Hottest Minute in the last 37 Minutes!

[Crick]

I knew I could count on SOMEONE to bring up Legates. Who else wants to join the contention that Legates work shows that only a tiny, tiny fraction of climate scientists accept AGW?

 

[elektra]

I knew I could count on SOMEONE to bring up Legates. Who else wants to join the contention that Legates work shows that only a tiny, tiny fraction of climate scientists accept AGW?

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I knew I could count on SOMEONE to bring up Legates. Who else wants to join the contention that Legates work shows that only a tiny, tiny fraction of climate scientists accept AGW?

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

They like to infer things that the study doesn't actually say..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, the propaganda is stepping up. Just when one thinks they can not get any more bizarre with their fear we hear this.

NASA Scientist using the latest satellite and computer technology have discovered that the last minute was the hottest minute in the last 37 minutes!

STAY TUNED FOR SECOND BY SECOND UPDATES!

(this is an opinion piece brought to you by me, hence no links)

Do you never tire of demonstrating over and over again how extremely insane you are, Ejakulatra?

:Look at Rolling Blunder calling people names.

 

[Crick]

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

The post in which I first mentioned him has links.

 

[Crick]

I knew I could count on SOMEONE to bring up Legates. Who else wants to join the contention that Legates work shows that only a tiny, tiny fraction of climate scientists accept AGW?

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

They like to infer things that the study doesn't actually say..

What "things" are you talking about spermbreath?

 

[elektra]

I knew I could count on SOMEONE to bring up Legates. Who else wants to join the contention that Legates work shows that only a tiny, tiny fraction of climate scientists accept AGW?

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

They like to infer things that the study doesn't actually say..

What "things" are you talking about spermbreath?

I would love to discuss Powell, but to discuss anything less than the actual study is to debate or discuss, something no more relevant than gossip

 

[elektra]

Before you get to far along, I think it is only fair, that you link to or post Powell's study. It is nonsense to discuss what they say they found, without actually seeing the study in its totality.

The post in which I first mentioned him has links.

Sure, but no link to the study. Are we to discuss what someone says that the study contains?

 

[Crick]

The articles at DeSmogBlog are written by Powell and discuss his work.

 

[Crick]

The DeSmogBlog links to Powell's work

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

 

[elektra]

The DeSmogBlog links to Powell's work

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

That is an awful flimsy study! Somehow when I search Global Warming, I get 62,000,000 articles. How does Powell only get 13,000 give or take?

Powell also has a very specific criteria to reject a paper? Does power state how many articles failing Powell's reasoning, no Powell does not state how many articles he had to reject.

Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt

 

[Crick]

He wasn't looking at "articles". He was looking at peer reviewed studies.

That he had specific criteria on which to categorize these papers is a good thing. He does state the number in each category, in both studies. Did you not read them?

 

[elektra]

He wasn't looking at "articles". He was looking at peer reviewed studies.

That he had specific criteria on which to categorize these papers is a good thing. He does state the number in each category, in both studies. Did you not read them?

You say studies, I say articles, when they give me access to the study, you can claim make the claim they are a study, but stuff not available to be read, is simply an article at best. Powell threw out the stuff he did not agree with, as well as included stuff that did not support AGW. So where is the specific criteria Powell used.

Does it not bother you that accept so much with so little information. You literally believe based on faith.

 

[Crick]

You need to learn to look a little deeper. In the first DeSmogBlog article, at the bottom of paragraph two, we find a link labeled "See Methodology". Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the term. Clicking the link takes you here: Methodology where Powell explains how he collected the peer reviewed literature on which he based his results.

 

[Crick]

Methodology

Summary

Combining the three searches, I have reviewed 13,950+2,258+8,974=25,182 articles. Of those, 26 reject AGW. That is 0.1 percent, or 1 in 1,000. For 2013, there are 1,911articles [search terms global warming and global climate change] + 8,974 [climate change] = 10,885, 2 of which are rejections, about 1 in 5,440.

