There is no Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Science is not a democracy.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Science is about objective observation.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
All laws and theories can only be formed from observation.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If took one man to disprove thousands of years of scientific consensus that heavier things fall faster than lighter things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

Surface Detail wrote:
I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the earth is flat?

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Sorry DRKTS, but your facts are wrong. In the video you reference Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook et al 2013's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?

A beautiful example of the fallacy of a vacuous truth.

Congratulations. That's a rare one! You have reached new heights of illogic!

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Please watch my latest video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

Your facts are wrong. In your video you cite Cook et al 2013 as the "most comprehensive" study. However 97% of the surveyed papers in Cook et al 2013 did not support AGW. According to the categorized data only 33% did. Here is the table that summarises Cook's data:

Category 1: 65 papers
Category 2: 934 papers
Category 3: 2,933 papers
Category 4: 8,261 papers
Category 5: 53 papers
Category 6: 15 papers
Category 7: 10 papers
Total papers: 12,271

The papers were categorized based on the following criteria:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image_thumb213.png?w=520&h=752 (You can copy-and-paste the link into your URL).

The papers in Category 4 expressed 'No Position' on AGW and were excluded, leaving 4,010. Only Categories 1 & 2 explicitly endorsed AGW. None of the others did. Therefore that gives you a 33% endorsement of AGW (i.e. 999/4010).

Furthermore only Category 1 (which included only 65 papers) endorsed the idea that humans were the "primary cause (i.e. 50%+) of global warming". Hence only 1.6% (i.e. 65/4,010) agree that global warming is primarly due to humans.

I think you'll find that most geology papers don't explicitly endorse the spheroidal Earth theory; does this mean that most geologists believe the Earth is flat?

A beautiful example of the fallacy of a vacuous truth.

Congratulations. That's a rare one! You have reached new heights of illogic!

The point I'm making with my example seems to have whizzed straight over your vacuous head.

To clarify for you: just because a paper doesn't explicit state something that is widely held to be true in a particular field, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree that it is true. That's why it's stupid to assume that the authors of papers that don't explicitly state that AGW is real don't agree that it is real.

Surface Detail wrote:To clarify for you: just because a paper doesn't explicit state something that is widely held to be true in a particular field, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree that it is true.

Surface Detail wrote: That's why it's stupid to assume that the authors of papers that don't explicitly state that AGW is real don't agree that it is real.

DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

One Punch Man wrote: I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but ....

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Category 3 contained papers that according to Cook simply acknowledged that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming". Only the papers in Category 1 & 2 "explictly" endorsed AGW. Category 3 were papers that according to Cook "implictly" endorsed AGW. Anyway, only Category 1 with 65 papers, were papers acknowledging humans were the "primary cause" of global warming. The word primary means anything over 50%. Therefore, all of the papers in Category 2 saying that AGW is real must have estimated the warming from humans to be 50% or less, otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. Hence the study only found a 1.6% consensus that the primary cause of global warming is due to humans (65/3945). I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but let me say it once more and hopefully it might sink in: only 65 papers in Cook et al (2013) supports the idea that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming. After searching through over 12,000 climate-related papers, Cook only found a mere 65. Your whole 97% consensus claim that "most of the warming is human induced" is based on 65 papers.

DRKTS wrote: You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote.

DRKTS wrote: Have that discussion with him.

DRKTS wrote:I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.

DRKTS wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
According to Cook himself: Categories 1,2,3 support AGW. Categories 5 & 6 deny it, 7 thinks CO2 plays a minor role (sorta half for half against).

That's 3932 for 68-78 against so that is 1.5-2% against. QED.

Cook states that he went out of his way to try to find anti papers so this is probably an overestimate.

I just read the paper - it concludes

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Category 3 contained papers that according to Cook simply acknowledged that "greenhouse gas emissions cause warming". Only the papers in Category 1 & 2 "explictly" endorsed AGW. Category 3 were papers that according to Cook "implictly" endorsed AGW. Anyway, only Category 1 with 65 papers, were papers acknowledging humans were the "primary cause" of global warming. The word primary means anything over 50%. Therefore, all of the papers in Category 2 saying that AGW is real must have estimated the warming from humans to be 50% or less, otherwise they would have qualified for Category 1. Hence the study only found a 1.6% consensus that the primary cause of global warming is due to humans (65/3945). I understand that you are a True Believer and nothing I can say will shake your faith, but let me say it once more and hopefully it might sink in: only 65 papers in Cook et al (2013) supports the idea that humans are the "primary cause" of global warming. After searching through over 12,000 climate-related papers, Cook only found a mere 65. Your whole 97% consensus claim that "most of the warming is human induced" is based on 65 papers.

You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote. Have that discussion with him. I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.

DRKTS wrote:
[quote] Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
You are arbitrarily reinterpreting what Cook wrote. Have that discussion with him. I refer you to the direct quote from his paper at the bottom of my last post. Which I note you skipped over.

One Punch Man wrote:
Because Cook included papers in his 97% consensus that estimated the warming from humans to be less than 50% the papers he included were skeptics such as Alan Carlin. YouTube "Warmists Stunned by Senate Testimony", go to 8:30 and Roy Spencer explains how even he is a part of John Cook's 97% consensus.

