Australia See's the Light...

[Abraham3]

Let me ask you a question, why would scientists who have an opinion to express choose the option 'No Opinion'?

Because the composition of their research papers didn't require it.

 

[lakeview]

Let me ask you a question, why would scientists who have an opinion to express choose the option 'No Opinion'?

Because the composition of their research papers didn't require it.

That's not an answer to my question and also doesn't support what you were saying earlier.

 

[Abraham3]

Let me ask you a question, why would scientists who have an opinion to express choose the option 'No Opinion'?

Because the composition of their research papers didn't require it.

That's not an answer to my question and also doesn't support what you were saying earlier.

That does answer your question and does not conflict in the least with earlier statments.

These authors were not given a CHOICE to say "No Opinion". The survey consisted of reviews of the abstracts of climate-oriented studies by third parties. The papers judged not to express agreement or disagreement with the IPCC position were tossed into the "No Opinion" pile. It means nothing more than that. If you're trying to suggest that they didn't want to express an opinion because they secretly disagreed but were afraid of backlash and condemnation, you're going to have to try a great deal harder than that.

 

[flacaltenn]

You dont attempt to divine opinion from scientific journal articles that dont value opinion. Moreover you dont assume unaminous consent among 10 authors on a paper unless youre a partisian zealot (which the researchers were).

If I were to write in an abstract that .......

"It has been suggested by authors in previous works, that the Common Era warming trend is due solely to anthropomorphic actions (footnotes 3 and 4)" ..........

Id be counted (and all of the coauthors) as part of your phoney consensus.. And that would be very wrong and unethical... Wouldnt expect you to get that tho......

 

[lakeview]

Because the composition of their research papers didn't require it.

That's not an answer to my question and also doesn't support what you were saying earlier.

That does answer your question and does not conflict in the least with earlier statments.

These authors were not given a CHOICE to say "No Opinion". The survey consisted of reviews of the abstracts of climate-oriented studies by third parties. The papers judged not to express agreement or disagreement with the IPCC position were tossed into the "No Opinion" pile. It means nothing more than that. If you're trying to suggest that they didn't want to express an opinion because they secretly disagreed but were afraid of backlash and condemnation, you're going to have to try a great deal harder than that.

Fair enough but if this is how it was done then claiming the 97% figure, the way it's been claimed, is extremely misleading. It's stuff like this that is the reason there are as many deniers as there are.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Abbot is a fascist.

They probably found this guy deep in the outback somewhere killing things.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did he mention LakeView --- that over 3/4s of the papers reviewed fell into the no opinion category?

I dont think whats left represents "all climate scientists" in any statistics class exam.

 

[lakeview]

Did he mention LakeView --- that over 3/4s of the papers reviewed fell into the no opinion category?

I dont think whats left represents "all climate scientists" in any statistics class exam.

Exactly. AGW proponents go to great lengths to twist things in this manner and then bitch and moan about there being so many deniers after people take issue with the methodology. They bring it on themselves.

 

[Abraham3]

When you finish trying to refute the Cook & Nuccitelli survey, you can get busy on:

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature



Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.


Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[107][108][109]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

 

[Abraham3]

Did he mention LakeView --- that over 3/4s of the papers reviewed fell into the no opinion category?

I dont think whats left represents "all climate scientists" in any statistics class exam.

Exactly. AGW proponents go to great lengths to twist things in this manner and then bitch and moan about there being so many deniers after people take issue with the methodology. They bring it on themselves.

Would you put Singer's work forward as an example of a properly conducted survey?

 

[Abraham3]

A statement from Tony Abbott:

[J]ust to make it clear... I think that climate change is real, humanity makes a contribution. It's important to take strong and effective action against it, and that is what our direct action policy does... The important thing is to take strong and effective action to tackle climate change, action that doesn't damage our economy. And that is why the incentive-based system that we've got, the direct action policies, which are quite similar to those that president Obama has put into practice, is - that's the smart way to deal with this, a big tax is a dumb way to deal with it.

— Tony Abbott on ABC Insiders prior to 2013 Election

 

[flacaltenn]

I refuse to participate in your POOPING UP EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU TOUCH...

It's not polite, and it's repetitively USELESS and annoying... Put it in the appropriate place and we'll all point out how silly this all is...

 

[Abraham3]

I refuse to participate in your POOPING UP EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU TOUCH...

It's not polite, and it's repetitively USELESS and annoying... Put it in the appropriate place and we'll all point out how silly this all is...

Do you think a discussion of Cook & Nuccitelli's work in ERL is more appropriate in a thread about Australian climate change policy than is a comment by the current Australian prime minister about his climate change policy? ? ?

 

[flacaltenn]

I refuse to participate in your POOPING UP EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU TOUCH...

It's not polite, and it's repetitively USELESS and annoying... Put it in the appropriate place and we'll all point out how silly this all is...

