Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 575 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
So? This is more appeals to authority where you cherry picked the authorities willing to push the message that you like. Their opinion is not the only opinion among authorities although there has been a concerted political effort to silence dissenters in the field. The fact that they think that dissenters should be silenced the primary reason why the "majority" opinion has to be taken with a huge grain a salt.

So everything that refutes your opinion on the matter must be "cherry picked". We get the picture. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
No, it is not. There is a lot of daylight between serious and a threat to humanity.
You need a some lessons in reading comprehension:

The question asked was:
"22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"

My summary was:
"20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat"

All I did was invert the question which does not change its meaning. i.e. if someone is "not convinced" that climate change is serious then they are saying that they "don't see climate change as a serious threat".


Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
You need a some lessons in reading comprehension:

The question asked was:
"22. How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"

My summary was:
"20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat"

All I did was invert the question which does not change its meaning. i.e. if someone is "not convinced" that climate change is serious then they are saying that they "don't see climate change as a serious threat".

So even if you're numbers are somehow correct, you will continue to ignore the (your) 80% who do conclude climate change IS a serious threat. Gotcha.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
20% of scientists saying that they do not believe that climate change is a serious threat is a fairly significant result. 20% is not a small collection of cranks

FFS! You're basing your nonsense on a single survey with an ~18% response rate... which equates to 66 scientists that bothered to respond in alignment with your stated 20%. If you state/claim 80% warrants an "ONLY", what tag would you use for 20%?  ;D

notwithstanding your self-serving, agenda-driven interpretation of that question is bogus man, bogus! Again, your original statement, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response" is quite liberally drawn from the actual question: "How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?"

as I said, the question was poorly framed in the first place... any literal interpretations of the question might call for clarification of "serious", of "dangerous", of "threat"... to ALL of humanity... all?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Lastly, the politics surrounding climate change has made the field extremely hostile for any career academic that dissents from the party line. Judy Curry retired from her tenured position because she got tired of the abuse she received for advancing opinions which she felt were justified given the state of the scientific knowledge. She did not have to retire - she could have simply ignored the scientific evidence as she saw it and continued on but her scientific integrity would not allow her to do that.

ya ya, your darling 'Crazy Aunt Judy' has gone walk-about!  ;D And here I thought I read references suggesting she had become a pariah 'on campus'... that few students were interested in her teachings, that she was a liability for any students pursuing masters/doctorate. She, the ready Congressional committee go-to for charlatan/denying Republicans! Just a few of her gem statements in regards her 2017 "retirement":
Quote
Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down. We can always hope.

I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
You're basing your nonsense on a single survey with an ~18% response rate...
And what are you basing your assertion that the number is different on? Blind faith? The studies claiming 97% only asked one or two meaningless questions designed to maximize their propaganda value. Do you have a study that asks relevant questions, has better response rates and supports you claim that more a larger number of scientists think that AGW is a serious threat?

s I said, the question was poorly framed in the first place... any literal interpretations of the question might call for clarification of "serious", of "dangerous", of "threat"... to ALL of humanity... all?
The wording is fine for its purpose: assessing the degree of concern felt by scientists and a significant minority of scientists are not that concerned about it. Reasonable people should want to know why.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
she was a liability for any students pursuing masters/doctorate.
She was a liability because the of AGW zealots that has taken over the scientific establishment that accept no deviation from the party line. A student could not risk their career with her as mentor. Nothing Curry has said is unreasonable from a scientific perspective. Denigrating her as a "crazy lady" is a perfect example how your opinions have nothing to with science and it is absolutely laughable to suggest that you have anything useful to say about the actual science.
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
And what are you basing your assertion that the number is different on? Blind faith? The studies claiming 97% only asked one or two meaningless questions designed to maximize their propaganda value. Do you have a study that asks relevant questions, has better response rates and supports you claim that more a larger number of scientists think that AGW is a serious threat?

c'mon man! You were asked to substantiate your claimed 20% statement. That single survey... based on 66 responses... appears to be your sole basis for your continued generalized and broad-based statement about scientists. Again, if you tag 80% with your "ONLY" label, what should we label your single-survey 20% as? ;D

studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications? In any case, I'll ask again: what percentage figure do you associate with the scientific consensus - and how have you (how was it) arrived at?

The wording is fine for its purpose: assessing the degree of concern felt by scientists and a significant minority of scientists are not that concerned about it. Reasonable people should want to know why.

again, those 66 scientists that bothered to reply in line with the question? That question is so open to interpretations - why... look how you interpreted it for your self-serving, agenda-driven purposes!

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications?
Peer-reviewed scientific publications are all biased. The true reality is contained in bloggers' posts and disgruntled ex-academics ramblings on social media. Because, you know, alternatives, by virtue of being alternative, are far more reliable than the scientific method and the process of having your research evaluated by equally educated and qualified peers.
Funny Funny x 1 Winner Winner x 3 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
c'mon man! You were asked to substantiate your claimed 20% statement.
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.

But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.

studies supporting the consensus... waddabout the meta-studies reviewing scientific publications?
Those metastudies are also completely useless. Making inferences based a couple lines of text in a paper is a ridiculous way to determine a scientists opinion. More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 01:35:03 pm by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
She was a liability because the of AGW zealots that has taken over the scientific establishment that accept no deviation from the party line. A student could not risk their career with her as mentor. Nothing Curry has said is unreasonable from a scientific perspective. Denigrating her as a "crazy lady" is a perfect example how your opinions have nothing to with science and it is absolutely laughable to suggest that you have anything useful to say about the actual science.

and here I thought her richly deserved 'Crazy Aunt' designation was a term of endearment! And here I thought she claims "natural forces" are more significant (more than human influence) in regards warming causation. Wait now - is that why you refuse to state you accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/climate change? Is that why... you're forever quoting and referencing her?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8246
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.

But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.

Yeah I'll never trust that dang NASA outfit again. They throw out bogus numbers all the time don't ya know!

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
Yeah I'll never trust that dang NASA outfit again. They throw out bogus numbers all the time don't ya know!
If their so-called "scientists" were as educated as Tim's favourite bloggers, then maybe he would trust their arguments.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
Add it has more substance than any survey you provided. So go pound salt. If you want to say that "appeals to authority" based on vague questions are not reasonable forms of argument then I will expect you to remind Omni and others who toss around the bogus 97% number all of the time.

But we really know you won't do that because you are a hypocrite who will simply sets the goal posts based on whether it suits your ideological objectives.
Those metastudies are also completely useless. Making inferences based a couple lines of text in a paper is a ridiculous way to determine a scientists opinion. More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.

ya ya, the scientific establishment has long been keepin' the denier-man down! Skeptical/denying studies can't get a break cause that wascally peer-review/peer-response process is either so biased or so corrupt... or so unfair in challenging & countering studies that presume to challenge consensus science. /snarc

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4048
More importantly, those meta studies only looked at the irrelevant question of whether human CO2 is causing warming. They said nothing about whether it is a serious concern.

oh my! Who knew those meta-studies should have reviewed scientific publications that supported your most liberally interpreted, self-serving, agenda-driven question" --- your stated claim that, "20% of scientists do not accept that reducing CO2 emissions "rapidly" is a useful response"? Wait now - surely someone/some organization has done just that, yes? Surely!

wait now! Are you suggesting scientific publications should include summary statements on policy assessment/risk/determinations? Aren't you the forever guy stating scientists have no foundation to do so... that only your favoured, "engineers and economists" are qualified in that regard? Make up your mind, hey!