Climate Change

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

So all I need to do is pay a bunch of people to start "actively publishing" on ACC, and of course instruct them to say they don't agree, and then the figures will come down to below 50%. Hmm.

Do you really think it would be that simple to "pay a bunch of people to start 'actively publishing' on ACC" and instruct them to agree with each other (which is what you're insinuating)?

Or, more relevantly, do you have any evidence whatsoever that that has happened? (Of course you don't.)

Care to present actual evidence that disproves the ACC theory? Indeed, how about just presenting an alternative theory that would explain the observations better than ACC?

I particularly direct your attention to the Evans 2006 paper, discussed in this thread last December. I have not yet seen any anti-AGWer explain how that result can occur without the AGW/ACC theory being true.

Percentages mean nothing. Incontrovertible evidence, even if presented by just a single researcher, is where the truth is to be found. ACC truth, or otherwise, is not a popularity contest. Is it?

Do you really, truly, genuinely think that the "97–98%" was being used to prove ACC?

I expect your honest answer to be "no".

However, considering your known record of introducing humor at every opportunity, I don't expect that you will actually give us a straightforward, honest, foregoing-the-humor answer. C'mon, surprise me.

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Do you really think it would be that simple to "pay a bunch of people to start 'actively publishing' on ACC" and instruct them to agree with each other (which is what you're insinuating)?

Or, more relevantly, do you have any evidence whatsoever that that has happened? (Of course you don't.)

Care to present actual evidence that disproves the ACC theory? Indeed, how about just presenting an alternative theory that would explain the observations better than ACC?

I particularly direct your attention to the Evans 2006 paper, discussed in this thread last December. I have not yet seen any anti-AGWer explain how that result can occur without the AGW/ACC theory being true.

Do you really, truly, genuinely think that the "97–98%" was being used to prove ACC?

I expect your honest answer to be "no".

However, considering your known record of introducing humor at every opportunity, I don't expect that you will actually give us a straightforward, honest, foregoing-the-humor answer. C'mon, surprise me.

I think you missed my point. I was merely showing that the figures you quoted mean precisely zero unless what they are claiming can be proven. Until proven it is just another religion.

It might be true that more than 50% of the world population believe god exists, but that doesn't make it so. Just the same here. So what if even 100% of active publishers believe in ACC, that doesn't make it so, it merely shows either of two things. 1) it is so (but proof would be much more compelling than belief), or 2) they all just want it to be true so much that, to them, it is, even without real proof, hence very similar to a religion. And we have no way to distinguish between the two without that pesky little detail of proof.

For me, I like to see proof before I put credence into any claims. And just showing that lots of other people believe in something is not presenting proof of anything except the plain fact itself that lots of people believe in something.

Also note, I am not saying ACC is either false or true. So far evidence is either lacking, inconclusive or tainted. There is still nothing compelling that any rational person can look at and confidently conclude something of value.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

I think you missed my point.

No, it is you who are missing my (and the authors') point, perhaps because you have not carefully enough read what they and I wrote.

I was merely showing that the figures you quoted mean precisely zero unless what they are claiming can be proven. Until proven it is just another religion.

So, you're saying that the idea that

the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

is a religion? That statement (not your part about religion, though) is the claim that the 97-98% figures were set out to support. They were NOT set out as support for the claim of ACC/AGW itself.

Do you still not see that?

Read the following claim carefully (it's an exact copy -- unless I've made some copy-n-paste blunder -- from the abstract, not some kind of trickily altered quote):

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Do you see that it does NOT claim that the ACC theory is valid?

Do you see that, instead, it is a claim that 97-98% of the researchers who are the most actively publishing researchers in their particular specialty field support the tenets of a certain theory? Do you see that the validity of that claim is independent of whether ACC is correct?

Now, carefully read the following, which is an altered version of what appears in the abstract:

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field drink Kool-Aid

Do you see that the validity of that claim has nothing to do with whether Kool-Aid is colored white, black, purple, or green?

- - -

The authors of the study I cited were not responding to

"... the American public expresses substantial doubt about ... the anthropogenic cause"

They were, instead, responding to

"... the American public expresses substantial doubt about ... the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC".

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So, you're saying that the idea that the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers is a religion?

That is the claim that the figures were set out to support. They were NOT set out as support for the claim of ACC/AGW itself.

