Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
So you're saying the press release sounds fishy?
Something finny about it. But let's not get in a roe over it. These things get scaled up too much. I'm just baiting jem and he will take it hook line and sinker.
Arrggh.
you would know its a press release of this peer reviewed paper....
a paper which proves you are lying...
Remember, we discussed this before, you were not sure how to read the abstract... but if you still find the words difficult... go back and read the post where I explained the first part was academics delighting in esoterica.
Climate Consensus and âMisinformationâ: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
a paper which proves you are lying...
Remember, we discussed this before, you were not sure how to read the abstract... but if you still find the words difficult... go back and read the post where I explained the first part was academics delighting in esoterica.
Climate Consensus and âMisinformationâ: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Perhaps it is helpful to recognize that most peer reviewed papers published in the field of climate science, or closely allied fields such as atmosphere physics, don't take any position at all with regard to whether humans are causing significant warming of the atmosphere. It is misleading to suggest that since only one author among 9,136 stated that humans were not responsible for observed warming that the other 9,135 authors necessarily stated that they were responsible. The vast majority of these papers stick to presenting data and analysing it without taking any direct position on anthropomorphic CO2-caused warming.
The issue is so complex that that nearly all the authors of these papers have avoided taking a direct position in their peer reviewed journal articles with regard to the importance of human CO2 emissions. Of course, one must allow for the possibility of a significant contribution from man, unless one can rule it out. But this is a far cry from making a direct statement to the effect that man is causing significant warming of the atmosphere due to CO2 emissions. We are a long ways off from any definitive conclusion in that regard!
THE â97 PERCENT CLIMATE CONSENSUSâ CANARD
MAY 18, 2014 â STEVEN HAYWARD
TV watchers will recall the familiar advertising trope of yesteryear in which we were told â4 out of 5 dentists [or doctors] recommendâ using fluoride toothpaste, aspirin for headaches, or some such. We were always left to wonder whether that fifth doctor was a moron or something, never pausing to consider that the fifth doctor might well recommend the same thing, but emphasize something else first (like flossing perhaps, or Tylenol instead of aspirin because of sensitive stomachs, etc). But Archie Bunker was coming back on the air in 30 seconds, so most of us didnât follow up on these puzzles.
Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these daysâthat â97 percent of scientists âbelieve inâ climate change.â As Iâve written before, the only real surprise is that the number isnât 100 percent. There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasnât changed or wonât change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon. The leading so-called âskepticsâlike MITâs Richard Lindzen or Catoâs Patrick Michaels or NASAâs John Christy or Roy Spencerâwould be included in the 97 percent figure. Iâm guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magicianâs misdirectionâto get you to buy an illusion. In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking weâre on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore.
No one can possibly keep up with the flood of scientific articles published on climate-related topics these days (weâre spending way too much on climate research right now, but thatâs a topic for another day), so it is ridiculous to offer sweeping generalizations like this about the character of the scientific literature. I keep up with a fair amount of it in Nature, Science, and a couple of the other main journals, and what is quite obvious is that most climate-related articles are about specific aspects of climate, such as observed changed in localized ecosystems, measurement refinements (like ocean temperatures, etc), energy use and projections, and large data analysis. Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore. Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively andâdare I say itâunsettled. (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you donât believe me.) The â97 percent of scientists âbelieve inâ climate changeâ cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore. The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldnât brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers donât actually deal with what the Climatistas say:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]
Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently havenât gotten the memo that youâre not supposed to call it âglobal warmingâââclimate changeâ is the term of art now. Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Letâs translate: Among the one-third of papers that âendorseâ the âconsensus,â there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus. Againâthe only mystery here is that the number isnât 100 percent. Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election. For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il.
The plot thickens. Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data. But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queensland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queensland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter. That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesnât it?
The irrepressible Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit has more, including a link to the inevitable Hitler parody video. But just remember this: 4 out of 5 claims by the Climatistas are self-serving political tommyrot. (And more here from The Daily Caller.)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php
MAY 18, 2014 â STEVEN HAYWARD
TV watchers will recall the familiar advertising trope of yesteryear in which we were told â4 out of 5 dentists [or doctors] recommendâ using fluoride toothpaste, aspirin for headaches, or some such. We were always left to wonder whether that fifth doctor was a moron or something, never pausing to consider that the fifth doctor might well recommend the same thing, but emphasize something else first (like flossing perhaps, or Tylenol instead of aspirin because of sensitive stomachs, etc). But Archie Bunker was coming back on the air in 30 seconds, so most of us didnât follow up on these puzzles.
Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these daysâthat â97 percent of scientists âbelieve inâ climate change.â As Iâve written before, the only real surprise is that the number isnât 100 percent. There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasnât changed or wonât change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon. The leading so-called âskepticsâlike MITâs Richard Lindzen or Catoâs Patrick Michaels or NASAâs John Christy or Roy Spencerâwould be included in the 97 percent figure. Iâm guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magicianâs misdirectionâto get you to buy an illusion. In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking weâre on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore.
No one can possibly keep up with the flood of scientific articles published on climate-related topics these days (weâre spending way too much on climate research right now, but thatâs a topic for another day), so it is ridiculous to offer sweeping generalizations like this about the character of the scientific literature. I keep up with a fair amount of it in Nature, Science, and a couple of the other main journals, and what is quite obvious is that most climate-related articles are about specific aspects of climate, such as observed changed in localized ecosystems, measurement refinements (like ocean temperatures, etc), energy use and projections, and large data analysis. Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore. Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively andâdare I say itâunsettled. (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you donât believe me.) The â97 percent of scientists âbelieve inâ climate changeâ cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore. The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldnât brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers donât actually deal with what the Climatistas say:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]
Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently havenât gotten the memo that youâre not supposed to call it âglobal warmingâââclimate changeâ is the term of art now. Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Letâs translate: Among the one-third of papers that âendorseâ the âconsensus,â there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus. Againâthe only mystery here is that the number isnât 100 percent. Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election. For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il.
The plot thickens. Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data. But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queensland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queensland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter. That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesnât it?
The irrepressible Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit has more, including a link to the inevitable Hitler parody video. But just remember this: 4 out of 5 claims by the Climatistas are self-serving political tommyrot. (And more here from The Daily Caller.)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php
Which is why there is no need for prudence or any kind of behavior change. In fact, there's so much uncertainty that even studying the issue is a waste of money!
Sure, why waste an opportunity based on politicized junk "science" to trash the economy and institute unnecessary carbon taxes to redistribute wealth?
Did you know that CO2 is essential to photosynthesis? Any idea what that is?