Over at Scientific American, a place that isn’t hardly Scientific, nor American anymore (its owned by Germans IIRC) there’s a big row over Cook’s shoddy “97% consensus” paper in comments, mainly due to some pertinent ones asking some tough questions being deleted wholesale. SciAm is now citing policy as the reason.
What’s funny, contrary to SciAm policy (for vulgarities) is that the F-word is allowed in the article itself, used by Dan Kahan to describe a bumper sticker about that imagined “97% consensus”.
“We live in a world where the people who make the videos like the OFA one have attached a meaning to this argument—97 percent of scientists [believe in human-caused global warming],” he said. “It’s a bumper sticker, and it says “fuck you” on it.”
You’re welcome.
BTW, the “Hockey? bumper sticker to the left is just a happy accident of the bumper sticker generator.
Stay classy, SciAm.
It amazes me that anyone, anywhere, espousing a scientific argument, would even bother with this.
97% believed the world was flat…
97% believed the sun and all of the planets revolved around the Earth…
Why would anyone think that figure had any meaning in science whatsoever?
But it keeps getting tossed around by pretty much everyone. I refuse to engage in it, or respond to it when someone brings it up.
The reason we’re still fighting it is that we enable it by doing so.
Jim
Consensus (real, imagined, or contrived) is NOT science. I’m not sure why ‘Scientific American’ isn’t emphasizing that. Ask Galileo. Ask Ed Parker (the Solar Physicist who ‘discovered’ the Solar Wind). At the time the ‘consensus’ firmly believed that space was ’empty’ and Parker was excoriated for his ideas, with other scientists berating him, saying, “Parker, if you knew ANYTHING …”
If the ‘consensus’ believes that 2+2 = 5, that doesn’t make it correct. One of the fundamental tenants of Science is to challenge the ‘consensus’. It must be so or we will ultimately end up in an Orwellian nightmare.
Politicians are the only group that seems to believe that the principle of democratic ‘voting or consensus’ has any validity in science. It doesn’t. It is the job of scientists to attempt to ‘disprove’ other scientists work. In no other way can we arrive at the truth (which, I believe is the ultimate aim of science).
I always figured that everyone knows that the 97% is bogus and that anyone using it knows they are just playing politics.
I have thought for a long time that the true believers know deep in their hard, steely little hearts that there is no cause for alarm. They know it is warmer now than it was in the little ice age and we are better off for that. They know the medieval warming was even warmer than now and another few degrees would not harm us at all.
Most who use the 97% are activists pushing an anti-industrial agenda who are just using the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as a stalking horse to get what they want. Others just use the whole 97% to agitate for more funding from the government.
I will say this though; the bumper sticker got it right — those people do want to F over the poor and commoners. They see themselves as above it all, and the rest of us should live a life like out of a Dickens novel.
How in the world did you spot the bumper sticker generator? Awesome.
Cook’s 97% consensus has been thoroughly debunked anyway but Alarmists shouldn’t let sciencey, mathy things get in the way.
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
July 26, 2014 at 1:17 pm
“They know the medieval warming was even warmer than now and another few degrees would not harm us at all. ”
No, they don’t. They are surprised when one explains to them that it MUST have been warmer, otherwise there wouldn’t have been the surplus production necessary to build the cathedrals (and finance the crusades). They really do believe that all of the medieval was one big plague ridden misery. Because, they actually don’t care for history and don’t know anything about it. That’s also why they think electric cars are a great new idea.
I know because I talked to one. He didn’t like being lectured but had nothing to contradict me.
I saw Richard Tol tweet about the Sci Am article, as Richard mentioned he was quoted, mine was the first comment at Sci Am, it lasted a few hours before deletion:
—————————–
“Once results were in, Cook put together a publicity strategy.” – [Sci Am]
well that is not true…they were planning the marketing before the research…see the leaked/hacked Skeptical Science authors forum
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-01-19-Marketing%20Ideas.html
(one of the raters) Ari Jokimäki said:
“I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research). I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t do this, but just that it seems a bit strange to me.”
————–
screen capture:
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sciam-consensus.jpg?w=744
Consensus by deletion of opposing views – nice!
My Dad always told me “Never give a prick the satisfaction.” I suggest this is a perfect opportunity to honor my Dad’s memory.
Lucia Liljegren (The Blackboard blog) and a number of others have had comments disappear (not sure if they screen captured them all) my second comment was also deleted:
2nd comment —————————————————-
Also John Cook never corrected the ‘misinformation’ in te Obama tweet that he likes to boast about
A real climate scientist tried to..