Do you not see that?

Read the following claim carefully (it's an exact copy from the abstract, not some kind of trickily altered quote):

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

Do you see that it is NOT a claim that ACC is valid?

Do you see that, instead, it is a claim that 97-98% of the researchers who are the most actively publishing researchers in their particular specialty field support the tenets of a certain theory? Do you see that the validity of that claim is independent of whether ACC is correct?

Now, carefully read the following, which is an altered version of what appears in the abstract:

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field drink Kool-Aid"

Do you see that the validity of that claim has nothing to do with whether Kool-Aid is colored white, black, purple, or green?

I don't want to nit-pick your post into tiny details so let my try to explain the bigger problem here.

The published fact (let's assume for the moment that the figure of 97-98% is perfectly true and accurate) about the percentages is designed to mislead people into thinking that it is almost certain that ACC is proven. There is no other reason to publish figures like that unless the reader is also expected to make this background assumption. Otherwise, like I am trying to say, the figures mean nothing at all, they are just figures with no connection to either support ACC or deny it (I think you already agree with this point, right?). But the huge hidden assumption most casual readers will make is that the 97-98% figure is basically proving ACC to be true. And my point was to try and help casual readers realise that figures like the above do not say anything towards what the real truth is, whatever that truth may turn out to be.

Even smart people with PHDs and long years of experience can mislead themselves into believe things that are not so. Especially with such ambiguous information and wanting to keep the government grants flowing in. Even the social aspect can make people discard potentially conflicting information. Thoughts like this arise: "if my buddies believe it then I am reluctant to rock the boat for fear of losing my status in the social pecking order". Anyhow, I'm not saying this is happening, just that it might be happening and currently we don't now what is really happening.

edit to add: It is not important to say how many people believe in something. What is important is to say what the proven facts are.

[cheesehead]

retina,

Your quotation from my post does not match the final edited version.

Please go back now and re-read my post as it is now.

- - -

Originally Posted by retina

The published fact (let's assume for the moment that the figure of 97-98% is perfectly true and accurate) about the percentages is designed to mislead people into thinking that it is almost certain that ACC is proven.

No, it is not. This is not some press release intended for a general audience. It is a report on a scientific study that is intended to be read by a scientifically-knowledgeable audience.

You have not yet demonstrated that you actually understand the authors' point. If you actually do, please post something that demonstrates your understanding of that.

There is no other reason to publish figures like that unless the reader is also expected to make this background assumption.

Wrong. I have tried to carefully explain the reason, but you have not yet acknowledged that.

You seem to be stuck on an assumption that the study report is propaganda, rather than a scientific report. Can you set aside that assumption long enough to ascertain the non-propagandistic purpose of the study?

But the huge hidden assumption most casual readers will make is that the 97-98% figure is basically proving ACC to be true.

The study report was not aimed at a general audience (as propaganda would be); it was aimed at a scientifically-knowledgeable audience.

And my point was to try and help casual readers realise that figures like the above do not say anything towards what the real truth is, whatever that truth may turn out to be.

No, your point is to mislead casual readers by inserting your assumption of propagandistic purpose.

Even smart people with PHDs and long years of experience can mislead themselves into believe things that are not so.

You're providing an example of that (at least the "smart people" part; I don't know about the rest in your case) right now.

It is not important to say how many people believe in something.

It does if your purpose to counter a false idea that such belief is less common than it actually is.

The false idea in such a case (like this one) is precisely about "how many people believe in something". The authors explicitly state that!!

- - - -

Do you see that the validity of the claim

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field drink Kool-Aid

would have nothing to do with whether Kool-Aid is colored white, black, purple, or green? Yes or No?

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

retina,

Your quotation from my post does not match the final edited version.

Please go back now and re-read my post as it is now.

Okay.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"... the American public expresses substantial doubt about ... the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC".

But the amount of agreement is meaningless. That sort of argument (by the writers that wrote that) is merely trying to turn a scientific debate into a popularity contest. That is a "Oh, everyone agrees so it must be true" sort of argument.

Only the facts matter, but we don't have all of them yet.

edit to add:

Originally Posted by Kay, from Men in Black

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by retina

Okay.But the amount of agreement is meaningless.

