Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 Next
Comments 45001 to 45050:
-
Tom Curtis at 22:42 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry @234, my own ratings and reasons are, in the order you present them (my rating first, then paper, then Cook et al rating followed by reason for my rating):
- 3 Meunier (2007) (4): States categorically that global warming is a result of the GHE, and by implication by human emissions. Rather not accept this endorsement as the abstract suggests the author is a crackpot, but implicit endorsement all the same.
- 4 Wirl (2004) (2): Indicates ongoing warming due to "emissions", but does not indicate scale of warming (reducing a 3 to a 4 rating).
- 4 Howarth (2001) (4): Indicates ongoing warming due to GHG, but does not indicate the scale of the warming (reducing a 3 to a 4 rating).
- 4 Huelber et al (2006) (4): Mentions predicted temperature increase but does not endorse the prediction (hypothetical mode). Does not indicate cause of warming.
- 4 Chandler et a (1992) (3): While high CO2 is mentioned as a causal factor for high temperatures, the level and temperature impact are not mentioned reducing a potential 3 to a 4.
Note that the discussion of ocean circulation is not relevant to the rating as the changes are due to very large scale changes in continental arrangement which cannot be a factor for recent warming. I also note, with regard to the paper, that the model used specified SST, thereby eliminating the main feedbacks modellable in 1992 (water vapour concentration, sea ice extent) "... thus limiting the CO2 effect to direct radiative heating" (pp 546-7). Thus the additional factors in the full paper do not change the rating of the paper IMO.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:13 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Icaraus @1,3, there are satellite observations of both the Outgong Longwave Radiation (OLR) from Earth and the incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun. These are very accurate for changes in magnitude of the radiation, but their accuracy for the absolute level of radiation is substantially less. Consequently calculating the energy balance from the satellite data leaves an error margin several times larger than the observed effect.
SFAIK, that does leave changes in surface heat content (including oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere, soil heat contents) along with minor effects such as change wind and wave energy, change in stored chemical energy in the biosphere as the alternative direct measure of the top of atmosphere energy imbalance. These are not completely measured, but using a scaled 0-2000 m OHC will result in relatively small error bars.
As an aside, I suspect that the well measured changes in OHC from Argos could be used to calibrate the satellite data and gain accurate measurements of the energy imbalance over the satellite period.
-
Icarus at 21:45 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Thanks CB. I understand that the change in spectrum of OLR has been observed and that it validates the modelled changes in the greenhouse effect, but I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as directly measuring the energy imbalance.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:07 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Icarus, no that hasn't been true for many years now. I think Harries 2001 was one of the first studies using direct measurements to show the imbalance.
-
Icarus at 20:41 PM on 30 May 2013Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it
Is it still the case that we can't really measure the Earth's energy imbalance directly, but have to infer it from the rate of heat accumulation in the oceans?
Cheers...
-
nealjking at 17:04 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
barry (234):
Based on what you've shown, I would also rate that as a 3 rather than a 4: although the authors are talking about non-CO2-related mechanisms for temperature change, they're concerned with the past - specifically 180 million years ago.
The meaning of the chart relating CO2 increase to temperature change would have to be further examined in the text to derive a clear implication. You can figure out an implied value for the climate sensitivity, but for what time period is it? What's their point?
-
barry1487 at 16:06 PM on 30 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
my own rating for numbers 1, 2, 3 and the abstract from the previous post (4), were
1) -- 3
2) -- 3
3) -- 4
4) -- 4
Because if the original Authors rated under the lower bar (any anthro influence) for 2 and 3, then the comparative results are not as robust as indicated.
That's a big "if", and one for which you are yet to provide any evidence whatsoever.
That is made difficult by my sudden loss of ESP at a New Year's Eve party. Cook et al are bound to keep ratings of the scientists confidential, unfortunately.
First paper I could access in full under the category paleoclimate is "Pangaean climate during the Early Jurassic; GCM simulations and the sedimentary record of paleoclimate".
For the period modeled they discovered,
"Significantly, and somewhat suprisingly, the natural climate feedbacks in the system (discussed below) balanced the negative net radiation caused by the warm SSTs. This implies that no additional CO2 was needed to maintain the Early Jurassic global warmth...
... if these results are valid... then many of the warm climates of the past can be explained solely by changes in ocean circulation."
[italics are from the paper, page 548 - there is also a chart showing 2 X CO2 leading to a global temp increase of 0.3C; 4 X CO2 = 0.5C, and 6 X CO2 shows 0.7C rise]
The paper could be marked as 4 or possibly 7, under the rubric of >50% human influence, or 5 and 6 supposing 'minimising' the human influence is a purely qualitative rating. A rater may make choices under certain assumed knowledge or not (eg, do you extemporise from what you know of modern CO2 rise, or do you strictly focus on what the abstract/paper actually says, and don't incorporate your own knowledge?).