Barack Obama
@BarackObama Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp
Richardabetts
@BarackObama Actually that paper didn’t say ‘dangerous’. NB I *do* think #climate change poses risks – I just care about accurate reporting!
This is Professor Richard Betts – Chair in Climate impacts
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/?web_id=Richard_Betts
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/richard-betts
————————————————————————————-
Screen capture: http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sciam-consensus-2.jpg?w=751
After my comment was deleted, Richard asks Scientific American, why my comment quoting him was deleted..
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sciam-consensus-betts.jpg
and Richard’s comment was deleted as well.
https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/493021686279974912
100% of the climatologists whose models over projected warming rates since 2000 are in the 97% consensus.
(Try fitting that on a bumper sticker.)
On a side not, climate models are good for science. Does anyone (including the skeptic) suggest models (in all areas of science) are not useful tools?
Lately any time I dare wade into the rising ocean of global warming debate online, I take a pro-model stance and suggest more competition between climate modeling camps. All climatologists are not equal. I truly believe great science rides on the back of great competition.
If I wasn’t so involved trying to predict equine stamina at Arlington Park, I might not even care.
Wait…what ??
The following example of brilliant intellectual irritationism is copied from a link provided to the SciAm article referred to above:
‘Cook thinks that politicians are not acting because the public is not pressuring them enough. If people realize that the majority of scientists agree on human-caused climate change, they will absorb that knowledge like empty vessels and become more convinced of the threat, he said. They will then be more amenable to picking up their phones and calling their legislators.’
Got that? We’re all “empty vessels” waiting to be filled with whatever those superior individuals, who exist on a higher plain, choose to deposit within our vacant, empty shells. Pretty damned insulting I’d say. More than merely insulting. Quite arrogant I’d say. Maybe Cook should realize, if he can find the zipper to step out of his insecurity driven cloak of self importance, that us “empty vessels”
happen to generate the tax revenues that provide the research funding without which his bank account really would be a genuine empty vessel. And not a bogus rhetorical one. Oh, and by the way Mr. Cook, I have no desire for your platitudinous missionary services.
“We’re all “empty vessels” waiting to be filled with whatever those superior individuals, who exist on a higher plain[sic], choose to deposit within our vacant, empty shells.”
http://postimg.org/image/y9mlxztqr/
Let’s say 100% of climate scientists said that MOST of the surface warming since 1950 was from man-made greenhouse gases (as opposed to ‘influence’ as per IPCC), so what? Where is the peer reviewed evidence clearly showing that MOST of the surface warming since 1950 is man-made? (No weasel words allowed).
All we have is belief and conviction. That does not cut it.
What exactly is the bumper sticker trying to say? Can someone translate this into proper English?
The SciAm website only doles out ten comments at a time. So it’s incredibly tedious to see the whole thread. Methinks their interest in debate is mostly cosmetic.
Here in Florida, There was a “How’s My Driving? Call 1-800 Eat Sh1t” bumper sticker craze. Police started ticketing drivers for something, public vulgarity, I guess.
It seems the First Amendment (free speech) does not include bumper stickers.
Tee-shirts, yes. Bumper stickers, no.
Empty vessels nake the most noise.
I really think we should “do something” about climate. Have a parade. Maybe some fireworks. Prayers of thanks to whatever Diety you follow. The climate is excellent. Rejoice!
Gee, I didn’t mean to ram your car. Global Warming made my foot slip from the brake to the accelerator.
Who’s f__ked now?
Take out the “Because” and “So”, and put a question mark after “97%”, and I would agree.
In the K-12 education reform going on globally that is known in the US as Common Core and is called 21st Century Learning almost everywhere else, a huge part of the actual implementation involves priming the students that they must reach a shared understanding. We can joke about consensus as neither true or scientific but it is about to be a huge element in all of our lives unless its omnipresence is better recognized.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/experimenting-on-people-and-places-via-the-rockefeller-process-of-communication-for-social-change/ may sound like I am being cutesy with the Rockefeller name but this really is the global name for the process of forcing a shared understanding that is supposed to then guide action. Took it from an official World Bank document and everything.
The Rockefeller Foundation has been going to a great deal of trouble around the world to get all the philanthropies pulling towards this same toxic vision of the future. I am not guessing about that either. They have declared that openly. We ignore those declarations at our peril. Lots of money is being spent to create false but influential beliefs.
Robin:
I write to support your post at July 26, 2014 at 2:57 pm.
Our differences are valuable. Attempts to make people, countries and cultures ‘the same’ are an attack on our shared humanity.
We have our greatest affection for those we most love, and we love them because they are them and not because they are like us.