I think the point of the study was to verify the assertion by opponents of human caused global warming that support of that theory is not as widespread as proclaimed. In other words the argument used by global warming^* deniers that the support for that theory in scientific circles is not as widespread as proclaimed is factually false.

Your argument that the widespread endorsement of an unproven theory is not a proof, is of course valid.

Jacob

* One can't use the initials GW for Global Worming on THIS forum.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Okay.But the amount of agreement is meaningless.

It's meaningful if some folks are asserting that the amount of agreement is lower than it actually is, and are (mis)using that false assertion to argue against something -- as is the case in reality.

ACC/AGW proponents may well use the invalid logic you deplore (popularity => validity) in some contexts (anti-ACC/AGWers certainly do!), but they're not doing that in this study!!

In this case, all the study authors are trying to do is to demonstrate the falsity of a particular statement about amount of agreement. In that specific context, without your invalid straw-man expansion to encompass the validity of ACC/AGW itself, it is precisely the amount of agreement that is meaningful.

- - - -

Do you see that the validity of the claim

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field drink Kool-Aid

would be entirely independent of whether Kool-Aid is colored white, black, purple, or green? Yes or No?

If you won't answer that simple question, why not? Is it because you're afraid that if you gave an honest Yes or No answer, it would reveal the validity of my argument (or the invalidity of yours)?

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

Me and a couple other guys had a carbon belching contest

That sounds familiar. I participated in this contest two years ago:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9957787-54.html

Anyway, the most I emitted a day was 345 pounds of co2.

Looks like you beat my June 12th 2008 total. I don't remember exactly what I got, but it was somewhere between 250 and 300 pounds. If I have some spare time and cash, I might take another shot at my old record.

The winner managed to push his total a bit over 600 pounds

The ultimate goal would be getting a person or a household to emit more than a ton of co2 within 24 hours. Any other forum members want to give this challenge a try?

So what's the point in telling all this? It's to show that most of the things and activities that emit co2 increased our quality of life and shouldn't be demonized.

That's right!

[retina]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Do you see that the validity of the claim

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field drink Kool-Aid

would be entirely independent of whether Kool-Aid is colored white, black, purple, or green? Yes or No?

If you won't answer that simple question, why not? Is it because you're afraid that if you gave an honest Yes or No answer, it would reveal the validity of my argument (or the invalidity of yours)?

I see the claim, but it seems you entirely missed my point. I was not trying to invalidate, or validate, your (cheesehead's) argument. That was not my intention. So whether your argument is correct or not was not what I was addressing.

It was not fear, or any other such similar emotion, that stopped me from answering your Q, it was simply that it was not even an argument that I was addressing.

Perhaps I should mention it again, hehe, just in case someone missed it. The percentages don't matter, they are a red-herring, ignore them folks, they mean nothing, they prove nothing. The proof is in the data - somewhere - not in the percentage of people that believe a particular side. Phew, there, repetition, repetition, hehe, I hope that all readers now understand, and can recognise actual data from unimportant meta-data.

It matters not that 98% of GW publishers believe it so. It matters not that 93% (I made this figure up, but it feels right ) of people believe that god is real. It matters not that 15% of people (children are people too) believe that the tooth fairy is real. It matter not that 100% of people using Prime95 believe that is a good thing. Humans are, by nature, a social animal, we like to follow the crowd, both consciously and unconsciously. Marketing people just love to point out that x% of people use product Y as if that somehow means Y is a good product. Hehe, not so long ago a very large percentage of adults smoked, so I guess that means it is (or was) a good thing? And 90+% of people use windows ... hmm.

So the deniers (I hate that term) say that there is widespread disbelief? Well, so what? It doesn't matter. Let them say it. It is just another (implied) figure that means nothing. Ignore it. Get the real data. Data that has meaning and can help towards providing proof, or otherwise. Don't waste time rebutting arguments that have no meaning.

edit to add: Yeah, I made up most of the figures up there, but it doesn't matter. Even if I researched and got some actual data points it still won't help prove that any of those things are "the best", "true", "good" or anything. So I shan't bother to waste time and find the real figures, but I hope you get the idea and understand that the real percentages would be just as meaningless anyway.

Well, that is, unless you were doing some sort of social study, or behavioural study. Of course then things would be different. But we are not doing that here. Here we are concerned with real world effects, not perceived beliefs of human animals.

[cheesehead]

(Earlier, I sometimes mistakenly used "believe" or "belief" where I should have used "support". I've made that correction in this post.)