The abstract was rated 3 by Cook et al. The first sentence reads:
"Results from the Early Jurassic show that increased ocean heat transport may have been the primary force generating warmer climates of the past 180 m.y."
I don't have much free time, unfortunately. I'll try to come back to this later.
-
Estiben at 15:25 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
dkaroly #22, In your answer to wild monkeys, if I understand confidence intervals correctly, at 95% confidence it would be a 2.5% chance of rising more than 9 degrees, and an equal chance of less than 2.3 degrees. That's 1 in 40 at either end. It would be 1 in 20 of rising more than 7.8 degrees, and 1 in 6 of more than 6.2 degrees. That's still pretty damn scary. Of course, we could luck out and get "only" 2 or 3 degrees of rise. I'm not investing in Great Plains cropland.
-
tcflood at 15:16 PM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
Dkaroly #22,
Thanks for responding. I'll check out the references.
-
DSL at 13:46 PM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Petere, it sounds like you're defining "skeptics" as "people like me." Troll around a bit on WUWT and you'll discover that people who call themselves "skeptic" fit a variety of definitions. By the way, working scientists are, by definition, skeptics.
-
KR at 12:30 PM on 30 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Dr. Tung - Indeed, Anderson et al 2012 used atmospheric only models - examining integrated TOA deltas into the atmosphere against exchanges with the ocean surface and to some extent land surface and cryosphere (Anderson et al 2012 pg. 7166). They estimated OHC changes from those deltas, "...recognizing that the observed value may underestimate the total earth energy storage by 5%–15% (Levitus et al. 2005; Hansen et al. 2005; Church et al. 2011)." While an argument from input/output of the atmospheric climate layer has its limitations, it also has its strengths in that both TOA imbalance via spectroscopic evidence and SST values are quite well known.
They then evaluate estimated OCH changes against TOA inputs, concluding that <10% of global temperature change can be attributed to internal variations - as a boundary condition evaluation. I would also note that Andersons conclusions regarding "unknown forcings" such as aerosols limit their influence to no more than 25% of recent global temperature change - not the 40% you assert.
Your arguments against that paper (and by extension against Isaac Held and Huber and Knutti 2012) seem to me to require that either (a) climate sensitivity is badly estimated, in contradiction to the paleo evidence, or that (b) radiative forcings from basic spectroscopy are incorrect - as otherwise Andersons results hold.
If you wish (as stated above) to claim that "...the known change in total radiative forcing over the last half of the twentieth century … is systematically overestimated by the models", that would be (IMO) an entirely different paper, one with a considerable focus on spectroscopy and evidence regarding forcings (black carbon, atmospheric constitution, aerosol evidence, cloud trends). That is not the paper under discussion - and I (personal opinion, again) do not feel the current work holds up without such support.
And as I have stated (repeatedly, with what I consider insufficient objections) in this thread, the linear AMO detrending you use is (as Dikran has pointed out) critical to your conclusions - and that linear detrending is strongly contraindicated by recent literature, including some you have quoted in your support. That is entirely separate from the thermodynamics; two significant issues that argue against your conclusions.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 12:20 PM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
(-moderation complaints snipped-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Your previous comment was deleted for moderation complaints. By me. You have a long, protracted history of treating the Comments Policy of this site as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participation fairly observed without any incident by the vast majority of all participants in this venue.
From the preamble to the Comments Policy:
The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors. To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering.
Normally the moderation staff is loath to intervene and usually gives participants a wide latitude in composing their comments to adhere to the Comments Policy. When situations occur where certain participants are deemed to be repeat, repetitive violators of the Comments Policy, a tighter level of enforcement of the Comments Policy ensues. At the discretion of the moderation staff, a wide variety of interventions are possible, covering the entire spectrum of intervention modalities ranging from snipping and excising offending texts to comment deletions to Warnings to outright banishment (a revocation of posting privileges).
Based on previous behaviors and on your behavior thus far in this thread, you are now issued a Final Warning:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
Edit: Let the record show that with his very next comment, Brandon chose to continue his pattern of moderation complaints and comment policy violations. Please return this thread to the topics discussed in the OP.
-
KR at 10:56 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon - You have repeatedly claimed that the rater classifications were wrong, that they erroneously classified categories #2 and #3, endorsement of the AGW consensus (which is, to put it bluntly, that anthropogenic causes are the dominant factor in current climate change) instead of the no-position #4 or even rejection #5, 6. See for example your On the consensus and Why symmetry is bad posts.
