Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Meet The Denominator

Posted on 13 February 2011 by Rob Honeycutt

As most here have followed the climate issue for some time I'm sure we have each been faced with climate skeptics throwing out big numbers related to different aspects of climate science.

There is the ever present "31,000 Scientists Who Challenge Global Warming," the infamous Oregon Petition.

And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) and his, now, 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

These folks have yet to meet….   The Denominator!


Fig 1  -  Okay, this is really the Terminator but bear with me, the effect is about the same.

In this exercise we are going to give both the Oregon Petition and PopTech's 850 papers the benefit of the doubt.  We know there are many many reasons to challenge the assumptions of their claims but there is one thing they can not defend.  They are only presenting one side of the equation.

First, let's look at the Oregon Petition.  They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines."  Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.

According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees.  We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees.  In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population.  If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099.  Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate.  This is what The Denominator does.  He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.

Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers.  Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm.  (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)

Here I just went to Google Scholar.  I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science.  That returned 954,000 articles.  I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites.  A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure.  But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals.  I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.

Numerator, meet The Denominator!  What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents.  That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.  

I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages.  And if they try…

"I'll be back."

 
Update (Feb 18):  In the comments Poptech has brought up several valid points about the search results I came up with.  In an effort to better quantify the denominator I did some additional research. I did year by year searches going back 40 years on "climate change" and "global warming", excluded citations, and checked for various other erroneous results. 
 
The outcome was, without even addressing the accuracy of the numerator, that the percentage does not change dramatically.  My first cursory search returned 0.1%.  The more detailed work resulted in 0.45%.  It's a big improvement for Poptech, by almost a factor of 5, but still the denominator is so large that it dwarfs the numerator. If a qualified outside group were to audit Poptech's list I believe the numerator would also shrink significantly. 
 
There is plenty of room for skepticism in all areas of science. Good science relies on healthy skepticism.  One highly biased individual creating a subjective list does not rise to the level of good scientific skepticism.
 

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  

Comments 251 to 296 out of 296:

