I guess that what this boils down to is your apparent incapability of comprehending the concept of agreement.
I'm not sure how to answer that. If you are trying to rebut my comments on the article you were quoting from then your argument is a bit lacking in detail, and doesn't seem to address any of my criticisms. Can you elaborate?
The assertion is that 97% of scientists agree that Man is responsible for global warming. The studies used to make this assertion show nothing even remotely like this. The study I posted, in part, explains this.
I don’t understand your confusion. It ‘recasts the questions to ones not actually asked’ because the questions actually asked HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the conclusion drawn by the papers in question. By re-reviewing the data used in the papers with relevant questions and relevant scientific metrics–as well as not throwing out data–we find the consensus does not exist.
The matter of ostracization is separate to this but stems from both the delusional belief in the consensus and the belief that contradiction of said majority means you are inherently incorrect, which flies in the face of all scientific behavior.
The assertion is that 97% of scientists agree that Man is responsible for global warming. The studies used to make this assertion show nothing even remotely like this. The study I posted, in part, explains this.
I don’t understand your confusion. It ‘recasts the questions to ones not actually asked’ because the questions actually asked HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the conclusion drawn by the papers in question. By re-reviewing the data used in the papers with relevant questions and relevant scientific metrics–as well as not throwing out data–we find the consensus does not exist.
The matter of ostracization is separate to this but stems from both the delusional belief in the consensus and the belief that contradiction of said majority means you are inherently incorrect, which flies in the face of all scientific behavior.
That's OK - you answered it anyway and illustrated the problem immediately. The article author uses his own rejection of the criteria to invalidate the studies. It is a straw man itself. None of the studies asserted that 97% of scientists believe that all warming is anthropogenic, nor did they attempt to establish the extent of that extreme view.
The ostracization argument still makes no sense - the skeptical scientists feel ostracized because they, themselves, delusionally believe that there is consensus, and are unwilling to contradict the imaginary majority? Really?
Pasting it here because nobody is going to click the link:
A brief overview of what's wrong with this idiocy, for anyone who may be wondering:
Global Warming is Much More Than Surface Temperature Warming
"Global Warming" is shorthand for one symptom of the human impact on the planet through our increase in greenhouse gases (principally CO2). The basic gist of the issue is fundamental physics- when you increase the amount of energy coming in or decrease the amount of energy going out of a planet's energy budget, you create an imbalance, which necessitates warming to a higher equilibrium temperature in the long run. Our emissions of greenhouse gases are decreasing the amount of energy leaving the system, i.e. we have created an energy imbalance.
Most of this increased energy is not manifested as surface temperature warming. Rather, the overwhelming majority is accumulating in the ocean.
We tend to talk about "global warming" in terms of surface warming, because we live at the planet's surface and are necessarily interested in it, but the ocean is where most of the increased-greenhouse action is.
Global Warming Does Not Mean Every Year Should Be Hotter Than The One Before
The surface temperature is indeed expected to increase over the long run, but not monotonically (i.e. every year being warmer than the one before). This is because we have large, natural, pseudo-periodic exchanges of heat between the ocean and atmosphere irrespective of human influence, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). When ENSO is positive, more heat than normal is released from the ocean to the atmosphere, increasing temperature in the short term. When ENSO is negative, more heat is sequestered in the ocean, decreasing temperature.
There are other influences on the surface temperature besides ENSO and greenhouse warming. Solar variability and aerosols (produced by volcanism as well as human activities) also play a large role in how warm or cool it is on year-to-year timescales. When you account for ENSO, solar variability, and aerosols, the underlying warming trend is much more readily apparent:
Apparent "pauses" in the surface temperature are a natural consequence of short-term variability (due to ENSO, solar, aerosols, etc.) super-imposed upon an upward trend (due to greenhouse warming). These "pauses" are seen not just in the surface instrumental record:
But also in individual runs from climate models:
These "pauses" in climate models are associated with periods of increased heat sequestration in the deeper ocean, and correspond to ENSO negative conditions. Over the past decade, we have seen predominantly ENSO negative conditions, and indeed we see an increase in deeper ocean warming at the expense of surface warming.
The fundamental lie of the "16 years no warming" graph is that it is nothing more than a "cherry-pick" of a pause in an otherwise upward trend. This can be seen by simply changing the length of the period being examined. If you look at 15 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive:
If you look at 17 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive.
The "pause" in warming is simply an artifact of the endpoints of the data, not a real cessation of warming.
An Imperfect Surface Instrumental Record
In addition to these problems, the data from the "16 years no warming" graph are from HadCRUT3. While this instrumental record was an admirable attempt to quantify the surface temperature of the planet, it was not perfect. Specifically, it suffered from very limited coverage of the higher latitudes (i.e. the poles), which are warming faster than the rest of the planet (a process called "arctic amplification"). Failing to capture this high latitude warming means the HadCRUT3 record is biased cool- something that has been demonstrated by reanalysis experiments:
The group that produces the HadCRUT3 data set was well aware of this problem and worked to overcome it. They have an updated dataset that partially addresses the problem, HadCRUT4. When you look at the same period of time (the last 198 months) in HadCRUT4, the trend is positive.
Further, HadCRUT4 still fails to capture much of the Arctic warming, which a recent paper has illustrated (Cowtan and Way, 2013). When the missing areas are filled in using kriging or information from the satellite record, the apparent plateau in warming disappears:
The "pause" in warming is not only a cherry-pick of end points to take advantage of variability, it is also not even robust to the choice of data set.
Cherrypicking Apparent "Pauses" in the Surface Instrumental Record Is a Bullshiat Distraction from Continued Global Warming
^^^ Incidentally, the wholesale cutting and pasting of copyrighted material may be legally problematic for AppleInsider and no more than 20% of the content of an article should be lifted and posted.
^^^ Incidentally, the wholesale cutting and pasting of copyrighted material may be legally problematic for AppleInsider and no more than 20% of the content of an article should be lifted and posted.
That's a good question. However - what @waterrockets posted is not a copyrighted article, but a post from another site that comprises lots of individual pieces of content from other sources that may or may not be copyrighted, and it is attributed, so I wonder if that makes a difference.
The article author uses his own rejection of the criteria to invalidate the studies. It is a straw man itself.
No… he showed the disparity between the studies’ testing and claims.
None of the studies asserted that 97% of scientists believe that all warming is anthropogenic, nor did they attempt to establish the extent of that extreme view.
And yet they’re cited as such, so which is it?
…the skeptical scientists feel ostracized because they, themselves, delusionally believe that there is consensus, and are unwilling to contradict the imaginary majority? Really?
No, but that’s not what anyone (myself, the article, or individuals who have suffered the ostracization) said.
The article author uses his own rejection of the criteria to invalidate the studies. It is a straw man itself.
No… he showed the disparity between the studies’ testing and claims.
No - because that is not what the studies claimed. Read those studies.
Quote:
None of the studies asserted that 97% of scientists believe that all warming is anthropogenic, nor did they attempt to establish the extent of that extreme view.
And yet they’re cited as such, so which is it?
It is exactly what I just said. The authors are not responsible for misrepresentation of their conclusions by either side of the debate. All the studies concluded that a huge majority of scientists concurred that the evidence indicates global warming, and that a smaller majority concurred that the evidence indicate that a significant cause is CO2 emission. And no - they did not quantify significant. Scientists understand "significant" in this context to mean a factor that is important. In other words one that should not be ignored.
Quote:
…the skeptical scientists feel ostracized because they, themselves, delusionally believe that there is consensus, and are unwilling to contradict the imaginary majority? Really?
No, but that’s not what anyone (myself, the article, or individuals who have suffered the ostracization) said.
Sorry - which elements of that are not what was claimed in that article? It explicitly claims that the scientists feel ostracized:
"Williams (2007) expresses the outcome of being ostracized (i.e. the excluded 3%) - as “the kiss of social death.”"
It explicitly claims that there is no 97% consensus, and actually argues that a minority agree with AGW:
"As this report shows, there’s no 97% consensus on global warming in these surveys. Not even close. They’re fooling you."
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
No - because that is not what the studies claimed.
And yet the studies are being used as proof of consensus. So which is it?
The authors are not responsible for misrepresentation of their conclusions by either side of the debate.
So do you believe in a consensus?
All the studies concluded that a huge majority of scientists concurred that the evidence indicates global warming
But they didn’t.
And no - they did not quantify significant. Scientists understand "significant" in this context to mean a factor that is important.
No, scientists don’t just make things up. You have to quantify something for it to matter to anyone.
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
Your point is what? That this would somehow be impossible?
No - because that is not what the studies claimed.
And yet the studies are being used as proof of consensus. So which is it?
Already answered - there is certainly consensus among scientists on GW. Anyone who disagrees must either unknowingly be unable to read basic data or must believe that there is a global science conspiracy to fabricate data. If the former then simple reading of the literature will fix that. If the latter then no data or argument will convince them.
On AGW there is also consensus, but it depends on how the question is asked. If it is restricted to "do you believe that the current warming trend is entirely anthropogenic in origin?", which is what the authors of the article would clearly prefer, then there should be no consensus at all. If the question is whether CO2 emissions are contributing significantly to the trend then yes - there appears to be consensus. The combination of the basic theory of radiative forcing, the existing data on the CO2 cycle, oceanic acidification, and the temperature records make a very compelling case, and from a scientific standpoint it once again requires a conspiracy theory to disagree with it. And I'll say it again, and keep repeating it as necessary - the balance of publications in the literature clearly indicates the consensus at a high level, maybe close to the consensus level that warming exists at all.
Not that it is proven in any sense - that is fundamentally impossible - but compelling enough that it should be regarded as the most likely hypothesis.
Quote:
The authors are not responsible for misrepresentation of their conclusions by either side of the debate.
So do you believe in a consensus?
If you mean does it appear to me that there is a consensus, then see above for the detailed answer. Just out of interest - what is your take on the consensus, or lack of it? Do you think that there is one, but lower than 97%, or do you think that only a minority of scientists in general, or climatologists in particular, think that GW and/or AGW are occurring?
Quote:
All the studies concluded that a huge majority of scientists concurred that the evidence indicates global warming
But they didn’t.
Well yes - they did. The article disputed that by the claiming that the questions were the wrong questions, but that assertion is based on their own misrepresentation of the conclusions. It was a straw man argument, as I said earlier.
Quote:
And no - they did not quantify significant. Scientists understand "significant" in this context to mean a factor that is important.
No, scientists don’t just make things up. You have to quantify something for it to matter to anyone.
I'm sorry - we'll just have to disagree on that. I am a scientist and I do this stuff for a living. The term "significant", as applied to causal factors or parameters, is standard terminology. We use it all the time and it does not have to be, and generally is not, quantified in the mechanistic discussion. It is de facto quantified in analytic or numerical modeling, but that is still relatively in its infancy in global climatology, so trying to quantify it in asking this question would be pointless - the respondents would not have the data to answer.
Quote:
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
Your point is what? That this would somehow be impossible?
So now you are saying that my observation was correct and that the article did say that, but that the situation that it implies is not impossible? Then yes - I do not see how that could happen. Scientists in particular fields talk to each other all the time. They correspond, they attend conferences, they review each others work. If you really imagine that a majority opinion on a major, central issue in that field could somehow be confused by that majority for a minority opinion, which is what the article alleged, then you have a very distorted view of the scientific community.
Already answered - there is certainly consensus among scientists on GW.
If the question is whether CO2 emissions are contributing significantly to the trend then yes - there appears to be consensus.
Okay, can you read? Honestly, this is getting silly.
On AGW there is also consensus, but it depends on how the question is asked.
Or if, as the article shows.
If it is restricted to "do you believe that the current warming trend is entirely anthropogenic in origin?", which is what the authors of the article would clearly prefer, then there should be no consensus at all.
Could you give your explanation for why you believe they have a preference at all, since they don’t? They explicitly outlined degrees of certainty (as well as degrees of support) and made a point of calling out ‘all yes’ and ‘all no’ distinctions made by the papers they analyzed.
And I'll say it again, and keep repeating it as necessary - the balance of publications in the literature clearly indicates the consensus at a high level, maybe close to the consensus level that warming exists at all.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true.
Not that it is proven in any sense - that is fundamentally impossible - but compelling enough that it should be regarded as the most likely hypothesis.
First, agreement does not imply likelihood. Second, there isn’t agreement.
If you mean does it appear to me that there is a consensus, then see above for the detailed answer.
All right; if that’s just how it appears to you, that’s fine. You’re wrong, and have been shown as such, but the above makes more sense now.
Just out of interest - what is your take on the consensus, or lack of it?
I’d say lack, certainly, having done research into both the consensus and geologic heating and cooling patterns. What’s interesting (and less certain to me) is the number of scientists who actually believe in it. There are certainly many who don’t or don’t take any position, but the number in favor of it is quite obviously sullied by those who believe because it gets them money.
Well yes - they did. The article disputed that by the claiming that the questions were the wrong questions, but that assertion is based on their own misrepresentation of the conclusions. It was a straw man argument, as I said earlier.
And I don’t buy that. The conclusions of the papers are represented as showing consensus of AGW. The study shows that no such consensus exists and that the papers misrepresented (or outright falsified) the data they used to come to those conclusions. Regarding the questions asked (D&Z), the study only makes mention that they are unrelated to the conclusion represented by their respective paper.
It’s like a restaurant that offers two cakes: chocolate and yellow. Let’s say they take a survey. The question asked is “Did you like the cake?” It doesn’t matter if 97 out of 100 people say ‘yes’, the restaurant CANNOT come to the conclusion that “97% of people agree our chocolate cake is great!” when they don’t even ask what kind of cake the people ate!
If you do not agree with the above, you don’t understand the argument here at all. And that’s just a ludicrously simplistic version of the real question at hand. There were far more factors taken for granted.
…trying to quantify it in asking this question would be pointless - the respondents would not have the data to answer.
So then how are their responses valid? Also, the question was asked without putting a timeframe on the response (which is the entire idea).
So now you are saying…
Why is it so hard to just not draw a conclusion out of nothing? Just musing here.
If you really imagine that a majority opinion on a major, central issue in that field could somehow be confused by that majority for a minority opinion, which is what the article alleged, then you have a very distorted view of the scientific community.
Except you’ve just been shown that this is exactly the case. It’s not confused by the majority (or plurality or significant minority, depending on the paper and parameter); the minority controls the message.
Is it really necessary to have near enough the exact same argument in two different places on the forum? Keep this tediousness in PoliticalOutsider please.
OK - let's leave it at that. We are going in circles here. Your position is misinformed and illogical in my opinion, and you are stating the same opinion of my position. Scientists, I can argue with. You, metaphorically, are speaking a different language. And if we can't even agree on what the survey papers claim to show, then we have little chance of making progress on the actual subject of discussion. We'll find out one way or the other, sooner or later.
I am also minded to detach the whole issue of climate change from the state of the environment.
There's obviously no doubt that we've destroyed and damaged huge swathes of natural habitat, one way or another. I'm very keen on preserving habitats and increasing existing ones, as well as creating new ones. And more trees!
But trying to discuss climate change dispassionately with anyone seems nigh on possible where there is disagreement, which strikes me as a shame. I feel that a healthy skepticism is the best stance for now, as, given the history of mankind, we haven't done a very good job of predicting the climate, and it seems clear that there is an awful lot that we don't know concerning nature. It’s not a question of saying that data is right or wrong, but of how one interprets data. It’s incredibly easy to interpret what appear to be simple, concrete facts in two completely different ways. And trying to extrapolate everything into one final conclusion is extraordinarily difficult, to the point of impossibility.
I would suggest that all the variables that create climate are so numerous, that climate is essentially chaotic. We can observe trends, but trends have a habit of changing.
Thanks Benjamin! While I disagree with much of what you have said about Apple Watch, Tim Cook, and Beats, I very much appreciate your comments regarding this issue. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we recognized when our emotions were leading us astray of objectivity. The emotional urge to push us in a certain direction can be a had thing to fight, but we can't let ourselves sacrifice ideas for the sake of ideology.
Not at all.
And, you know, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Apple Watch is a huge hit. I suppose my main block with it is the design; I can't see myself ever wanting to wear a rectangular watch. But as a shareholder, if my doubts prove unfounded, then I will benefit from its success.
"The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
Apologies for bringing this back up–and I won’t carry it further in this thread–but I want to correct my earlier image regarding ice coverage, as it was old. Here’s Arctic sea ice as of yesterday:
Comments
I guess that what this boils down to is your apparent incapability of comprehending the concept of agreement.
I'm not sure how to answer that. If you are trying to rebut my comments on the article you were quoting from then your argument is a bit lacking in detail, and doesn't seem to address any of my criticisms. Can you elaborate?
I’m not sure how to answer your reply.
The assertion is that 97% of scientists agree that Man is responsible for global warming. The studies used to make this assertion show nothing even remotely like this. The study I posted, in part, explains this.
I don’t understand your confusion. It ‘recasts the questions to ones not actually asked’ because the questions actually asked HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the conclusion drawn by the papers in question. By re-reviewing the data used in the papers with relevant questions and relevant scientific metrics–as well as not throwing out data–we find the consensus does not exist.
The matter of ostracization is separate to this but stems from both the delusional belief in the consensus and the belief that contradiction of said majority means you are inherently incorrect, which flies in the face of all scientific behavior.
I’m not sure how to answer your reply.
The assertion is that 97% of scientists agree that Man is responsible for global warming. The studies used to make this assertion show nothing even remotely like this. The study I posted, in part, explains this.
I don’t understand your confusion. It ‘recasts the questions to ones not actually asked’ because the questions actually asked HAVE NOTHING TO DO with the conclusion drawn by the papers in question. By re-reviewing the data used in the papers with relevant questions and relevant scientific metrics–as well as not throwing out data–we find the consensus does not exist.
The matter of ostracization is separate to this but stems from both the delusional belief in the consensus and the belief that contradiction of said majority means you are inherently incorrect, which flies in the face of all scientific behavior.
That's OK - you answered it anyway and illustrated the problem immediately. The article author uses his own rejection of the criteria to invalidate the studies. It is a straw man itself. None of the studies asserted that 97% of scientists believe that all warming is anthropogenic, nor did they attempt to establish the extent of that extreme view.
The ostracization argument still makes no sense - the skeptical scientists feel ostracized because they, themselves, delusionally believe that there is consensus, and are unwilling to contradict the imaginary majority? Really?
This is a really great post from Farker "Jon Snow" on the issue and cherry picking of data by skeptics:
http://www.fark.com/comments/8097709/88683343#c88683343
Pasting it here because nobody is going to click the link:
A brief overview of what's wrong with this idiocy, for anyone who may be wondering:
Global Warming is Much More Than Surface Temperature Warming
"Global Warming" is shorthand for one symptom of the human impact on the planet through our increase in greenhouse gases (principally CO2). The basic gist of the issue is fundamental physics- when you increase the amount of energy coming in or decrease the amount of energy going out of a planet's energy budget, you create an imbalance, which necessitates warming to a higher equilibrium temperature in the long run. Our emissions of greenhouse gases are decreasing the amount of energy leaving the system, i.e. we have created an energy imbalance.
Most of this increased energy is not manifested as surface temperature warming. Rather, the overwhelming majority is accumulating in the ocean.
We tend to talk about "global warming" in terms of surface warming, because we live at the planet's surface and are necessarily interested in it, but the ocean is where most of the increased-greenhouse action is.
Global Warming Does Not Mean Every Year Should Be Hotter Than The One Before
The surface temperature is indeed expected to increase over the long run, but not monotonically (i.e. every year being warmer than the one before). This is because we have large, natural, pseudo-periodic exchanges of heat between the ocean and atmosphere irrespective of human influence, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). When ENSO is positive, more heat than normal is released from the ocean to the atmosphere, increasing temperature in the short term. When ENSO is negative, more heat is sequestered in the ocean, decreasing temperature.
There are other influences on the surface temperature besides ENSO and greenhouse warming. Solar variability and aerosols (produced by volcanism as well as human activities) also play a large role in how warm or cool it is on year-to-year timescales. When you account for ENSO, solar variability, and aerosols, the underlying warming trend is much more readily apparent:
Apparent "pauses" in the surface temperature are a natural consequence of short-term variability (due to ENSO, solar, aerosols, etc.) super-imposed upon an upward trend (due to greenhouse warming). These "pauses" are seen not just in the surface instrumental record:
But also in individual runs from climate models:
These "pauses" in climate models are associated with periods of increased heat sequestration in the deeper ocean, and correspond to ENSO negative conditions. Over the past decade, we have seen predominantly ENSO negative conditions, and indeed we see an increase in deeper ocean warming at the expense of surface warming.