I find it stunning that you would deny it, since you've spent multiple posts expounding on just those points - with statements such as "The guidelines for rating these abstracts show only the highest rating value blames the majority of global warming on humans", which is not what either explicit or implicit endorsement of the AGW consensus means.
From IPCC AR4 WG1 Executive Summary:
Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. [...] It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.
Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years...
[ Note that IPCC likelyhood terminology has defined values - "very likely" indicates >90% probability. Those are anything but vague statements. ]
Your definition is not the criteria used by the IPCC, raters, nor by the authors. Your claims regarding erroneous classification are are therefore absurd.
---
Enough - you have been trolling this topic for more than long enough. The AGW consensus is clearly defined and understood (barring uninformed or deliberate misinterpretations), the raters and authors used their best judgement when classifying abstracts and papers, and therefore the Cook et al statistics hold.
Your entire approach is in essence an extended (and verbose) strawman fallacy - "...when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.", then arguing against that false position instead. Invalid and (IMO) trolling.
Moderator Response:[DB] "you have been trolling this topic for more than long enough"
Agreed. The time has come to return this thread to more original dialogue.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:37 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
It may help readers to understand Brandon Shollenberger's point if you read his statement of it at Lucia's Blackboard. He is restricted from stating the point clearly here because he has made his point by quoting from hacked forum contents which the moderators do not typically allow to be reposted on this site. Essentially he quotes John Cook as saying that neither of two possible precise criteria of the AGW are satisfactory, but that the raters will be able to rate based on informed judgement. He further partially quotes Dana on the purported assymettry of the classifications.
I will not quote from the hacked forum material without specific permission from the moderators. Those who want to read Shollenberger's quotes from the hacked discussions can follow the link above. I will merely note that Shollenberger ignores relevant context from other forum threads which significantly weaken his point.
Having said that, the more important point is that both John Cook and Dana were wrong in the quoted comments. Specifically, the paper does contain an implicit definition of what is meant by "endorses AGW" and "rejects AGW". This follows directly from the fact that different occurences of the phrases should be given the same meaning if that can consistently be done. Failing to give them consistent meaning results in constructing a straw man to critique. It means that the criticism is based on the inconsistency of the phrases, when a consistent interpretation is possible which may well avoid the criticism.
From this it follows that in the phrases "(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification", "(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification" and "(3) Implicit endorsement", the term "endorsement" (meaning endorsement of AGW) has the same meaning. However, "endorsement" is defined in (1) as "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming".
Further, also on the grounds of consistency, the terms must be interpreted so that "endorsement" and "rejection" are mutually exclusive" and "(7) Explicit rejection with quantification" is qualified as "Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming". If being the primary cause of recent warming is possible if, for example, anthropogenic factors cause 40% of the warming, while all other factors individually cause 10% or less, then the interpretation of "primary cause" allows a paper to both explicitly endorse and explicitly reject AGW with quantification. For consistency, therefore, endorsing AGW in (1) must mean endorsing AGW as equal to or greater than 50% of the cause of recent warming. It follows, on the grounds of consistency that that is the meaning of "endorses AGW" whereever it occurs in the paper.
Ergo though John Cook may have lacked an explicit definition of endorsement, he and the raters had an implicit definition which is in the paper. What is more, that implicit definition is, or is very close to the tacit definition actually used by raters in rating abstracts.
Stating this recognizes a flaw in the implimentation of the paper. Because the definition was implicit, it is not certain that all raters used it or a close approximation of it. I am in fact (slowly) testing that hypothesis in the only reasonable way. I am in fact rating papers chosen at random using the consensus project rating mechanism. If I am correct about the tacit definition adopted by the raters, my ratings will closely coincide with the Cook et al ratings. To date I have 100% agreement in the check (though not from cherry picked examples that have been posted on various blogs), although my sample size is still to small to be significant.
Anybody else who wants to check can do as I am. Not doing something equivalent, or simply relying on cherry picked examples, however, it no way to check if there has actually been a flow in the implimentation of the paper. Showing that a flaw might exist is not the same as showing that it does exist, and certainly not the same as showing that it impacts the results. Despite that, Shollenberger Lucia and the like are very big on trying to show the former, but then simply seem to assume that the mere possibility of a flaw means the paper has been demolished. Even if they have to cherry pick or quote out of context to "show" that possibility.
-
SeaHuck5891 at 10:30 AM on 30 May 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #22A
Not sure where else to post this. My Representative in the US House sent this out with his most recent newsletter. There are some pretty familiar "skeptic" names on the list.
A Panel Discussion Looking at: The Origins and Response to Climate Change
Hosted by:
Congressman David B. McKinley, P.E. (WV-01) And The West Virginia High Technology Consortium Foundation
Location: 5000 NASA Boulevard, 5th Floor Conference Room, Fairmont, WV 26554
Date: May 30, 2013
Time: 09:30 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Format: Opening Statements (3-minutes from each panelist), Roundtable Discussion and Question and Answer with the audience/media
Topics for Discussion:1. What Factors Are Causing Climate Change?
2. Science Behind Climate Change
3. How Do We Balance Economic Growth With Climate Change?
4. Developed and Developing Countries: Who Has The Responsibility?
5. What Are Appropriate Policy Responses?
Panelists:
• Rep. David B. Mckinley, P.E. – Congressman and host, First Congressional District of West Virginia
• Dr. John Christy- Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Dr. Joe Casola- Staff Scientist and Program Director for Science and Impacts, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
• Dr. Jim Hurrell- Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research Earth System Laboratory
• Dr. A. Scott Denning- Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• Dr. Thomas Sheahen, physicist and author
• Dr. Richard Thomas, professor and Chair of the Biology Department, West Virginia University
• Ms. Annie Petsonk, International Council and Environmental Defense Fund
• Mr. Marc Morano, Executive Director and Chief Correspondent, Climate Depot
• Mr. Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Mr. Dennis Avery, Director of Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute
-
Bert from Eltham at 10:30 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon Shollenberger maybe you could analyse the motives of the tiny remnant that is the 3% and see what irreconcilable differences they have. You will find that that they are all just like you! Bert
-
Dikran Marsupial at 08:40 AM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
William Haas wrote: "1850 to 2012 is much more challenging because of the changes in direction."
Specifically what "changes in direction" do you refer to that are in the period 1850-2012 but not in 1900-2000 and explain why they should be challenging (this should include a discussion of relevant forcings for those periods)?
-
dkaroly at 08:09 AM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
wild monkeys #21: Yes, your interpretation is correct, there is about a 1 in 20 chance of global temperatures remaining below 2.3C above pre-industrial in 2100, and a 1 in 20 chance of global warming exceeding 9C.
William #12, #18: The simulations with this simple model start before 1850 and agree well with the observations for the period 1850 to 2010 when forced by the observed and estimated emissions. We are putting together a figure to show this. That result is not surprising, as the model parameters are constrained using the carbon dioxide, global mean temperature, ocean heat content and land-ocean temeprature contrast observations from the 20th century.
tcflood #16: This simple climate model is essentially a four-box energy balance anomaly model of the NH and SH land and ocean regions separately. It was developed originally by Tom Wigley and is called MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse gas Induced Climate Change). It has input parameters which represent the climate sensitivity and the exchanges of heat between the land and the ocean and between the hemispheres, which are estimated from the more complex models or from observations. This type of model has been used in all IPCC assessments since 1990. Information and links to download an older version of MAGICC are available at www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
or the latest version at www.magicc.org/ .The advatage over the more complex models is that it can provide probabilistic estimates of future temperature change given emission scenarios and probability estimates of the model parameter values. More information on the model version we have used and our approach is given in a recent paper at www.bom.gov.au/amoj/docs/2012/bodman.pdf
Response:[JC] David Karoly emailed me a graph comparing his model output to observations, which I've added to the original post above.
-
scaddenp at 07:59 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
A certain breed of "sceptic" does this - usually referred to as lukewarmers. So classification of what you mean by "sceptic" is tricky. In all those polls that ask "do you believe in man-made climate change", I am happy to agree that those that say "no" are not "sceptic" - bringing a fine word into disrepute - but simply and accurately deniers.
However a real skeptic is critical of all evidence. Faux skeptics fete any paper that suggests low sensitivity or reduced effects and attack any paper suggests high sensitivity or expensive consequences. (Of course same criticism of lack of skepticism can levelled at the greenpeace crowd but in reverse).
For the policy maker though, you have to go with consensus position and precautionary principle.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:34 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Peter... I would beg to differ: Principia-Scientific.
-
Peter Shortner at 07:01 AM on 30 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Sceptics don't deny the fact that putting more co2 molecules in the air will lead to more warming.
They only question two things:
1. But how much warming will that be ?
2, And how bad is that warming ?
Off course the are scientific projections with uncertainties.
The main uncertainties: clouds and oceans.
