The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..37..71..105..139..173~174~175~176~177 [Next]
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Name calling? Seriously?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3352 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Almost every scientific prediction has been WAY OFF
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barb......rming-17
... yet somehow they still sing the same song failure after failure. It's almost like a cult or something. Look around ... We aren't flooding. No one is drowning. The Polar Ice Caps are still there and the polar bears are better than ever (Growing at an astounding rate.. from 5,000 to 30,000 or more). The ocean is only rising 1/2 of an inch every DECADE.
AL GORE lied to everyone and made $200 million dollars doing it.

The sun heats the earth Smile


Polar Bear population in Alaska and Canada plummets:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11/......d-canada

Polar ice caps melting at unprecedented rate:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2......ted-rate

Sea Levels rises at twice the speed:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocea......el-rise/

"Ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with glaciers and the ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Moreover, higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.

Consequences

"When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.

"When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path.

"In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.

"How High Will It Go?

"Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London."

--NationalGeographic.com
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Fracking is on the water side of the hot air / hot water question. Iran-Russia oil prices on the hot air side. Living conditions vs political position.

Any thoughts on the linked articles?


Yeah, I've got some thoughts. Both articles present extremely weak arguments and numerous logical fallacies in their attempts to refute the articles they refer to. I could go through them step by step but don't really want to waste the time. I'll give you a quick fer instance from the Watts rebuttal article.

Rebutting paragraph 2, 2nd part. The quote James Taylor as saying, "At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

In attempting to Rebut this, they completely ignore the point and simply argue that, "Taylor neglects to mention that John Cook's study isn't the first to find that over 95% of actual climate scientists agree with the evolving consensus understanding." One way to prove this, they link to a report that links back to the John Cook study! But regardless, they never address the above point that they claim to rebut!

That's just one quick example but both articles are replete with similar examples on most every point they attempt to make.


And btw, the fact that the entire study was based on the meaningless survey question is something no one here has ever bothered to address either. One of those nasty little facts that Bob likes to complain about.


I see you still haven't read the Cook article. It did not involve a "simple survey". First they did a thorough search of the publushed peer-reviewed literatue, identifying over 11,000 candidate papers. Phase 1 involved a content analysis of the abstracts of the papers to classify them as supporting, not supporting or indifferent to the position that human activity is a cause of global warming. In Phase 2 they had the authors of the papers classify the position they believed the papers took.

You seem awfully certain about something you haven't read, rockwall.


Actually, if you had bothered to read more than just the abstract yourself and applied any degree of reasoning to the actual study, you would realize you're wrong. (again)

The "simple survey" question, while not explicit, is implicit. The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.

Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Actually, rockwall, I did read the actual study. Good bluff, but you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Or are you pretending that a literature search of over 11,000 papers is part of a "simple survey" and that the conclusions drawn from reading the abstracts is part of a "simple survey". If that's so, I'd love to see another example of such a "simple survey". Asking authors to self-rate on the same scale as the readers gave, I suppose is some sort of "survey" but you miss the breadth of the study if you rely on that single aspect.

And what in the world is an implicit "simple survey"? Very funny.

Quote:
The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.


Not quite. They have a 7-point scale (see Table 2 in the original study) which they do interpret under the three categories you mention. But this hardly counts as their main conclusion, or a reduction of the entire study to a "simple survey".

Quote:
Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.


Good thing none of us are saying that, eh?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
So John what do you want the rest of the works to do based on all this?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So John what do you want the rest of the works to do based on all this?


Pay attention to the facts. Make decisions based on good science and sound judgment. The usual.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
What are those decisions John? What should be done?

And what if that is nothing then what?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Danny you are asking for wisdom and knowledge that I don't possess.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
What should be done? I thought that was obvious- drastically reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere or suffer the long terms consequences that science has predicted and that we are currently witnessing.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
And to get compliance we?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Same way we stop people from dumping radioactive waste in your drinking water?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
So you do want to impose your will n other countries.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So you do want to impose your will n other countries.


No Danny. As I've said every time you've attempted this infantile "gotcha" there is room in the world for diplomacy. Diplomacy and negotiation has resulted in nuclear non-proliferation treaties, the banning of CFCs, the eradication of smallpox and more.

It's not perfect, but it's all we've got. And it works.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Actually, rockwall, I did read the actual study. Good bluff, but you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Or are you pretending that a literature search of over 11,000 papers is part of a "simple survey" and that the conclusions drawn from reading the abstracts is part of a "simple survey". If that's so, I'd love to see another example of such a "simple survey". Asking authors to self-rate on the same scale as the readers gave, I suppose is some sort of "survey" but you miss the breadth of the study if you rely on that single aspect.

And what in the world is an implicit "simple survey"? Very funny.

Quote:
The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.


Not quite. They have a 7-point scale (see Table 2 in the original study) which they do interpret under the three categories you mention. But this hardly counts as their main conclusion, or a reduction of the entire study to a "simple survey".

Quote:
Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.


Good thing none of us are saying that, eh?


Nice try. They could have a 100 point scale but if they then take that scale and combine 50 categories into one group and 50 into another group then the 100 point scale has little meaning and becomes a very 'simple' question. Tell me John, of the 3 levels of endorsement of AGW within the report, what percentage of papers belong in each individually?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So you do want to impose your will n other countries.


No Danny. As I've said every time you've attempted this infantile "gotcha" there is room in the world for diplomacy. Diplomacy and negotiation has resulted in nuclear non-proliferation treaties, the banning of CFCs, the eradication of smallpox and more.

It's not perfect, but it's all we've got. And it works.