 

[Crick]

The DeSmogBlog links to Powell's work

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming

That is an awful flimsy study! Somehow when I search Global Warming, I get 62,000,000 articles. How does Powell only get 13,000 give or take?

Powell also has a very specific criteria to reject a paper? Does power state how many articles failing Powell's reasoning, no Powell does not state how many articles he had to reject.

Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt

You had not read "Methodology" when you posted this. Powell did not search the internet. He searched the Web of Science, a website allowing access to peer reviewed literature on all topics.

When you say reject a paper, I presume you mean reject a paper for not being about global warming or global climate change. That was done simply by the terms of his search: "global warming" or "global climate change".

When you suggested we discuss a single study, I thought you had something to work with. That doesn't seem to be the case. Would you consider simply abandoning your position and adopting the one vastly more popular with the experts in the field: that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions? You can still claim they are wrong or stupid or lying, but that the views expressed in their work overwhelmingly support AGW seem inarguable.

Besides, if the conspiracy you claim actually exists, it would be pretty stupid of them to give it all up in their peer-reviewed articles. Right?

 

[elektra]

You had not read "Methodology" when you posted this. Powell did not search the internet. He searched the Web of Science, a website allowing access to peer reviewed literature on all topics.

When you say reject a paper, I presume you mean reject a paper for not being about global warming or global climate change. That was done simply by his search terms "global warming" or "global climate change".

When you suggested we discuss a single study, I thought you had something to work with. That doesn't seem to be the case. Would you consider simply abandoning your position and adopting the one vastly more popular with the experts in the field: that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions? You can still claim they are wrong or stupid or lying, but that the views expressed in their work overwhelmingly support AGW seems inarguable.

Yep, I assumed he searched the web, but he did not, it was a much narrower search, of a specific science forum?

Powell, what was his criteria? He did not simply count articles that stated AGW was a fact, he counted articles as fact based on a specific criteria, what was that criteria? It looks like Powell assumes that those who do not flat out reject AGW, accept it. To me that is a pretty flawed methodology.

There is zero proof that the vast majority of Scientists are making the claim that Humans are causing the Earth to warm. No matter how you state it, it is a small fringe of people making claims to Scientists opinions based not on the Scientists opinions, but upon their "methodology".

Scientists are expressing their views as well as the science? Post a study or two, to begin, and once we reach 100 I will concede. But you will not be able to do that. You will have to say it is so because you believe Powell.

Nobody knows what is said by the majority of scientists, because the vast majority of the AGW work is not made public.

 

[Crick]

You had not read "Methodology" when you posted this. Powell did not search the internet. He searched the Web of Science, a website allowing access to peer reviewed literature on all topics.

When you say reject a paper, I presume you mean reject a paper for not being about global warming or global climate change. That was done simply by his search terms "global warming" or "global climate change".

When you suggested we discuss a single study, I thought you had something to work with. That doesn't seem to be the case. Would you consider simply abandoning your position and adopting the one vastly more popular with the experts in the field: that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions? You can still claim they are wrong or stupid or lying, but that the views expressed in their work overwhelmingly support AGW seems inarguable.

Yep, I assumed he searched the web, but he did not, it was a much narrower search, of a specific science forum?

Web of Science (previously known as (ISI) Web of Knowledge) is an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service maintained by Thomson Reuters that provides a comprehensive citation search. It gives access to multiple databases that reference cross-disciplinary research, which allows for in-depth exploration of specialized sub-fields within an academic or scientific discipline
Web of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Powell, what was his criteria? He did not simply count articles that stated AGW was a fact, he counted articles as fact based on a specific criteria, what was that criteria? It looks like Powell assumes that those who do not flat out reject AGW, accept it. To me that is a pretty flawed methodology.

His stated intent was to find “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers reject AGW and what evidence do they present?" He therefore searched for papers that rejected AGW. There is no flaw in his methodology.

