97% consensus fake news

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
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 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:40 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just because the mean sea level in the area has been declining, or that Winter Ice has been increasing does not say anything about GLOBAL CONDITIONS. This is nitwits cherry picking
Get a clue! Bobo got cherrypicking on the brain.

The article was specifically about Kivalina. All the chosen evidence supplied was because it had an immediate and direct bearing on Kivalina.

It was not an argument about the complexities of global warming, but Booobo is threatened by each and every contradiction, so fabricates an accurately depicted regional issue into another nitwit's devious cherrypicking deception scenario. Bwaaaahahahah!
This is what I'm talking about. The article's theme is that someone claimed a connection of their circumstances to global warming. You try to refute their claim using local data. You accuse them of "trying to rekindle global fear". You even bring up old refuted news, like Climategate. Ending with the conclusion that the BBC should never again be trusted to report accurately on any global climate story. When this is pointed out, you say the article is specifically about Kivalina. Who do you think you are fooling?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:14 pm

ROTFLMAO.

Lausten and Boobo give a pass to the BBC author whose fear mongering hijacks a very specific local situation as evidence of "global warming" When I refute that claim, expounding on the local conditions, somehow that evidence I provide is "fooling people", as if any time a local condition is nebulously blamed on global warming it must be true yup yup yup. Its threatening so it must be global warming, and beyond and scientific critique, and no one should examine the local conditions that always play a roll. ROTFLMAO

Since I do not expect a objective review of the story, I post the full essay here in a few segments. What the essay does not address, engineers who tried to protect the coastline created barriers that actually blocked the redistribution of sands and gravels accelerating erosion.

Will the Cost of the Climate Wars be the BBC’s Integrity?
Anthony Watts / July 31, 2013
Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.

On July 29, 2013 the BBC’s Hardtalk journalist Stephen Sackur wrote “The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade.” He opened the story with “within a decade Kivalina is likely to be under water. Gone, forever. Remembered – if at all – as the birthplace of America’s first climate change refugees.” He then quotes a local who laments, “The US government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?”

Image


Given the context, such a statement sounds like the locals were feeling abandoned by global warming. But the tone also reminded me of the complaints by many native Arctic people who were relocated by the US, Canadian and Russian governments in a 20th century battle to secure claims to Arctic territory. Such a vulnerable location seemed odd for a permanent settlement.. Sure enough Wikipedia supported my suspicions Kitvalina. The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon but was relocated to its present location in about 1900. Reindeer were brought to the area and some people were trained as reindeer herders, suggesting there as a government attempt to force a permanent settlement. From the history I can glean on the internet “the people of Kivalina, like the Ipiutak before them, utilized the barrier reef only as seasonal hunting grounds, making camp there in warm-weather months.” Their recent plans to relocate due to erosion and an expanding population are opportunistically blamed on global warming.

The Arctic people have long been victimized by “southern people’s” politics. Relocation of indigenous families became a tactic employed by all the “polar bear countries” in an international chess match to stake claims on Arctic resources. In 1925, Denmark relocated families in Greenland to counter any Norwegian claims to the island. The following year the Soviet government moved a small Eskimo community to Wrangel Island in order to replace an occupation of Alaskan Eskimos that had been established there by American interests. The relocation of families was also a crucial cold-war tactic by Canada to insure their claims on the Arctic, but not just against any Russian threats, but more so from perceived encroachments by the United States.631
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:51 pm

Except, that's not what I said. What I said is, you didn't refute global warming. You tried to refute the claim by refuting global warming. You used local data to try to do that. So you failed. No matter what the data was, you would have failed, because those charts don't inform us of a the global situation. They don't inform of us much at all. What you succeeded at is setting up a situation where no matter what someone says, you'll say they don't understand you, unless of course they just agree with you. They wouldn't know what they are agreeing with, but that doesn't matter to you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:58 pm

Lausten wrote:Except, that's not what I said. What I said is, you didn't refute global warming. You tried to refute the claim by refuting global warming.
Lausten why do you insist on fabricating what I said. In the article I never tried to refute global warming as you suggest. The article only refuted the claims that global warming was causing Kivalina's problem. That is a huge difference!!!! Quote where I say otherwise.

Indeed at the end of the essay I question why Kivalina is being used as evidence of global warming. But again that is not refuting global warming, And I never have argued the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age. I do challenge claims that it is all due to CO2. But that is not discussed at all in the essay.

I don't expect you to see past your transparent hate for me and my skeptical beliefs.

