science, please use one of your other threads on the subject, or start a new one.

 

Report this modnote if you disagree with it, but don't take the thread off-topic by discussing it here, please.

[Wild Cobra]

I think 'significant' means 'most' in this case, especially when you consider how one-sided, and long-term, the anthropogenic forcing is compared with the natural background forcings that only vary around their geological averages over time.

 

 

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." -APS

(American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review; Workshop Framing Document; Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee1, December 20, 2013)

===

 

Also, there is this free, educational, publication from 2011.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13111

 

"...increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years."

-National Research Council, 2011

===

 

Thirty million years of evolution! In terms of climate and ocean acidification...

That sounds "significant" to me; it is before the 'temperate zone' (upon which agriculture depends significantly) developed and good agricultural soils evolved.

 

~

 

Your appeal to authority talking points makes me laugh. Did you read the 200+ pages and understand it? I just downloaded it. Only read the Executive Summary so far. I did search and verified that only one of your three quotes are in the book. I would like to see the full context of the other two quotes. Do you have the links handy so I don’t have to look them up?

 

Thank-You for the link. I will at least read most of it.

 

I am appalled by the way the climate science community misuses words. I see it as them fronting an agenda rather than science when they misuse words. Words have meaning. Now in this case, their use of the word significant may be true. However, it is the impression left with people especially when so many publications, blogs, etc will change the word "significant" to something like "most," "largely," etc. when referencing the more reputable sources.

 

Again. Words have meaning. In simple terms, significant only means you can see or measure a difference. In math, if you are using four significant digits, and you change the least significant digit, what percentage of a change is that? Now consider that when the climate scientists are usually bringing up any change measured with three significant digits.

 

What I find in most climate research material is that they are full of weasel words. This makes a paper technically accurate, while implying a different result than can actually be shown.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[John Cuthber]

Most scientific reports are, of necessity, full of what you would call "weasel words" because there are not many certainties in science.

You are leaping to the unjustified conclusion that the author is using "significant" in the technical sense used in mathematics and experimental design.

 

To me the context suggests otherwise.

When they say

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." they mean that those changes will matter to people.

 

Of course, since you claim to know about the technical use of the word "significant", you would understand that where it's used in that sense, it should be accompanied by a statistical significance level (95% is popular) and there isn't one.

And it's not applicable to the case in point is it?

They haven't given a numerical value so they plainly are not talking maths or stats.

 

So, why have you precedented that they are?