-
wild monkeys at 06:26 AM on 30 May 2013Uncertainty no excuse for procrastinating on climate change
Does it mean there is a 1:20 risk of 9°C warming or more? That's really scary.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:57 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Shollenberger need not have his intent assumed when he has a long and rich history on SkS of clearly demonstrating said intent. I would caution all by emphasizing that any attempt to engage in anything productive with him will be a complete waste of time. DNFTT.
-
KR at 15:48 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon - You have clearly attempted to redefine the categories as used by the raters to values not used in the paper, as in this extended post. Exclusive choose-one categories used by raters (and authors) who were well aware of the consensus view, and judged the abstracts and papers regarding endorsement or rejection according to how they matched that view.
That's not a reexamination of the data on your part - that's a redefinition, a "black is white" or "up is down" Newspeak claim that the rating judgements were somehow not what was used in the Cook et al paper. Judgements entirely supported by the existing literature, and confirmed by the author self-ratings, I'll point out.
Again; if you feel this is in error, do the work. Evaluate some abtracts with your particular critera, present your data, and see if it holds up. Oreskes managed it on her own; surely you can - if you actually think the data supports your point of view. But this repeated claim that the rater judgement criteria were not what was actually used, that the raters repeatedly misinterpreted ambiguous abstracts as wholly endorsing the consensus, is simply silly; one of the most clearly absurd objections to the consensus.
[ In fact, this approach of 'auditing' of climate papers is but an absurd parody of science - no new facts, measures, or analysis, just nit-picking of others results (often simply semantic, as in this case) with an apparent aim of discrediting them. Nothing new, nothing gained, nothing creative - just insinuations of doubt. I (IMO) consider this one of the trademarks of false skepticism; these objections without contributions. ]
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:19 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
And I have to add... Your grasping at the $1600 thing is another sign that you need some reason to reject the findings, even though the findings are the right answer.
The $1600 is a glaring innocuous element of the issue.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:15 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon... If I tell you that your responses are "flawed because they're flawed" that really doesn't communicate much substance.
The only thing I can come up with here is that you're experiencing a form of cognitive dissonance, where the paper gets the "answer right" but is still flawed over the definition of a commonly understood word.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 14:53 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Composer99, I have no idea how you can say I "brushed off the simplest explanation" when I directly responded to the commenter you refer to. I specifically acknowledged his point and explained why it doesn't address what I've been trying to say. Repeating a point I promptly responded to while claiming I ignored it seems... strange.
Rob Honeycutt, I have little belief as to what the results of a well-designed project would be. I say this work is flawed because it's flawed. We shouldn't ignore problems with a paper just because it gets a "right" answer.
Beyond that, without a definition for what the "consensus" examined in this work actually is, there's no way to intelligently discuss its results. Even if I liked the results, I couldn't reasonably promote them without knowing what they are. I cannot sensibly tell people there's a "97% consensus" if I don't know what the consensus says.
You're free to make whatever assumptions you want about my beliefs or motivations, but no matter what you believe about me, it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to ask what the "consensus" actually is. Assuming nefarious intent on my part doesn't change anything.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are once again skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive repitition. If you cannot cease and desist from this unacceptable behaviour, your comments will be deleted.
-
malamuddy at 14:50 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
When it comes to repeating research to disconfirm the results, Mr Shollenberger seems reluctant at best ... oh.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:50 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
So... Brandon... You have free access to Cook13, thanks to the generosity of those who jumped into to make the paper open access. You should be able to use any of the data available to craft your own version of the research.
"I believe publishing results is part of the process..."
The results were going to be published either way, with or without the $1600. The money only allowed people like you and many others free access to the paper, without having to purchase it through the journal.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 14:43 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Rob Honeycutt, if that is true, we should be able to define the "consensus" by looking at those categories and their definitions, both of which are provided on this site. That should make it a simple task anyone could do. Why then has nobody done so? Why have people made over a dozen responses to me without bothering to respond to a key point I raised?
As for the money, I believe publishing results is part of the process, especially in peer-reviewed science. We couldn't have much of an examination of this issue if the results were never published. That is, unless you're claiming the only people who examine it are the authors. I'm not sure what you'd say everyone else is doing then.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:34 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Frankly, Brandon, I would think that if you genuinely believed that there was a critical error in how Cook13 was crafted (or defined "consensus"), you and others would be racing to perform your own research.
Think of the impact! If you did a better study that better defined the terms, then performed the reserach – even at the 10% rate I suggested – and the results showed that public perception is actually correct... That would be huge!
If you were able to get such research published in a quality journal then you would completely change the broad discussion on the climate change issue. You would prove that there actually is serious debate over this issue!
Why would you not want the opportunity to do that?
Unless you just don't believe the results would be different.
