97% consensus fake news

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:52 pm

Martin Brock wrote:"97% agree" is "one of the most famous statistics in all of science" only if you get your "science" from TV and the internet.
Or from climate science specialists.

You didn't watch the video, did you....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Martin Brock » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:38 pm

Gord wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:"97% agree" is "one of the most famous statistics in all of science" only if you get your "science" from TV and the internet.
Or from climate science specialists.

You didn't watch the video, did you....
Yes, I did, and I linked a survey of climate scientists reported in Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, the article itself, not a youtube video purporting to debunk a "hoax". The article I linked was published three years before the article cited in your video but reported a similar conclusion, and I quoted the conclusion precisely from the article.

Here's the article cited in your video.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 024024/pdf

It cites Doran's survey (that I cited) on page 2.

Contrary to the video, the survey it cites does not report only papers asserting that humans are "the main cause of climate change". Follow the link, and you'll see that it classifies papers into three categories of "endorsement of the consensus".

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification - Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification - Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
(3) Implicit endorsement - Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

A paper in any of these categories, according to the survey's analysis, counts as a "consensus affirming" paper. A paper in the third category need not even mention a human cause, much less quantify the effect, but I'll take the survey's integrity for granted. The papers it surveyed fell overwhelmingly into one of these three categories and explicitly stated or implied that human activity has something to do with recent climate change.

Like the Doran survey, which established the "97% consensus" meme (according to the paper that your video cites) and which we discussed in this forum before the later survey was published, the later survey's "consensus" asserts only that anthropogenic effects have more than nothing to do with recent climate change, so the whole idea is more than a "hoax". Papers by prominent skeptics of anthropogenic climate change, people routinely labeled "deniers" in popular media, like John Christy, are "consensus affirming" according to your survey. I believe Christy actually found one of his papers classified by the survey as "endorsing".

The question is: so what? "Not a hoax" is no reason to tax carbon or impose a complex, easily gamed "carbon trading scheme" or hand countless tax dollars to Elon Musk. In reality, "it's a hoax" is not the other side of the "climate change" debate. This rhetorical fallacy is called a "false choice". The other side says, "Evidence of anthropogenic climate change does not imply a looming catastrophe without immediate and drastic, political intervention. Monitoring climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise, can help humanity adapt to it, but we don't need a global regulatory regime to save us from a climate catastrophe."

So anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax. I get that. I've always gotten it, from the first word I ever wrote about it, but your survey doesn't imply anything about catastrophic consequences or any politically imposed remedy. There is no "97% consensus" on anything more specific than "it's not all a hoax".
Last edited by Martin Brock on Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:27 pm

MB: you really are mixing up popular media with the science. An overwhelming number of qualified scientists believe in AGW...as do the formal written positions of ALL formal scientific societies with an interest in climate and energy issues.

You want to say its not 97% but something else? THAT===>is a quibble.

A niggardly comment that won't go away; No scientific article "established" the 97% meme. THAT was done by the popular media and picked up on by quibblers. See the point? It much like the other most popular meme that "Scientists predicted global cooling only a few years ago." Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

Stick to the science. What do you think?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:37 pm

Martin Brock wrote:...There is no "97% consensus" on anything more specific than "it's not all a hoax".
Are you sure you watched the video? Because I'm not sure you understood it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Martin Brock » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:MB: you really are mixing up popular media with the science. An overwhelming number of qualified scientists believe in AGW...as do the formal written positions of ALL formal scientific societies with an interest in climate and energy issues.

You want to say its not 97% but something else? THAT===>is a quibble.

A niggardly comment that won't go away; No scientific article "established" the 97% meme. THAT was done by the popular media and picked up on by quibblers. See the point? It much like the other most popular meme that "Scientists predicted global cooling only a few years ago." Wasn't true then, isn't true now.

Stick to the science. What do you think?
How am I mixing them up? I have only cited the scientific literature with links directly to peer reviewed publications. The paper cited in the OP is also peer reviewed. The youtube video on "a hoax" didn't come from me. I only responded to it with reference to a paper it cites.

