Intelligent Design

The “97% of Scientists” Claim is a Lie

Spread the love

So says study:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

76 Replies to “The “97% of Scientists” Claim is a Lie

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry, if you read the actual study, you’ll see that they surveyed professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, i.e. people who mainly worked in the oil industry. This is the abstract (my bolding):

    This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    Bob

    Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet? Why are you guys ignoring Reivelle’s own retraction of his work? What is up with that?

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Bob O’H:

    Barry, if you read the actual study, you’ll see that they surveyed professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, i.e. people who mainly worked in the oil industry.

    What do you have against people who live and work in Alberta?

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    Bob without saying it also does not like these people that mine and use natural resources because Bob subjectively think they are evil…. Bob I’m going to give you some info…. We are not running out of natural fossil fuels not by a long shot. It is people like you with your lobby groups an greenpeace hippy chums that are keeping countries in Africa poor by imposing your carbon footprint nonsense on them. You are not saving lives you are taking them.

    And it is hypocritical of you to enjoy the benefits of an economy built on the use of fossil fuels but denying devolving nations those very same benefits.

  5. 5
    wd400 says:

    What do you have against people who live and work in Alberta?

    I don’t think you have to have something against Albertan petroleum engineers to know that they aren’t climate scientists.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Mung – nothing really. I hear it can be very nice.

    Andre – my paternal grandfather was a coal miner. my brother researched recycling coal from coal tips. I certainly don’t think they are evil. The only point I was making was that this was a group of people who would be biased to one particular point of view. Even if you think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, I hope you would be able to see that (just as ecologists, for example, will be biased towards the opposite point of view). So to use statistics on the views of geo-engineers from Alberta to say that the 97% statistic (which is about climate scientists) is just a bad idea.

  7. 7
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet?

    Wouldn’t the chances of 7 billion humans causing a planet to warm actually be greater on a smaller planet than a large one?

  8. 8
    computerist says:

    The 97% consensus argument is invalid. Are the 3% who do not support climate change (anthropogenic) wrong? are they not scientists? is the 97% smarter than the 3%? why should we trust the 97% and not the 3%? Secondly, is there a predisposition to enter environmental science? if there is, the 97% consensus argument is invalid. Similarly, if one says 97% of scientists believe in Darwinian evolution explaining all of biology and if 97% of those individuals are initially atheists and enter the field based on their predisposed beliefs, then the statistic is invalid! And it’s invalid of course, because one does not question the consensus, but assumes it’s true from the onset.

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    Any argument for a hypothesis based on a consensus is a sign of a serious weakness in the hypothesis. It’s a sign of mendacity.

  10. 10
    computerist says:

    Bob O’H, pretty much every sane person (who has utilized basic logic and reason) at this point in time knows that global warming (anthropogenic) is complete nonsense, it’s mostly a political scam conjured by the left as a result of a power struggle. I won’t get into all the details as to why, but it comes down to shady science and failed predictions as well as historical reference of origin. As a result, climate change policies are destroying businesses by impeding technological progress and killing millions of people in 3rd world countries. The argument about oil companies voicing against global warming is preposterous, that would be a needle in a haystack compared to all the media propaganda coupled with shady statistics (including the 97% consensus stat) being spewed pushing AGW.

    Happy New Year to all!

  11. 11
    groovamos says:

    WD400: I don’t think you have to have something against Albertan petroleum engineers to know that they aren’t climate scientists.

    Woo Hoo those climate scientists expert in all things heat flow related, fluid dynamics, geophysics related, oceanography, thermodynamics, solar physics and solar cycles, chemistry, and mid-spectrum electromagnetic radiation. They know how to “correct” the raw data correctly. They KNOW how to tie it all together in uniformly beautiful StarLogo or FORTRAN models so that they work out unanimously and make those models from all over the world agree in their results. They go into the academic programs (if they can find them) knowing the only employer is the U.S. government, a sort of self-selecting ideological group filtering in itself. They know the ‘progressive’ stance of the European governing bodies, and of the U.N. itself, and of the professors who teach them. They know where their checks must originate, and all those StarLogo models make it all happen, because those models can easily model the atmosphere of a planet, all the oceans, the solar influences, and geophysical influences. Truly brilliant are those that know everything; who can model a whole planet and its solar input, and can use the knowledge to kick butt around the private sectors and the evildoer captains thereof:

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/careers.html

    professional programmers cringe at the work of non-professionals:

    http://research.microsoft.com/.....ence07.pdf

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    professional programmers cringe at the work of non-professionals:

    I cringe at my own work!