Richard
Yes,
SciAm is unable to distinguish between the authority of opinion (even a consensus) and the authority of looking at the real world. Magic makes the real world obey – but SciAm doesn’t realise that magic isn’t real.
Arts graduates get everywhere.
Judgmental? Maybe. But on my side of the pond, New Scientist is just as ridiculous. And just as deferential to institutions .
richardscourtney says:
July 26, 2014 at 3:04 pm
“Robin:
I write to support your post at July 26, 2014 at 2:57 pm.
Our differences are valuable. Attempts to make people, countries and cultures ‘the same’ are an attack on our shared humanity.”
So I take it you’re not a Fabian Socialist?
I left the following polite comment: let us see how long it lasts before They send it down the memory hole:
“Legates et al. (2013) searched the data file issued by Cook et al. (2013) and found that Cook and his raters had marked only 64 of 11,944 abstracts, or 0.5%, as explicitly endorsing the notion that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by us.
“However, Cook et al., and subsequently Bedford & Cook (2013), stated that they had found a 97% consensus in support of the notion that recent warming was mostly manmade. On the evidence of their own data file, that statement was not true.
“Besides, argument from consensus is one of the dozen commonest fallacies in human discourse, exposed by Aristotle 2350 years ago.
“The truth is that experiment has demonstrated that returning to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was there in earlier times will make the world a little warmer, all other things being equal. There is no need to plead “consensus”: all one need do is cite, or replicate, the experiment.
“The truth is also that there is not – and, in the present state of the science cannot be – any consensus about how much global warming we have caused or may cause by emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“After all, the “consensus” models in 1990 told us with what the IPCC described as “substantial confidence” that the rate of warming by now would be twice what has occurred since then. The “consensus” was substantially confident of itself, but it was substantially wrong.
“There has been no global warming for perhaps 18 years (RSS), notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration. A dozen mutually inconsistent explanations for this entirely unpredicted pause or hiatus in global warming have been offered.
“Scientific American does its reputation and its readers no service by giving only one side of the climate story (which may yet prove, embarrassingly, to have been the wrong side); and it ought not to delete comments with which it disagrees, and often in a fashion that breaches its own terms of use.
“Is it too much to ask that Scientific American will in future once again live up to its name and what was formerly its reputation, and allow science to be published on all sides of a question, however uncongenial or unprofitable that science may be?
Perhaps it would be fun to have a bumper sticker contest. My entry would be something like:
97% Doesn’t Wash. Ivory Soap does.
Must would just say, “Huh?” But some would realize that Ivory’s logo is “99 and 44/100 pure,” (pure what I don’t know), and understand the double entendre.
FYTW – the universal rule in politics.
Take out your magic marker and replace so with “want to” and end with “over” then it makes sense.
By deleting selected comments, SciAm can achieve a 97% level of agreement (erroneously referred to as consensus)
Here’s a counterpoint to that “Because 97%” bumper sticker.
Left-side text: “97%”
Right-side text: “WRONG”
Center graphic: the IPCC’s early-draft graphic of its four predictions vs. the observed Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA), showing its line near the bottom of the 95% confidence envelope of its projections. (There should be bold text: “95% confidence envelope.”)
These could be sold for $5 apiece, to help finance WUWT, etc. There are places that will print up batches of bumper stickers for a reasonable amount.
[I am posting these comments here as well in case they get deleted at Scientific American]
If you read the Cook et al. (2013) paper and look at their data you find the following facts,
1. 7950 papers (66.4%) expressed no position on AGW.
2. Only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause).
When a sample of authors were contacted they responded that their papers were misclassified,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
These are very significant findings that need to be taken into account.
I am sorry to say but the media has not done their homework on the Cook at al. (2013) study.
These are some examples of papers they use as part of the “97% consensus”;
“Extensive Introduction Of Ultra High Strength Steels Sets New Standards For Welding In The Body Shop”
Endorsement Level: 2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=Extensive+Introduction+Of+Ultra+High+Strength+Steels+Sets+New+Standards+For+Welding+In+The+Body+Shop
“Conceptual Design And Simulation Analysis Of Thermal Behaviors Of Tgr Blast Furnace And Oxygen Blast Furnace”
Endorsement Level: 1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=Conceptual+design+and+simulation+analysis+of+thermal+behaviors+of+TGR+blast+furnace+and+oxygen+blast+furnace
“Cook, 42, began Skeptical Science (SkS) in 2007 as a database of peer-reviewed studies rebutting climate skeptics. ”
This statement is inaccurate. Skeptical Science was started in 2007 with the intention of being a list of rebuttals to skeptic arguments not a database of peer-reviewed papers, it has never been that.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071213154822/http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Here is how John Cook described himself in 2007,
“This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist ”
https://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
“Once results were in, Cook put together a publicity strategy.”
