Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.
While I admit to being quite surprised they’d allow him equal time, I doubt he’ll win any converts as much of the readership thinks 97% consensus is a fact, and they don’t really want to hear anything different. Tol writes:
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless.
…
Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.
At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.
Read Tol’s essay here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
NikFromNYC asks rust/Morrison:
Exactly what question did Cook ask the climatologists in order to rate their paper abstracts?
Good question. Answer it if you can, propagandist.
And I asked for the names of the 77 supposed ‘scientists’ who signed on to this nonsesne, and the specific statement they were agreeing to. It is nowhere in the bogus Cook paper. So give us the names, and the statement, Morrison/rustboi. Or will you just emit a cloud of pixels again and run away?
See, we’re discussing something that hasn’t even been defined. Typical misdirection by the alarmist cult.
=======================
Margaret Hardman says:
The counting of sunspots, the measurement of temperatures, there is no point in Tol’s world.
Psychological projection: Margaret is afflicted with it.
In Margaret’s world, global warming is happening. But in the real world, global warming stopped more than fifteen years ago.
The planet itself is debunking the alarmist religion. All they can do now is use ad hominem arguments, because their science arguments fail.
Morrison and Margaret are failures. They took a position, then when the facts falsified their belief system, they didn’t do the right thing, and admit it. Instead, they keep digging their hole deeper.
There is a reason these fools don’t argue empirical facts. Their heads would explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Siberian_husky says:
There’s a lot of talk on this blog about replicating Cook et al’s analysis. I think that’s a fair call, although whether the figure is 97% or 91%, the conclusion is largely the same- an overwhelming consensus.
Since you also seem to know exactly what the question was that those so-called ‘scientists’ were responding to, and no doubt you know their names, why don’t you just post that information here? Then we will know what we’re discussing. Because so far, it is just a lot of baseless assertions.
Dog continues:
Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming.
You are really clueless about how the scientific method works, aren’t you?
What you did there is to try and put scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative. Nice try, but you fail. Listen up: Skeptics have nothing to prove. And the alarmist cult has failed miserably to make a convincing case.
Instead of your endless palaver about some mysterious statement that some mysterious ‘scientists’ were agreeing to, why don’t we discuss empirical evidence?
The reason is obvious: there is no empirical evidence that supports the belief that AGW exists. It may exist. Or not [I personally think that human CO2 emissions have a minuscule warming effect]. But where is the evidence?
Note that scientific evidence consists of verifiable raw data. Evidence is not computer models, or pal-reviewed papers.
The alarmist cult always avoids discussing evidence, because there is no testable, measurable evidence showing conclusively that human activity causes global warming. None at all.
You jamokes went to the movies and watched Algore’s nonsense, and now it’s your religion. Sad, but true.
I love it when the Siberian Hussey and Rusty Bed-springs pop up.
Watching them twisting and turning and fuming and fulminating is certain proof that their beloved consensus…so brilliantly rigged by Mann, Jones and Co (see Climategate emails) is crumbling.
Let’s face it, if SkS is sending them over here on these suicide missions you know that the end must be near!
Oh, dbstealey, you are so scary and authoritative! Be still my beating heart.
Please, sir. Can we have some more?
P.S. – what ever happened to my extensive comment about Tol’s math and other topics? It must be about 6 hours now?
That is the kind of comment the alarmist cult makes when they are out of answers. How does it feel to be impotent, Morrison?
P.P.S. – thanks to our host for his request for info in his reply to me earlier comment – I will eagerly comply! Also, thanks for creeping my Facebook page, AW! How weird are you?
REPLY: I didn’t realize that looking at somebody’s Facebook page out of curiosity, and noticing that you have made Cook’s 97% badge your personal badge of honor by making it your profile picture was “creepy”.
You identified yourself in some of your very early WUWT comments, so I looked.
If you want an example of “creepy” behavior, your hero, John Cook, wins hands down for allowing pictures like this on his SkS forum, though maybe, we really should go back to calling it by its true initials “SS”, which for some reason they didn’t like.
When you have an argument of substance the actually can challenge Tol, please let me know. – Anthony
Agree stealy. LOL
Siberian_husky says:
June 7, 2014 at 7:47 pm
_________________________
Here’s a link for you:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You do it.
When you say I am impotent, dbstealey, are you referring to the fact that my comments are being selectively posted here? Because if that, I feel about as impotent as being prevented from being your BFF. As in not impotent at all.
We all know this ends with me being banned.
Why not post my comment?
The host will be getting the data issue soon enough, tough guy.
There is a similarity between creationists and evolutionists. Long live Darwin. I mean you had Sarah Palin who could have been your vice president some years ago. She stated ‘humans walked with dinosaurs’ Must have viewed Jurassic Park movie. It wouldn’t be hard to convince creationists that humans do or can change climate and weather patterns. As humans were not around millions of years ago, and their belief in the literal meaning in Genesis, of six days etc., how do they even think that 6,000 years ago when God started the creation everywhere, the dinosaurs were well and truly absent. Don’t you think the whole AGW consensus is much like some medieval concept of the world and that we are so powerful we can change the weather.
rustneversleeps says:
June 7, 2014 at 8:33 pm
“We all know this ends with me being banned. ”
________________________
It looks to me as if you have gone out of your way to be as serially obnoxious as you can be. One could deduce that you really want to get banned so that you can run home to SKS and point fingers back at WUWT. The only thing you’ve brought to this discussion is distraction.
The ignorance shown by alarmists is staggering. At one time many years ago, (listening Rusty et al) people believed in magic, and being possessed by demons or the devil, that witches flew on broomsticks, had sex with the devil, and could change the weather. Then it was other beasts, and now being taken by aliens to be experimented on. UFOs, and the second coming. They are all myths, without any scientific reasoning or rationality or evidence. And some are the products of unsound minds and attention seekers with hidden agendas. Good Hollywood material of course. Blair Witch movie that made millions for the students who produced it. My son then only a teenager was sucked in, and I was studying film at UNE at the time. ‘Son – did you read the disclaimer at the end of the film’
It clearly announced it was a fictional piece! ‘ Well gud luck to the film makers, but I turned it off after the first 10 minutes.
And you Rusty and your mates have been gullible and easily conned. Still believe in magic? But you won’t get any consensus of your particular form of science here. Although it may make you feel better by rubbishing some of our more learned scientists and posters on this blog. There are no fools here, …..most times.
Uh, no, Alan.
I don’t hang out here because I think it is pathetic. And that goes for comment sections pretty much everywhere. So banning me, who cares?
But it is wholly wrong to say all I brought on my special visit was “distractions”. Ignore everything else I said – where is the long, multiple-link comment I made (almost) yesterday about Tol’s math and other issues? No one curious about that?
Certainly nobody responding to that, obviously. Wonder why?
REPLY: Multiple link comments are automatically sent to the SPAM filter by wordpress.com, our host, as is their policy. We don’t have control over it. They are indistinguishable from SPAM by Akismet. Post it again, then make an immediate note that you posted it, and we’ll see if we can find it. We get thousands of SPAM comments a day, as do most wordpress.com blogs. There’s a whole cottage industry doing that sort of thing, trying to elevate commercial websites by posting blog comments – Anthony
bushbunny says:
June 7, 2014 at 8:37 pm
There is a similarity between creationists and evolutionists.
Do tell, bbunny. They both use ATP, the Krebs cycle, that sort of thing?
Because bbunny is special – neither a creationism NOR an evolutionist! Special.
Rusty, I am definitely an evolutionist. I don’t understand your comment at 8.37pm. Please explain. You do sound very young still in high school?
Comments are over 600, looks like the SS Crusher Crew has called out all their goons.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
You go look in your spam folder, then. Why are you withholding my comment? Release the data! You have my permission! Release the data! What are you hiding?
[Ain’t nuthin’ dere boss! .mod]
REPLY: Verified, nothing there from you. SPAM gets deleted regularly. Like I said post it again, and give an immediate notice you’ve done so, and we’ll look for it. – Anthony
Siberian_husky says:
June 7, 2014 at 7:47 pm
———–
“Find 10 scientific papers in genuine peer reviewed scientific articles that explicitly rule out anthropogenic factors as the cause of global warming”
What is with using this method as a means to prove anything? Go find me 10 articles that explicitly rule out martians. Sheesh, Is this really the way science works? Even most skeptics on here don’t “explicitly rule out” anything.
Its flat embarassing that we have polls on almost everything daily in politics….meanwhile some “scientists” are sitting around gathering opinions from articles people write and its supposed to mean something.
As scary as it sounds, Cook is working on a Ph.D. in consensus:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/john-cook-on-communicating-con/
Well submit it again Rusty. I am sure the mod will look for it.
So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper. Thought that would be the case. Woof.
Slightly off topic a fascinating recent interview with Dr. Tol:
Siberian_husky says:
So, basically no one on this blog can cite a single paper.
You have no clue, do you? Trying to get skeptics to defend a negative is a loser’s game, loser. Grow up.
============================
@Morrison:
When you say I am impotent, dbstealey, are you referring…
I am referring to your limp response. You never post scientific facts. Never. All you post is ad hominem nonsense.
Try posting scientific facts for once, and we can debate that. Otherwise, you lose the debate, chump.