Is your non-stop venomous personal attacks and fabrications of what I actually said due to your anger over my custom title "Consensus is not evidence"???

Most of my Kivalina article is about how governments forcefully re-located native people. Unless they were forced there, Kivalina would never have been a permanent settlement. Barrier Islands are inherently unstable whether or not there is any climate change

My 2013 analyses of a forceful resettlement has been corroborated by many sources. The natives knew that barrier island was not to be trusted as a permanent village. But as has been reported..
"The community, who were originally nomadic, were given an ultimatum that they would have to settle in the permanent community or their children would be taken from them
One would think that Lausten or Boobo would be outraged by such fascist tactics against the native people. But silence

But instead of seeing Kivalina's demise as evidence an ill-advised forced re-settlement, the media pushes global warming and the alarmists embrace that foolishness.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:16 pm

Jim Steele wrote: What the essay does not address, engineers who tried to protect the coastline created barriers that actually blocked the redistribution of sands and gravels accelerating erosion.
.......and "why" were the engineers trying to protect the coastline?

Coincidence....on the tube right now, segment on how China and Russia are developing a new "Silk Road" using the ice free over the North Pole route. Gee....I hope this doesn't stimulate even more pictures from Bad Jimbo regarding snow globes.
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
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3593
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Lausten » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:26 pm

In addition to what has already been said:
“Their recent plans to relocate due to erosion and an expanding population are opportunistically blamed on global warming.”
Why is it “opportunistic”. And where is your data that their population is expanding?
“Alaska is now one the most rapidly cooling areas on earth.”
“At Nome Alaska the sea level is rising so slow it appears to be dropping over the last decade.”
In 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported “ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record.”
Using short term local data (that's questionable anyway) to refute the long term global trend.
“Are they trying to rekindle global fear in a time of paused global warming?”
Adding an emotional plea and using an inaccurate statement.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:12 pm

Only the foolish will argue that looking at local conditions is cherrypicking and that global warming means everywhere the earth and oceans respond similarly

Below is an illustration showing sea levels along the Western North American coast have been falling

Image



And that is a point I highlight, showing that the BBC's Sackur was fear mongering and ignoring the evidence

The essay continued:
Sackur’s reference to “slowly rising sea levels” are also questionable. Go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website and view the 2 stations nearest to Kivalina. At Nome Alaska the sea level is rising so slow it appears to be dropping over the last decade.

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr ... 0_high.png

Image

Or look at Prudhoe Bay .

Image

http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr ... 7_high.png

Except for a brief surge for a few months in late 2013, Prudhoe Bay sea level has been dropping there as well. The shifting PDO is also known to change sea level across the Pacific Ocean.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 Feb 07, 2018 2:18 pm

Jim Steele wrote:Only the foolish will argue that looking at local conditions is cherrypicking and that global warming means everywhere the earth and oceans respond similarly
I didn't argue that, so I'm no fool.

Here's a global view
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 Feb 07, 2018 2:38 pm

Jim Steele wrote:Only the foolish will argue that looking at local conditions is cherrypicking and that global warming means everywhere the earth and oceans respond similarly
That is such a STUPID thing to say, I actually am surprised. I think you are losing your touch. Local conditions is cherry picking BY DEFINITION. The analogy if you were home schooled is: You have an entire Cherry Tree but you appreciate it only for the Cherries you pick. When you pick something less than the whole, you are Cherry Picking. When it comes to facially retarded arguments such as you use, it has the added element of being the part of the whole that supports your position and ignoring the rest of the whole that does not. This is what you do: ALL THE TIME LIKE RIGHT NOW.

Global warming does NOT MEAN everywhere the earth and oceans respond similarly. Everywhere is responding differently. Some areas the sea level goes up, in other areas it goes down. In some areas it gets colder, in others it gets warmer. Its not until you STOP CHERRY PICKING and consider the WHOLE SYSTEM that what is happening can be appreciated: AGW.

The fact that YOU have any presence at all in the literature (google) is quite depressing............if you weren't such a joke.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:58 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jim Steele wrote:Only the foolish will argue that looking at local conditions is cherrypicking and that global warming means everywhere the earth and oceans respond similarly
That is such a STUPID thing to say, I actually am surprised. I think you are losing your touch. Local conditions is cherry picking BY DEFINITION.
ROTFLMAO Boobo you use the phrase "cherrypicking" to deflect every piece of contrary information and now you make up your own definition to suits your beliefs.
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ry-Picking

It is cherry picking when one pushes only a single "global statistic" and ignores all the local evidence, evidence of dynamics that exert the actual forces of change. The BBC author by definition cherry picked "select evidence, presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position" that climate change was the cause of Kivalina's problems. And I clearly showed that was bunk!