  1. Poptechs's categories of peer reviewed papers include some refuting Al Gore's movie? Seriously? Must be some peer review...
    0 0
  2. "Yes any addition would strengthen their position. It is not 1 article but over 850. Your analogy is illogical." So you don't think the denominator is relevant at all? So if I found 850 peer-reviewed articles that supported a skeptical position on smoking and cancer, you would trumpet that number as having strengthened the skeptical position, without knowing how many other articles overtly supported the consensus that smoking does cause cancer? If so, how much would it strengthen the skeptical position? A lot? A tiny bit?
    0 0
  3. Poptech, there is no censorship here. There is deletion of off-topic posts, usually after several are allowed to remain. There is also deletion of specific posts that are in clear violation of the comments policy which is quite reasonable. If you complain on your own site about "censorship" then you will simply be obfuscating the facts which are clearly spelled out in the comments policy and rigorously adhered to. As for your list itself, I don't understand your refusal to improve the quality. I have been to many websites where the list is used as a "silencer" comment from and to participants who don't understand the science. I have also seen links to this website used the same way, but more often they are used by participants who understand the science and simply need a handy reference to save a lot of typing. The proof of effectiveness of your list, versus this website, is ultimately entangled in politics and personal beliefs. But please do not for one moment think that because the politics might be in your favor that is proof of the effectiveness of your list. Your list is ultimately self defeating because as soon as anyone learns a modicum of physics, they realize that some papers on your list are rubbish (a Jack Barrett term and he has a paper on your list). They will tell their friends that your list is flawed so you will lose effectiveness. Further, even worse consequences arise when someone uses papers from your list with incorrect understandings of physics without realizing that it is incorrect. In short: fix your list!
    0 0
  4. I think PT has been given more latitude than he deserves. I can think of a few forums that would ban you from posting after just one warning PT. Consider yourself lucky that the folks here have allowed you to continue. Perhaps the best solution here would be to allow him to continue to rant, but put him on ignore mode. All we seem to be accomplishing is to feed his need to stir the pot. You will never convince him he is wrong about anything. ( -snip- )
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] A little less descriptive word imagery, please. The purpose of this post has already been served.
  5. Ron I'm not finished :)
    0 0
  6. The following four papers from that little list are basically the same paper submitted to four different journals : Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States, (Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 14, pp. 1712-1718, November 2003) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff Decadal changes in heat-related human mortality in the eastern United States, (Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 175-184. September 2002) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities (International Journal of Biometeorology, Volume 47, Number 3, pp. 166-175, May 2003) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Wendy M. Novicoff, Patrick J. Michaels Seasonality of climate–human mortality relationships in US cities and impacts of climate change, (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 1, pp. 61-76, April 2004) Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, Wendy M. Novicoff Is it really that easy to pass off the same basic paper as four 'unique' ones ? And as Michaels has his name next to another 26 papers on that list, it is easy to see how quickly the numbers add up from using papers (even from 'relevant' magazines like WASTE MANAGEMENT and the CATO JOURNAL) by a limited number of so-called skeptics.
    0 0
  7. Eric: "there is no censorship here." Thank you for pointing this out. It's odd that PT confuses 'censorship' with the Comments Policy that tries to keep things civil. Posts that violate said policy tend to get deleted. Those are the rules established by John Cook, the owner of the site; it's expected that you play by the owner's rules. If PT has redefined violation of an established, mutually beneficial policy to mean 'censorship,' it must be another 'example' of his own version of what is supposed to be a common language. I'm also fascinated by this contradiction: pt: "Declaring a paper unscientific does not make it so." But when PT declares this post to be meaningless, we are just supposed to believe. As they say, the truth is out there.
    0 0
  8. I think Poptech has done an adequate job of chopping down the size of the denominator here. Good work Pop! Now, taking all his criticisms into account we are left with something in the neighborhood of 500,000 papers. So, we're giving him the benefit of the doubt on both sides of the equation. That leaves him with something in the range of 0.2% of papers challenging AGW.
    0 0
  9. Yes, Poptech, we understand why the Pielke paper is on the list over his objections. You have created a vague definition of "AGW Alarm" that is found no where else other than on your web site. The definition is filled with sufficient wiggle room and entirely "subjective" language such that it can be stretched to include or exclude nearly anything at your whim. There is no quality control check, other than the barest of bare references to what constitutes "peer reviewed" and also because "quality" is "subjective". Armed with this definition and claiming to control the "context" of same, you include whatever you see fit, irrespective of the objections of the authors of said papers. Now, a couple of questions: are there any papers on your list for which there is no abstract available AND that you have not personally read? You've argued that "quality research" has no objective meaning. Suppose I took seven temperature readings at my house at the same time for seven consecutive days. I then author a paper "Global Warming at my House", complete with a statistical analysis of my results; references to appropriate literature, etc. By hook or by crook, I get my paper published. Are you arguing that criticism of said research would be subjective and therefore solely in the eye of the beholder? In other words, all research and resulting papers may have merit, regardless of objectively flawed methodology?