This statement is completed inaccurate. It was revealed through leaked forum posts that John Cook came up with a publicity strategy before they even had any results,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html
“To achieve this goal, we mustn’t fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion.” – John Cook (2012)
“Because, 97%” = ^A 97% consensus means that the remaining 3% are cranks.^
“So F___ Y__” = ^Contrarians are perverse people who should be put down.^
Isn’t Michael Mann one regular contributing author in this Un-Scientific American? At least they got rid of Bora Zivkovic.
I just read through the comments at the end of the article in Scientific American. Poptech’s recent comments were still there, but I could find no comment by Monckton of Brenchley. Strangely, there were two replies to Lucia but no trace of the comment they were replying to. They are clearly trying to achieve consensus on their article by deleting contrary opinions. Somehow, they believe such manipulation of data is supposed increase our confidence in their conclusions. But their willingness to lie and cheat for the “cause” only serves to increase my suspicion that they are doing similar kinds of manipulations with the climate data.
“Another reason, he [Cook] believes, is that American minds have been poisoned by climate contrarians like Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist under President George W. Bush, who advised skeptics to create an illusion of scientific discord and challenge established climate scientists.”
This conspiracy theory, which is akin to those who do not believe we landed on the moon, is another reason Cook should not be taken seriously. Consensus proponents frequently use an old 2002 memo by Luntz as evidence of him being at the head of a giant conspiracy to obfuscate their messaging but this is both laughable and unsupported by any evidence. You can easily find skeptic arguments for a lack of consensus predating the Luntz memo by many years,
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html
http://capitalismmagazine.com/1998/05/more-than-15000-scientists-protest-kyoto-accord-speak-out-against-global-warming-myth/
They’re getting ready to use the law tohave us all put in mental institutions with a new psychiatric definition just being added to the diagnostics manual- it’s called Oppositional defiance Disorder, and I kid you not they intend to use it to shut us skeptics up.Look into it.
“Before we listen to any scientists we need to research into who funds them and what their political agenda is. It’s as easy as looking at the references and footnotes they offer and the media channels or blog sites they use to get their message out. This is part of the process of peer review and one of the most important observations. When scientists allow corporate influence to skew their conclusions they deserve to be chastised in the peer review process.”
So effectively your solution is to ignore their scientific arguments and instead resort to logical fallacies such as argumentum ad hominems. Why is it so difficult for consensus proponents to accept that there are highly credentialed scientists who do not share their scientific opinion on AGW?
97% like a Soviet election….
Folks, it is important to understand the Team AGW doesn’t care whether or not Cook fudged his numbers. All that matters is that he got the right answer. You can walk them through Cook’s raw data step by step and show them what he did, and they’ll just start talking about meta-analysis or some other diversion.
I just had this conversation on a G+ thread. First, the OP said my claim was false. After I presented the evidence, he said he’d have to find the time to take a look (even through it takes less than 5 minutes to do a pivot table). Then he suddenly wasn’t interested in the specifics of the consensus; he just wanted to talk about it philosophically. Heh, right.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FilippoSalustri/posts/fwrXFwgznYq
(Repeating what Poptech lead with above:
July 26, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Now look at thesame words, with only a small difference:
See, if the controlling money and the poltical dictates are from an all-powerful, all-knowing government, these government-paid so-called “scientists” are assumed to be holy and pristine, above all corruption and influence. But let a single dollar of earned private money come into the picture?
Tanya Aardman says:
July 26, 2014 at 6:38 pm
That will be an own goal Tanya, typical of the Lewandowski/Cook lack of understanding that such labels can be applied just as equally to themselves, with 97 % confidence!! Expect screams of rage and anger when the inevitable happens!
Moderators, originals landed in moderation – sorry I misspelled my email address. delete the originals please.
If you are pricing something for the bargain mentality, $99 is overdone, $95 is weak, $97 is perfect.
Just as CO2 climate science, with its miracle ingredient approach, takes inspiration from infomercials, Cook gets his magic numbers from the science of midnight-to-dawn television spruiking.
One minor irony is that the ‘because whatever’ construction is actually weak. It’s basically ‘shut up, he explained’. So there’s that.
======================
In the near future it will be impossible to find those 97%. ” It wasn’t me, I was a skeptic all along. “… There will be a lot of scientists trying to distance themselves from this.
