Customize

Mother Jones: 5 Terrifying Facts From the Leaked UN Climate Report

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. Ethics Bait Member

    so now some people want to use RICO statues against people who don't agree with the consensus.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...esident-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico/
    It's scary that university professors would sign their name to this. There are already laws useful for when people 'knowingly deceive'
    This is an attempt, by university professors, to shut down speech.
    God, the irony.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. The Wrong Guy Member

    There's a related post here:

    New NSA Targets World Leaders for US Geopolitical Interests | WikiLeaks

    WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said "Today we showed that UN Secretary General Ban KiMoon's private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies.

    https://whyweprotest.net/threads/ed...-surveillance-2015.123683/page-7#post-2575135
    • Like Like x 1
  3. The Internet Member

    One does not "agree" or "disagree" with a consensus of scientific evidence anymore than one agrees or disagrees with the weather.

    If somebody asks, "what is the weather like?" you describe the weather. Agreement doesn't come into it.

    Similarly if someone asks, "what does the scientific evidence say?" you describe that totality of evidence more or less accurately.

    If you describe the scientific consensus on some matter inaccurately, people will correct you. However if you are the government you really better get your facts right. Cuz a government unconstrained by facts is hella scary.

    So anyone trying to influence politicians, policy makers, or voters by misrepresenting the scientific consensus needs to be called out for that bad deed.
  4. Russell Lee Member

    The answers are already here, they are just not profitable to megacorp.
    There are two gravity-powered, continuous motion, energy generators that have proven the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to mechanisms driven by gravity. The Pinwheel Generator, and the Power Multiplier Device. Grow-LiveTowers would both house (2,500) and feed the people. 200,000 of them would house the people of the United States.
    Mankind has for a long time possessed the technology for perfect world. Enough said.
    Regards
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. The Internet Member

    No those three papers do not offer evidence in support of AGW. They simply count the number of papers within the scientific literature for and against AGW. You yourself could replicate their results by running the same search criteria on the literature and following their methods for categorizing the papers.
  6. Mann Ace Member

    I'd love to know how Cook thought this paper fit into the scheme of things.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2008.29.pdf

    TR3.

    Actually, a friend of my used to drive a TR3, delightful little sports car.
  7. The Internet Member

  8. Mann Ace Member

    Why yes it does. That paper is one of the papers John Cook rated for his paper on 97% acceptance. He says he rated all these scientific papers on the climate, looking at whether they agreed with the proposition that humans were responsible for climate change.

    My question is, why did he include that paper?

    Also, you haven't answered about the climate poll you offered. Do you think that gives us good information about how well the candidates understand climate science? I assume you do, since you offered it as proof of who knew more, so I'll ask my question.

    Can you think of any reason why those results might be biased?
  9. The Internet Member

    Probably a fuck up. They did get about 12,000 papers in their query results so a few fuck ups are to be expected. But I will see if I can google up some more on this.
  10. Mann Ace Member

    lol. "Let's see, I'm rating papers on climate science, and yet I'm reading a paper on TV news. I'll ignore the obvious red flag, and rate this anyway."
    Sorry, TI, that's not how things work.If they were not trained enough to make the distinction, they had no right to rate the papers. That is not an honest mistake.
    Here, let me help...

    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
    If Cooks tells us he is rating scientific papers on climate science and then actually rates papers on TV pronouncements, marketing and psychology, then the study is a lie.

    What worries me is how many people accept this nonsense as science.
  11. The Internet Member

    That link lists 19 papers that the author, José L. Duarte, says should not have been included in the Cook study. He also says
    So the author originally found 21 of the 11,944 papers in the Cook study were wrongly included. Then he noted that two were actually okay.

    Thus the fuck up rate:
    Duarte: 2/21 or 10%
    Cook: 19/11,944 or 0.2%

    Not really a consequential effect on Cook's results. Also, if you are going to accuse Cook of dishonesty based upon that error rate, then you have to accuse Duarte of dishonesty 50 times more.
  12. The Internet Member

    I read this answer to Duarte and realized I fucked up a little in my post above: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es505183e

    The Cook study did include research work on AGW impacts and mitigation, including some social science papers. So Cook et al did not make a mistake when they counted those papers Duarte complained about.

    Cook stratified results based upon the authors' physical science expertise. He found greater agreement among the hard scientists as compared to the social scientists. Thus if he'd excluded the latter the 97% figure would have been higher.

    But the important thing is, the consensus was already there before those 3 papers tried to quantify it. People working in the field were not arguing with each other over whether AGW was true or not. You can tell because those debates happen in the literature and they just are not there.