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    On this and evolution stuff WHY DO THEY say the scientific community or SCIENTISTS think thus and thus on evolution or global warming??
    If its about someone who is a specialist and so knows better then why would specialists in other subjects of science be relevant at all in a specialty of science??
    In reality creationists only face a tiny number of specialists who get paid/or did in evolutionary biology or geology.
    I think its not even tens of thousands. it doesn’t pay to pay them.
    Then also it attracts the b team since kids would think its all been settled and other sciences are open to discovery and reward.
    How many evo bio’s are there?
    Anyone know? Not biologists but only evo bio’s.
    More then 36???

    Why do evolution thumpers invoke the whole armed forces of science as on their side when its only a few brigades of light armed troops. ??

  14. 14
    Andre says:

    DaveS

    Do you think 7 000 000 000 people are too many for this planet?

  15. 15
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    DaveS

    Do you think 7 000 000 000 people are too many for this planet?

    No. Not that I know of, anyway. I guess our descendants will be able to answer that question with more certainty.

    But it’s not clear to me why you noted that the Earth is much smaller than the Sun, if you’re arguing that no significant human-caused global warming is occurring.

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    DaveS

    This place was designed for all types of eventualities. Example….. The oceans are much lager CO2 sinks than previously thought. There are all kinds of contingency and redundant systems in place. Personally I don’t think CO2 makes any difrence to the temp. Water vapour is the problem.

  17. 17
    Andre says:

    DaveS

    If it is not clear to you why the earth has no input on its own warming consider that heat increases and cool downs are all tied to the Sun’s solar activity. It works in average 10-12 year cycles and we have been documenting it since the 13th century. Heck we came out of a mini ice age in the 19th century due to an abnormally slow cycle.

    The sun’s activity is decreasing again.. .

    http://m.phys.org/news/2015-08.....gwhat.html

  18. 18
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    If it is not clear to you why the earth has no input on its own warming consider that heat increases and cool downs are all tied to the Sun’s solar activity.

    That is definitely not clear to me. In your previous post, you even stated that water vapor is “the problem”, presumably meaning that it is a greenhouse gas?

    Therefore greenhouse gases exist, and the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, for one thing, can influence its warming and cooling.

    The sun’s activity is decreasing again.. .

    Do you care to make some predictions about global cooling in the near future?

  19. 19
    Andre says:

    DaveS….

    People have no influence on the warming and cooling and that is my point. Not one or all of the 7 000 000 000 can do it. If I did not make it clear that I was speaking specifically of man-made global warming I apologise.

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    “…they aren’t climate scientists”

    Then the next layer of the onion is “are climate scientists actually climate scientists?”

    As far as I can see it’s Mere Squiggology all the way down.

    Andrew

  21. 21
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    DaveS….

    People have no influence on the warming and cooling and that is my point. Not one or all of the 7 000 000 000 can do it. If I did not make it clear that I was speaking specifically of man-made global warming I apologise.

    I understood you to be speaking of man-made global warming, so no problem there.

    What I don’t understand is how you know that humans have no influence on warming and cooling, if you do acknowledge that greenhouse gases exist.

    We obviously put a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (increasing from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 250 years). Methane and water vapor are being added by us as well.

    If these are greenhouse gases (some more potent than others), and humans are driving up their concentrations, why is it implausible that humans could cause global warming?

  22. 22
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Do you really think 7 000 000 000 people on a planet 1 000 000 times smaller than the sun that has a temp of 27 000 000C have any bearing on the warming of the planet?

    Not the whole planet. Just the surface region.

    Andre: And it is hypocritical of you to enjoy the benefits of an economy built on the use of fossil fuels but denying devolving nations those very same benefits.

    That was an issue leading up to the Paris Agreement, which does account for differences in development.

    computerist: why should we trust the 97% and not the 3%?

    If 97% of medical professionals say you likely have cancer, then you should seriously consider possible courses of action. While a consensus of experts in a field may not be necessarily correct about matters in their own field, they are more likely to be correct than non-experts. Policy-makers need to account for the best available science.

