Hottest Minute in the last 37 Minutes!

[Crick]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

 

[jc456]

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.

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

In defense of free speech

"JC reflections
I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and also with regards to the climate change debate.
The Stephen Hayward issue bothered me in particular. It seems clear that he is treating all students with respect, and does not discriminate against anyone in his classroom that is LGBT or whatever. The furore is over what he wrote on a blog and said in a radio interview. Presumably he was hired to provide exactly such diversity of opinion?
With regards to climate change, I agree with George Brandis who is shocked by the “authoritarianism” with which some proponents of climate change exclude alternative viewpoints. While the skeptical climate blogosphere is alive and well in terms of discussing alternative viewpoints, this caters primarily to an older population. I am particularly pleased to see the apparent birth of resistance to climate change authoritarianism by younger people, as reflected by the young Austrian rapper.
Climate change ideology, and attempts to enforce it in the media, by politicians and by the cultural practices of academia, leads us down a slippery slope:"

 

[elektra]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

That is not science, taking a survey based on ones opinion is not science, not in the least. It is an opinion.

 

[jc456]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

That is not science, taking a survey based on ones opinion is not science, not in the least. It is an opinion.

look, science is anything as long it isn't from a skeptic. This forum clearly shows that on a daily basis.

 

[elektra]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

Crick, you can not link to one study that Powell counted for or against or one that powell did not count at all?

 

[Crick]

You haven't applied three brain cells to this discussion. The Web of Science is a database of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers. Powell's target was to identify the portion of such papers that rejected AGW. If you think you know a better way to do THAT, let's hear it. But do not waste our time giving out methods to find other things.

You agreed to discuss Powell. I assumed that indicated you had some familiarity with his work. But even after multiple posts, you make basic mistakes that indicate you never read ANYTHING about his study.

The origin of this argument was whether or not the claims that a very high percentage of climate scientists accepted AGW were valid. You didn't want to argue about the 20 or so separate studies, polls and surveys that had all found similar results. You wanted to discuss one. I chose Powell and you accepted. Now you tell me you want 100 studies. Now you tell me you want names. Why the fuck do you think the rules don't apply to you just because you haven't got a clue how to falsify Powell and you're desperate?

 

[Crick]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

That is not science, taking a survey based on ones opinion is not science, not in the least. It is an opinion.

What opinions are you talking about? And who claimed that this was science? These are polls, surveys and studies. Is counting the number of red jelly beans in a big jar full of them science?

 

[elektra]

Get yourself on Web of Science and repeat the search Powell made. You will have the studies he examined and the names of every author. One reason for posting his methodology is so others could repeat it. So you don't have to simply take his claim. That's the way science works.

That is not science, taking a survey based on ones opinion is not science, not in the least. It is an opinion.

What opinions are you talking about? And who claimed that this was science? These are polls, surveys and studies. Is counting the number of red jelly beans in a big jar full of them science?

Based on Powell's opinion. Post something Powell included or did not include, give us some examples of what counted, what counted as against, and what was rejected. Is it really that hard to actually post Powell's work?

 

[Crick]

First, from Powell's article:

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

Second, from Powell's DeSmogBlog article

Articles rejecting AGW- a list of the 24 articles he found that rejected AGW. If you want the list of the 24,000 he judged to have accepted AGW, you're going to have to find them yourself, as I directed, by visiting the Web of Science.

Happy?

 

[elektra]

31 degrees in lynchburg virginia, well below average, and not predicted by the NASA or the IPCC.

 

[Crick]

You're absolutely correct. It was never predicted by NASA or the IPCC.

Are you REALLY this dense?

 

[elektra]

I know, they predicted warming.

 

[Crick]

And guess what?

They fooking got it.

 

[elektra]

And guess what?

They fooking got it.

In a thread about the last minutes temperature, your post is off topic.

Why do scientist not record and analyze each minutes temperature at every single individual point on earth?

 

[jc456]

And guess what?

They fooking got it.

you know those first two graphs contradict each other right? Land ocean one that is. hmmmmmmmmm why is that?

 

[elektra]

And guess what?

They fooking got it.

you know those first two graphs contradict each other right? Land ocean one that is. hmmmmmmmmm why is that?

cause crick can't think

 

[mamooth]

you know those first two graphs contradict each other right? Land ocean one that is. hmmmmmmmmm why is that?

Because there aren't any meteorological stations on the ocean, hence the met station average will differ from the land-ocean temperature index.

And the first two graphs are the same for the land-ocean temperature index, but with different scales.

Do you and Elektra now understand that basic concept, or do I need to repeat it using smaller words?

Do I need to explain to you what a graph scale is?

 

[elektra]

you know those first two graphs contradict each other right? Land ocean one that is. hmmmmmmmmm why is that?

Because there aren't any meteorological stations on the ocean, hence the met station average will differ from the land-ocean temperature index.

And the first two graphs are the same for the land-ocean temperature index, but with different scales.

Do you and Elektra now understand that basic concept, or do I need to repeat it using smaller words?

Do I need to explain to you what a graph scale is?

A graph is what you sell to the public as science. It is propaganda.

 

[Crick]

In a thread about the last minutes temperature, your post is off topic.

Why do scientist not record and analyze each minutes temperature at every single individual point on earth?

Are you being rhetorical or are you actually this stupid?

 

[elektra]

In a thread about the last minutes temperature, your post is off topic.

Why do scientist not record and analyze each minutes temperature at every single individual point on earth?

Are you being rhetorical or are you actually this stupid?

What is wrong crick, is your brain a little hot, with all the thinking and all.

The premise of my thread is very serious, the last minute of data is not recorded, technically speaking, there is very little data actually recorded and analyzed. Why is that? There are billions of points, or spots on earth where we can record temperature data, every minute of the day, why average data over a month, when we can actually record and analyze so much more.

Truth be told, real scientific analysis of temperature data will prove that the Earth is fine.