The more Boobo denies or tries to withhold evidence the more fallacious his arguments!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 Feb 07, 2018 6:03 pm

Did you read the article with evidence you left out? You have talked about nothing but sea level for two days.
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 Feb 07, 2018 6:08 pm

Jim Steele wrote: It is cherry picking when one pushes only a single "global statistic" and ignores all the local evidence,
Ha, ha..................as stated before, even "if" all your conclusions turn out to be correct, your arguments go past retarded. I do honestly wonder who buys into your BS.

Ahem: the single global statistic IS MADE UP OF ALL THE LOCAL EVIDENCE. Its the very opposite of ignored. The VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking.

Idiot.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:19 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jim Steele wrote: It is cherry picking when one pushes only a single "global statistic" and ignores all the local evidence,
Ha, ha..................as stated before, even "if" all your conclusions turn out to be correct, your arguments go past retarded. I do honestly wonder who buys into your BS.

Ahem: the single global statistic IS MADE UP OF ALL THE LOCAL EVIDENCE. Its the very opposite of ignored. The VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking.

Idiot.

ROTFLMO. Like a Geiger counter, the closer I am to the truth the more rapid Boobo's insults become, and the more devoid of science.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 Feb 07, 2018 9:24 pm

Jim Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Jim Steele wrote: It is cherry picking when one pushes only a single "global statistic" and ignores all the local evidence,
Ha, ha..................as stated before, even "if" all your conclusions turn out to be correct, your arguments go past retarded. I do honestly wonder who buys into your BS.

Ahem: the single global statistic IS MADE UP OF ALL THE LOCAL EVIDENCE. Its the very opposite of ignored. The VERY OPPOSITE of cherry picking.

Idiot.

ROTFLMO. Like a Geiger counter, the closer I am to the truth the more rapid Boobo's insults become, and the more devoid of science.
The reason I, and I suppose Bobbo too or anyone else, are not engaging with what you call scientific truth, is not that we aren't able to understand your posts, it's that you are not a scientist and your posts are not scientific. If you'd admit that, we might at least be able to have a conversation. But instead, when asked a question, you respond not with answers, but with problems with the question, as if we have no right to even be talking to you, as if we need to come up to some level that you are on so we can merely understand you.

Case in point
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:44 pm

Lausten wrote: it's that you are not a scientist and your posts are not scientific. If you'd admit that, we might at least be able to have a conversation.
ROTFLMAO, Now despite my 25 years of scientific research Lausten demands I admit I am not a scientist and then he will engage in sincere scientific discussions and quit with the non-stop personal attacks.

Oooooohhh thaaaank you so much Lausten, I am soooooo honored you would consider an honest discussion ROTFLMAO


I'd ask for Lausten's scientific credentials but it has been clear from the beginning he has none!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:55 pm

Lausten wrote:when asked a question, you respond not with answers, but with problems with the question
Lausten you are not being very honest. I have provided many answers with links or citations. You just don't like my answers!

Furthermore why would you ever think it is wrong to rephrase an ill-posed question???

For instance, using the old saw if I asked "Lausten do you still beat your wife", would you not be legitimately bothered by such a awful entrapping question?

Boobo is a "master" of such bad questions, but you are not too far behind.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 Feb 07, 2018 10:06 pm

Ooooooh....what a bunch of puzzlers:

1. "Lausten do you still beat your wife" /// I have never beat my wife.

2. "Lausten demands I admit I am not a scientist." //// No need to admit what is obvious to all.

Bad Jimbo. He picks the cherries for the pits.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:35 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: "Lausten demands I admit I am not a scientist." //// No need to admit what is obvious to all.

ROTFLMAO You guys crack me up. Such silly transparent attempts to derail any scientific discussion via non-stop ad Homs, is what keeps me coming back, just to enjoy the shear lunacy.

I have never been so entertained by posters with absolutely no science background, who nonetheless try to pretend they understand the science.

I swear, the only reason I keep posting here is not because I remotely expect a real debate. That ship has sailed, as that possibility has long been shown to be a statistical impossibility.

I do enjoy the wild creativity by some posters who pretend they understand the science, but when shown otherwise, quickly hide behind a fabricated fake "consensus" peppered with a variety of ad hominem insults.