    0 0
  10. Edited from 369: Criticism of the quality of my research would be subjective and therefore solely in the of the beholder.
    0 0
  11. Addendum to above - '...three journals (one of them twice)... mclamb6, there seems to be no abstract or copy available of "Global warming: Failed forecasts and politicized science", from that obviously relevant journal Waste Management, a journal "designed for scientists, engineers, and managers, regardless of their discipline, who are involved in scientific, technical and other issues related to solid waste management". That particular gem came from, wait for it...P.J.Michaels, and the link from that little list goes to Hit Count is 'Zero' with recQuery =, i.e. nowhere.
    0 0
  12. Waste Management, a journal "designed for scientists, engineers, and managers, regardless of their discipline, who are involved in scientific, technical and other issues related to solid waste management".
    Well, the paper's a form of solid waste, so it landed in the right place, no? :)
    0 0
  13. And it seems that the little list is relying heavily on papers by the Idso family - mainly Sherwood (with 66), but a total of 69 altogether. Nearly half of them are from the 80s, though, and very few from this millenium. Up-to-date stuff, eh ? When you combine that with the usual suspects of Michaels, Lindzen, Douglass, Singer, Christy, Spencer, Soon, McIntyre, Loehle, McLean, De Freitas, Carter, the Pielkes (especially Jr, who didn't want his papers included in the list), Morner, Eschenbach, Svensmark, Scafetta, Boehmer-Christiansen (!), and about a dozen others with anything between two and five papers each, you're looking at a list which has about 30 people contributing something up to a third of the total. Take them away and you're left with the likes of David Bellamy, Beck and Gerlich, etc, as well as all those waved through on Energy & Environment, and from journals, etc. with no normal link to output concerning AGW, let along 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that means. I.E. It's a joke.
    0 0
  14. LOL, that was a good one Dhogaza. If nothing else, this rather miserable thread by SkS standards led to a closer examination of Poptech's list. So far, on the very limited focus of numerator only, we've learned: - Some papers do not appear to support PT's position at all, regardless how "alarm" is defined (such as the Feynmana paper pointed by Albatross a while back) - Some papers don't exist at all (see above) - The same paper can figure up to 4 times. This obviously indicate that the 850 number is inaccurate. The numerator is all puffed up...
    0 0
  15. Plilippe... "This obviously indicate that the 850 number is inaccurate. The numerator is all puffed up..." Awww... That means PT is back down to ~0.1% again. So sad. He was doing so well for a little while there.
    0 0
  16. I did a quick count of the peer reviewed papers supporting AGW on the Global Warming Links page and came up with a scant 408 unique papers! Best get to work if we ever want to catch up.
    0 0
  17. pbjamm@376 - try counting the peer reviewed papers cited in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report, there look to be many more than 850. The references in the IPCC report also have the benefit of actually supporting the argument being made ;o)
    0 0
  18. Poptech, your list is there to bolster the idea that AGW is not real/not alarming. Ie no action required. I have a couple of questions. 1/ Do you consider the BAU scenario outcomes in IPCC WG2 for 2100 "alarming"? I am guessing not. 2/ If you are wrong, then what future data would cause you to change your mind? (eg world mortality rate, insurance costs, food price index, or even climate indicators like ice extent or sea level?). For your chosen index, what level would they have to get to by 2050 for it to be "alarming". Note that I am quite aware that climate now is well within our ability to adapt, but the movements to reduce CO2 are based on premise future change will indeed be costly.
    0 0
  19. Hey Poptech, how can a claim be libelous when you have actually admitted to the relevant facts? Here in the real, rational world (as opposed to Denialist Central), posting someone's personal info-without their permission-with the intent of silencing them is what we call *intimidation*-& intimidation is the tactic of a thug. Just because you refuse to accept that truth about yourself doesn't make it any less true-no more than an alcoholic who denies they're not abusing alcohol. Its certainly no different from your mate Monckton who-when faced with the exposure of his Snake Oil Salesman routine-threatened to try & have someone sacked from their job.
    0 0
  20. So, what we're left with here is a list that is predominantly padding-papers which are out of date &/or have been thoroughly debunked; papers consisting of political or legal opinions not backed up by evidence; papers published in multiple journals (& *no*, Poptech, there is not sufficient difference between a 1964-1994 & 1964-1998 timeframe to justify counting it as a completely separate paper); papers published in journals with a clear political/ideological agenda-& with proven track records of below-par peer-review standards (like E&E & Cato Journal); papers that directly contradict each other; papers which don't actually support the skeptic view-& the list goes on. Yet even if this wasn't the case, what does this list actually tell us? That there is a dissenting opinion in the general community on the future dangers of AGW? Well that's hardly a great revelation. Yet the way Poptech & his followers flourish this "list", you'd think they'd stumbled on the smoking gun that "proves" that AGW is nothing to worry about-yet the list provides no such ammunition. Yet every time they pull out a reference to "the list", its with the air of a chess player yelling "Checkmate". Its not Checkmate Poptech-its not even "Check"-just a restatement of what was already known (that those predominantly from the Far Right don't believe global warming is real-whoop chook).
