The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[angelo]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

 

[angelo]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

What's that do to the claimed 97% consensus ?

This video uncovers the in-depth story behind the climate fraud.

Further information is here.....................................

 

[angelo]

I propose a new law of online debate, Bilby's Law, which states:

The use of a video or cartoon in support of a scientific point is a clear indication that the person providing that medium has insufficient understanding of the topic to usefully participate in the debate.

Seriously, I am increasingly convinced that the most direct measure of a person's intelligence online is to be found by study of the ratio of written arguments to video, meme, and cartoon postings. A video is an excellent way to make an argument (that could be expressed in a handful of sentences) take several minutes - perhaps even an hour or more - to convey. The information density of such media is incredibly low; While the depth of knowledge conveyed is almost always practically zero.

Presenting video evidence in a debate is a strong indication that the person doing so has only the most superficial understanding, as any person with a deep grasp of a topic will invariably choose to convey their knowledge through text (with perhaps an occasional well designed graph) - if only because this is the only way to disseminate large volumes of information in a reasonable amount of time.

Using a thirty minute YouTube clip to present a single concept to your audience is a massive waste of their time - and therefore a clear indication that your own knowledge extends almost nowhere beyond that single concept.

Isn't this a forum for discussion?

 

[bigfield]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

You've consistently claimed that science is wrong about climate change.
You've claimed that the peer-review system is dishonest.
You've claimed that climate scientists are fraudsters.
You've disparaged climate science as "alarmism".
You've consistently claimed that climate change is a "cult".

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

 

[bilby]

I propose a new law of online debate, Bilby's Law, which states:

The use of a video or cartoon in support of a scientific point is a clear indication that the person providing that medium has insufficient understanding of the topic to usefully participate in the debate.

Seriously, I am increasingly convinced that the most direct measure of a person's intelligence online is to be found by study of the ratio of written arguments to video, meme, and cartoon postings. A video is an excellent way to make an argument (that could be expressed in a handful of sentences) take several minutes - perhaps even an hour or more - to convey. The information density of such media is incredibly low; While the depth of knowledge conveyed is almost always practically zero.

Presenting video evidence in a debate is a strong indication that the person doing so has only the most superficial understanding, as any person with a deep grasp of a topic will invariably choose to convey their knowledge through text (with perhaps an occasional well designed graph) - if only because this is the only way to disseminate large volumes of information in a reasonable amount of time.

Using a thirty minute YouTube clip to present a single concept to your audience is a massive waste of their time - and therefore a clear indication that your own knowledge extends almost nowhere beyond that single concept.

Isn't this a forum for discussion?

Yes, it is.

A YouTube video isn't a discussion; It's a one-way medium.

You can yell at your TV, but you can't have a discussion with it.

 

[bigfield]

Isn't this a forum for discussion?

This is a forum for science discussion.

So let's discuss your latest link:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ing-Kilodeaths&p=754676&viewfull=1#post754676

Happer is not a climate science expert. He specialises in a different field of physics. This is not the first time you have presented us with a physicist and claimed he is a climate science expert.

You don't seem to understand that physicists aren't automatically experts in every kind of physics. I'm sure you understand how specialisation works in other professions, like surgery. A cardiac surgeon is not an expert in neurosurgery, and vice versa. An atomic physicist (such as Happer) is not an expert in atmospheric physics.

And since Happer is not an expert on climate science, his opinion does not matter.

If you want to have a discussion about science, then at a bare minimum you need to understand how science works. Scientists come up with ideas, then they conduct experiments to test those ideas, and then they present their work to be scrutinised by their peers.

Happer hasn't done the work. He claims the Earth's climate sensitivity is about 1°C, but he hasn't published any research showing how he has tested this claim.

I've explained why I don't consider Happer to be an expert on climate science. Perhaps you can explain why you do consider Happer to be expert on climate science, or at least why you don;t consider my reasons convincing, or what makes my position cultish.

 

[steve_bank]

Sometimes I think Tucker Carlson is posting here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

But you keep posting garbage links and never actually address the facts when we point out problems with what you are saying.

 

[fromderinside]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.

 

[angelo]

You can't get your story straight on any detail. Each fake expert you vomit up tells a different story than the one before. Clearly you don't care if they're right, so long as they're on your side of the culture war.

You've truly lost your way when you're calling the scientific establishment a cult.

I'm not calling the scientific establishment anything. I'm calling the alarmist and activism of GW/CC/CD a cult!

So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.

Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you points out are 97% of the climate science establishment.

I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.

Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

Crap.

The number of papers that have no bearing on global warming is irrelevant.

Using their logic there's no way His Flatulence should be President since less than 1% of people voted for him.

 

[fromderinside]

So how do you back up your claim that GW/CC/CD is a cult? They are, as the video you posted points out 97% of the climate science establishment.

