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. The Internet Member

    Okay I get what you are saying. "Climate report" threw me off because I don't think rating candidate statements on global warming is a report on the climate.

    Anyway, you think you could round up a hundred or so climate scientists who say AGW is not a fact and these guys would not be so hard on Trump. Lol that is not going to happen because those guys do not exist. If they did exist, they would be publishing in the peer reviewed literature. But they are not there.

    All the big scientific organizations like NASA and NOAA and National Academy of Science and similar organizations in other countries --all these groups say AGW is a fact.

    You have been given misinformation, like a lot of Americans.
  2. The Internet Member

    Oh I just thought of an up side to global warming. Toward the latter half of this century those holy lands in the Middle East people keep fighting over will be largely uninhabitable. Maybe then we can get some peace and quiet for a change.
  3. Mann Ace Member

    Again, you seem determined to miss the point.

    Carry on
  4. The Internet Member

    I thought your point was, people wanting a certain outcome should not be allowed to do studies. I addressed that when I said that generally speaking, people who do studies want or expect a certain outcome. Yet good studies happen anyway. So bias is not a deal breaker in science.
  5. Mann Ace Member

    You cannot deliberately introduce bias into a report and call it science.

    I cannot state it more simply or succinctly than that.
  6. The Internet Member

    There is a difference between being biased and producing a biased report, right? Everybody is biased to some degree but it is possible to produce a report that minimizes bias.
  7. The Internet Member

    Here is the smoking gun for AGW:
    24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg
    http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

    You gotta figure such a crazy amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere is doing something, right?

    Then there is this:
    graph.png
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Hey correlation is not causation. Maybe the sun is making things warmer, along with that massive amount of CO2 what has to be doing something.

    Well people considered the sun. Turns out the solar cycle right now ought to be making the Earth cooler. But we aren't seeing the cooling effect as it is overwhelmed by some other thing going on. Gee, what could that be...
  8. Mann Ace Member

    It's like you don't want to understand.

    Oh well.
  9. The Internet Member

    Maybe you could explain what I am missing?
  10. Mann Ace Member

    I have, repeatedly, as recently as post 245.
  11. The Internet Member

    But where is your proof that somebody deliberately introduced bias into a report? All I have seen are accusations that report writers accept AGW as true and so are biased. Being biased and cheating are very different things.

    Scientists actually like surprises. They like to say, "We expected to find such-and-such but we were wrong. So check this out, dudes!"

    Think of all the scientists researching new drugs for Pharma companies. They very much want their hopeful compounds to prove safe and effective. It is fair to say they are strongly biased in that direction. Even so, most of the stuff that looks good early on doesn't do well in clinical trials. That means their bias is not interfering with the scientific process.

    You think people with a bias should not be allowed to do science. That would mean no science would happen.
  12. Mann Ace Member

    Focusing on the Cook paper, I told you exactly where, in the body of his report, Cook tells us he uses biased raters (and though I never mentioned it, he also admits that he uses unqualified raters). If the 'researcher' tells us he is using biased, unqualified raters, I believe him. Why don't you?

    Other people have tried to replicate the Cook paper and come up with wildly different numbers. That you are unaware of this is troubling, it's as if you don't want to learn of confounding studies. Other studies have shown how fatally flawed the Cook paper methodology was. You seem to not be aware of any of this.
    You really don't understand how the scientific method works, do you? AGW is a hypothesis. That means it is unproven. To accept an unproven hypothesis as true is the antithesis of science.

    I never said that. That is you willfully misunderstanding what I did say. If you cannot accurately state my position, there is no way I'll take you seriously. That you so completely misunderstand my position, as evidenced by that statement, then as I have said, you seem bound and determined not to understand what I am saying.
  13. The Internet Member

    Seems like you are saying that people with a bias should not be allowed to do science here.
    References, please. I'm thinking the misinfo people have fooled you.
    Cook was measuring the strength of the scientific consensus for the AGW theory within the scientific literature. AGW was not being put to the test in that paper. If it were you could call it a hypothesis in that context.