Does a blank sun (no sunspots) cause angst among some? “Not at all, 2014 was the warmest on record” . El Nino, wherefore art thou?? Art thou hiding something from us El Nino?
for the CAGW crowd, anything goes:
26 July: HuffPo: Would Jesus Accept Climate Science?
by Robyn Camparo Purchia, Founder, EdenKeeper.org
Not only is the science scary and the challenge daunting, but it calls into question the very way we live our lives.
Perhaps that’s why climate science is causing a schism of sorts among American Christians…
On one side you have Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the conservative group, Cornwall Alliance, and former professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, who claims that climate science is alarmist junk. Then on the other side, you have Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an Evangelical Christian, who educates people on the dangers of climate change…
Whom should a Christian believe? Should they assume all climate scientists are just furthering a government agenda when they conclude that climate change is real? Or should they accept the science?…
I imagine sitting in a room. Next door I can hear my neighbor yelling for help. One person in the room with me says, “Oh don’t worry. They’ve shouted for help before and it’s turned out to be nothing. There’s no observable proof that they’re actually in trouble this time.” The other person in the room says, “Well, it might really be something this time. Maybe you should check it out.”
What would Jesus do? Would he go check on his neighbor? Or would he wait for blood before acting?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robyn-camparo-purchia/would-jesus-accept-climate-change_b_5621672.html
the writer:
LinkedIn: Robyn Camparo Purchia
At the Sierra Club, New York League of Conservation Voters, Hillary Clinton Senate Campaign, and the Public Interest Research Group, I participated in campaigns, engaged in strategic development, and mobilized the media and coalition groups. As a member of the media for the Village Voice and Columbia Spectator, I learned to write compelling news stories…
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robyn-camparo-purchia/a/4a0/349
I write to support richardscourtney’s comment at 3:04 pm. Robin, you are doing a great job. I follow your work, and incorporate it into my thinking and conversations as much as possible. Please keep it up.
I never cease to be amazed at the “sun”.
Every morning it appears and then every evening it disappears.
There must be an endless supply of the bloody things!!!!!!!
” …and 10 other scientists who blog under the collective name of Skeptical Science.”
This is absolutely bogus,
Most of the people from the blog “Skeptical Science” are not scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
Bärbel Winkler is a volunteer at a local zoo in Germany.
“Bärbel Winkler lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo”
Rob Painting is a former police officer,
“Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity,”
I want to enter.
Mine is “Ignore Previous Bumper Sticker.”
I was banned from SCIAM for pointing out that Michael Mann did not actually win the Nobel Prize. And I never even used the “F-bomb”. Maybe that was my mistake?
97%? Not trying! The Soviets used to get 99%.
Walter Reade (@WalterReade) — thanks for posting a link to the G+ thread. I saw the (largely ignored) link you posted to the raw data used in Cook et al “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”.
I did some spreadsheet analysis using that data. For the interested, here’s a screenshot of the results: http://postimg.org/image/wlzed6p2x/
A better bumper sticker if I may: “97%? Horse Hockey!”
My analysis supports Cook et al paper’s conclusion. However, there is one bit of data I don’t really understand.
Endorsement (what I refer to as “rating” in my spreadsheet) number 4 is the only endorsement segmented into two parts:
4a. Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
4b. Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
IS this usual for research papers? They seem to refer to two different endorsements. Why did Cook group them?
(If this has been asked and answered before on WUWT, my apologies. Please point me to the link.)
Okay. I got it. Section 2 para. 4 explains why category 4 was split.
However, I’m still trying to understand why endorsement “4b” didn’t count in the final tally. The first matching metaphorical pattern that comes to mind is “atheist, agnostic, theist”. In this case, the agnostics don’t get counted.
I found more answers on WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Okay. Color me confused.
Section 3, para. 1:
“To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1?3 in table?2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5?7).”
And in Table 3 column 1 titled “Position”, 66.4% of abstracts are under the label “No AGW position”. This represents endorsements 4a and 4b.
But in Table 2, the description of 4b. is: “Expresses position that human?s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined”.
Table 3 groups endorsement 4b into category “No AGW position” while Table 2 defines endorsement 4b as a “position” and further uses language which implies, if not outright defines, AGW, i.e. human, recent global warming.
The words anthropogenic and human are substituted in this Wikipedia entry Human impact on the environment. (“Human impact on the environment or anthropogenic impact on the environment includes …”)
I don’t get it. Sixty-six percent of the self-rated data gathered from the authors is in category 4. Why group 4a and 4b?
I guess the self-rating cleared up the issue I have with 4b being grouped into 4.