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “If 97% of medical professionals”

    And The Doctor Card is played for the 1st time in 2016.

    Andrew

  24. 24
    Vy says:

    why is it implausible that humans could cause global warming?

    Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms?

    * as good as a fallen world can be 🙂

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: And The Doctor Card is played for the 1st time in 2016.

    And what is the difference between reliance on medical opinion than on other areas of expertise? Other than the direct personal relevance, of course, which is what gives the comparison its impact.

    Vy: Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms?

    There are a number of negative feedbacks in the climate system. The problem with your notion is that the Earth apparently oscillates between two different stable points; ice ages and ice free periods. Unfortunately, technological humans evolved to live in an equipoise between those two polar opposites.

  26. 26
    asauber says:

    “And what is the difference between reliance on medical opinion than on other areas of expertise?”

    There is no expertise in the area of Global Warming/Climate Change, Zachy.

    Drawing squiggly lines and then pretending to be scared of them is only expertise to a troll like you.

    Andrew

  27. 27
    Vy says:

    The problem with your notion is that the Earth apparently oscillates between two different stable points; ice ages and ice free periods. Unfortunately, technological humans evolved to live in an equipoise between those two polar opposites.

    What a lovely story. Lemme get da popcorn 😉

  28. 28
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: There is no expertise in the area of Global Warming/Climate Change

    Climate science has overlapping support from many other scholarly fields, including planetary science, atmospheric science, oceanography, geophysics, glaciology, ecology, etc. It’s this overlap that provides confidence in a field of study.

  29. 29
    Vy says:

    Zachs, that story took a hit a few months ago. Wow, that was last year 🙂

    This is also important to consider.

  30. 30
    Vy says:

    Climate science has overlapping support from many other scholarly fields, including planetary science …

    That’s a dud:

    [The MYTH]: About 4.5 billion years ago, the Solar System formed in a disk of gas and dust particles that surrounded the newly born Sun. The ‘giant’ planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) formed first, within the few million years of the disk’s lifetime. Closer to the Sun, the small, rocky ‘terrestrial’ planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) took tens of million years to form, by collisions of numerous smaller objects generated in the disk. Myriad small bodies formed the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

    [The TRUTH]: Despite decades of attempts, no computational realization of standard formation theories has reproduced the mass and orbital distribution of both the terrestrial planets and the asteroids. Writing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Izidoro et al. show that this is not possible.

    A new analysis suggests that it cannot be done.

  31. 31
    asauber says:

    “Climate science has overlapping support”

    But still no expertise.

    Andrew

  32. 32
    daveS says:

    Vy,

    Properly designed* negative feedback mechanisms?

    * as good as a fallen world can be 🙂

    Sorry, but I don’t how know anyone can take the writings of a YEC (Dr. Jay L. Wile, PhD) on global warming seriously.

    That said, negative feedbacks must be considered. How closely have they been shown to counterbalance the effects of humans on the climate? Andre says the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature.

  33. 33
    Vy says:

    Sorry, but I don’t how know anyone can take the writings of a YEC (Dr. Jay L. Wile, PhD) on global warming seriously.

    What a lovely genetic fallacy 😉

    That said, negative feedbacks must be considered. How closely have they been shown to counterbalance the effects of humans on the climate?

    First, what effect?
    Second, read the article.

  34. 34
    asauber says:

    “the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature”

    Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature? Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on?

    Andrew

  35. 35
    asauber says:

    “Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on?”

    Zachy can get out his doctor-approved rectal thermometer and give is his expert opinion. lol

    Andrew

  36. 36
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: that story took a hit a few months ago. Wow, that was last year

    The article does not contradict that the Earth experiences ice ages and ice free periods. Notably, the new study points to CO2.

    asauber: But still no expertise.

    Not responsive.

    Vy: That’s a dud

    Quote-mine.

    Tsiganis: Standard planet-formation models have been unable to reconstruct the distributions of the Solar System’s small, rocky planets and asteroids in the same simulation. A new analysis suggests that it cannot be done.

    The statement is that standard models can’t reconstruct the distribution, not that any model can’t reconstruct the distribution. What is the standard model?

    Tsiganis: Standard formation models don’t consider the fact that giant planets can substantially change their orbits while forming in the disk.