    AGW is actually a theory that explains a multitude of observations and experiments over many years. In science a theory is a big deal, like the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is like a super-fact backed by countless small facts.
    That is not true. I do want to understand what you are saying.
  14. Mann Ace Member

    Back a while ago I quoted a Duarte post that said, in part, that he found 19 bad papers in ten minutes of reading. You summarized that as him finding 19 papers out of the 11,000 or so total papers.

    Then I tell you that I object to deliberately introducing bias into a report and you summarize that as saying "You are saying that people with a bias shouldn't do science."

    You were unable to correctly summarize a short paragraph of the Duarte report, and then I made a simple, one sentence statement, and you could not correctly summarize it. That appears to be the major roadblock to understanding at the moment.
  15. The Internet Member

    Duarte claims that in 10 minutes he found 19 papers that were wrongly categorized in the Cook paper. He did not say they were "bad" papers.

    We must consider the possibility that Duarte lied when he said he only spent 10 minutes looking for papers in the wrong categories, as it is a weird thing for a scientist to say. I recommend Duarte take a half hour and find about 60 papers he feels are wrongly categorized to seem more legit.

    But remember, Duarte had missed the fact that the Cook study included papers concerned with global warming impacts and mitigation. Public understanding of the science is rightfully part of impacts and mitigation. Thus Duarte's claim that those papers should not have been included was wrong.

    You object to biased people categorizing papers without any evidence that those people allowed their bias to influence their categorization of the research papers. That is wrong.
  16. Mann Ace Member

    Lord a mercy. You are determined to miss the point.

  17. WHY THE FUCK MORE EUROPEANS KNOW THIS AND AMERICANS DON'T ?

  18. The Wrong Guy Member

    China ratifies Paris climate agreement | BBC News

    Quote:

    China's top legislature has ratified the Paris global climate agreement, state news agency Xinhua reports.

    The country is the world's largest emitter of harmful CO2 emissions, which cause climate change.

    China and the US are expected to jointly announce ratification at a bilateral summit later on Saturday.

    In a landmark deal struck in December, countries agreed to cut emissions enough to keep the global average rise in temperatures below 2C (36F).

    Members of China's National People's Congress Standing Committee adopted "the proposal to review and ratify the Paris Agreement" on Saturday morning at the end of a week-long session.

    The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement. It will only come into force legally after it is ratified by at least 55 countries, which between them produce 55% of global carbon emissions.

    Continued here:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37265541
    • Like Like x 1
  19. The Internet Member

    Just admit that Duarte misunderstood the Cook paper and we can move on.
  20. Mann Ace Member

    lol
    You are the science denier you warned us about.
  21. The Internet Member

    I see you cannot answer my point, that Duarte failed to understand that Cook had a category for "impacts and mitigation" papers. Thus Duarte's complaint was derp.
  22. Mann Ace Member

    Or it could be that you are having a problem understanding English, one or the other.
  23. The Internet Member

    Still no answer to my point I see.
  24. Mann Ace Member

    lol
    I do not have anything to say to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to understand a simple English sentence.

    ta
  25. The Internet Member

    You think someone who accepts AGW is biased. Fine I can live with that although I disagree. AGW is a well accepted fact and not really a bias as we tend to use that word.

    You also think allowing someone who has a bias toward AGW to categorize papers as for or against AGW is wrong.

    But having an inner bias is not the same as behaving in a biased manner. It is possible to be biased against Scientology, for example, while still behaving fairly toward particular Scientologists. Thus it is unfair to say the Cook report was biased unless you have hard evidence of unfair behavior by the raters.

    In fact, Cook checked for bias affecting the way papers were rated by asking the authors of the papers for their own ratings. So he effectively ruled out bias as a factor.

    It is okay to be wrong about something, just in case you thought otherwise.

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