Do you think a discussion of Cook & Nuccitelli's work in ERL is more appropriate in a thread about Australian climate change policy than is a comment by the current Australian prime minister about his climate change policy? ? ?

Nope... Not at all. This thread is about CURRENT policy actions on AGW.. Not 5 year old moldy sketchy opinion surveys... Almost all the crap you posted comes from BEFORE the ClimateGate emails were revealed and before the warming had STALLED for over a decade.

You need to find some discipline, some manners and learn sphincter contol or buy the Depends. This should be continued in your failed thread "Six Ways From Sunday" or --- I supposed you're welcomed to start a NEW doomed thread..

 

[Abraham3]

I refuse to participate in your POOPING UP EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU TOUCH...

It's not polite, and it's repetitively USELESS and annoying... Put it in the appropriate place and we'll all point out how silly this all is...

Do you think a discussion of Cook & Nuccitelli's work in ERL is more appropriate in a thread about Australian climate change policy than is a comment by the current Australian prime minister about his climate change policy? ? ?

Nope... Not at all. This thread is about CURRENT policy actions on AGW.. Not 5 year old moldy sketchy opinion surveys... Almost all the crap you posted comes from BEFORE the ClimateGate emails were revealed and before the warming had STALLED for over a decade.

You need to find some discipline, some manners and learn sphincter contol or buy the Depends. This should be continued in your failed thread "Six Ways From Sunday" or --- I supposed you're welcomed to start a NEW doomed thread..

I realize it was likely poor timing, but your charge that I was "pooping" on a thread came directly after my quotation of Tony Abbott, the core of this thread.

You've spent the majority of your time in this thread attempting to refute Cook & Nuccitelli. That was completely off-topic. However, given all of your posting along those lines, bringing up all the other surveys that have found nearly identical results among climate scientists is entirely appropriate. One would hope that you had the intellect to understand that, yes, indeed, the vast majority of climate scientists really do believe AGW and that you had the guts to admit you were wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

I refuse to participate in your POOPING UP EVERY SINGLE THREAD YOU TOUCH...

It's not polite, and it's repetitively USELESS and annoying... Put it in the appropriate place and we'll all point out how silly this all is...

Do you think a discussion of Cook & Nuccitelli's work in ERL is more appropriate in a thread about Australian climate change policy than is a comment by the current Australian prime minister about his climate change policy? ? ?

Have you ever run a bio search on Cook? Why would you put your faith in the writings of a cartoonist turned environmental fanatic?

Have you ever run a bio search on Nuccitelli? It takes quite a bit of digging but you find out he works for an environmental agency that is PAID to further AGW propaganda. It is rumored he works in the oil and gas industry, but I'm not finding evidence of that.

And as for their studies, it just takes a little bit of digging to learn how much Cook and Nuccitelli are furthering propaganda that cannot be backed up with real math and evidence of fact:

Wattsupwiththat does some pretty impressive research to expose scams and frauds in environment 'science'":
Dana Nuccitelli Misleads and Misinforms in His First Blog Post at The Guardian | Watts Up With That?

Popular technology does an impressive job of exposing the 97% fraud that environmental wackos are currently using as their "bible":
Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The point being that the new Australian Prime Minister is not only prudent in slowing down and/or stalling expensive and ill advised participation in the New World Order scheme of carbon credit trading and other manipulation of the people, but he is wise. And I applaud him.

 

[Abraham3]

Have you ever run a bio search on Cook? Why would you put your faith in the writings of a cartoonist turned environmental fanatic?

I don't know who you're talking about (not that I find anything wrong with being a cartoonist) but John Cook is a degreed solar physicist.

Have you ever run a bio search on Nuccitelli? It takes quite a bit of digging but you find out he works for an environmental agency that is PAID to further AGW propaganda. It is rumored he works in the oil and gas industry, but I'm not finding evidence of that.

"Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. He also blogs at The Guardian." (Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined)

And as for their studies, it just takes a little bit of digging to learn how much Cook and Nuccitelli are furthering propaganda that cannot be backed up with real math and evidence of fact:

Wattsupwiththat does some pretty impressive research to expose scams and frauds in environment 'science'":

Now if you want to look up someone's technical qualifications, why don't you try to find out how much education Anthony Watts has made his way through. See what sort of degree(s) he's got. Then check out some of his regular contributors: Bob Tisdale, Willis Eschenbach, Steven McIntyre or Christopher Monckton. Tally up the number of PhDs you find and then the number of degrees at ANY level that have anything to do with climate science or, for that matter ANY category of science. Before you try to get on the case of mainstream science (cause that's what you're doing when you attack AGW) you better make certain all YOUR ducks are in a row.

Popular technology does an impressive job of exposing the 97% fraud that environmental wackos are currently using as their "bible"

That article does a very UNimpressive job of anything. Skeptical Science is not a science journal. It has an agenda, a motive. That Cook et al should begin their study with the HYPOTHESIS that a consensus actually exists isn't the LEAST bit surprising, particularly considering how many other studies have shown just that.

