The paper I'm finding is from 2013 is concluded 97%. Can you link the other one? The one linked above is not be Cook.
The Worlds Largest Industry
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Yes it is, look at the citation at the bottom of the page for the Introduction:
1 Verheggen, Bart, Bart Strengers, John Cook, Rob van Dorland, Kees Vringer, Jeroen Peters,
Hans Visser, and Leo Meyer. Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming.
They polled "all AMS members with known e-mail addresses." Are you claiming that none of those people were students? It's possible that could be true, but how might we go about determining the professional status of those folks?
And the 93% comes directly from the left-most column of the chart, as is stated in the discussion within the study (that column includes "actively publishing climate scientists," which is the group with the most expertise). In said column, you will see that responses to the initial question resulted in 78% who said "yes; mostly human," 10% who said "yes: equally human and natural" and 6% who said "yes; insufficient evidence." Of those 6% "insufficient evidence," 5/6 responded to a follow-up question with "yes; insufficient evidence--some human."
78+10+5=93. YOU do the math.
You want the quibble that 5% shouldn't be counted? Fine. That still puts you at 88% of experts who are AMS members and who had available email addresses and who responded to this survey. That is nowhere near your claim of 50/50 which includes non-experts. By the way, if they're not publishing, they're not doing research, hence why they would be considered by anyone in a research field to have less expertise.
Again, that's not consensus. The consensus states that it has to be mostly man made AND the confidence level is extremely likely according to the IPCC. So no, you can't add 78+10+5. If the study was REALLY only to take the view of the "experts" as they have it defined. Then why poll the others? What was the point for them to produce that data? The reality is they didn't get the result they wanted, so they cherry picked the data that most closely supported their desired result. As all of these consensus claims have done.
Also, you have to throw the 5% out because they only say that it's some human. That could be anywhere from 99% to 1%.
So, in conclusion, they are cherry picking the data, by going with the respondents from a group of 124 people when the poll was of 1821. Congrats.
Last edited:
Whose definition of consensus is this? It's not the one the study used. They say the 93% are "convinced that humans have contributed to global warming." You don't get to come back and say their data doesn't support a particular claim when they're not making that claim. I'd maybe quibble with the word "convinced," given that a portion of the 93% said we need more evidence, even though they are leaning toward the opinion, but that's a semantic issue, not a data one. They make no claims about confidence level or that only those in the "mostly" category qualify, or whatever. In fact, given the way the answers are worded, someone could be in the 78% (believing that warming is mostly due to humans) but with low confidence and someone could be in the half & half category but with high confidence.
See above, but fine. Still nowhere close to 50/50, right? All I want you to do is to admit that you either misunderstood the chart -- not realizing that some of the data comes from non-experts and is, thus, not included in the 93% figure -- or you purposefully misrepresented what it says. You know, the exact thing you're accusing the study authors of doing.
Oh....my....god.... Because the POINT of the study was to determine IF greater expertise correlated with the opinion that climate change is caused by human activity. There would be NO WAY to design a study to try to answer this question without polling BOTH experts and non-experts. One only need to read the abstract to understand why they polled people with differing levels of expertise.
The study's goal was not to establish that there was consensus among experts. As I've said already, it was to determine whether or not expertise was positively correlated with the specific opinion. They found that it is. That's all this study says, that among those with the greatest amount of expertise, the vast majority of them believe humans contribute to climate change.
Last edited:
I'm going off of the consensus as defined by the IPCC. This study doesn't give any attribution to confidence level.
Again. They are taking a poll of 1821 people and then saying, "well, only this 124 are actual experts, so we only care about their opinion." I mean, if that's what you think is a good study, then go ahead and claim it, but that's the definition of cherry picking.
Last edited:
Ok, well that's not the definition used in this study, so it's not relevant.
They said nothing about what they care about. They simply said what they found, which is "of the people we surveyed, these 124 with the most expertise generally agree on this position." They also present the data about what the ones OTHER than those 124 think. It's not like they're hiding it. This study clearly shows a difference in opinion correlated to level of expertise. That's all.
"Government funded" here means "conspiracy theory," and that'll end the conversation.
Ok Mr high and mighty. I had to leave so I didn't get to elaborate. I deleted that portion literally seconds after I post it. You must have good timing to have caught that. I deleted it, because I knew it would be impossible to prove one way or the other. I'd be more than willing to put good money on it though if it were provable.
Last edited:
too much to do to get into this, but this "confidence level" thing that is missing.? Seeing the math behind that, and the projections made, coupled with the measurement error most likely not understood, and projections into the dark are probably reasons why there is no confidence level...or one made up other than math.
Confidence levels on a hypothesis that has no meaningful data. I admire your patience, but sooner or later both sides don't budgeIn more recent news, how do we distinguish between "conspiracy theory" and history buff? That is a really important question that was much easier to answer years ago...
Here's a quote from Hillary Clinton of all people from June 18, 2014.
"We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia."
"We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia."
I love the inconsistent IPCC people. See just one group of quotes in the middle of the article : https://www.statesman.com/story/opi...ms-scientists-dishonest-or-afraid/2257767007/
Add Brian Deese (Biden econ advisor) about 3 months ago with a CNN interview and basically beat around the bush about the real intent of global warming as being the economy. Or, AOC Congresswoman's chief of staff where he admits the real intent. Now, someone can complain about the National Review as being a conservative rag but, I am presuming internally his statements are accurate: https://www.nationalreview.com/news...e-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/
Add Brian Deese (Biden econ advisor) about 3 months ago with a CNN interview and basically beat around the bush about the real intent of global warming as being the economy. Or, AOC Congresswoman's chief of staff where he admits the real intent. Now, someone can complain about the National Review as being a conservative rag but, I am presuming internally his statements are accurate: https://www.nationalreview.com/news...e-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/
Last edited:
Great finds. Tony Heller is one of the people I follow regularly and he does an amazing job of blowing massive holes in all of the Climate Change lies.
It absolutely amazes me that people can come out and say what the real agenda is, yet people on the left are like "naw, it's still all our fault" even though there's literally NO evidence at all. The entire Climate alarm is based off of faulty climate models that are running WAY too hot. Models that can't explain any past warming either. It's insanity!