What should christians believe says a contributer. I suggest Christians should believe the Bible. The Biblical position (Job chapters 37/38) and the incident of the storm on the sea of Gallilee clearly show that, that it is God himself,not humans who control the climate. The Creator himself and atmospheric scientists are in total agreement. climate change is natural and not man made.
LOL!!! That stupid bumper sticker is grammatically the definition of: post hoc, ergo, propter hoc; the biggest logic fallacy in the known universe….
What’s even more hilarious is its use of the 97% meme, making it an obscene logic fallacy wrapped in lie…
This is the level to which the CAGW hypothsis has fallen….
CAGW certainly seems to have entered the beginning of its end…
And so it goes… Until reason and freedom are restored….
alas, Scientific American was hijacked by fanatics long ago…..
it has been many years since either SA or its blogs were worth reading
nowadays they have to brutally censor comment threads to try to keep their docile captive audience from knowing better
Sticking that to the bumper of an evil fossil running car would make even Al Gore appear considerate. So, it must be an electric car with a sticker “yes to nuclear” next to it?
Dave said on July 26, 2014 at 1:52 pm:
Your father must have been a very smart man. That saying is repeated on college campuses everywhere by instructors of Women’s Studies.
I would go for a more practical bumper sticker:
97% of Scientists Agree:
You’re Too Close
Ages 10 to 20, I read the pop science magazines each month. Every issue we were always on the verge of a scientific break-through or global catastrophe. Years later I perused those old issues and I don’t think I found a single prediction that ever came to pass. I threw the lot in the rubbish.
rogerknights: Thank you for your bumper sticker translation in response to my question ‘What exactly is the bumper sticker trying to say? Can someone translate this into proper English?’
I showed my wife the picture of the sticker and her comment was ‘Well – it just shows the type of people we’re dealing with, doesn’t it?’
@Matt L – Excellent! Yes, it is that easy to walk people through the analysis.
I’m posting the G+ comment in full here, for those who aren’t interested in filtering through 100+ comments.
I was asked for a reference showing Cook manipulated the data. I responded below.
—–
The reference is Cook’s data. I’ll walk you through it so you (or anyone else) can verify my claim.
(1) Cook defines the consensus as “human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)” [See the last sentence of the first paragraph of his paper.]
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
(2) Cook asked authors to rate their papers on the position they took with respect to AGW.
The raw data is found here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt
A rating of 1 = “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”
(3) Once you remove the papers that did not take a position, you end up with 241 out of 1374 where (18%) of authors self-rated their position as humans causing most warming.
[note, where there was a fractional score >= 0.5, I rounded towards a stronger AGW position]
The majority (80%) of the authors self-rated as affirming AGW, but without taking a position on the degree it contributes to GW. [In other words, this is the consensus!]
(4) Cook concludes, “Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”
I hope the legerdemain is obvious.
Recent example of “97% consensus” : it’s used to say Wyoming state is condoning “ignorant” science teaching for its kids : http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/703
Cook et al’s “consensus” is spreading like cancer.
Sciam has become a lawless, censorious, promulgator of religious dogma.
© 2014 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
On their About Scientific American/history page they honor the following Americans as valued contributors; former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.
Also in 1986 Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, a German-based family owned syndicate, bought Scientific American, Inc. In June 2009, Scientific American joined Nature Publishing Group (NPG) to form the heart of NPG’s newly-formed consumer media division. Scientific American and NPG are both part of Macmillan Publishers Ltd, a Holtzbrinck shell company designed to insulate Holtzbrinck from legal liability and taxes.
Georg von Holtzbrinck signed up wth the Nazi Party early. Profited from propaganda supporting the Nazi State. Bought up Jewish publishing houses at discount. And used Jewish slave labor without the mitigating balm of conscious displayed by other Germans, such as Oscar Shindler.
Forgot the link supporting the Nazi collaborationist bit.
Here it is. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/another-german-publisher-mulls-its-wartime-past.html
Look, if you are going to open a discussion with a complaint about how you were done wrong by a censorous lot, it ill serves you to censor that censorous companies true history due to squeemishness or what have you.
The family owned publisher of Sciam was a Nazi party member, a war profiteer, which took advantage of the State murder to collect up the assets of Jewish publishing houses, and used slave labor.
Rolled straight through the eugenics to take up the global warming.
papiertigre said on July 27, 2014 at 9:17 am:
Relax. The spam filter automatically grabs any use of the other N-word. That’s a wordpress-dot-com thing, thus nothing to yell at WUWT’s moderation staff about.
@ kadaka The spam filter automatically grabs any use of the other N-word. That’s a wordpress-dot-com thing
Sounds like a policy meant to protect the guilty.
It’s interesting to me how the powers that be are comfortable with a former proprietor of Nazi propaganda writing textbooks designed to as Macmillan Publishers Ltd terms it, “transform learning”.
On a big, heavy, gas-guzzling Volvo.
From papiertigre on July 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm:
Or alert the moderation staff that Godwin’s Law has been invoked.
In any case, when that N-word starts getting slung around, conversation can quickly devolve into a heated shouting match, besides getting very ugly. Throwing any use of it automatically into the review box is an effective means of prevention.
kim’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law is that the first person to invoke the Law in a discussion of authoritarianism is a useful idiot.
===================
They deleted most of my comments and banned my account.
You were way too good, Poptech.
==================
A little more analysis of Cook et al and the 2,136 self-rated papers. This one shows the results broken down by year published: http://postimg.org/image/n9o36phuj/
It doesn’t reveal much new information, but it will be interesting to watch the rate of published papers by year for each “endorsement” going forward. (Will 2014 see more 4, 5, 6 and 7 endorsements?)
Walter Reade (@WalterReade) – The way you handled yourself in that G+ thread was classy. It’s so hard to engage in real dialogue with entrenched people (on both sides). As important an issue as folks in that thread believe the consensus to be, I couldn’t believe no one spared 20 minutes to look at the data.
I don’t assume everything written on WUWT by Mr. Watts or his guest bloggers is true. I check out the data and information myself and seek out opposing views.
* I make it a point to visit the HotWhopper blog once or twice a week. The person who writes on that blog can be vitriolic and a bit dehumanizing towards dissenters, but the writing, critical thought processes and causal knowledge displayed is worth it. I’d encourage every skeptic to give it a skim. If nothing else, it alerts you to the current opposing arguments and ideas.
Matt L. no intellectually honest person would ever read HotWhopper blog. It is full of lies, half-truths, misinformation and strawman arguments. The fact that you recommend reading it means you are an abject idiot.
Matt L. says:
July 26, 2014 at 1:59 pm
On a side not, climate models are good for science. Does anyone (including the skeptic) suggest models (in all areas of science) are not useful tools?
=======================================================================
It is the misuse of the tool that is objectionable.
” goldminor says:
July 27, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Matt L. says:
July 26, 2014 at 1:59 pm
On a side not, climate models are good for science. Does anyone (including the skeptic) suggest models (in all areas of science) are not useful tools?
=======================================================================
It is the misuse of the tool that is objectionable.”
I’d go a bit farther and say that relying on models too much makes for lazy and sloppy science. Yes, sometimes they are useful, but they are just a tool in the toolkit, not the toolkit itself.
Here’s a rule of thumb I read somewhere:
Don’t get into an argument with someone who’s car has three bumper stickers.
OOps–“whose”
I suggest you post the above on Tips and Notes, along with a suggestion that AW add it to WUWT’s blogroll.
The models have invalidated the consensus.
From Matt L. on July 27, 2014 at 4:56 pm:
A commendable view, very idealistic, suitable for those educated both broad and deep to cover the wide-ranging topics, with the resources to access the diverse information sources frequently hidden behind barriers institutional and financial, and nigh-endless time to process the information and compare to the presented views.
Wait. Here on WUWT there is a variety of writers with different styles, with general politeness a primary attribute, and the comments stuffed with casual knowledge. And you recommend once or twice weekly visits to where one may be abused and treated as less than human, for the variety?
We get plenty of exposure to opposing views here, when they are presented then methodically torn apart by evidence and logic. So is your rationale for our visiting this site where we may be abused and dehumanized “Try it, you might like it, at least it’s something different”?
From Matt L. on July 26, 2014 at 11:31 pm:
From Matt L. on July 27, 2014 at 12:00 am:
Okay…
Here’s a proposed test of your analytical and reasoning skills.
Obtain a portable reference that appears authoritative suitable for those desiring outdoor survival skills, specifically it should have a section with illustrations showing which plants are edible, poisonous, and possibly medicinal or otherwise beneficial. A suitable smaller focus of study would be mushrooms.
Go forth into the wilderness and obtain many samples yourself from across the groupings.
Rather than blindly trust authorities, verify the results, by testing the samples you gathered by consuming them yourself. Keep track of the apparent effects or lack of them.
If nothing else, it will be something different, and there may be something there you will like once you have tried it. You might even keep trying it once or twice a week.
