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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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”