    And what is the solution?

    Tsiganis: An intricate migration pattern of the giants has been reported 6 to produce a mass distribution that solves the Mars problem and generates an asteroid belt broadly similar to the observed one.

    This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn, but it is a far cry from the claim that no reconstruction is possible.

  37. 37
    daveS says:

    Vy,

    What a lovely genetic fallacy.

    When you consider that he has to disregard or completely distort all the evidence from more than about 6000 years ago, is it even worth reading what he says?

    I did read the article you linked to, which discusses a possible negative feedback mechanism, but it doesn’t answer my question. I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism.

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature?

    Mean surface temperature, mean tropospheric temperature, mean lower stratospheric temperature.

  39. 39
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    “the net result is that humans have *no* effect on temperature”

    Of course humans can have an effect on temperature. But which temperature? Which of the untold temperatures measured today did humans have an effect on?

    Andrew

    I don’t know that Andre would agree.

    I am speaking of global average surface temperature, to be clear.

  40. 40
    asauber says:

    “Mean surface temperature, mean tropospheric temperature, mean lower stratospheric temperature.”

    Means are calculations. The question pertains to actual measurements.

    Andrew

  41. 41
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Means are calculations. The question pertains to actual measurements.

    The mean of temperature measurements show surface warming. This indicates the surface is increasing its heat content.

  42. 42
    asauber says:

    “The mean of temperature measurements show surface warming. This indicates the surface is increasing its heat content.”

    This is not necessarily true. Depends on the data you choose to use.

    Plus you avoided my question about actual measurements.

    Andrew

  43. 43
    Vy says:

    Zachy can get out his doctor-approved rectal thermometer and give is his expert opinion.

    Maybe he needs a new one.

    Paging Dr. Smiggle… we need a rectal thermometer STAT!

    LOL.

  44. 44
  45. 45
    Vy says:

    When you consider that he has to disregard or completely distort all the evidence from more than about 6000 years ago

    Same old story.

    is it even worth reading what he says?

    You do realize what a genetic fallacy is right?

  46. 46
    Vy says:

    Zachs, you do realize that the paper you cited was from 5 years ago, right?

    This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn, but it is a far cry from the claim that no reconstruction is possible.

    Ever heard of circular reasoning? They are assuming a naturalistic formation of Jupiter and Saturn to solve the formation of planets naturalistically? Whaatt?!?!!!?!

    It’s quite interesting that their pixie dust comes from Jupiter and Saturn given discoveries like this and this.

  47. 47
    Zachriel says:

    asauber: Depends on the data you choose to use. Plus you avoided my question about actual measurements.

    We directly addressed actual measurements. You can find raw surface data here:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

    Vy: In your spaghetti dreams.

    While you twice referred to secondary sources, we cited and quoted the actual paper by Tsiganis.

    Vy: Ever heard of circular reasoning?

    The claim is that Tsiganis found that a reconstruction is not possible. That was false.

  48. 48
    Vy says:

    but it doesn’t answer my question.

    Not surprising.

    I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism.

    And that is significant because?

    These microbes, which would be affected by significant CO2 rise, aren’t bothered by the alleged rising CO2 levels asserted by alarmists.

  49. 49
    Vy says:

    While you twice referred to secondary sources, we cited and quoted the actual paper by Tsiganis.

    You quoted the claims of Tsiganis, the paper you cited was illogical.

    The claim is that Tsiganis found that a reconstruction is not possible. That was false.

    That’s the claim in your imagination. OTOH, the fact is that planetary science is a dud. That is what I said.

    Citing some paper that gives a hypothetical imaginary solution to the problem based on circularly reasoned assertions that are demonstrably false doesn’t change that.

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: You quoted the claims of Tsiganis, the paper you cited was illogical.

    YOU cited @30 an article that distorts Tsiganis to suggest that no reconstruction is possible. Then YOU cited @44 an article that also distorts Tsiganis. In fact, Tsiganis finds that a reconstruction is possible, and that the conundrum of how the asteroid belt formed has been largely resolved.

  51. 51
    Vy says:

    YOU cited @30 an article that distorts Tsiganis to suggest that no reconstruction is possible. Then YOU cited @44 an article that also distorts Tsiganis.

