Link: Quantifying the Consensus of Anthropogenic Climate Change

[lazlohollyfeld]

'Au contraire my Texas friend. He said that science is utterly dependent on the government. That statement is not true.

What does the phrase "the bulk of funds" mean to you? Who funds research that does not have immediate commercial potential, i.e. pure science type research?

 

[seebell]

I always know I can count on you seebell, but I didn't see anything about China in that link. Far as I could tell that was 50 tips to save energy and lower CO2 emissions in our daily lives.

Thanks. In my zeal I posted the wrong link. Try these.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/20/china-going-green-going-it-alone/

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-10/18/content_15828382.htm

 

[seebell]

And lazlohollyfeld, instead of playing semantics, understood exactly what I meant.

Your statement: Science has become utterly dependent on government grants.

Here in Maysville we define utterly this way:
ut·ter·ly
[ úttərlee ]

• completely: in an extreme or complete way

Synonyms: completely, absolutely, totally, extremely, entirely, wholly, outright, unreservedly, downright, fully, quite

We also use udderly. As in that ice cream is udderly define.

Semantics are important don't you think?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Thats a cheap shot and without validity.

Nope. But we can agree to disagree. I've watched this same dog and pony show too many times.

Grants are issued to advance the science, not to prove a specific point.

And who oversees those? And do you REALLY think with politicians involved that it does NOT involve politics AND control?

If you want to "follow the money" look at the deniers.

Oh, I don't deny that point for a moment. We are probably in 100% agreement about that.

Its not to do the science. Its usually just to promote the arguments. We have seen this argument before with cigarette smoking debate. Cigarettes are still just as harmful.

Yes, cigarettes are harmful and you know what I think is stupid? That anyone had to do a study to know something that should have been common sense. You're taking smoke (and 300 plus other chemicals) INTO your lungs for Pete's sake. However, I DO think the ban on cigarette commercials is amusing in light of how many thousands get killed every year by alcoholism and related disorders (and I personally have never heard of a wreck where the cigarette smoker throwing out his cancer stick plowed into a bus full of kids, either. They have, obviously, begun forest fires, but I digress).

 

[lazlohollyfeld]

Your statement: Science has become utterly dependent on government grants.

Here in Maysville we define utterly this way:
ut·ter·ly
[ úttərlee ]

• completely: in an extreme or complete way

Synonyms: completely, absolutely, totally, extremely, entirely, wholly, outright, unreservedly, downright, fully, quite

We also use udderly. As in that ice cream is udderly define.

Semantics are important don't you think?

Semantics are very important when that is the only side of your argument that is valid. If BamainBoston amends his statement to "the bulk of" instead of "utterly dependent", you will hush up and recognize that cited a source that supported his contention?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Two of the most prominent deniers are right here in HSV. Both are on government payrolls, Christy at NASA and Spencer at UAH...

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Interesting leak on the author of the study's gameplan prior to conducting the study. Just food for thought. Pay special attention to "Phase 3" of the plan, keeping in mind that 12,272 total papers were evaluated:

Phase 3: Publicly crowd source the categorisation of neutral papers

When we publish the Phase 2 paper, it will strongly emphasise that the endorsement percentage is based just on the abstract text and hence an underestimate of the true number of papers endorsing the consensus. I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper - if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (I'll have an easy-to-use online form) with the excerpted text. The SkS team would check incoming submissions, and if they check out, make the endorsement official. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers - and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes". The final result will be a definitive, comprehensive survey of the number of endorsements of AGW in the literature over the last 21 years.

So the gameplan included a plan to "process 6000 neutral papers" looking for excerpted text which can be construed as an endorsement, "converting many of them to endorsement papers."

Yep, sounds unbiased to me. I would also add that the leak reveals that Cook et al started with the ideological goal of solidifying a consensus, not with objectively evaluating the papers for endorsement or refutation.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Interesting leak on the author of the study's gameplan prior to conducting the study. Just food for thought. Pay special attention to "Phase 3" of the plan, keeping in mind that 12,272 total papers were evaluated:



So the gameplan included a plan to "process 6000 neutral papers" looking for excerpted text which can be construed as an endorsement, "converting many of them to endorsement papers."

Yep, sounds unbiased to me. I would also add that the leak reveals that Cook et al started with the ideological goal of solidifying a consensus, not with objectively evaluating the papers for endorsement or refutation.

Right...if they find evidence...

It looks like you are seeing what you want to see

 

[NationalTitles18]

The idea of a consensus of experts has been used to bolster credibility, but they have ruined their own credibility with wild predictions that have missed the mark badly. if no one believes them now it is their own fault.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I need to issue an apology for an honest mistake here - I had posted on another board and when I did the cut and paste I accidentally included another name that is NOT Bamaro's name. Bamaro, that was unintentional and I"m sorry for it.

(Can I get the mods to alter the name on my last post in the quote section? Thankx).

 

[PacadermaTideUs]

Right...if they find evidence...

It looks like you are seeing what you want to see

Right...
I'm seeing what many of the actual authors of the mischaracterized studies see. But apparently, you and Cook know more about what these authors were saying than the authors themselves do. Pot, meet kettle.

One of many examples of evidence:

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.​

And another:

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."​

Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."​

But whatever... bleat - I mean believe - what you want to believe.

 

[JPT4Bama]

Here is that "consensus gap" the authors speak of. Sheep just listening to the masses. I figured you conservatives would enjoy that one.

Yep, almost as much as reading your science based posts. Thank you.