    0 0
  21. "Actually they are not identical papers..." Who said they were ? "...another is a much longer paper with a more detailed analysis" Unproven. Prove it. "...as I have proven above" Strawman. What's that got to do with relevance to 'AGW Alarm' - whatever that means ? "All of this has been gone over many times ad nauseum with you." No it hasn't. Prove it. "...the link worked when I just checked it..." No, your link didn't work, which is why I got the error message. You are wrong again. "Not surprisingly I only receive emails on this from those not out to attack the list." Unsubstantiated. Prove it. "Those that are post these irrelevant things..." 'Irrelevance' is subjective and unproven. "Implying what I don't know..." Who implied that ? Prove it. (Actually, no-one needs to imply that, anyway) "I am not an admin of the CSA servers and have no control over their hyperlinks" Strawman. Who said you did or were ? Prove it. "Wow you guys are great, thanks for helping make my argument." Oh dear. You have an argument ? I can see why you would need others to make it for you...whatever it is.
    0 0
  22. "Yes any increase in the number of papers (even by 1) would strengthen the skeptical position. It would be illogical to say that an increase would weaken it." What a load of nonsense. That would only be the case if the paper in question (a) told us something we didn't already know & (b) is backed up by firm evidence. Most of the papers you list tend to be rehashes of long disproved ideas, don't provide evidence to back them up or are-at best-skeptic neutral. Using papers like that doesn't strengthen the skeptic position, it weakens it by proving that your argument is so weak that you need to pad it out with nonsense.
    0 0
  23. Poptech at 383: In relation to your claim that 850 papers is "a lot" or whatever language you used earlier in the thread. The whole point, once again, is that 850 papers (taken at face value) is meaningless as a statistic to bolster a particular view point absent a frame of reference to the overall body of peer review climate science relating to climate change. You cannot in good faith argue otherwise.
    0 0
  24. "Deleting posts wholesale is censorship." Well you'd know, wouldn't you PopTech, as you frequently delete posts on your own site-even if they *don't* violate the comments policy. Not that you have to worry about that so much anymore, now that you've intimidated your dissenters into silence with the threat of releasing their personal info. As it happens, I've had a number of my posts here deleted wholesale because I crossed the line. However, unlike members of the Denialist Cult-who see a conspiracy in *everything*-I just take it in my stride & try & moderate my own comments in future. If you can't stand the heat....
    0 0
  25. Poptech, still interested in your answer to the questions in #379.
    0 0
  26. Poptech@385 "Deleting posts wholesale is censorship. Calling it violation of the comment policy does not change this fact." Nonsense. your comments have not been wholesale deleted from this tread as anyone reading it can easily see. If you have made comment that violate the policy they get deleted. Everyone here knows how this works. "I will accept editing of the part of my comments that violate this policy when it is evenly applied." It is highly unfair to expect the mods to edit your posts for you in order to keep the conversation civil. That is the job of the poster. Editing of comments would also open the mods up to accusations of context doctoring.
    0 0
  27. Poptech, I notice you conveniently neglected to answer my last question, so I'll pose it again. Granted that 850 papers on cigarette smoking exist that could be construed to "strengthen the skeptical position" against the consensus that smoking causes cancer, would you say that that is strong evidence against the consensus, or weak evidence, or could you tell?
    0 0
  28. 'No papers were "waved through" E&E as it has a rigorous peer-review policy" Ha ha. We are well aware you believe that but the science community has passed it own judgement. If you consistantly publish rubbish, noone capable of judging the merits of a paper will believe the "rigorous" bit. Also, its normal when talking about science for "peer reviewed" science to be understood as a/ Science b/ reviewed by other publishing scientists (peers). Journals like "Cato" might well allow you put your hand on your chest and declare "its peer reviewed", and I guess all that's all that matters to your audience, but because neither a/ nor b/ are satisfied, it doesnt mean the same as a paper published in a real journal. Instead of your quoting of qualifications, trying quoting cross-journal citation numbers of their publications on climate change (not other fields), then we might be impressed. Still waiting for your answer to #379
    0 0
  29. All, Someone is appealing to faux authority. And credentials are not everything-- Michaels, Singer and Lindzen have, or have had, ties to the FF industry. Scientists for hire if you will. It is a long list, they are not the only culprits, to contrarians who mix political or religious ideology with science. While these people may be qualified and their (padded) CVs compelling, their qualifications do not speak to their ethics, morality or integrity or quality of their science. These are the usual suspects in an orchestrated attack on science and climate scientists that has been very well documented. I encourage people reading this to do some rigorous research on their backgrounds.
    0 0
  30. " that paper supports the theory that solar activity is the primary cause of climate change." That would be a hypothesis, not a theory. It would also be a false assertion, as anyone with access to SkS's search function can quickly determine.
    0 0