    I say we let the scientists be the experts here because I have forgotten most of the calculus I learned in school.
  13. Mann Ace Member

    This was in the first paragraph of the paper.

    http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
    That you didn't read/comprehend that makes me wonder.
  14. Mann Ace Member

    Could you point me to the part of the Cook paper where he says he's including some social science papers in the study? From my reading, I'd say he was reviewing climate science, not social science.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
    What do you make of this?
  15. The Internet Member

    I read it and I think it is cheating to imply a bunch of papers were misclassified without naming those papers. Dox or GTFO and do not come back, basically.

    Cheating is a bad look for Mr. Duarte. In fact, I have a hard time believing he is a working scientist because the scientists I have known would be ashamed to argue like he did.
  16. The Internet Member

    Table 1 gives the categories, which includes impacts and mitigation. Also the link I posted for the rebuttal to Duarte explains the categories.
    The author is considering that there may have been a tendency to erroneously interpret abstracts as pro-AGW, as that is the consensus view. If I recall correctly they checked for this by contacting authors then looking for discrepancies between the author's view and the rater's view.

    I think you are getting lost in the trees while missing the forest. The consensus on AGW has been strong for a long time. You do not see scientists debating if AGW is true in the peer reviewed literature or at big academic conferences. It is the politicians and PR people funded by fossil fuel companies, including Russia, who want the public to think scientists are not sure if AGW is true. Those people hate our freedoms and should be spanked.
  17. Mann Ace Member

    Well, he gave you 19 papers, and said the fraud was so obvious that no more work needed being done,
    Since he proved his point, that the paper was a fraud, no more evidence is needed. That you don't agree does not surprise me. You are incapable of telling opinion from facts.
    You sure seem not to understand about bias and self selection, since you keep offering opinion as proof. Each of the four papers, (Cook, Orestkes, etc) are all opinions couched as science. You seem easily duped into believing opinion is science, if it is couched in proper scientific terms.

    The tl;dr, a man cheats, tells us he cheats, and you tell us why he didn't really mean it.

    You, sir, are denying the methods of science. Why you do that?
  18. The Internet Member

    Cook was quantifying the scientific consensus for global warming. The authors of those 19 papers accepted AGW as true and so are evidence of the consensus. It is not fraud to count them. It may be a mistake to put them in the Impacts or Mitigation category, but an argument could be made that they belong there. If you disagree, you can take them out, as Cook did when he stratified results by expertise. When you take all the social science papers out though, you get a consensus ABOVE 97%.

    Cheating implies a motive to deceive. But there is nothing gained by including those 19 papers because you still get 97% either way.

    Counting papers and reporting the counts is not opinion. It is a number.
  19. Mann Ace Member

    That you can say this with a straight face tells me you are still not seeing the self selection bias.

    Also, have you ever hear the expression "The data do not speak for themselves?"

    You are still denying the methods of science.
  20. The Internet Member

    So you do not think most scientists support AGW?
  21. Mann Ace Member

    It really depends on what you mean by AGW. Since I hear plenty of definitions, let's hear yours.
  22. The Internet Member

    AGW means that human greenhouse gas production is causing the warming climate trend over the past several decades.
  23. Mann Ace Member

    Thanks.
    Then, no I'd say there is not a consensus. I know the MSM screams at us about how the 97% consensus and all that, but the reality is much different. Near as I can tell, there is a robust debate about the influence of the sun, the various decades long variability of the orbit, earth's tilt and other factors, how CO2 will work in higher concentrations and more. It's not a topic I much care about. There have been recent important paper that talk about the sun and...I don't remember now. But there is a robust debate that the MSM echo chamber ignores.

    But the consensus seems to have been manufactured out of whole cloth for purely political purposes. Hell, Cook as much as tells us that's why he's doing his paper.


    In any case, talking about a consensus is not science, and people who deliberately introduce bias into allegedly scientific papers are not scientists, they are science deniers of the worst sort, the type that loudly proclaim they are scientists, then do politics.
  24. The Internet Member

    "Consensus" means the peer reviewed scientific literature is solidly behind some position. How do we find out if a consensus exists or not?
  25. Mann Ace Member

    First, you do not get accurate numbers by using biased raters. That destroys the credibility from the get go.

    Second, who cares if a consensus exists? It means nothing. It is a political question, and I leave it to those who do politics. Those who do science know that consensus is irrelevant.

    I keep coming back to one fact. Cook cooked the study from the get go, by using biased raters for the paper. That negates everything that follows. That you won't see this simple fact makes all other conversation moot. Nothing can come of it, if you believe opinions are facts.
  26. The Internet Member

    Everybody is biased. But it is possible to replace bias with verifiable evidence. That is what science does, in fact.