    The only one distorting anything here is you.

    In fact, Tsiganis finds that a reconstruction is possible, and that the conundrum of how the asteroid belt formed has been largely resolved.

    Based on demonstrably false circularly reasoned assertions from years ago.

    Planetary science is a dud, deal with it.

  52. 52
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: The only one distorting anything here is you.

    Again, you cited two secondary sources. We provided quotes and citations from the primary source to show that your secondary sources were distorting the paper.

    Vy: Based on demonstrably false circularly reasoned assertions from years ago.

    That’s immaterial to the misrepresentation of the paper.

    As for circular reasoning, that is also incorrect. They use mechanics, which are strongly supported, to test whether mechanics can explain the formation of the planets. While the models are not perfect, they clearly show the basic process.

    Vy: Planetary science is a dud, deal with it.

    Planetary science is more than just planet formation.

  53. 53
    Vy says:

    Again, you cited two secondary sources. We provided quotes and citations from the primary source to show that your secondary sources were distorting the paper.

    You quoted the paper 3 times and provided A citation to A paper that used circularly reasoned demonstrably false assertions.

    That’s immaterial to the misrepresentation of the paper.

    Again, you’re the only one misrepresenting.

    As for circular reasoning, that is also incorrect.

    Your words: “This is not a complete solution as it assumes a match between the growth and migration-time profiles of Jupiter and Saturn …”

    You’ve been proven false over and over again. They clearly assume Jupiter forms naturalistically and migrates to show that planets form naturalistically. Circular reasoning AND demonstrably false.

    Planetary science is more than just planet formation.

    Duh?

  54. 54
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    The numbers are, roughly, like this:
    a.) Those who believe in man-made global warming: 36%
    b.) Those who think nature is the cause: 24%
    c.) Those who think it’s a combination of nature and man-made activities: 32%

    Don’t know about the other 8%. So, roughly, 56% who think nature is a part of what’s happening; 36% who think it’s man-made. Not much of a “scientific consensus.”

    Now, let’s understand the purpose of the study: to find out what those biased scientists in the petroleum arena are up to, and why they dissent. IOW, part of a plan to ‘defeat’ the nay-sayers. Well, isn’t this a biased position to begin with?

    One respondent which they quote talked about the survey being obviously designed by “left-wing” people. Given this statement is hyperbole, it should be clear that the authors of this study themselves had an agenda.

    Some interesting quotes from the study:

    Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed.

    It’s hard to fool engineers. Lots of IDers are engineers.

    The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue. By looking into the content of the frames, the discourse coalitions they enable, and the identity and boundary work they entail, our results provide more nuanced insights into the subtleties of institutional defense.

    First, what is being denied, therefore, is NOT that the earth is warming, but the “cause” of this warming. The alarmists, just as with IDers, misconstrue the ‘deniers’ position: the deny the attribution of ‘anthropogenic’ to the warming. So, IOW, we get “strawman” arguments from the alarmists. Singer, a so-called ‘denier,’ wrote a book: “Unstoppable Global Warming.” Nature will do what it wants. Only human arrogance thinks it’s more powerful than the forces of nature. Ironically, those who criticize people of religion as having made ‘man’ the center of the universe—you know, the geocentrists—are very likely the same ones who now say that ‘man’ is overpowering the forces of nature. It’s a joke.

    Second, it’s obvious that this survey is to devise a ‘game plan’ to defeat “institutional defense.” No regard for proper science here.

    Lastly,

    While ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents share the storyline privileged by the IPCC and regard scientific knowledge to be conclusive enough to support mandatory action, not even the second pro-regulation group (‘regulation activists’) joins their support for the international Protocol. In addition, ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents do not engage in mobilization and boundary work and do little to legitimate their position. This may seem surprising, but becomes more comprehensible when taking into consideration their strong belief that the fundamental debate on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is settled and that the ‘consensus among scientists’ has informed enforceable regulation.

    IOW, they’ve stopped thinking. What great scientists they are. Let’s hear it for “consensus” thinking!! Rah!!

  55. 55
    computerist says:

    Zachriel,

    If 97% of medical professionals say you likely have cancer, then you should seriously consider possible courses of action. While a consensus of experts in a field may not be necessarily correct about matters in their own field, they are more likely to be correct than non-experts. Policy-makers need to account for the best available science.