Diplomacy is just another way of imposing your will on others John.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 11, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Actually, rockwall, I did read the actual study. Good bluff, but you obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Or are you pretending that a literature search of over 11,000 papers is part of a "simple survey" and that the conclusions drawn from reading the abstracts is part of a "simple survey". If that's so, I'd love to see another example of such a "simple survey". Asking authors to self-rate on the same scale as the readers gave, I suppose is some sort of "survey" but you miss the breadth of the study if you rely on that single aspect.

And what in the world is an implicit "simple survey"? Very funny.

Quote:
The study provides 3 levels of endorsement of AGW, all the way from 'explicit endorsement' to 'implicit endorsement' which would allow anything from 'man is the primary cause of AGW' all the way down to 'man is causing AGW to some extent'. The study then combines all of these levels into one lump to come up with their conclusion that '97% of the scientific papers endorse the position of AGW. In other words, they reduce this down to a "simple survey" question to come up with their 97% number.


Not quite. They have a 7-point scale (see Table 2 in the original study) which they do interpret under the three categories you mention. But this hardly counts as their main conclusion, or a reduction of the entire study to a "simple survey".

Quote:
Next, the uniformed, (and the dishonest), take this supposed conclusion to conclude that EVERY claim made about AGW, from worse and more frequent storms to the flooding of the planet has that same level of scientific support.


Good thing none of us are saying that, eh?


Nice try. They could have a 100 point scale but if they then take that scale and combine 50 categories into one group and 50 into another group then the 100 point scale has little meaning and becomes a very 'simple' question. Tell me John, of the 3 levels of endorsement of AGW within the report, what percentage of papers belong in each individually?



They could, but why should they? 7-point scales are standard in the social sciences. Look it up. Reducing 7-point to 3-point for simplified reporting is also standard.

You can make up all the uniformed alternatives you'd like.

Your final question (I don't really understand what you are saying, but I'll make a guess) is completely beside the point. The summary does not look at the central theses of each paper. What they did was

1. Determine if a position on whether AGW is occurring.
2a. If no position is present, then the analysis stops because the paper is irrelevant to the question being asked.
2b. If a position is present, then what is it.
3. This is where the 7 -point scale is applied.

The research question was this: when a position regarding the presence or existence of AGW is stated in a peer-reviewed paper meeting the selection criteria, what is it?

All those other issues are not part of this study. They may be valuable and worthy of study, but they weren't part of this study.

How many positions can there be?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15919 Posts

Profile of tommy
Psychics who claim to have supernatural powers to communicate with the spirit realm gasses have been around for centuries. From the priestesses of the Oracle in Delphi to the Climate Hysterics priestesses in the Rockefeller foundations, the Psychics have always offered up none falsifiable forecasts. The 97% claim by the way is arrived at via Manipulation of the Delphi Technique. The inventor of which founded the Institution of the Future, with finance from the Rockefeller & Co. That foundation states that it exists to give the top international corporations the future they want.

The 97% is an effect, that is to say a result, the method by which the effect was achieved seems to the naive to be on the square, but it is in fact a distortion of the truth and by definition an illusion. The Manipulation of Delphi is standard at the IPCC.

i.e.

“As I understand it these are not objective quantifiable measures of probability or “error bars” of some sort, but are measures assigned or created by the lead IPCC authors via Delphi style polling … of themselves, and is done for the purpose of shaping public opinion. So we have the idea of “consensus” confounded on top of “consensus.” Where does this end? We should be asking “what are the “knowns”, what are the “known unknowns”, and what are the “unknown unknowns,” and how do we justify and defend the proposed mitigation measures proposed for public policy. Like Dorothy’s discovery of the wizard behind the curtain, this consensus “smoke and mirrors” hurts the climate advocacy cause by using an obvious propaganda tool rather than focusing on the objective science. If the science was clear, there would be no debate at all.” – 97% Feud. http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/27/the-97-feud/
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Mystification
View Profile
Special user
567 Posts

Profile of Mystification
Quote:
On Jan 9, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Just a few years ago you were blaming the government because gas prices were rising and unemployment was still too high. Now that gas prices have actually plummeted and employment is higher than it's been since 1999, it's STILL Obama's fault, right?

Unbelievable.


Well........gas prices did drop when the Republicans gained control.......just sayin
Mystification
View Profile
Special user
567 Posts

Profile of Mystification
Quote:
On Jan 10, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Fracking has forced the OPEC crowd to lower their prices in an effort to stop it.

The number of People who sign up for unemployment has little or no bearing on how many people are currently working or currently unemployed.

It just means that a certain number of people have lost their current job and are seeking employment. It doesn't take into account the millions of people that have been unemployed so long that they no longer qualify.

There are no more jobs now than 8 years ago... Actually less people are fully employed ... Things are not getting better on the job front .. Proof of this is that we still have a record number of people needing food stamps and welfare ....
It's a scam with the numbers.

I predict the Saudi's lower oil to about $40 a barrel in an attempt to destroy fracking.


Exactly!!!
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20193 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Jan 12, 2015, Mystification wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 9, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Just a few years ago you were blaming the government because gas prices were rising and unemployment was still too high. Now that gas prices have actually plummeted and employment is higher than it's been since 1999, it's STILL Obama's fault, right?

Unbelievable.


Well........gas prices did drop when the Republicans gained control.......just sayin



As much as I would love to bash the president a couple facts might not go awry.

First presidents have little to do with had prices.

Second they do not drop overnight.

Lastly the downward spike started prior to any republican election in November.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scientists agree on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (190 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..37..71..105..139..173~174~175~176~177 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL