AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@Olivier5,

This comes from the government study, which was quite extensive:

Quote:

Respondents were selected on the basis of a few criteria. The first criterion was having authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science (~6000 names). Another criterion was the inclusion in the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall (~2000 names). Names were also derived from surveying the recent climate science literature (~500 names).

The complete survey details can be seen in the official report, here:

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

1 Reply

@layman,

Responses to question 1.a show a broad consensus around AGW among the surveyed scientist, with almost no respondents saying "no warming". Only 11% say man is responsible for 0 to 50% of recent GW.

QED. Thanks for your contribution.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I do not think that there is must disagreement even on this thread that there had been some warming in the last hundred years or so and the tend seem ongoing.

Where the disagreement come into play is how significant is this warming and will the tend not only keep on but accelerate as the current unproven computer models are predicting.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

People grasping at straws, while they pretend to redo the computations of scientists? What else is new?

Would you care for a list of times where predictions such as the current one dealing with climate change had been wrong?

Scientists can not do solid computations as we are far from understanding the workings of the earth climate system to the degree needed to do such computations.

See the predictions of a nuclear winter that was latter proven wrong due to far too simple computer modeling that the predictions was base on.

See the predictions of the total total collapse of society due to needed resources running out to keep a technology culture going done by the Club of Rome computer modeling and where they had gone wrong in setting up the models.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Heh, you read rather selectively, eh, Ollie?

At what confidence level? Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC's “97%” certainty.”

How much is due to CO2? Less than 2 out of 3 say "strong" warming is caused by ALL greenhouses gases (of which CO2 is only about 1%). The rest say moderate, slight, insignificant, etc.

More than 75% of the respondents said that "spurious warming" contributed to warming. "Spurious" including such things as "data adjustments" and "urban heat island effect" (higher temperature readings cause by the location of thermometers in asphalt parking lots, etc.) In case you don't know, "spurious" means "fake" or "false."

Yet you say:

Quote:

Scientists ARE united on this. They truly really are.

What did you mean by "this?"

1 Reply

@layman,

They don't have to agree with the IPPC. 80% DO agree with AGW, and that's good enough for me, especially since most of the don't knows come from people having written less than 4 articles, hence the least knowledgeable of the sample.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I had asked you:

Quote:

What did you mean by "this?"

You didn't respond to that at all, you just raised the question anew when you said:

Quote:

80% DO agree with AGW,

So let me ask the same question again. What do you mean by AGW (and/or "this" in your previous post)?

1 Reply

@layman,

Anthropogenic global warming = AGW

1 Reply

Another part of that poll that I thought was interesting was the question"

Quote:

"How important are the following factors according to you in having contributed to public controversy about climate change?* [see below]

Factors:

• Relative immaturity of climate science (approx. 50%)
• Serious mistakes made by climate scientists (approx. 40%).
• Suppression of alternative viewpoints (approx. 60%
• Suppression of uncertainties (approximately 50%)
• Opposition to proposed mitigation measures (approx. 80%)
• Differences in worldview (approx. 80%)
• Undermining the credibility of climate science and scientists (approx. 80%)

*Only assign a degree of importance if you deem the statement to be (at least somewhat) true

The degree of agreement I'm showing ranges from "moderately important" to "very important." I'm saying "approximately" because I don't see the exact numbers given--just a graph. I will comment further in another post.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Anthropogenic global warming = AGW

I knew that. That wasn't the intent of the question.

1 Reply

@layman,

By "this", i meant AGW.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

OK, so the question remains. Why do you mean by AGW? For example, do you mean that additional CO2 in the atmosphere has a known and well-established capacity to "capture" and then redirect toward earth, some radiation that had previously reached the earth's surface? Or what?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Stop sprouting official BS and look at the science. It doesn't add up. They are following a different agenda to preventing GW. They want to ease us off of fossil fuels before we run out. They want to dis-empower the Muslim states. They want to find a cheaper source of energy to help the third world. What they do not really care about is GW, they have simply got all the ratbag greenies on side.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The degree of agreement I'm showing ranges from "moderately important" to "very important." I'm saying "approximately" because I don't see the exact numbers given--just a graph. I will comment further in another post.

A couple of things I was going to add here:

1. This poll question is actually asking TWO things, not just one. The scientist is being asked (at least to a certain extent) to give his own personal belief AND then give his perception about what contributes most to the "public controversy."

Why do I say that his opinion is being asked? Because he is specifically told not to give any assessment regarding "the public" at all if he doesn't think there is some real, underlying basis for it to begin with. The question says:

Quote:

Only assign a degree of importance if you deem the statement to be (at least somewhat) true

In other words, don't rate, for example, "serious scientific mistakes" with respect to how much those mistakes may have generated "public controversy," IF you don't think any "serious mistakes" were made to begin with.

2. Especially in that light, I think the answers are quite revealing. For the reason given above, not every assessment had the same number responding. Some didn't rate a factor BECAUSE they were told not to (unless...). But each factor had AT LEAST 1600 scientists responding to it and the number responding varied very little (within a range of between 1619 and 1623 responses).

1 Reply

@layman,

By the way when had the universe decided that polls of scientists control how the laws of the universe work?

If that was the case all the expert medical people who laugh at the germ theory and the need for them to wash their hands often when dealing with patients would have been proven right not Ignaz Semmelweis .

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.dnr1g8EB.dpuf

How does a scientist determine 100% of the GW is due to man when man does not make 100% of the CO2 increase?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

especially since most of the don't knows come from people having written less than 4 articles, hence the least knowledgeable of the sample.

You do know the vast majority of Climate Change BS is written by the same few scientists, dont you?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Yeah, Ionus, I agree there is certainly no necessary connection between being "more knowledgable" and having published more papers. As one of the lead authors noted, the ones who publish 24/7 on the topic become a small clique where they all end up reviewing each other's paper's and, where they can, reject the papers of other who don't agree with them. The fact that they tend to keep their little club "exclusive" does not make them more knowledgable, just more powerful in their influence (and therefore in a better position to promote only their preferred point of view).

I think it's all presumption on Ollie's part to begin with. I don't see anywhere in that paper where the answers are disclosed on the basis of how many papers were written by the person answering. Ollie just wants to assume that, somehow, those who agree with "his" position are "more knowledgable."

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

By the way when had the universe decided that polls of scientists control how the laws of the universe work?

Good point, Bill. Significant new insights are NEVER made by the crowd. It's always just one, or perhaps a few, working together, that make the necessary novel breakthroughs in understanding.

And, because they are novel, they are often disregarded, and even highly disputed, by the crowd before they eventually get understood and accepted.

As even IPCC climatologists admit, climate science is kinda "stuck" right now and is in need of some fresh approaches/understandings.

0 Replies

Getting back to the "assault on science" theme a little, there was something Feynman said that I had intended to quote before:

Quote:

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television--words, books, and so on--are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.

This is, I think, part of the disjunct between laymen and scientists. And because it allows a lot of "intellectual tyranny in the name of science," and because scientists know that, some scientists will try to exploit the public's ignorance in an attempt to enhance their own status and power (tyranny). But sooner or later scientists with more integrity will expose that abuse. Then "the public," knowing they have been played for chumps, becomes even more alienated and less trusting of science, so it just gets worse.

After a while, there are some people who don't believe they can trust anything scientists say. Were they more scientifically inclined and literate, they might have some hope of judging things for themselves. But they aren't, therefore can't, and so don't even try.

0 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know