Originally Posted by retina

I see the claim, but it seems you entirely missed my point.

No, what's going on is that you are apparently incapable of discussing, or unwilling to discuss, the following as logically independent, separate statements which may each be true or false without any dependence on the truth or falsity of the other two statements:

1. 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2. The tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are true and correct.

3. It is possible to misuse the statement "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" in a logically invalid or propagandistic manner, to try to convince people that the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are true and correct.

What I am claiming the study shows is simply and only #1.

You are either incapable of, or unwilling to, admit the truth of #1 without insisting on combining it with #2 and/or #3.

I have missed nothing. I have not denied #3, but I want you to admit that the truth or falsity of #3 does not depend on the truth or falsity of #1.

We disagree on #2, apparently. All I want you to do is admit that #1 can be true even if #2 is false.

Your unwillingness to admit simple truth #1 by itself, as evidenced by your frantic verbal dancing to avoid doing so, may be due to a fear that somehow admitting the truth of #1 would either: (a) appear to imply that #2 is true, or (b) somehow ease the way for an instance of #3 to occur.

All I'm asking you to do now is to admit #1 and to admit that #2 and #3 are independent of #1, regardless of whether #2 or #3 is true on its own.

- - -

I was not trying to invalidate, or validate, your (cheesehead's) argument.

You are ducking it.

That was not my intention.

So, stop ducking my argument. Stop presenting a strawman exaggeration of what I'm claiming.

So whether your argument is correct or not was not what I was addressing.

Correct -- you are ducking and dodging as fast as you can.

It was not fear, or any other such similar emotion, that stopped me from answering your Q, it was simply that it was not even an argument that I was addressing.

What you are doing is addressing it indirectly by tying it to something else, and refusing to acknowledge the logical independence of the two.

Perhaps I should mention it again, hehe, just in case someone missed it. The percentages don't matter, they are a red-herring, ignore them folks, they mean nothing, they prove nothing. The proof is in the data - somewhere

Folks,

See how retina ducks and bobs and weaves? He won't admit that in this study, the percentages ARE the data! He persists in using a strawman assertion that the study tries to use the percentages for propaganda.

Instead, the truth is that this study is showing that a certain piece of denialist propaganda is false.

- not in the percentage of people that believe a particular side.

But here, the percentage of people that believesupport a particular side _IS_ the subject of the study!! The percentage of people that believesupport a particular side _IS_ the data!!

I hope that all readers now understand, and can recognise actual data from unimportant meta-data.

... and can recognize retina's ducking and bobbing and weaving and strawmanning in order to try to distort what the study means.

That, folks, is intellectual dishonesty.

It matters not that 98% of GW publishers believe it so.

Notice retina's use of "it". Apparently he is referring to the ACC/AGW theory. (Also, note retina's use of "believe" instead of "support".)

But the study is not about whether the ACC/AGW theory is correct!

Why does retina keep changing the subject from what the study _actually_ says (percentages of beliefsupport), to a strawman subject (truth of ACC/AGW) unrelated to the actual study?

If retina genuinely believed that the percentage is unimportant, why is he making all these postings? Why doesn't he just ignore this study?

Why is he trying so hard to convince you that this study is invalid, principally by distorting what it says?

It matters not that 93% (I made this figure up, but it feels right ) of people believe that god is real.

It does if the question is whether 93% or 16% of people believe that god is real.

It matters not that 15% of people (children are people too) believe that the tooth fairy is real.

It does if the question is what percentage of people believe that the tooth fairy is real.

Get the real data.

That's exactly what this study did!

It got the real data about how widespread is support for ACC among climate researchers.

Data that has meaning and can help towards providing proof, or otherwise. Don't waste time rebutting arguments that have no meaning.

Folks,

Ask yourself: why is retina spending so much effort on distorting the findings of the study, _if_ he truly, genuinely, honestly believes that the subject of the study (how widespread is beliefsupport of ACC/AGW among climate researchers) has no meaning?

Look back at post #725, where I first mentioned this study.

Did I make any sweeping claims about the meaning of the study? No.

Did I try to use it for propaganda purposes? No.

Did I claim that the results meant that ACC/AGW was correct? No.

I just presented it, then repeated, by simple exact quote with no embellishment, two findings of the study.