The fundamental lie of the "16 years no warming" graph is that it is nothing more than a "cherry-pick" of a pause in an otherwise upward trend. This can be seen by simply changing the length of the period being examined. If you look at 15 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive:
If you look at 17 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive.
The "pause" in warming is simply an artifact of the endpoints of the data, not a real cessation of warming.
An Imperfect Surface Instrumental Record
In addition to these problems, the data from the "16 years no warming" graph are from HadCRUT3. While this instrumental record was an admirable attempt to quantify the surface temperature of the planet, it was not perfect. Specifically, it suffered from very limited coverage of the higher latitudes (i.e. the poles), which are warming faster than the rest of the planet (a process called "arctic amplification"). Failing to capture this high latitude warming means the HadCRUT3 record is biased cool- something that has been demonstrated by reanalysis experiments:
The group that produces the HadCRUT3 data set was well aware of this problem and worked to overcome it. They have an updated dataset that partially addresses the problem, HadCRUT4. When you look at the same period of time (the last 198 months) in HadCRUT4, the trend is positive.
Further, HadCRUT4 still fails to capture much of the Arctic warming, which a recent paper has illustrated (Cowtan and Way, 2013). When the missing areas are filled in using kriging or information from the satellite record, the apparent plateau in warming disappears:
The "pause" in warming is not only a cherry-pick of end points to take advantage of variability, it is also not even robust to the choice of data set.
Cherrypicking Apparent "Pauses" in the Surface Instrumental Record Is a Bullshiat Distraction from Continued Global Warming
^^^ Incidentally, the wholesale cutting and pasting of copyrighted material may be legally problematic for AppleInsider and no more than 20% of the content of an article should be lifted and posted.
That's a good question. However - what @waterrockets posted is not a copyrighted article, but a post from another site that comprises lots of individual pieces of content from other sources that may or may not be copyrighted, and it is attributed, so I wonder if that makes a difference.
No… he showed the disparity between the studies’ testing and claims.
And yet they’re cited as such, so which is it?
No, but that’s not what anyone (myself, the article, or individuals who have suffered the ostracization) said.
No… he showed the disparity between the studies’ testing and claims.
No - because that is not what the studies claimed. Read those studies.
And yet they’re cited as such, so which is it?
Quote:
No, but that’s not what anyone (myself, the article, or individuals who have suffered the ostracization) said.
Sorry - which elements of that are not what was claimed in that article? It explicitly claims that the scientists feel ostracized:
"Williams (2007) expresses the outcome of being ostracized (i.e. the excluded 3%) - as “the kiss of social death.”"
It explicitly claims that there is no 97% consensus, and actually argues that a minority agree with AGW:
"As this report shows, there’s no 97% consensus on global warming in these surveys. Not even close. They’re fooling you."
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
And yet the studies are being used as proof of consensus. So which is it?
So do you believe in a consensus?
But they didn’t.
No, scientists don’t just make things up. You have to quantify something for it to matter to anyone.
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
Your point is what? That this would somehow be impossible?
Originally Posted by muppetry
And yet the studies are being used as proof of consensus. So which is it?
Already answered - there is certainly consensus among scientists on GW. Anyone who disagrees must either unknowingly be unable to read basic data or must believe that there is a global science conspiracy to fabricate data. If the former then simple reading of the literature will fix that. If the latter then no data or argument will convince them.
On AGW there is also consensus, but it depends on how the question is asked. If it is restricted to "do you believe that the current warming trend is entirely anthropogenic in origin?", which is what the authors of the article would clearly prefer, then there should be no consensus at all. If the question is whether CO2 emissions are contributing significantly to the trend then yes - there appears to be consensus. The combination of the basic theory of radiative forcing, the existing data on the CO2 cycle, oceanic acidification, and the temperature records make a very compelling case, and from a scientific standpoint it once again requires a conspiracy theory to disagree with it. And I'll say it again, and keep repeating it as necessary - the balance of publications in the literature clearly indicates the consensus at a high level, maybe close to the consensus level that warming exists at all.
Not that it is proven in any sense - that is fundamentally impossible - but compelling enough that it should be regarded as the most likely hypothesis.
So do you believe in a consensus?
If you mean does it appear to me that there is a consensus, then see above for the detailed answer. Just out of interest - what is your take on the consensus, or lack of it? Do you think that there is one, but lower than 97%, or do you think that only a minority of scientists in general, or climatologists in particular, think that GW and/or AGW are occurring?