    The 97% to 3% is an experts stat not an experts vs. non-experts stat. I would look at what the 3% has to say on the matter, and judge it for myself.
    I would question why a 3% even exists, why those that account for the 3% remain in the field? since climate change science and subsequent disastrous consequences are so obvious. That the 3% exists maybe that the 97% cannot refute the other 3%.
    I would question why the 97% even exists since climate change science has proved to be filled with shady science and failed predictions starting with the primary climate change salesman Al Gore.
    And given your cancer analogy, if equally 97% said that chemotherapy was the best course of action for treatment, I would reason as above, would look at its success rate (which is very low) and its side effects and likely take alternative course of action.

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    Vy: You quoted the paper 3 times and provided A citation to A paper that used circularly reasoned demonstrably false assertions.

    The record is very clear. You linked to articles that misrepresented the paper.

    computerist: The 97% to 3% is an experts stat not an experts vs. non-experts stat. I would look at what the 3% has to say on the matter, and judge it for myself.

    The evidence always trumps an appeal to authority, however, most people are a poor judge of evidence outside their own areas of expertise. While the 3% may be right, the 97% of specialists who say you have cancer would compel most people to seriously consider a course of action based on that consensus.

    computerist: And given your cancer analogy, if equally 97% said that chemotherapy was the best course of action for treatment, I would reason as above, would look at its success rate (which is very low) and its side effects and likely take alternative course of action.

    The success rate is determined by experts in the field. That is, unless you plan to conduct your own trials. By the way, chemotherapy can extend quality life in many cases.

    As for balancing the chances of success, the side-effects of treatment, your expected lifespan, and so on, these are non-scientific judgments that are personal, though informed by science. If the consensus says a course of treatment will provide you a 60% chance of living one more year, you may find that not worth the suffering and expense of undergoing the treatment. The scientific findings, as tentative as they may be, is something provided to you, not something you determine for yourself.

    On the other hand, desperate people often turn to the 3% in the hopes of a cure when the consensus is dire. You know, the vast conspiracy to keep the miracle cure from the American public.

  57. 57
    Virgil Cain says:

    The local temps changed by 40 degrees in just a couple days- 40 degrees colder. Does that mean there was a huge decrease in local CO2? 😛

  58. 58
    computerist says:

    Zachriel,

    The evidence always trumps an appeal to authority, however, most people are a poor judge of evidence outside their own areas of expertise. While the 3% may be right, the 97% of specialists who say you have cancer would compel most people to seriously consider a course of action based on that consensus.

    So ignorant people will more likely appeal to consensus/ arguments from authority, which is true. We can determine the signs and/or symptoms of cancer while having the benefit of statistics from past individuals (certain signs and/or symptoms give a probability or risk factor that one may have cancer in order to undergo further testing). In the case of climate change we don’t have too many planet earths around as comparative statistical analysis or reference points, and the fact that the climate has been changing anyways doesn’t lend support to climate change (anthropogenic) and its proposed disastrous consequences. The idea of “climate change” itself is circular, the climate has always been changing by definition. I would argue this makes it far more unclear than simply saying one either has cancer or doesn’t based on a before -> after state.

    That is, unless you plan to conduct your own trials.

    From my experience, 3 close relatives and friends have passed away due to cancer (3 different forms), they lived on average 6-9 months after diagnosis, all followed the consensus, all on chemotherapy. Success!

  59. 59
    Vy says:

    The record is very clear. You linked to articles that misrepresented the paper.

    Something sure is clear – your continuous projection.
    Keep it up 😉

  60. 60
    Zachriel says:

    computerist: So ignorant people will more likely appeal to consensus/ arguments from authority, which is true.

    That’s right. If you are an expert in the field then you may make your own determination. But even experts are ignorant about most things. It’s why general practitioners make referrals to specialists. It’s why a paleontologist will confer with a geologist. It’s why a mathematician will hire a plumber.

    computerist: We can determine the signs and/or symptoms of cancer while having the benefit of statistics from past individuals (certain signs and/or symptoms give a probability or risk factor that one may have cancer in order to undergo further testing).

    Those statistics typically provided by expert researchers.

    computerist: In the case of climate change we don’t have too many planet earths around as comparative statistical analysis or reference points

    That’s right. But we do have the history of Earth’s climate, and a good understanding of the physics involved.

    computerist: and the fact that the climate has been changing anyways doesn’t lend support to climate change (anthropogenic)

    That’s false. We can’t explain past climate change without reference to changes in greenhouse gases, and we can’t explain the current trend without reference to changes in greenhouse gases.

    computerist: From my experience, 3 close relatives and friends have passed away due to cancer (3 different forms), they lived on average 6-9 months after diagnosis, all followed the consensus, all on chemotherapy.

    Sorry to hear that. Chemotherapy is not a panacea. It depends on the type of cancer, and how early it is detected. Sometimes there is no treatment capable of extending quality life.

  61. 61
    Virgil Cain says:

    Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!– not quite what the warming alarmists predicted.

  62. 62
    Virgil Cain says:

    Zachriel:

    We can’t explain past climate change without reference to changes in greenhouse gases, and we can’t explain the current trend without reference to changes in greenhouse gases.

    That isn’t an argument. Try again

  63. 63
    computerist says:

    Zachriel,

    That’s right. If you are an expert in the field then you may make your own determination. But even experts are ignorant about most things. It’s why general practitioners make referrals to specialists. It’s why a paleontologist will confer with a geologist. It’s why a mathematician will hire a plumber.

    That’s right, and the mathematician would not know whether the plumber did a good job or not the same way one particular climate change expert would not know whether another particular climate change expert did a good job or not. This further invalidates the 97% consensus argument as this confirms that one particular expert normally does not have the ability to rate/ascertain another particular experts results, since of course there is a vast array of climate change expert types. The notion of “agreed upon” fails in this circumstance.

  64. 64
    Zachriel says:

    computerist: That’s right, and the mathematician would not know whether the plumber did a good job or not the same way one particular climate change expert would not know whether another particular climate change expert did a good job or not.

    Flows downhill. Check.

    Warming troposphere and surface, cooling stratosphere. Check.

    computerist: This further invalidates the 97% consensus argument as this confirms that one particular expert normally does not have the ability to rate/ascertain another particular experts results, since of course there is a vast array of climate change expert types.

    No. That doesn’t make sense. While there are different specialties, they overlap. That’s one reason we know that climate science is a valid field of study. The overlap provides crosschecks. For instance, atmospheric scientists predict greenhouse warming based on first principles; temperature measurements show a warming trend at the surface, and a cooling trend in the stratosphere; glaciologists document glaciers in retreat; oceanographers find that seas are acidifying; etc.

    More particularly, researchers have found the those specialists that are closest to climate science are most likely to support the consensus view. The farther away from climate science, the less likely to support the consensus view.

  65. 65
    daveS says:

    Vy,

    You do realize what a genetic fallacy is right?

    Yes, of course. That’s not happening here. Wile simply can’t address the complete set of climate evidence because of his YEC views. I don’t see how there is much basis for discussion with him, when his beliefs are so far divorced from reality.

    Me: I will just note that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise, despite this mechanism.

    Vy: And that is significant because?

    The Wile blog post argues this:

    In other words, the warmer the Arctic gets, the more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. Now remember what the United Nations confidently told us. They said that the enhanced plant growth could not possibly offset the devastating amount of carbon released when the permafrost melts.

    Can you tell me when this effect is going to kick in and save us? If CO2 concentrations continue to rise, when should we get concerned?

  66. 66
    Vy says:

    That’s not happening here.

    Lovely display of willful ignorance.

    Wile simply can’t address the complete set of climate evidence…

    And the so called “evidence” is riddled with frauds and forgeries. Way to go!

    …because of his YEC views. I don’t see how there is much basis for discussion with him, when his beliefs are so far divorced from reality.

    Wow! This is coming from a guy who believes probablymaybecouldness created life and the materialistic myth that he’s nothing but a bag of chemicals controlled by the laws of physics. Projection much?

    Can you tell me when this effect is going to kick in and save us?

    Save us from what?

    If CO2 concentrations continue to rise, when should we get concerned?

    When these microbes, among other things, begin to budge, then you can claim that CO2 levels are rising to significant levels that would lend support to alarmist claims.

