Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

    Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

    Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show
    that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

    Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
    We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

    In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

    Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
    "Abstract
    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
    examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
    of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 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."

    Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

    Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

    Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

    But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
    How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

    So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
    According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
    Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

    Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

    Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
    How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
    If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
    If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
    If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

    The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 24-01-2018, 11:51 AM. Reason: simplification
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

    Comment


    • #47
      Your tinfoil hat is on crooked.
      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

      Comment


      • #48
        This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.

        Comment


        • #49
          No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
          There can only be one.

          Comment


          • #50
            Is he your alter-ego?
            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
              No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
              NASA is lying to us about climate change "facts". You think that is irrelevant?
              When you reference their temperature record as evidence of global warming will the "FACT" that they lied about the consensus be irrelevant?
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                No, he brings up mostly irrelevant posts.
                NASA is lying to us about climate change "facts". You think that is irrelevant?
                When you reference their temperature record as evidence of global warming will the "FACT" that they lied about the consensus be irrelevant?
                ???
                when i reference the scale in my dr's office as evidence of my putting on [another ] three pounds and should start a diet as a result, does the fact the 8 people that dined in the same restaurant the nurse did for dinner last night did not actually reach a consensus on whether the food was good or bad even though she reported that most people enjoyed themselves mean anything or is it irrelevant?
                "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                Comment


                • #53
                  If the yelp reviews didn't explicitly mention that the food was fattening then it clearly wasn't.

                  Also, if your wife says you're just *perfect* then she's right*, and everyone else from your doctor to your fishing buddies are clearly corrupted by vested interests in the diet industry when they call you "overweight" and "lard-***" respectively.

                  *It's not at all that she doesn't want an argument like last time skipping desert was suggested.
                  There can only be one.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    looks like r/The_Donald is leaking
                    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                      This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
                      Now you're just trolling.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                        Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                        This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
                        Now you're just trolling.
                        "just"??? he has been trolling since day one...


                        Regarding MrCompost

                        Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                          The TRUTH about climate change. NASA's credibility, Peer review, and the fake consensus. Part2

                          Hello Edmonton and fellow Albertans. In this post I'm going to address NASA's credibility, and the credibility of the consensus.

                          Under the heading "FACTS", and "Scientific Consensus", NASA claims that "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
                          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                          Let's take a look and see if it's THE TRUTH.

                          Last time we looked at the Doran survey to see if it supports NASA's statements, or even represents a consensus.
                          We found the survey doesn't even ask a question that represents the claim, and the 97% consensus isn't even based on 97 scientists.

                          In this post let's look at the Cook "consensus".

                          Here's the survey available online, lets check it to see if it represents what NASA says it does............
                          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf
                          "Abstract
                          We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,
                          examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4%
                          of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 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."

                          Let's take a careful look at what the abstract says...............

                          "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

                          Right away, how do you get a 97% "consensus" on "climate change" if 2/3's of the papers don't endorse it? But it gets much, much worse........

                          "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

                          Notice the language gets a bit tricky here......... "humans are causing global warming." So, there's a 97% consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?????. Not even close to NASA's criteria that "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." In fact, why would you even bother about a consensus that man is causing SOME global warming?

                          But it gets even worse.............One of the ratings was "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" Closer to NASA's "Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
                          How many papers of 12,000 had this rating? 64.

                          So, in this "consensus" of 12,000 papers, only 64 "1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%".
                          According to NASA, and John Cook's methodology 64 of 12,000 becomes a 97% consensus.
                          Check John Cook's data on the journal(peer review) website......
                          http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...91datafile.txt

                          Here are some questions I ask myself every day.........

                          Doesn't NASA know what was done here?
                          How did this paper, with this methodology, get past "peer review?
                          If NASA knows what this paper does(surely they do), why are they pretending it's legitimate?
                          If NASA is pretending this is legitimate, what else are they pretending is legitimate that we can't verify?
                          If this is what passes as "peer review", what won't they pass?

                          The answer to the last question is nothing. There is nothing they won't pass. "Climate science" is a cult being published as science. I will be debunking more fake science soon. Stay tuned.
                          I don’t have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute but the first part seems to compare two different things. The NASA statement has a percentage that neither references scientists or published papers or abstracts.

                          Taken directly from the post it says this:

                          "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

                          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


                          It says “multiple studies” without showing a count, or a total or even a percentage for the studies.

                          I’d want to know what all the active publishing climate warming trends are.


                          Uggh. I spent more than a minute fussing with typos and formatting via my tiny little screen.
                          Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018, 03:33 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Fellow Edmontonians, and proud Albertans.........

                            Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information. The climate change crowd despises science. They tell you to "look at the science" all day long, but it's a lie. They WILL NOT "look at the science". Notice they don't respond to my posts except with name calling and cartoons all the while calling ME the troll.

                            Let me just apologize in advance for using the Trumpism "fake", as in fake news, or fake science. I am not affiliated with Trump, but the expression is often appropriate when describing "climate science".

                            I am posting here for now. When was the last time the CBC reported the 97% consensus on climate change is fake? They will not. The news and the media prefer doomsday prophesies. They will not report the truth about climate change.

                            If you have questions, or would like me to address a particular subject please do so. Do not fear the climate thugs with thier name calling, mockery, cartoons, and insults. It is all part of the climate change agenda to sabotage intelligent, honest, respectful discourse.

                            Let's raise the bar and talk about "climate change".
                            "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by MrOilers View Post
                              This new MrCombust guy brings up some great points.
                              Maybe, but NASA talks about trends and all the opposition’s points seem to reference something else altogether different: published papers, counts of scientists, positions etc. and not the “trends”. It’s hard to make sense of the rebuttal.

                              If you saw a statement saying that 97% of the actively published global equity market index trends were were moving upwards due to global declines in interest rates, why would you go out and start calculating percentages of analysts or papers etc and not determining which are the indexes comprising the 100% used to calculate the 97% trend? (SPTR TSX...)
                              Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018, 03:45 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                There are two reasons I prefer the NOAA temperature record to that of NASA even though the two are in close agreement.

                                One, the NOAA is a branch of the US Department of Commerce and also runs the National Weather Service. Dr. James Hansen's activism tainted NASA's objectivity on climate change in the minds of some. Even though measuring the world's temperature is a scientific exercise, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the now retired Hansen's views.

                                Two, the NOAA's 'Climate at a Glance' is the best online tool I have run across. It is very user friendly and frequently updated.

                                https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-s...d/12/1880-2017

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X