Will Lausten and Boobos' "refutations" and "scientific" BS soon be scattered across the internet?

I suspect Boobo, and others are only legends in their own minds.
Last edited by Jim Steele on Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 Feb 07, 2018 11:38 pm

Jim Steele wrote: I suspect Boobo, and others are only legends in their own minds.
I looked for a mirror, but this is as close as I found: :talkwall: :pin: :disco:

It is amusing how quickly you project yourself onto others.

"It's the consensus, Jim!" (as in James T. Kirk) another starship commander.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:31 am

Honestly Boobo,

I look forward to a day when I stop laughing at your silly anti-science ad Homs, and we can finally engage in a meaningful scientific discussion that would be enlightening for all.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:04 am

Broken Record.

I see the City of Richmond is suing Shell for hiding their own studies showing AGW from 40 years ago. Why don't you take a bike ride over to City Hall and tell them how wrong they are?
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I see the City of Richmond is suing Shell for hiding their own studies showing AGW from 40 years ago.
Good luck with that suit. Shell like Exxon didn't know anything more that anyone else. All they knew was the Greenhouse effect is real, but nothing about how sensitive the climate is to rising CO2

Its just another case of a government trying to loot a few companies to fill their coffers, coffers needed to peddle influence,
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:15 am

Jim Steele wrote: Good luck with that suit. Shell like Exxon didn't know anything more that anyone else. All they knew was the Greenhouse effect is real, but nothing about how sensitive the climate is to rising CO2
Yep...pros and cons to such types of lawsuits. I mean, why shouldn't large multi-national corporations be allowed to fraudulent portray the SCIENCE of what they are doing in order to make more money for the CEO??????

You know Bad Jimbo: you just argue very, very poorly. Shell/Exxon knew/knows MUCH MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE. They EMPLOY SCIENTISTS to look into how to maximize their business........and low and behold........they report back that their business is going to overheat the world.........so they fired all those scientists and hire schills who will support the fraudulent revenue stream. FRAUDULENT....not only to the public.....but legally relevant to legal liability: fraudulently reporting the risks and benefits to the share buying owners of Big Oil.

I'm sure you see the difference.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:20 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I'm sure you see the difference.
All I see is someone who makes up their own narratives and thinks that's the only truth
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:46 am

:talkwall: :pin: :disco:
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:33 pm

The attempt to force an artificial consensus is made blatantly obvious in James Cook University's attempt to silence anyone who dares challenge the "Coral Reefs are Gonna Die BS" . Dr. Peter Ridd used observationally based evidence to challenge catastrophic claims, and gets censured for not being collegial. The truth is the university is not interested in healthy scientific debate, but in maintaining its catastrophic global warming gravy train

Read Dr. Peter Ridd's take on bad consensus
The conflicting realities of the Great Barrier Reef point to a deeper problem. In science, consensus is not the same thing as truth. But consensus has come to play a controlling role in many areas of modern science. And if you go against the consensus you can suffer unpleasant consequences.
He could be talking about this forum as well
The main system of science quality control is called peer review. Nowadays, it usually takes the form of a couple of anonymous reviewing scientists having a quick check over the work of a colleague in the field.

Peer review is commonly understood as painstaking re-examination by highly qualified experts in academia that acts as a real check on mistaken work. It isn’t. In the real world, peer review is often cursory and not always even knowledgeable. It might take reviewers only a morning to do.

Scientific results are rarely reanalyzed and experiments are not replicated. The types of checks that would be routine in private industry are just not done.
Read his whole statement

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/ ... -reef.html#
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:42 pm

Fox News? .........Ha, ha. Well, what else?

Jimbo: you've agreed before, then flip flopped.

1. As a "general rule" is there more truth in the consensus or in the minority view?

2. Do you think dissenters from The Theory of evolution should be given any credibility at all? ===> Assuming the improbable, why not?
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Fox News? .........Ha, ha. Well, what else?
Fox News simply posts Dr. Ridd's reply regards JCU's attempt to suppress any debate regards coral.

Boobo tacitly accepts such intellectual totalitarianism, and ignores the expert's plight!

Bad Boobo!

But then again all Boobo's positions depend on such an artificially enforced "consensus"
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:31 pm

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:25 pm

You have two direct scientifically oriented questions.

Of course.........you won't answer and go off on the ab hominum you so often hypocritically rail against WHILE committing that very offensive.

Bad Jimbo.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You have two direct scientifically oriented questions.

Of course.........you won't answer and go off on the ab hominum you so often hypocritically rail against WHILE committing that very offensive.