I never anywhere deny the "97% consensus". I'm discussing precisely the "consensus" position. What do 97% of climate scientists agree exactly? That billions will starve without the Kyoto protocols? Where does any survey report this finding?

I've already said what I think about the science. Climate change occurs. Recent climate change has something to do with an anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels, but quantifying the effect and distinguishing it from other effects is challenging and projecting the effects a century from now is even more challenging. Monitoring the change and adapting to it as it occurs makes as much sense as trying to engineer the global environment from the office of a Trump appointee in the District of Columbia.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Martin Brock » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:43 pm

Gord wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:...There is no "97% consensus" on anything more specific than "it's not all a hoax".
Are you sure you watched the video? Because I'm not sure you understood it.
If I didn't watch your video, how did I link and quote the article that it cites (and misrepresents)? Have you read the article?

Can you be more specific?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:19 am

Martin Brock wrote: How am I mixing them up?
Scientific Papers mixed with Youtube Hoax videos.

There is "no science" re the 97% figure...that is all pop culture.
Recent climate change has something to do with an anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels, but quantifying the effect and distinguishing it from other effects is challenging and projecting the effects a century from now is even more challenging.
No. AGW has EVERYTHING TO DO with burning fossil fuels. THAT IS THE VERY ISSUE. Nothing challenging about it, now, or a century from now. You reveal your conscious bias and attempt to spread FUD.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32219
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:42 am

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:...There is no "97% consensus" on anything more specific than "it's not all a hoax".
Are you sure you watched the video? Because I'm not sure you understood it.
If I didn't watch your video, how did I link and quote the article that it cites (and misrepresents)? Have you read the article?

Can you be more specific?
Well, for one thing, you think the video cites one "article" and then misrepresents it. That's not true. It references at least eight studies, including Oreskes 2004, Anderegg 2010, Rosenberg 2010, Cook 2013, and Carlton 2015. The consensus, which ranges from around 90% to around 100% depending on the study, is that human caused global warming is a significant factor in the increasing global temperature. No one claims that it's the only factor. No one. But the term "significant" also doesn't mean "an insignificant amount" -- it means human activity is changing the climate on a global scale.

AGW deniers are not included in the 97% consensus, as is mentioned here: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent ... robust.htm
...The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data. For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congress that he is included in the 97% consensus. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming. Bjorn Lomborg made a similar error, claiming:
"Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)."
In reality Lomborg is included neither in the 97+% nor the less than 3% because as far as we can tell, he has not published any peer-reviewed climate research, and thus none of his writings were captured in our literature search. The 97% is a consensus of climate science experts, and that, Lomborg is not.

Nir Shaviv took the opposite approach, claiming he was wrongly included in the 97%. Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content, but claimed that he worded the text in a way to slip it past the journal reviewers and editors.
"I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."
However, Shaviv, Spencer, and all other authors were invited to participate in the self-ratings process that resulted in the sae 97% consensus conclusion.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Lausten » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:08 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Gord wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:...There is no "97% consensus" on anything more specific than "it's not all a hoax".
Are you sure you watched the video? Because I'm not sure you understood it.
If I didn't watch your video, how did I link and quote the article that it cites (and misrepresents)? Have you read the article?

Can you be more specific?
Asking Gord to be more specific is akin to saying, "Please read or watch it for me and accurately summarize it, because I'm lazy."
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14872
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:13 pm

Asking someone to be more specific often is a sign of laziness....but not this time. the rational and basis for the request was given and is clear. I think MB just reveals an interfering bias that blinded him to what was in the video besides the argument to support his "not just a hoax" position. I suspect there is some conflation going on here as well....taking the criticisms of 9 different studies as if they were all one?

Anyway: always keep your eye on what the argument/premise actually is. The "97% consensus" is a reply to "No reputable scientist agrees with AGW."....its not a scientific point on its own at all. Just a specific argument.

Mind the gap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:53 pm

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

NASA thinks there is a 97% consensus.