But they didn’t.
Well yes - they did. The article disputed that by the claiming that the questions were the wrong questions, but that assertion is based on their own misrepresentation of the conclusions. It was a straw man argument, as I said earlier.
No, scientists don’t just make things up. You have to quantify something for it to matter to anyone.
I'm sorry - we'll just have to disagree on that. I am a scientist and I do this stuff for a living. The term "significant", as applied to causal factors or parameters, is standard terminology. We use it all the time and it does not have to be, and generally is not, quantified in the mechanistic discussion. It is de facto quantified in analytic or numerical modeling, but that is still relatively in its infancy in global climatology, so trying to quantify it in asking this question would be pointless - the respondents would not have the data to answer.
So by direct implication, they are claiming that scientists who do not concur with GW or AGW, who are actually in the majority, are feeling ostracized by a minority who do.
Your point is what? That this would somehow be impossible?
So now you are saying that my observation was correct and that the article did say that, but that the situation that it implies is not impossible? Then yes - I do not see how that could happen. Scientists in particular fields talk to each other all the time. They correspond, they attend conferences, they review each others work. If you really imagine that a majority opinion on a major, central issue in that field could somehow be confused by that majority for a minority opinion, which is what the article alleged, then you have a very distorted view of the scientific community.
Okay, can you read? Honestly, this is getting silly.
Or if, as the article shows.
Could you give your explanation for why you believe they have a preference at all, since they don’t? They explicitly outlined degrees of certainty (as well as degrees of support) and made a point of calling out ‘all yes’ and ‘all no’ distinctions made by the papers they analyzed.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true.
First, agreement does not imply likelihood. Second, there isn’t agreement.
All right; if that’s just how it appears to you, that’s fine. You’re wrong, and have been shown as such, but the above makes more sense now.
I’d say lack, certainly, having done research into both the consensus and geologic heating and cooling patterns. What’s interesting (and less certain to me) is the number of scientists who actually believe in it. There are certainly many who don’t or don’t take any position, but the number in favor of it is quite obviously sullied by those who believe because it gets them money.
And I don’t buy that. The conclusions of the papers are represented as showing consensus of AGW. The study shows that no such consensus exists and that the papers misrepresented (or outright falsified) the data they used to come to those conclusions. Regarding the questions asked (D&Z), the study only makes mention that they are unrelated to the conclusion represented by their respective paper.
It’s like a restaurant that offers two cakes: chocolate and yellow. Let’s say they take a survey. The question asked is “Did you like the cake?” It doesn’t matter if 97 out of 100 people say ‘yes’, the restaurant CANNOT come to the conclusion that “97% of people agree our chocolate cake is great!” when they don’t even ask what kind of cake the people ate!
If you do not agree with the above, you don’t understand the argument here at all. And that’s just a ludicrously simplistic version of the real question at hand. There were far more factors taken for granted.
So then how are their responses valid? Also, the question was asked without putting a timeframe on the response (which is the entire idea).
Why is it so hard to just not draw a conclusion out of nothing? Just musing here.
Except you’ve just been shown that this is exactly the case. It’s not confused by the majority (or plurality or significant minority, depending on the paper and parameter); the minority controls the message.
OK - let's leave it at that. We are going in circles here. Your position is misinformed and illogical in my opinion, and you are stating the same opinion of my position. Scientists, I can argue with. You, metaphorically, are speaking a different language. And if we can't even agree on what the survey papers claim to show, then we have little chance of making progress on the actual subject of discussion. We'll find out one way or the other, sooner or later.
Not at all.
And, you know, I wouldn't be that surprised if the Apple Watch is a huge hit. I suppose my main block with it is the design; I can't see myself ever wanting to wear a rectangular watch. But as a shareholder, if my doubts prove unfounded, then I will benefit from its success.
Apologies for bringing this back up–and I won’t carry it further in this thread–but I want to correct my earlier image regarding ice coverage, as it was old. Here’s Arctic sea ice as of yesterday:
It’s exactly on the median for the last 29 years.
Age of ice has been trending down for years. Hitting the median for sea ice extent for a stretch of time isn't going to change that trend.
We'll see how the sea ice coverage looks this summer.