DRKTS wrote: Spencer has stated publically that he believes ... "

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: Spencer has stated publically that he believes ... "

Why not bring Spencer here to speak for himself? Why pretend that you speak for him? Why do you pretend to speak for countless, untold others?

Does your entire argument crumble if you just say "This is what I believe..."?

It does, doesn't it?


.

DRKTS wrote: I did bring him here: see my video on YouTube

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: I did bring him here: see my video on YouTube

You did not bring him here. I can't ask questions of a video, e.g. "Have you completely changed your mind since the video was made?", etc...

So the answer really is yes, that your arguments all crumble if you are allowed to only speak for yourself.


.

DRKTS wrote: We wait with baite3d breath for an honest, unambiguous answer. Cue the crickets ....

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: We wait with baite3d breath for an honest, unambiguous answer. Cue the crickets ....

Please hold your breath while you wait.

You are asking me to speak for the IPCC. I can at best afford you my speculation (which I happily extended).

If you think I'll lower myself to your level of dishonesty and pretend I speak for countless, untold others for whom I actually don't speak, then I'm guessing your lungs are not going to hold out while you wait to find out.

I do, however, appreciate your attempts to bully me into lowering myself to your level. Would you mind using the "bluster" word again. Frankly I'm amazed you think that's some sort of impact word. Is it a particularly powerful one over in your neck of the woods?


.

DRKTS wrote:
Spencer has stated publically that he believes the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role. He just believes that it wont be catastrophic. Most of the often quoted climate skeptics say this: Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and Spencer.

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
Spencer has stated publically that he believes the Earth is warming and humans are playing a role. He just believes that it wont be catastrophic. Most of the often quoted climate skeptics say this: Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, and Spencer.

You wrote that Spencer agrees that "humans play a role". Of course, that was my point. Skeptics such as Joanne Nova, Lindzen, Spencer, Segalstad, Watts, etc, all agree that humans must have some influence on the climate, even if that influence is very small and not worth serious consideration.

So, you understand and agree then that Cook's 97% consensus figure includes skeptics? And I take it, assuming you understand basic arithmetic, that Cook's study only found a 1.6% consensus that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming? That's not very much, wouldn't you agree?

You seem to be consistently avoiding this point.

Gogsy wrote: I believe it would be peculiar if humans were having no impact on the earths Eco system

Gogsy wrote: but still have the problem of how much and does it matter.

Gogsy wrote:let alone the Paris agreement where it was decided that man is somehow going to limit the temp rise to 2C seems to me to be nothing short of arrogance.

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

One Punch Man wrote:

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

Surface Detail, I have been over this with you already above and I accepted the possibility that this may be the case. However it does not change the results of the study. The results still show a 1.6% 'consensus' that global warming is "primarly" due to humans. That is the result of the study and that result will not bend to the whim of your conjecture regarding what others might agree with.

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.

Sorry dude, you have committed TWO errors in logic. The logic fail is on YOU.

The first is an attempt to prove a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. This is not possible in logic. It is known as an illicit negative.

The second follows this syllogistic construct:
1. Some geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some Geologists write geology papers.
Therefore no geologist believes the Earth is flat.

This trying to prove a negative conclusion from positive predicates. This is an illicit affirmative.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
There is a huge difference between "not catastrophic" and "very small role". Especially when they refuse to define what they mean by "catastrophic"

Who said anything about catastrophic? The word "primay" means anything over 50%. You just keep on ignoring the fact that Cook only found a 1.6% in the scientific literature that humans are the "primary" cause of global warming which means the majority of papers (i.e. 98.4%) estimated that humans contributed less than 50% to global warming. You aren't going to acknowledge that are you? It's like I'm debating a religious fundamentalist. Oh wait, I am.

Bit of a logic fail there, old chap. The fact that a certain number of papers don't explicit state a certain point of view doesn't automatically mean that their authors believe the opposite!

For example, very few geology papers explicitly state that the Earth is a spheroid. Does this mean that the majority of geologists believe the Earth is flat? Of course not.

Sorry dude, you have committed TWO errors in logic. The logic fail is on YOU.

The first is an attempt to prove a positive conclusion using a negative predicate. This is not possible in logic. It is known as an illicit negative.

The second follows this syllogistic construct:
1. Some geology papers state the Earth is a spheroid.
2. Some Geologists write geology papers.
Therefore no geologist believes the Earth is flat.

This trying to prove a negative conclusion from positive predicates. This is an illicit affirmative.

My first paragraph was not a logical construct. It was simply a statement pointing out the illogical nature of OPM's conclusion.

My second paragraph was deliberately illogical in the same way as OPM's statement was illogical to drive the point home. But it doesn't follow the syllogistic construct you claim, given that the number of papers explicitly stating that the Earth is a spheroid could well be zero in my formulation. My argument doesn't depend on some geology papers stating the Earth is a spheroid. Rather the reverse, actually.

You're not trying to claim that OPM's statement is logical, are you?

spot wrote:
A qualified geologist that thinks the earth is flat would be absurd, obviously.