-
Composer99 at 14:33 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon Shollenberger:
You keep going on about how Cook <i>et al</i> 2013 didn't "define" consensus. Yet you brushed off the simplest explanation, provided by shoyemore upthread.
Why must Cook <i>et al</i> come up with some newfangled definition of consensus when a quite satisfactory definition can be found in, effectively, every dictionary of the English language currently in print? Are people reading science papers now so uneducated that unremarkable words like "consensus" can't be correctly parsed? Should we now begin to quibble over what the meaning of "is" is?
As far as I can see you are setting up a very mobile goalpost indeed if the definition of consensus has to satisfy you but, mysteriously, can't be the already commonly-accepted definition.
(I might also add that the above response is far more thought-out than, frankly, I think your attempts to criticize Cook <i>et al</i> 2013 on this thread or elsewhere deserve.)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:20 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon@ 24... But the categories are what create the definition within the paper. So, my position still stands. If you think Cook et al did a poor job of crafting the research, by all means, show us how to do it correctly. Being that you're not offering any data or references to substantiate your position I would suggest that performing research of your own is the only way you're going to definitively resolve this issue.
And the $1600 was merely to allow the paper to be open access rather than offer any assistance in the "examination of this consensus." In fact, the $1600 came immediately prior to the paper being published, long after all the actual "examination" occurred.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 14:00 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Tom Curtis, given the accusations of dishonesty (and the conspiratorial ideation displayed) in your comment, I don't think I could respond while abiding by this site's rules.
caerbannog, the amount of time I may have to spend pursuing matters related to climate change doesn't indicate how much time I have to spend on any particular topic. Spending time on one issue forces me not to spend time on other issues, even if the total amount of time I have is "immense." As for getting people to help, I don't think many people I could ask for help would find this sort of project meaningful enough to justify doing.
Even if I could find the time and people to repeat this project's general approach, the burden would be enormous. And it'd say absolutely nothing about the issues I have raised here. One need not do something "right" to show someone else did it wrong.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 13:51 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
KR, my critiques of this paper have included data and measurements as provided by the authors. My critiques have also provided different interpretations of the same data as used by the authors, providing a form of replication. In short, I have done exactly what you say I have not done. The most you could say is my data and replication were not independent, but that is not what you said.
Moreover, you claim my critiques have been limited to redefining things yet ignore the fact a primary point I've raised is that no definition exists for the "consensus." Something cannot be redefined if it has no definition in the first place. Moreover, I haven't offered a definition for the "consensus" so I couldn't possibly be offering a (re)definition of any sort.
actually thoughtful, for us to measure a "consensus," we have to be able to define that "consensus." How else could we possibly know how many people endorse it?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 13:45 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Rob Honeycutt, my posts here have said nothing about the definitions of the categories. As such, the conversation here could not be about the definitions of the categories. The conversation is about the definition of the "consensus" Cook et al repeatedly refer to. As I've pointed out multiple times, this "consensus" has never been defined. There is no reason to avoid that simple issue by changing the subject.
And yes, I do believe the people who donated $1,600 to help the examination of this "consensus" are entitled to know what it actually is. A single sentence to define a key aspect of a paper is hardly a burdensome requirement.
-
caerbannog at 13:28 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
<i>"That is especially true given that I am but one person, and you were 24."</i>
When you see skeptics making excuses like "We don't have the time, or we don't have enough people", remember that Anthony Watts likes to brag about how much more traffic, how many more visitors, how many more comments, etc. that his site gets than do sites like skepticalscience.com, realclimate.org etc.
If we are to take Watts at his word, then that would mean that he has access to far more warm bodies to throw at a problem than skepticalscience does. So the above excuses simply don't fly. If Watts and Co were serious, they could easily "crowd-source" an even bigger project than the Cook13 effort.
Furthermore, a quick bit of Googling will confirm that Mr Shollenberger has an *immense* amount of free-time on his hands. The "I don't have enough time or access to enough manpower to organize my own study" simply doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.
A good way to distinguish genuine skeptics from "pseudoskeptics" is that genuine skeptics produce *results* while "pseudoskeptics" produce excuses.
And all we've seen in response to Cook13 is excuses.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:09 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
"That is especially true given that I am but one person, and you were 24."
Brandon... First off, most of the ratings were done by 12 people, so you're only half right. But John Cook was but one person. He merely enlisted the help of friends. If this is such an important issue that you feel the need to spend dozens of hours arguing the issue, surely you have the time to find a dozen friends who could also spend dozens of hours compiling a similar body of research.