The point being that the new Australian Prime Minister is not only prudent in slowing down and/or stalling expensive and ill advised participation in the New World Order scheme of carbon credit trading and other manipulation of the people, but he is wise. And I applaud him.

But he fully accepts AGW. His problem is with the financial wisdom of the Australian carbon tax. He is attempting a DIFFERENT scheme to reduce carbon emissions; one he hopes to have less negative impact on his economy. Fine. I'm no economist. If his idea works better, wonderful.

I'm going to sea overnight. See you tomorrow.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry Abraham but I don't usually read or respond to arguments chopped up like that. And I certainly don't accept an argument that something just isn't so unless you can articulate a reasoned rationale for rejecting a concept or at least provide a credible source. But have a good day.

Meanwhile:


Re John Howard's (former Australian prime minister) speech of two weeks ago:

Tuesday night’s speech was titled “One religion is enough”.

In notes for the speech distributed beforehand, Mr Howard said he chose the title “in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate … costly responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe.”…

“The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet.”…

He accused the IPCC of including “nakedly political agendas” in its advice…

Mr Howard also criticised “zealous advocates of action of global warming” and “alarmists” for attempting to exploit the NSW bushfires in October.

He pointed out that a big bushfire in Victoria took place 163 years ago, “when the planet was not experiencing any global warming. You might well describe all of this as an inconvenient truth”…

Speaking in London ahead of the speech, Mr Howard said climate change activists saw the issue as a substitute religion – “it’s the latest progressive cause,” he said…

“I am unconvinced that catastrophe is around the corner… I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated.”
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard Admits He Caved In On Global Warming, Not From Conviction But Fear | PA Pundits - International

So it is ironic that Tony Abbott, the 'conservative' as Americans would define him, has personally embraced the AGW religion but has dumped the more indefensible policies associated with it and surrounds himself with people who reject it.
Australia's New Prime Minister Surrounded By Climate Science Denying Voices and Advisors | DeSmogBlog

While his predecessor, the 'liberal' as Americans would define him, who put all those policies into place, or tried to, is the one now admitting that there is insufficient evidence to support the AGW religion and that would make him a skeptic.

 

[asterism]

Allow me to condense for everyone:

1) I'm going with consensus science because it's all I have.
2) Peer review isn't fair because we want our opinion to carry the weight of fact.

Allow me to translate into honest speech:

We are going to identify the actual state of the consensus because the core of the fossil-fuel funded denialist movement, just as were the fights of the tobacco industry and the intellligent design movement, is to create the false impression that no consensus exists.

To seriously suggest that ONLY papers that explicitly state they accept the IPCC position do so, and that no paper which only makes use of all the assumptions implicit in the IPCC position does so, is so patently dishonest an assessment it makes me ill.

What is wrong with you people?

So your 97% claim is proven to be false and now you're trying to tell other people that they are dishonest?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry Abraham but I don't usually read or respond to arguments chopped up like that. And I certainly don't accept an argument that something just isn't so unless you can articulate a reasoned rationale for rejecting a concept or at least provide a credible source. But have a good day.

Meanwhile:


Re John Howard's (former Australian prime minister) speech of two weeks ago:

Tuesday night’s speech was titled “One religion is enough”.

In notes for the speech distributed beforehand, Mr Howard said he chose the title “in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate … costly responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the world’s climate faces catastrophe.”…

“The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet.”…

He accused the IPCC of including “nakedly political agendas” in its advice…

Mr Howard also criticised “zealous advocates of action of global warming” and “alarmists” for attempting to exploit the NSW bushfires in October.

He pointed out that a big bushfire in Victoria took place 163 years ago, “when the planet was not experiencing any global warming. You might well describe all of this as an inconvenient truth”…

Speaking in London ahead of the speech, Mr Howard said climate change activists saw the issue as a substitute religion – “it’s the latest progressive cause,” he said…

“I am unconvinced that catastrophe is around the corner… I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated.”
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard Admits He Caved In On Global Warming, Not From Conviction But Fear | PA Pundits - International

So it is ironic that Tony Abbott, the 'conservative' as Americans would define him, has personally embraced the AGW religion but has dumped the more indefensible policies associated with it and surrounds himself with people who reject it.
Australia's New Prime Minister Surrounded By Climate Science Denying Voices and Advisors | DeSmogBlog

While his predecessor, the 'liberal' as Americans would define him, who put all those policies into place, or tried to, is the one now admitting that there is insufficient evidence to support the AGW religion and that would make him a skeptic.

That's a head-spinner.. Gotta be that NEITHER of them wants to become a useful tool for the AGW movement.

Must let all that sink in.. But it's not a good omen for the movement -- err hmmm -- religion..