There is zero proof that the vast majority of Scientists are making the claim that Humans are causing the Earth to warm.

When will this end? Whenever... when EVER, in conversations on this board, on these topics, that you think to use the word proof, prove or proven, a little alarm should go off in your head. Science does not use proofs, it uses evidence. Period. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. It may be found in the Wikipedia's articles we've already attempted to discuss: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No matter how you state it, it is a small fringe of people making claims to Scientists opinions based not on the Scientists opinions, but upon their "methodology".

That was not an easy sentence to parse, but might I throw up John Cook, et al's study, in which after examining peer reviewed studies, as did Powell, he contacted over 9,000 of the study's authors and directly asked them their opinion on AGW. He received a higher validation than he got from his analysis of their papers: 97.2% of those who believed their papers expressed an opinion one way or the other endorsed the consensus; a direct measure of their opinions.

BTW, you still do not appear to understand the word methodology

Scientists are expressing their views as well as the science?

Their views are based on their own studies and the results of other studies that they have read. Are you attempting to move the goalposts here? The debate WE are supposed to be having is whether or not Powell's study shows that a majority of climate scientists endorse the IPCC conclusion, that AGW is valid.

Post a study or two, to begin, and once we reach 100 I will concede.

Fuck you. We are debating Powell. This whole website has been debating the science for the last five years and I don't see a lot of concessions from your lot. The sole purpose of THIS discussion is the validity of Powell, not the science of global warming. If you cannot show there is anything wrong with Powell's work, the proper response is to admit it and accept that Powell's work seems to be valid. But, instead, you try to derail the conversation to other topics. Very impressive.

But you will not be able to do that. You will have to say it is so because you believe Powell.

You don't think I could find 100 studies supporting AGW or assuming its validity?!?! Powell found 13,000. You said you found 60 million. Do you think I cannot operate Google?

Nobody knows what is said by the majority of scientists, because the vast majority of the AGW work is not made public.

What the FUCK are you talking about? Wait, let me guess. You will now claim that the world's climate journals will not allow denier authors be published. Is that your claim here? If so, we can move to a study which directly queried scientists rather than looking at their published output. Three guesses what we will find and the first two don't count.

How about you sum up your findings, your views, your opinions, your conclusions about POWELL, the purported topic of our debate. I will take any further attempts to alter the topic under discussion as an admission of the failure we will all know it to be.

 

[elektra]

Post a study or two, to begin, and once we reach 100 I will concede.

Fuck you. We are debating Powell. This whole website has been debating the science for the last five years and I don't see a lot of concessions from your lot. The sole purpose of this discussion of the validity of Powell, not the science of global warming. If you cannot show there is anything wrong with Powell's work, the proper response is to admit it and accept that Powell's work seems to be valid. But, instead, you try to derail the conversation to other topics. Very impressive.

How about you sum up your findings, your views, your opinions, your conclusions about POWELL, the purported topic of our debate. I will take any further attempts to alter the topic under discussion as an admission of the failure we will all know it to be.

We are speaking about Powell, 1st you stated 97% of the scientists support AGW, I asked for a list of their names, if a percentage of Scientists support something there must somewhere be a list of them that they signed or a survey showing this to be true, but you can not provide that list because Scientists were never ever asked. Fine, I get it, 3 people are speaking for the entire Scientific community based on what? The search of articles in a science forum of some sort. That hardly proves a thing other than how gullible some people are who take such things as proof.

So I accept you can not, nor can anyone provide a list of names of Scientists who support AGW, because such a survey has never been conducted, so we move on to simply articles.

So how about it, post some of the Articles that Powell used in his study.
Post articles that Powell rejects from his study.
How about the actual Powell study, even Powell himself does not make that available, we simply must believe.

You can never provide the damned studies because all the AGW nutters have is lies.

Post something other than opinion or what we are told to believe, let us see the actual Powell study.

 

[Crick]

So you reject the validity of every election ever conducted in this nation.