I did my own research before AGW became an issue. So far no one over at the IPCC has answered any questions regarding the LIA or MWP (other than deny that they ever happened). I was ridiculed. mocked, told I was sick, had a psychological disorder about authority. None of the models have to date been able to model past climate, the current, or the future in any year. Until I see something tangible, the folks over at the IPCC and their cohorts are just pushing a political agenda. No science needed for that. In other words, a kinder, gentler frame of mind is out of the question. I don’t have to look up a ton of stuff. I did that, called in to question what I had written, and finally after 18 years, I have a question for them, What happened? Explication de text.
You’re telling me to look at their analysis with an open mind?
Do you know why they can’t model the past? They wrote it out with co2. CO2 and temperatures were flat according to them. To say otherwise would throw the entire AGW theory out the window. ( Because for political purposes it was all man made) And now you have a pause. Yea, the co2 levels just jump right out there at you doesn’t it. Do you think I started this argument just yesterday with these self righteous arrogant blankity blanks?
I was just looking for the papermill that supplies Sciam magazine to maybe picket. The German soul proprietor whose father scooped up printing presses from Jews who were fleeing for their lives from the purge – then used his ill gotten gains to become Hitler’s printing press, that was unexpected.
I can’t believe the sort of blase attitude. On the one hand we have Rupert Murdoch banned from buying the Los Angeles Times, because a tv station and a newspaper in the same market would be giving him too much influence.
On the other [hand] an effing certified 100% gold plated SS funding war profiteer is allowed to vomit the global warming scam, at the academy, in the public school house, and on the newspaper rack, through Nature magazine, the near monopoly of Mcmillian publishing, and the insipid pages of Sci Am (which is neither scientific nor American).
Who let that camel nose under the tent?
[Left in queue for further review, and a second opinion. .mod]
I don’t know about anyone else but by any definition a consensus must mean 100%.
Geronimo – I think the consensus is of 100% of those in the 97%.
What’s to believe in; it’s been 32 years of 97.6% of all scientists being 95% certain that Human CO2 induced climate change “could be” not “will be” crisis?
Received this email from Scientific American,
“My apologies for any confusion, however we require in our Guidelines that commenters offer peer reviewed science to back up claims that do not agree with known science.”
Funny because the website article I cited is referenced in the peer-reviewed literature.
“What exactly is the bumper sticker trying to say? Can someone translate this into proper English?”
Exactly what I was wondering.
Ask anyone in the general public who uses that 97% claim and I’ll bet they incorrectly believe that that figure, bogus in the first place, refers to climate scientists who believe in CATASTROPHIC AGW.
Here’s why that sort of simplistic propaganda is so valuable. Watch and boil:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate (HBO)
How about a bumper sticker: “97% are eating crow.”
Here’s something I just posted on another thread; it belongs here too:
This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:
Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
“Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
“Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
“Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
“A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
“Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”
IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.
My son passed on a nugget of wisdom to me.. “Never get in an argument with someone who has more than 7 bumper stickers on his car”
I am part of the 97%
BTW, the car is not a hybrid! What an outrage.
Consensus has never been a viable way to declare the validity of a hypothesis. Rather, this validity must be proved or disproved by sound objective observations, measurements and analyses, all of which seem to be foreign to the IPCC, the EPA, and a bevy of greedy “green” believers on the dole..
Consensus examples:
1. There was consensus that the world was flat
2. There was consensus that man would never achieve powered flight in a heavier-than-air craft.
3. Margaret Thatcher’s observation: “Consensus: The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus’?”
@Poptech
Matt L. no intellectually honest person would ever read HotWhopper blog. It is full of lies, half-truths, misinformation and strawman arguments. The fact that you recommend reading it means you are an abject idiot.
No intellectually honest person? Abject idiot? Nice. Absolutism and and ad hom. Two for two. Are you sure you haven’t been reading HotWhopper? Your language and attitude suggests, while you may not share similar views on climate change with the HotWhopper, you may in fact share some common ground.
@kadaka (KD Knoebel)
I appreciate your breakdown of my comment. I especially liked the bit implying I subject myself to abuse and encourage others to follow suit.
Your entire diatribe was basically thinly veiled insults masquerading as erudite thoughtfulness. Add a few “the moon is made of green cheese” and “yo’ mamma” jokes to your philosophical repertoire and you may run for high office one day.
Re Matt L. on August 6, 2014 at 9:40 pm:
And to think you waited over a week like a sniveling coward to slip in your venomous “last word” when you thought no one would notice but you would have your grand victory as the internet would record your justice for eternity.
Your mother would be so proud. You have demonstrated great patience.
@Matt L. I have in the past and all of my comments refuting her nonsense were censored. Her website is pure garbage – a combination of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. She follows the Jon Stewart method of telling half-truths to mindless drones who cannot do research. It is one of the worst blogs on the Internet.