EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:54 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
If you are going criticize skeptics that have publications lower than 20 papers, read paper #3, because that's what it talks about.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Wed May 30, 2012 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Disagreement over terminology and the potential impact on the discussion?


Yes, because in the paper it states,

""we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher."

And they also state,

""researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group."

Note that "UE" means "Unconvinced of Evidence"

There is a LARGE amount of skeptics who published below 20 peer reviewed publications. Did the Anderegg et. al 2010 paper pick 20 as a minimum so that they can come to a false misleading consensus?


Those were not the terms which were called into question so what impact does the question in your reference make on the results? None.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:11 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Disagreement over terminology and the potential impact on the discussion?


Yes, because in the paper it states,

""we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher."

And they also state,

""researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group."

Note that "UE" means "Unconvinced of Evidence"

There is a LARGE amount of skeptics who published below 20 peer reviewed publications. Did the Anderegg et. al 2010 paper pick 20 as a minimum so that they can come to a false misleading consensus?


Those were not the terms which were called into question so what impact does the question in your reference make on the results? None.


You don't think it's a bit dodgy that 80% of skeptical researchers happened to not fall in the category of being an "expert" for this evaluation?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:12 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Disagreement over terminology and the potential impact on the discussion?


Yes, because in the paper it states,

""we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher."

And they also state,

""researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group."

Note that "UE" means "Unconvinced of Evidence"

There is a LARGE amount of skeptics who published below 20 peer reviewed publications. Did the Anderegg et. al 2010 paper pick 20 as a minimum so that they can come to a false misleading consensus?


Those were not the terms which were called into question so what impact does the question in your reference make on the results? None.


Snowy123 wrote:
You don't think it's a bit dodgy that 80% of skeptical researchers happened to not fall in the category of being an "expert" for this evaluation?


Not really as many of the climate skeptics seem to be a bit dodgy ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:


Not really as many of the climate skeptics seem to be a bit dodgy ....


Red herring.

There are plenty of skeptics who are qualified in the climate field.

See for example this and this:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... Study.html

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climat ... wankungen/

(translated english version below)

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#



Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by




Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services

5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist

9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.

10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist

12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR

14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist

15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist

16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE

17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist

19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist

20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist

22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry

23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist

24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler

25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist

27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig

28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster

30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist

31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist

32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist

33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew

34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland

35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin

36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist

37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta

38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-

Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster

39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert

40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist

41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter

42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for

Standards and Norms i.R.

43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg

44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH

45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist

46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist

47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor

48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist

49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist

50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator

51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist

52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor

53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist

54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy

Leipzig

55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS

56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist

57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist

58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist

59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences

60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist

61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

Note that since this original letter, the number of scientists whom have signed this letter is now 130.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:04 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
But what about the water table dropping around the world and deserts growing? It is solutions I am looking for rather then causes of the problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
If you are going criticize skeptics that have publications lower than 20 papers, read paper #3, because that's what it talks about.


No it does not. It says the majority does not ensure accuracy in the determination of the truth, which is a given. That does not refute the percentages or the methodology in any way.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


Not really as many of the climate skeptics seem to be a bit dodgy ....


Red herring.

There are plenty of skeptics who are qualified in the climate field.

See for example this and this:

http://www.openletter-globalwarming.inf ... Study.html

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climat ... wankungen/

(translated english version below)

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#



Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by




Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services

5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist

9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.

10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist

12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR

14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist

15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist

16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE

17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist

19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist

20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist

22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry

23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist

24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler

25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist

27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig

28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster

30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist

31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist

32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist

33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew

34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland

35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin

36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist

37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta

38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-

Paleolontology Museum
of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster

39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert

40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist

41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter

42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for

Standards and Norms
i.R.

43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg

44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH

45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist

46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist

47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor

48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist

49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist

50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator

51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist

52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor

53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist

54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy

Leipzig

55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS

56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist

57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist

58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist

59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences

60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist

61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

Note that since this original letter, the number of scientists whom have signed this letter is now 130.


You start off complaining about a red herring and then misrepresent this as evidence of skeptics who are qualified in the climate field.?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

It is based on two separate sources of data, the poll of those who claimed to be cliamte scientists and had published in the arena and the study of published papers both arrived at similar results using two different methodologies.



And both of them are flawed for different reasons.


And for Doran and Zimmerman...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0008.shtml

In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public.

However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.”


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0009.shtml

The feature article “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, “47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming….” They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.


Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
If you are going criticize skeptics that have publications lower than 20 papers, read paper #3, because that's what it talks about.


No it does not. It says the majority does not ensure accuracy in the determination of the truth, which is a given. That does not refute the percentages or the methodology in any way.



So explain what it meant what it said,

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I called your comment about skeptics a red herring, because it was a red herring.

I'll try once more:

You don't think it's a bit dodgy that 80% of skeptical researchers happened to not fall in the category of being an "expert" for this evaluation?

There are many geologists, meteorologists, physicists etc. which are all relevant in the field of Global Warming.

Michael E. Mann has a Ph.D in Geology, and he's considered to be a 'climate scientist.' Food for thought.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Last edited by Snowy123 on Thu May 31, 2012 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.


Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.


Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.


Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:23 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
I called your comment about skeptics a red herring, because it was a red herring.

I'll try once more:

You don't think it's a bit dodgy that 80% of skeptical researchers happened to not fall in the category of being an "expert" for this evaluation?


No, as too many of the "skeptical" researchers seem to have more difficulty in publication in the better quality publications.

Quote:
There are many geologists, meteorologists, physicists etc. which are all relevant in the field of Global Warming.


Relevent background is not qualified as a climate specialist.

Quote:
Michael E. Mann has a Ph.D in Geology, and he's considered to be a 'climate scientist.' Food for thought.


If I were using him as a reference to someone unfamiliar with his reputation I would concentrate on the experience and publications. In your case there was only the educational references, which do not provide any basis to claim expertise.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
If you are going criticize skeptics that have publications lower than 20 papers, read paper #3, because that's what it talks about.


No it does not. It says the majority does not ensure accuracy in the determination of the truth, which is a given. That does not refute the percentages or the methodology in any way.



So explain what it meant what it said,

The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.


Suspect methodology is not incorrect methodology nor is there a "better" metric indicated.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group