|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11..19..27..35..41~42~43~44~45..82..118..154..190..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18028 Posts 
|
Ten full years of no hurricanes, the stock market is tanking, and no one knows anything about D.B. Cooper 40 years later ... and you say "Assinine obsevations??????"
ROTFLMAO
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Only you could connect those things.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Hey Slim. You do know the difference between "global" and "Florida" don't you?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
I am betting he says yes but we both know the answer is no.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 24, 2015, Slim King wrote: I agree that "assinine" [sic, but the misspelling is appropriate] was too mild an adjective. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
I think it is indeed the appropriate amount of s's to use.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts
|
Balaam's ass at least had something worth saying, once.
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Back to that 'ol 97% consensus number.
Richard Tol, one of the UN IPCC Lead Author's has been having a bit of a back and forth with Politifact recently and has something to say about Cook's study claiming 97% consensus. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/03/i......nsensus/ "Correct. Cook’s analysis is a load of old ********. That does not take away the fact that the vast majority of experts argue that humans have affected climate in the recent past." "Cook found 64 papers (out of some 12,000) that support the consensus. It is a long story why Cook thinks that 64 is 97% of 12,000." |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
How could we NOT affect our environment?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
We can't. Did someone say otherwise?
|
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 6, 2015, rockwall wrote: I wonder which Cook paper Tol is referring to. The 2013 paper contains the following table: Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers. Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%) Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4 No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) — Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2 Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4 (Sorry for the lack of formatting.) He claims 3896 papers endorse the position of AGW in their abstracts. I know that Tol is a statistician by trade, but I don't see where he gets his "64 papers" claim.  Tol is an economist specializing on energy policy. In a piece he wrote for FoxNews, Tol stated "The first rule of climate policy should be: do no harm to economic growth." An interesting position.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
You've got to remember that the site rockwall is getting his information and intepretation from is Climate Depot, run by a non-scientist and funded by conservative political groups and big oil interests.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot It should also be noted that Marc Morano, who runs Climate Depot has been named Climate Change Misinformer of the Year by Media Matters. For further info see: http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quick correction. I was unclear (contradictory?) about Tol's training and vocation. He is, indeed an economist, but he is trained in econometrics. So while he is not a professional statistician (as I said), his work is statistical in nature.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21263 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 7, 2015, rockwall wrote: Many have. You have not.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 7, 2015, mastermindreader wrote: You've got to remember that Bob loves the ad hominem attack. It's so much easier than actually arguing against the substance. We're talking about what one of the UN IPCC Lead Author's said, not about Climate Depot or Marc Morano. |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Magnus, Tol is referring to the 2013 paper and it appears he did quite a bit more analysis than simply reading the abstract.
Here is his blogspot, (Bob should appreciate this since it's not a link to a link from ClimateDepot), which covers more about how Tol researched Cook's paper. It's true, I have not read the entire series of blogs, just bits and portions. But wouldn't you agree that we should be able to trust the findings of a statistician and lead IPCC author over that over a former cartoonist? http://richardtol.blogspot.com/ |
|||||||||
|
Pop Haydn Inner circle Los Angeles 3691 Posts
|
As for Cook of the SkS group, he roughly agrees with Hulme that people ought to be working on solutions to the climate problem. But he thinks that attacks by credible scientists on the consensus can act as a roadblock on the path toward action.
In fact, the most challenging week for the SkS group was when Tol challenged its paper on Capitol Hill, Cook said. After that hearing, Republican lawmakers issued a press release saying the Cook paper had been "debunked." "[Tol] has even said there is no doubt in his mind that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, so everyone is a little bit amused by the fact that he agrees with our results and yet he has been attacking our research," he said. |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 7, 2015, Pop Haydn wrote: Some people call that intellectual honesty, Pop. btw, when Tol said that in his mind there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, what exactly was he referring to? |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 7, 2015, rockwall wrote: So how does he turn 3896 papers into 64? I searched his blog using the keyword "Cook" (http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/search?q=cook) and found everything he's written about Cook. Nowhere does he even attempt to demonstrate that Cook only found 64 papers. (Please double check to see if I missed something.) He does insult Cook and accuse him of sloppy methodology and bias. Can I infer from your snotty post (who are you accusing of just reading an abstract?) that you have found the evidence you claim? Please link.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
I'm curious Magnus, how many scientists do you check the work of who have a position that you agree with?
Be that as it may, I did a little more searching and found what I think to be a fairly clear explanation of Tol's position and where he's gets the number 64 from. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-9......rmation/ "In the introduction Cook states that the reason for the paper is “to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW [global warming]". The word “most” leaves no doubt that it refers to man-made forces causing “more than half”." "Cook categorizes endorsement of anthropogenic global warming into seven categories, only the first of which fits the aim stated in the introduction. Category 1: “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming” Category 2: “Explicit endorsement without quantification” — (which, if they studied other forms of publication, would include myself and most skeptics. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it does cause some warming, and human emissions are increasing. Thus the category includes everyone from dedicated skeptic to confirmed believer. “Some” warming could mean 1% or 100%.) Category 3: “Implicit endorsement” — (meaning researchers involved in carbon sequestration, or wombat territories, or early peach ripening, or anything that might be affected by the climate.)" "Cook doesn’t provide results for Category one in the paper, even though that was the aim of the paper. To “simplify the analysis”, he blends together categories 1, 2 and 3 (which include two very different definitions of consensus). In the data there are only 64 papers of Type 1 — papers that state that humans are the primary cause. (Is that why he did not report the result?) Worse, Monckton read the abstracts and found that 23 of those are misallocated." So, to summarize, 64 papers is the actual number of papers that actually met the aim of his study, that is, to find papers that explicitly stated that humans caused over 50% of global warming. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11..19..27..35..41~42~43~44~45..82..118..154..190..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 24, 2015 07:31 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|