    Facts can be verified by independent parties. Bias and opinion cannot be verified. That is the key difference.

    If I count the beans in a jar there is a chance my number will be off because I'm not perfect. So if we want more confidence in the number, I should repeat the count. Or we should get another person to repeat the count. Even better, a thousand people counting the beans will likely reveal the actual number in the jar beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    A scientific consensus gives us greater confidence in the truth of some matter, just as repeated counts of beans in a jar gives us greater confidence in the answer.

    I know there are people who say a consensus doesn't matter in science. But those people are wrong.
  27. Mann Ace Member

    Whoosh
  28. Mann Ace Member

    First step: use unbiased raters.

    The reason for the scientific method is to excise bias from scientific studies. Introducing bias deliberately, at the first stage of the study, is nothing but malpractice. It denies the foundation of the scientific method, which is to get rid of human bias.

    This is not rocket science. Introducing bias biases the results.
  29. The Internet Member

    The question Cook was asking was, how strong is the consensus for AGW. He cast his net more broadly than previous researchers by including papers concerning impacts and mitigation. I think he probably was not certain what percentage of consensus he'd find, though he likely expected something above 80% given previous literature surveys. Expectations are not the same thing as bias as you seem to mean.
  30. The Internet Member

    You do not remove bias in science by removing people but by explaining your methods and results in a manner that allows for independent verification.
  31. Mann Ace Member

    Whoosh
  32. The Internet Member

    Global warming is melting the Greenland Ice Sheet, fast

    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rming-is-melting-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fast

  33. Mann Ace Member

    So this guy want a war on physics, or something.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
    This next is so 1968.
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
    Paul Ehrlich published the Population Bomb in 1968. He was in favor of ZPG, zero population growth. He was spectacularly wrong on everything.

    I have seen this repeated time and again, most recently with Peak Oil. It went down exactly as libertarians predicted. Chicken Little will predict the end of oil and we'll be told we must Do Something Now, or we are doomed. Then, someone will innovate, and suddenly shale oil is a viable source of energy. Hell, that was a plot point in Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957

    @TI, you never did explain why you offered opinion as dox. The candidate-on-the-climate site was opinion. Why you offered it as dox is a puzzlement. Care to explain?
  34. The Internet Member

    Factual claims made by candidates can be correct or incorrect. Because facts are not opinions.
  35. Mann Ace Member

    You don't understand the concept of self selection bias, do you? If you think that site gave us an accurate assessment of the candidate's understanding of climate science, you are blinding yourself to the obvious self selection bias that was used to generate those 'numbers' that seem to impress you.
  36. The Internet Member

    Do you agree that factual claims can be correct or incorrect?
  37. Mann Ace Member

    The only question at this point is, Do you understand about self selection bias? That is the only question. Do you understand how those papers you offered used self selection bias to come to their pre ordained conclusions?

    If not, then there's nothing to say. I will not discuss science with someone who denies the very foundation of the scientific method.
  38. The Internet Member


    Yes I understand about self selection bias. No, I do not understand how "those papers" (not sure if you're talking about the Trump accuracy rating still) used self selection to come to their pre ordained conclusion.

    It is often possible to measure the impact of bias upon results, thankfully. And some studies are less vulnerable to bias than others. That is why I want to know if you agree that factual claims made by candidates can be correct or incorrect.
  39. Mann Ace Member

    That you do not understand is what worries me, The self selection bias was stated by Cook in his paper, and the climate candidate report was written by AGW advocates. I take any advocacy with a grain of salt.

    Ask yourself a question.

    If I were to pick the scientists to recreate the candidate climate report, would you expect us to get the same results? Why or why not?

    You keep saying this and ignoring my response. People who introduce bias into a scientific study are not doing science. The first best way to reduce bias is to exclude it from the report in the first place. If you don't, you are not doing science.

    As for the facts, what facts? You and I would probably agree that 2+2=4, but we definitely disagree about AGW.
  40. The Internet Member

    Which climate report, the Cook report? Yes I think the results should be the same regardless of who is scoring the results, provided the raters are following the explicit criteria.

    I am scratching my head because I think everyone is biased to some degree. I don't know how people can do all the hard work that science involves without some idea of what the outcome will look like. Yet people still do good work in spite of their bias.

    People can be correct or incorrect when the assert something is a fact. Were this not the case, then teachers could never grade exams.

    Individuals, like you and me, do not decide what is a scientific fact.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins