Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by KC View Post
    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.
    The quote you supplied is missing the number 1 after
    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.....
    " The 1 refers to the footnotes at the bottom of the page.
    In the footnotes you will find the supporting documents.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
      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".
      Well read my post. 97% of trends deemed human caused is not 97% of scientists. It’s 97% of trends. It could be two scientists each looking at 5 and 50 trends respectively and then maybe looking for a simple majority (52%) scientific support of cause for each case. (Much like Donald Trump getting elected without a popular majority. So you wouldn’t go and say the election outcome was a fraud because you calculate that the popular vote was in favour of Hillary Clinton winning. Aggregate national popular vote has nothing to do with it.)

      Maybe the supporting documents explain what went into the calculation but based on that statement, you appear to be making irrational comparisons.
      Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018, 04:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
        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".
        It seems to me that rather than posting science you are accusing a great conspiracy.

        Showing that there is not unanimous agreement, or that extreme doomsday predictions have been published on occasion does not undermine the science itself. That CBC fails to reflect your opinion does not invalidate major media. If anything, major news outlets have been quick to report on things like the "starving Polar Bear" photo & controversy, or to stories about regions or industries that may enjoy benefits.
        Where a drought or heat wave is linked to something like an el nino cycle the media reports on that.



        If Climate Change is a conspiracy it's either the most subtle ever or the worst.
        There can only be one.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
          Originally posted by KC View Post
          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.
          The quote you supplied is missing the number 1 after
          "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.....
          " The 1 refers to the footnotes at the bottom of the page.
          In the footnotes you will find the supporting documents.
          Sorry but the quote I supplied is the quote you supplied.

          Moreover, I said that in my post. So why are you saying to me: “The quote you supplied is missing ...”?

          Please quote from the supporting documents a quote to justify the pursuit of the 97% consensus that you engaged in in your post above. The NASA quote provided above isn’t sufficient.
          Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018, 04:16 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by MrCompost
            Notice that my posts are well supported with factual information.


            Yeah, no. Your posts are full of misinformation. And when I brought actual information, for example on isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon proving that the increased levels in the atmosphere are the direct result of human activity, you completely ignored it. You're an intellectual coward and a liar.

            Comment


            • #66
              J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
              I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
                Why engage in name calling? Trolling?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by KC View Post
                  Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                  J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
                  Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
                  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
                  I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                    Originally posted by KC View Post
                    Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                    J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
                    Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
                    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
                    Anyone preaching and arguing their strongly held beliefs is a troll?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by KC View Post
                      Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                      Originally posted by KC View Post
                      Originally posted by Spudly View Post
                      J-a-y-s-u-s y'all love feeding trolls... Why so mad? Recreation? Trolls have no interest in being educated, simply stirring up attention.
                      Why engage in name calling? Trolling?
                      If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
                      Anyone preaching and arguing their strongly held beliefs is a troll?
                      Preaching and etc. just to provoke attention, yes.
                      I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        NASA, the American Meterological society, the fake consensus, and a real one.

                        Hello Edmontonians and Albertans, and welcome to the final instalment of NASA and the fake 97% consensus.

                        On NASA's blog, under "FACTS" and "scientific consensus", there is a list of impressive American institutions, all stating their position on climate change. The American meteorological Society is one of them...............

                        "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

                        But who wrote this? Did all the members get together? No. The statement is prepared by a drafting committee. A handful of people.

                        But the AMS did poll their membership, and got this result.........According to a new survey of AMS members, only 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 67% say climate change over the last 50 years is mostly to entirely caused by human activity"

                        29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity, this lines up with their statement on climate change that "the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced", so according to the AMS's own poll, only 29% of their members believe it.

                        http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-sur...limate-change/

                        That's not even close to a 97% consensus. Are 71% of AMS members deniers? 33%?

                        It may be impressive for all these institutions to be on board for climate change. But in the era of Obama's big push it is politically wise to tow the line. PR departments consisting of a handful of people, prepare carefully crafted climate change statements, in order to appease the climate thugs. These statements do not represent the memberships.

                        The next time the climate thugs post "you think it's a big conspiracy", or "I've got a tin foil hat", or, "you're a troll for denial of "climate science". Remember, me and 33% of American Meteorological Society members believe "climate change" is a load of crap. Don't let them tell you the vast majority of scientists agree that man is causing most of the warming, it's not true. And as for NASA's 97%, well, NASA is lying to you.

                        Stay tuned to my next series of posts about some great Canadians that have challenged the fake climate claims, and the fake climate science.
                        "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          You still haven’t posted a NASA quote on that 97% “consensus” you are talking about. It’s starting to appear that you are creating a fake NASA statement.


                          Here’s more on the AMS... indirect source but with direct quotes of AMS people.
                          96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening


                          AMS Executive Director Dr. Keith Seitter even wrote on the AMS website clarifying the results and condemning rampant distortion that was being spread. A full statement of the survey authors' response to the horrific distortion of their findings can be found at this link. With such a mischaracterized response, the AMS felt that a new survey was needed. The preliminary results of that new report were released this week.

                          Dr. Seitter provides some context for why the new survey was conducted,

                          This survey is noteworthy in having posed questions on climate change in very clear and precise ways that allow straightforward and direct interpretation of the results without ambiguity...
                          ...

                          Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either “extremely” or “very sure” it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening.

                          A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years (see summary for details)….Conversely, 5% think the climate is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know….”

                          http://www.forbes.com/sites/marshall...ys-new-report/



                          Last edited by KC; 24-01-2018, 10:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I now see that the NASA quote provided by MrCombust changes between his posts #30 and #46. (Essentially just a typo/omission/errant deletion. I know I have major troubles trying to post anything from a tiny autocorrecting screen.) Sorry for not catching that and going into the reading comprehension issue.


                            ...here:
                            Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus

                            Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

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

                            Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
                            John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,
                            Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15


                            ...
                            Abstract
                            The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on
                            11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non- experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non- endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. ...”
                            http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/4/048002/pdf
                            Last edited by KC; 25-01-2018, 05:53 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              KC is posting the fake science I just debunked.

                              KC's post references two of the surveys I just showed you.............

                              "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
                              "John Cook1,2,3,16, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8,"

                              John Cook is the author of the Cook consensus. Read what I wrote about that. His fake consensus turns 64 of 12,000 papers into a 97% consensus. I posted a link to his data so you can verify his ratings and confirm what I wrote about it. The fraud John Cook has perpetrated in the name of climate science is unimaginable, his website, skepticalscience, is an ocean of lies about climate change.

                              And when dealing with the fake surveys always watch for deception like what KC also posted above.....................
                              "96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening"

                              Of course climate change is happening. Know what else? 97% of scientists think water is wet.

                              You would think these guys wouldn't pull this kind of fraud, you would even "trust" them not to decieve the public with such sleazy tactics. I'm sorry to say, your "trust" is misplaced. In the name of "saving the planet" you are being lied to. Peer review has failed, they rubber stamp each other's work, and they have corrupted science to a level few are willing to believe. Our society must face up to the existential failure of the peer review and scientific process when we needed it the most.
                              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                It’s all about what population one seems worthy of the climate scientists label.

                                If someone surveyed doctors on some medical issue and included PHds in Philosophy you’d likely get a debate on reasonable populations to filter for to determine degree of “consensus” as well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X