I've seen nothing from you other than charges and unsupportable video claims from discredited hacks with which, to a person, other participants on this thread attest.

Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

Not my 97%. Its a video you posted. Now you are blaming others for your propaganda using more of your propaganda.

Not an actual fact in anything you post. Just smearing others and shoveling garbage.

 

[bigfield]

Your 97% is debunked here.................................https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

This is what the blog has to say about the 97% consensus:

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

0.3% is quite a bit different than 97.1 percent, so how did Legates get such a different number when he "recreated" the study?

It turns out that Legates et al didn't recreate the study at all. They simply decided that Cook's rubric was wrong, and picked a different set of papers from Cook's dataset.

Cook et al 2013 divided abstracts into seven types of endorsement:

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
(3) Implicit endorsement
(4a) No position
(4b) Uncertain
(5) Implicit rejection
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

These are the results:

	Rated by volunteers		Self-rated by authors
Position	% of all abstracts	% among abstracts with AGW position (%)	% of all authors	% among authors with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW (1, 2, 3)	32.6% (3896)	97.1	34.8% (10 188)	98.4
No AGW position (4a)	66.4% (7930)	—	64.6% (18 930)	—
Reject AGW (5, 6, 7)	0.7% (78)	1.9	0.4% (124)	1.2
Uncertain on AGW (4b)	0.3% (40)	1.0	0.2% (44)	0.4

Legates et al criticism is threefold:

1. Abstracts with no position should be treated as if they are undecided on AGW or disagree with AGW. ("It was only by arbitrarily excluding those 7930 abstracts that expressed no opinion (but retaining forty abstracts expressing uncertainty) that Cook et al. (2013) were able to conclude that 97.1 % endorsed ‘consensus’.") This reduces the percentage from 97.2% to 32.6%.
2. Explicit endorsements of AGW without quantification, and implicit endorsements of AGW, don't count as endorsements of AGW. ("...consensus hypotheses must be expressed quantitatively.") This reduces the percentage from 32.6% to 0.5%.
3. Of 64 abstracts marked as an "explicit endorsement with quantification", they say that only 41 actually qualify. ("However, the authors’ data file shows that they had marked only 64
abstracts (0.5 % of the entire sample) as endorsing the standard definition of consensus. Inspection shows that 23 of these 64 do not, in fact, endorse that definition. Only 41 papers
(0.3 % of the sample) do so.") This reduces the percentage from 0.5% to 0.3%.

Basically, Legates et al are just relying on a ridiculous interpretation of Cook's analysis in order to disregard the overwhelming majority of abstracts that endorse AGW.

[MENTION=341]angelo[/MENTION], do you agree with Legates that Cook should have reported 0.3% instead of 97.2%?

 

[angelo]

However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS. as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!

 

[bigfield]

However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS.

"I believe, no matter what the facts are."

You're the cultist, [MENTION=341]angelo[/MENTION].

as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!

Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.

Oh! Oh! One has glasses!
The other is taller!

 

[angelo]

However way it's put, the fact remains the 97% figure is a crock full of BS.

"I believe, no matter what the facts are."

You're the cultist, [MENTION=341]angelo[/MENTION].

as I've stated elsewhere, science doesn't work by consensus, it works by experimentation and observation. For that reason alone, the 97% figure is pie in the sky!

Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.

Of course, Professor bigfield is the standard bearer of scientific knowledge on this forum. What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!

 

[bigfield]

What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!

We can rule a couple of things out:
- science
- irony

 

[angelo]

What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!

We can rule a couple of things out:
- science
- irony

Both of which you're the expert of course. Especially climate science. A Martin Reese or a Prof Freeman would have nothing on your expert knowledge.

 

[bigfield]

What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!

We can rule a couple of things out:
- science
- irony

Both of which you're the expert of course. Especially climate science. A Martin Reese or a Prof Freeman would have nothing on your expert knowledge.

Martin Rees? Freeman Dyson? If you're going to name-drop, at least get the names correct.

Fucked if I know why you name-dropped Martin Rees.

As for Freeman Dyson: Dyson says that "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/10/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-about-global-warmimg/

He also goes on to say:

I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Dyson goes on to explain what he means by "what is really happening": he believes climate scientists have not accounted for land use change, and he believes that human land use can absorb all of the carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. However he adds the caveat that we need to invent new land use techniques that will increase our ability to capture carbon.

Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.

Basically, Dyson's view is "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated" because we'll invent our way out of the problem, with land use change and genetic engineering.

Last I checked, Dyson was a professor of physics, not an expert in land use or genetic engineering. So why the fuck should I care what he thinks?

Climate science is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
Land use is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
Genetic engineering is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.

Just because someone is a expert in one thing doesn't make them an expert in everything else.