I would even go as far as to suggest that you really don't need to do 12,000 papers. Even 1200 randomly selected papers would give you a statistically significant sampling. Thus, you could perform the experiment with a fraction of the effort that the SkS team contributed to Cook13.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:00 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Tom @18... Yes. Exactly.
-
actually thoughtful at 12:26 PM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
There seems to be some confusion (by exactly one poster) about the purpose of the paper in regards to consensus. Put simply - that there is a consensus has been shown repeatedly in the literature. So you can think of this paper as showing how much consenus there is - is it:
51%?
65%?
80%?
90%?
95%?
Nope!
It is over 97%! (which we actually knew from previous work - but compare to public's perspective).
So the answer to what is the defintion of consensus is kind of the wrong question - the question is how much consensus was there (and of course, if the data showed it - how much *lack* of consensus was there). There is 97% consensus - even more if you weight the papers you look at to after 2000 - then it is over 98%.
Now where are you getting lost?
-
KR at 11:45 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon Shollenberger - "...this site has posted many critiques of papers. Why should I refrain from doing the same?"
You should by all means feel free to present a critique.
However: A scientific critique include data, measures, replications of the work with different conclusions, or references to same (features of most rebuttals to 'skeptic' arguments, including those on SkS). You have presented none of the above, just attempts at redefining the various categories to definitions that were not used by the raters or the consulted authors, as far as I can see. In other words, you have presented redefinitions irrelevant to the work you critiqued. You have done nothing that should be taken seriously in a scientific context.
Please, feel free to disagree. But don't expect to be taken seriously until and unless you do some work - rate a thousand or so abstracts (as per Oreskes 2004), present your data, and demonstrate your hypothesis. Until then, I for one will have to regard your 'critiques' as nothing more than empty rhetoric, an attempt to discredit work you dislike - without putting forth the effort for actual science.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Rob @17, I think he would need to include a self rating system. I am sure he could come up with any result he pre-ordains if he crowd sources the rating at WUWT.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
And yes, Brandon, we did think it was worth a great deal of effort. The critiques of Doran, Anderegg, Oreskes and others have been that they were small sample sets. We were curious if doing a large sample of papers would change the results.
We put in a lot of hard hours and the results were consistent with previous research.
If you think we did it wrong, then show us how to do it right. Craft your own and get it published.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:06 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon @8, I (not Dana) have compared various permuations of the results to see if various criticisms of the paper actually have any impact on the result. For example, assuming a vary large number (50%) of false positives among affirmations only reduces the headline result from 97.2% to 96.2%. Such calculations in no way endorse the arguments being tested. Nor do they endorse the claim that 50% (or whatever) of the affirmations are false positives (or that false positives are only to be found among affirmations). They merely show how robust the results are even if the criticisms are given far more weight than they deserve.
In fact, the nearest I have come to the comparison you make (from memory) is to compare categories 1&2 as a percentage of categories 1,2,5,6,&7 (92.76%). (And no, I am not endorsing the absurd notion that no category 3 rated abstracts actually affirm the consensus.)
The silly thing is that I have to make these calculations. Where the critics of the paper making a serious analysis, they would perform these calculations themselves. Doing so they would conclude that the paper was interesting, and together with other papers analyzing the consensus showed that it is almost certain that papers endorsing the conensus (>50% warming anthropogenic) constitute >90% of all papers discussing the topic, and likely that they constitute >95% of such papers. We might then quibble about whether that is best called a "consensus" or merely an "overwhelming majority".
Serious analysis is, however, not the purpose of those blogs; most certainly not the purpose of your blogs. The purpose of the blogs is found in this graph:
Those attacking this paper, with few exceptions, know the overwhelming disconnect between public perception of the state of scientific opinion and the reality. They also know that that disconnect helps maintain strong political pressure against effective actions to combat climate change. Therefore they are bent on preserving the false perception by the public. They are determined to keep the public decieved for their own political ends. Hence they provide talking points, not analysis, in their attack on Cook et al 2013. Taking note, no doubt of Lincoln's dictum, they set their ambition on fooling enough of the people, enough of the time.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:02 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
" I'm at a loss as to how this is 'nitpicking the definitions.'"
You don't seem to agree with how the categories were defined. So I'm suggesting you create your own and perform your own survey. If you think the way Cook13 was crafted has unduly influenced the results, then I think everyone would be extremely interested to see you show how. And I mean that genuinely.
"You also felt it was worth a certain amount of money gotten from your readers."
What are you referring to? Are you talking about the money raised so that John could make the paper open access?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 10:21 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Rob Honeycutt, I'm at a loss as to how this is "nitpicking the definitions." You and your associates felt examining a consensus was worth a great deal of effort. You also felt it was worth a certain amount of money gotten from your readers. If examining something was worth that much, surely it is worth stating what that something is.