  31. Submitting a papers which are essentially the same, not even necessarily identical, is frowned upon in science. It is called padding one's CV and rehashing, and any prospective (respectable) employer would seriously frown upon that.
    0 0
  32. Hi Poptech I made a comment on your post, nothing remotely unpolite about it, just asking a couple of questions. I think I submitted it correctly - does it pass your blog comment submission policy?
    0 0
  33. 400 comments in let me summarize this thread for the newcomers. 1 - Poptech's list of 850 skeptical papers represents a tiny fraction of the total number of papers published on the subject and many that are on the list are of questionable quality 2 - Poptech: There is nothing wrong with any of the papers on my list and they all come from peer reviewed journals. 3 - Some are poor science that has been refuted and some are contradictory! The still represent a tiny percent when compared to AGW supporting papers 4 - Poptech: The papers are fine and your methods are terrible. 5 - OK, the method was flawed, but your papers are of terrible quality. 6 - Poptech: No they are not and you dont know what you are talking about. 7 - GOTO 5
    0 0
  34. Hmm, comment from Poptech on RSS but not showing here. Anyway, a response for Poptech so he can answer properly. "I don't consider any climate or economic predictions based on computer models to be meaningful" I am well aware of that. What I asked is whether you considered those "alarming". ie IF they were true, would they fit your definition of alarming? This is what I am trying to define. And while you wont accept that they might be true you could also be dead wrong. "I believe these are influenced more by economic policies than climate." Economic policy could be linked but you might need several indicies. However, I am not asking you to agree with mine, I am asking you to name data which you agree would change your mind. You surely arent taking the position that there is no data that could change your mind? "Which are based on bogus computer modeling." I believe you should have phrased that as "models I believe to be bogus despite all the evidence to the contrary."
    0 0
  35. PT today: "at one time I have either read the abstract, summary or conclusion to all the papers on the list." PT yesterday: "no I have not read every paper completely. I have read many of them and all the abstracts and conclusions (where available)." Contradiction? Qualification? Obfuscation? You be the judge. Either way, the charade will continue ... Let us recall the wisdom of Einstein: “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”
    0 0
  36. "No, my site is not for a continuation of comment discussions at other locations." Got a good chuckle out of this one. In other words: My site is for me to comment on other discussions that I find relevant but not for others to challenge or question anything that I might choose to say in any form. You are, I have to say, very consistent in your application of absurd logic.
    0 0
  37. Got to love Poptech's earlier comment that supposedly Cato Journal & E&E are not guilty of bad Peer Review processes. Yet both "Journals" have a clearly articulated political/ideological agenda which are the absolute *antithesis* of good, neutral peer review. Hence why papers from said sources must be treated with heaping pillar of salt.
    0 0
  38. "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started. " Your site has a post on this exact topic and it is by definition a continuation of this topic. You would evidently prefer it to remain unchallenged on your site, given that I reckon the majority of your readers will not come over here and see what else the sks regulars have to say. Skeptical Science could just as easily not approve any submissions from you in this thread, even though your list is the major topic of discussion (just as sks is the topic of your post). Please correct me if I am wrong, but you would consider it a trifle unfair if they did that, no? Anyway, you approved one (completely content-free) comment on it, so why not mine?
    0 0
  39. "Yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm". Which is what differentiates the Denialist Cult from the rest of us. The Denialist Cult rely a lot on personal belief-without the need for strong evidence to back it up-which is very Faith based. Indeed, the ability to accept mutually contradictory positions is also another typical trait of those who base their views on Faith, rather than Fact. The scientific evidence, over the space of more than 100 years, show a strong relationship between the rise in CO2 & the rise in global temperatures over the last 30-60 years-with other past forcings trending in the opposite directions. This same evidence suggests, very strongly, that further CO2 emissions will lead to yet more temperature rises over the coming century. Even the best case scenario for future Global Warming (which assumes low sensitivity) could cause enormous societal & environmental damage-& based on the impacts of climate change events in the past. That view is not the product of Faith or Personal Belief, it is the basis of more than 100 years of very strong evidence established via the best principles of the scientific method, evidence which no attempt by the skeptic community has managed to undermine. By comparison, Poptech, your much vaunted list represents nothing more than a patchwork quilt of unsubstantiated nonsense-which does more to weaken your case than to strengthen it.
    0 0
  40. #410 PT "Incorrect, what I stated was clear - comment policy does not allow my site to be used to continue a topic comment discussion from a another location such as here or anywhere. Continue that conversation where it started." Then you have violated your own policy by allowing your post on your site to be subject to comments. Why? Because you have included substance that comes from the comments section of this post. In other words you are soliciting comments on your site that directly relate to comments on this site. A blatant violation of your own policy.
    0 0