  67. 67
    Vy says:

    And oh, here’s the rest of that your nicely selected quote:

    However, the longest-running warming experiment in the Arctic demonstrates just the opposite. In fact, not only does the enhanced plant growth offset the loss of carbon in the soil, it ends up taking in extra carbon, which would fight the effects of any global warming that might have occurred.

  68. 68
    daveS says:

    Vy,

    Lovely display of willful ignorance.

    Right. The problem is, neither Wile nor Hartnett would know what to do with this, because only about the last 1% of these graphs exist in their “worldview”.

    I don’t see much chance of a productive discussion, so you can have the last word.

  69. 69
    Vy says:

    Right. The problem is, neither Wile nor Hartnett would know what to do with this, because only about the last 1% of these graphs exist in their “worldview”.

    So now we have a bait-and-switch and a strawman AND a red-herring AND another genetic fallacy! Bravo!

    I don’t see much chance of a productive discussion

    No kiddin’.

    It’s like you merged with some Zachriel creature to produce a really terrible mutant because your last few comments are really pathetic.

  70. 70
    daveS says:

    Happy New Year, Vy! 🙂

  71. 71
    Andre says:

    DaveS

    Do you know who wrote the paper that CO2 might be a greenhouse gas that is warming the world? I think you need to start there and see where it leads and why Al Gore is the first carbon billionaire.

    Good luck with your research.

  72. 72
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    I believe it was Arrhenius. Is that supposed to tell me something?

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    DaveS

    Read up on Roger Revelle…

  74. 74
    daveS says:

    Andre,

    Ok, I looked him up. I see that he was an important oceanographer who studied global warming and also knew Al Gore.

    Still not sure what this has to do with the proposition that human-caused global warming is impossible. That’s really a physical question and has nothing to do with Al Gore’s wealth.

  75. 75
    Zachriel says:

    Andre: Do you know who wrote the paper that CO2 might be a greenhouse gas that is warming the world?

    That would be Arrhenius in 1896. However, at that time, it was thought the oceans were sufficient to absorb excess CO2 in the amounts then being emitted.

    ETA: More specifically, he showed that historical changes in surface temperature due to CO2 concentrations were amplified by water vapor.

  76. 76
    jimmontg says:

    Here’s a nice article on the so called 97% scientific consensus that the liberal left wing media likes to put out whenever the issue is brought up.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/st.....ence-scam/

    Now is there actual heating that is manmade? Yes of course there is, but it isn’t from CO2, it’s from things called cities and blacktop pavement. The effects are generally local, but they are there. I suppose it may have some wider effects if the metropolis’ are very large and the downwind side of Dallas is usually a degree or two higher. I’m just using anecdotal experience, but it was on the local news once. There are studies that have been done, but it isn’t necessary to cite any of them as it is a well known fact that cities are warmer than rural areas generally.

    If it wasn’t for the political left wing solutions to “fix” AGW I may have listened more to their arguments for it, but alas there is so much ripping off of the American middle class that I am going to have to see some actual sea level rise before being convinced. I’ve been to Fl. and the people who have lived there all their lives haven’t been able to detect any. Same for the Pacific and Newport Beach’s Balboa Island in CA. which is 3 ft below mean high tide and is surrounded by a seawall and is covered with multi million dollar homes. I used to live there when I was teenager as my Dad managed to get some rich woman to marry him. It was nice and still is and according to my brother the ocean hasn’t risen there either. I lived there in the mid 60’s which is also my age as well. Also where is the big mat of floating plastic garbage in the Pacific? They have an article about why there isn’t more and where is it? Over at LiveScience.com http://www.livescience.com/465.....ssing.html

    You know it isn’t a coincidence that the same group of people that warned of Nuclear Winter, we were all going to run out of gas by now and the Population Bomb and the founders of the EPA are also the same crowd losing sleep and taking valium worrying about Global Warming and how WE HAVE TO STOP IT. Us, as in mankind is going to stop the weather from changing. Their solution is to turn us into a 2nd World country to soothe their guilty consciences by ruining our economy while India and China keep polluting the heck out of their own countries. I believe it was one of the Indian ministers who said if we want them to stop building coal plants then we would have to pay them, what was it he said, 12 trillion dollars or some other outrageous amount?

    Kind of hard to go along with this nonsense that even if it were true isn’t going to be solved by any government. Now there is a statement I can get behind and support.

Leave a Reply