Glenn Tamblyn, this site has posted many critiques of papers. Why should I refrain from doing the same? As for replication, you guys spent a great deal of time on this study. It is unreasonable to suggest nobody criticize your paper without having spent an equal amount of time working on an issue. That is especially true given that I am but one person, and you were 24.
dana1981, you have suggested exactly that. I've even quoted you as suggesting exactly that. While I can understand you may have forgotten having done so, it is unwise for you to state it so categorically. My statement is fairly easy to verify.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 29 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Barry @225:
1) To read categories (2), (3), (5), and (6) as consistent (and hence exclusive) even qualitatively, you must take (2) to include all papers that explicitly state anthropogenic factors as a cause of warming, but do not minimize or otherwise indicate the impact is minimal. If you do not, you can have papers rated as both (2) and (5) or (6). Likewise (3) must also be taken as excluding papers which minimize the anthropogenic contribution. Ergo saying that doubling CO2 causes a 1 C no feedback warming, but a 0.5 C warming after feedbacks would preclude an abstract from being classified as (2) or (3), and would pretty much mandate its classification as (5). However, while you can assess the meaning of ratings (2)-(6) in isolation, doing so excludes relevant information. The description of ratings (1) and (7) makes it clear the benchmark for "minimizing" or "not minimizing" is the 50% mark.
On that basis, a phrase like "... anthropogenic factors are the major cause of recent warming" would get the abstract rated as affirming the consensus. In contrast, a phrase like "... anthropogenic factors are a major cause of recent warming" would downgrade it to the neutral bin in that it is possible with that phrasing that natural factors are equal or larger causes.
2) Because the evaluation of abstracts rated as (2) or (3) are based mostly on qualitative terms, it is likely that they will show more false positives than abstracts rated as (1). That does not justify distorting the meaning of the categories to minimize false positives. It is important to avoid false positives (and negatives); but it is more important that the characterization of the consensus be consistent across categories. Therefore arguing from the fact that the qualititive assessments in categories (2) and (3) will lead to false positives to the conclusion that the definition of the consensus differs for those ratings compared to category (1) puts the cart before the horse. The proper way to proceed to to determine the meaning of "affirms the consensus" from the available data from all rating categories and related comments; and if you do the position I am defending naturally follows. You then go on to assess the likely rate of false positives and/or negatives.
Because it is desirable to be conservative in these assessments, the way to avoid false positives is to be cautios in the ratings. Given the difference between the abstract ratings and the self ratings, I do not think there is any doubt that the Cook et al rating team were conservative. While there are likely to be false positives among the ratings, they are far exceded by false negatives. Arguments that the self rating data do not confirm that false negatives exceeded false positives depend essentially on ignoring what we know about the consensus of scientists and publication rates from other sources.
3) Turning to your first example, given only the data you provide, I would indeed have rated the paper as (3), and it would have been a false positive. It would also be an odd example, with the stronger result hidden in the body of the text. It would be rather like a newspaper article leading with "Dog growls at man" and mentioning in the last paragraph "assassination attempt on president". The reason for classifying the abstract as (3) includes the presumption that stronger, more interesting results will be mentioned in the abstract.
4) Turning to your second example, I would have classified it as neutral (4); and did so before I read the follow on part of the sentence.
5) Instead of checking category results, try doing the self rating excercise for 100 plus papers and check your level of agreement on endorsements with the Cook et al ratings. I am up to 35 so far, with complete agreement using my interpretation of what it means to confirm the consensus. I know from examples presented elsewhere that there are some abstract ratings I disagree with; but given that 12,000 abstracts were rated, it is unsurprising that there are some errors. You cannot check the validity of the rating system by picking out one or two errors; but only by rating a significant sample.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:14 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
I'm kind of thinking this is going to end up being like all the hockey stick graphs. Lots of complaining about methods and data and such. But never, ever, will the "skeptics" do their own research on this one, simply because their results would never support their preferred conclusions. And that is what makes them fake skeptics.
-
dana1981 at 10:02 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
I've never suggested comparing Categories 6+7 with 1. Category 7 is comparable to 1, and 6+7 are comparable to 1+2.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:40 AM on 29 May 2013The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial
Brandon, let me second Rob's suggestion
Cook et al 2013 is a scientific paper. The time honoured method of critiquing or checking a piece of science is through replication. Someone seeks to replicate the earlier work. All other approachs, comments on blogs, self appointed 'auditors' etc are just a farce by comparison.Replicate the study Brandon. Or even better, design your own study method and go for it.
Prev 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 Next