Bad Jimbo.

Dont ever expect me to follow you down your twisted rabbit holes or respond to your confabulations.

Been there! Done that!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

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 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:10 pm

Pure hypocrisy..................... and .................. weak.
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
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:07 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Pure hypocrisy..................... and .................. weak.

ROTFLMAO. Boobo engages in nonstop insults, then demands I respond to his demands that I answer whatever confabulation he constructs and follow him down his rabbit holes.

ROTFLMAO
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32223
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: 97% consensus fake news

Post by Gord » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:32 am

"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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:09 pm

"97% agree" is "one of the most famous statistics in all of science" only if you get your "science" from TV and the internet.

97% of climate scientists agree on something. We've discussed Doran and Zimmerman's survey which kicked off the "97%" meme.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fi ... nEOS09.pdf

Here's how 97% of climate scientists answer the relevant survey questions.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Risen.

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Yes.

Neither answer, nor a combination of the two, contradicts Steele's point in the OP. The Doran/Zimmerman "consensus" does not imply that climate change over the past 50 years was caused "largely or entirely by human activity" or "mostly by human activity" or even "more or less equally by human activity and natural events". "Significant contributing factor" implies none of these statements, even regarding "changing mean global temperatures" (the subject of Doran's survey) much less "climate change" more generally (the subject of the survey that Steele cites).

Even someone answering "largely or entirely by natural events" could have answered yes to Doran's second question, because "significant" in a scientific context doesn't imply a large change, only a measurable change with statistical significance. The most notorious skeptics of anthropogenic climate change, like John Christy, do answer yes, so the "97% consensus" includes practically all climate scientists, because it includes practically everyone that alarmists on TV and the internet routinely call "deniers".

97% of scientists also agree that the moon is not made of green cheese, but they don't agree that anthropogenic climate change threatens civilization in the 21st century or even that a "cap and trade", carbon trading regime is justified. Ask more specific questions, and you get more specific answers.
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:39 pm

MB: you are jumping horses midstream. The 97% number came from a SURVEY of published documents. Its just noted that 7-8 "other" surveys using other people and other techniques all came in with from 90 to 100% agreement. aka; not just one survey as you have cherry picked.

But as Jimbo like to abuse: its not just one of any of the surveys: ITS THE SCIENCE that is explained by the same experts. Its not enough to find bad interpretations of ambiguous questions: you still have the science untouched.

Touch the science.
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
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:MB: you are jumping horses midstream. The 97% number came from a SURVEY of published documents. Its just noted that 7-8 "other" surveys using other people and other techniques all came in with from 90 to 100% agreement. aka; not just one survey as you have cherry picked.

But as Jimbo like to abuse: its not just one of any of the surveys: ITS THE SCIENCE that is explained by the same experts. Its not enough to find bad interpretations of ambiguous questions: you still have the science untouched.

Touch the science.
The Doran survey, published in 2009, before your survey of published documents, already reported the "97%" figure.

"Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2."

This survey was widely reported, with the "97% consensus" meme, at the time. We even discussed the Doran survey in this forum before your survey of documents was published. Search the archives.

"Cherry picked" is an odd description of the Doran survey, since it supports your claim. My point is that, if you look beneath the headline result, the actual data summarized are unremarkable. Despite the misstatement in the PBS video that Gord links above, 97% of the papers in the study it cites do not claim that most climate change in the last 50 years is anthropogenic. The papers make more prosaic claims supporting measurable, anthropogenic climate change.
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:16 pm

......its not the 97% Agreement that has been cherry picked. Cherry trees have more than just cherries.

......and the SCIENCE is still untouched.

That headlines of scientific papers reported on in the popular press got it wrong is not a new idea or even relevant to most issues. What is it that you "really" want to quibble about? To what end??
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
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:......its not the 97% Agreement that has been cherry picked. Cherry trees have more than just cherries.

......and the SCIENCE is still untouched.

That headlines of scientific papers reported on in the popular press got it wrong is not a new idea or even relevant to most issues. What is it that you "really" want to quibble about? To what end??
I never anywhere suggest that the headlines "got wrong it". I say that the headlines are prosaic and uncontroversial, because they say practically nothing about the science and say nothing at all about catastrophic consequences of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise. If you only care about the debate between "anthropogenic CO2 has more than nothing to do with climate change" and "it's all a hoax", then you care about these headlines, but "more than nothing" is no reason to panic.
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:18 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.
Did you only mean good science with moving pictures and sound?
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?