  41. Well I cannot find the comment policy on your site so I'll have to take your word for it. I thought my unpublished comment characterised the two best challenges to your objection to Rob's post that have been made in the previous 400 and whatever posts: Firstly, that if one were sufficiently patient one could break down the search in google scholar into well-organised chunks of fewer than 1000 papers, and thereby be able to exhaustively search all relevant entries to see if they support AGW 'alarm' by your broadbrush definition. Secondly, that that would not actually be necessary in order to put your 850 into proper context because one could analyse a sample of google scholar results to come up with a reliable estimate. If you disagree, I suggest you take a statistics course.
    0 0
  42. #423 PT "I have made not made any comments to that topic." Both!!
    0 0
  43. Just out of personal interest PT (I assume this is Andrew), and perhaps you'll think it an odd question, but just what exactly would it take to change your mind? What would really convince you? I gotta ask here cause I'm sure you wouldn't let me ask you on your blog.
    0 0
  44. "I would find alarming something we are unable to adapt to that would result in the loss of innocent life." I don't think that's exactly what Rob was asking? Anyway, that's quite a leap from the way you defined 'alarming' in relation to your list, in which case any remotely bad consequence of AGW was considered alarming.
    0 0
  45. ^ Ron, not Rob. Sorry.
    0 0
  46. The small group of alarmist scientists is not the "scientific community". Sorry, but the lack of take-up of "science" in those journals (not to mention the relative readership) is the judgement of the science community. The tiny group of non-science reality-deniers publishing in E&E is the minority group. This is not the definition of peer-review, I am perfectly aware of the definition. I was telling you what is meant by peer-review in science. You can quote dictionary definitions till you are blue in the face, but that is what is the "peer-review" is short-hand for in science whether you like or not. Citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Citations are the indication that a paper has been worthwhile and more science has been built on it. Nonsense papers are just forgotten. Its not a perfect measure but its light-years ahead of your list.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [DB] Phil, to close an html tag, the slash must precede the letter. Thanks!
  47. PT: "This is a value judgment so what someone considers 'strong' or 'weak' is going to be subjective. In regards to my list, yes I believe it is strong evidence against AGW Alarm." So in your view, the fact that one can find 850 papers that can be construed to support the skeptical position constitutes strong evidence. Good to know, I'll get you some smoking and lung cancer links tomorrow and expect you to go on the attack against the unfairly declared lung cancer-smoking "consensus." Never mind the context of the orders of magnitude more articles supporting the consensus, 850 is strong evidence! Somehow your logic reminds of a certain superstar: Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and... Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten? Nigel Tufnel: Exactly. Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where? Marty DiBergi: I don't know. Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven. Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
    0 0
  48. That is the problem, it is not so simple as you reach data point A. It is whether we can adapt to point A. so far I have seen no evidence that we cannot. But how do you know whether you are right or not? Can your believe be falsified? So far you are carefully avoiding any way in which your beliefs can be shown to be false. By contrast, climate science throws up a large no. of predictions by which falsification is possible. It seems your beliefs appear to be routed in something other data and constructed to avoid falsification. I've finished wasting my time.
    0 0
  49. Neglected to mention, the above exchange is of course from the "documentary", "This is Spinal Tap".
    0 0
  50. As much as PT keeps trying to convince himself otherwise (& sounding more dubious with each attempt), all of this claims to date have been patently *wrong*. -He accused Rob of "Google Scholar Illiteracy", yet many posters here-including Rob himself-have successfully debunked this claim. They've shown that, no matter how stringent the criteria you apply to the search, you can find many times more *pure science* papers-supporting AGW-than all of PT's papers (which are not limited to pure science). -he claims that there has been no successful attack on his list, yet that is just more delusion on his part. Posters here have shown that (a) many papers are from Journals with a vested interest (i.e. Money from the Fossil Fuel Industry) in lowering the bar of "Peer Review" to let more skeptic papers get published. (b) that many of the papers are not merely old, have not merely been refuted, but have been utterly debunked-like MacLean's travesty, where he "hides the incline", or the Papers claiming current warming is the result of some as yet unknown=& highly variable-natural cycle (yet unable to provide proof); (c) that many of the papers are not science based at all, but are legal & policy papers based entirely on the author's *opinion*; (d) that most of the science-based papers are written by the same half a dozen people (Lindzen, Choi, Spencer, Christy & Singer)-often using the very mathematical models that PT claims to deride; (e) that in many cases he is using what is essentially the same paper, but published in multiple journals & (f) that some of the papers don't actually back skepticism as he claims, or are at best lukewarm. That seems a very successful, multi-pronged attack on "the list" to me. When the padding is stripped away, you're really just left with what we already knew-that there is a hard-core group of scientists & policy-makers who cannot, & will not, ever accept the possibility of dangerous AGW. Hardly a revelation. However, as I don't expect PT to *ever* give up his delusions, then I think its best we just leave this IT guy with delusions of grandeur to crawl back to Denialist Central, where he isn't required to defend his position.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us