1
0

97% of Scientists Believe in the Scientific Method.


 invite response                
2019 Aug 7, 8:01am   1,709 views  25 comments

by Onvacation   ➕follow (3)   💰tip   ignore  

Controversia sul riscaldamento globale - Wikipedia

The global warming controversy is a dispute over the causes , nature and consequences of current global warming . These disputes are actually much more vigorous in the media than in the scientific community . [1] Most of these theses, expressed in related scientific publications , have in fact been refuted by the well-known mechanism of peer review , which has always accompanied progress and consensus building in the scientific sphere until proven otherwise [ 2].

In particular, the dispute concerns the causes of the increase in the average air temperature on a global level, especially starting from the mid- twentieth century , if this increase is unprecedented or is part of normal natural climatic variations such as the Climatic Optimum medieval and the Little Ice Age , if humanity has contributed to this increase and if this increase is partially or completely attributable to incorrect measurements. Further areas of discussion concern the estimation of climate sensitivity , predictions about future warming of the planet and the consequences of such warming.

The framework of this debate makes a clear perception of the facts to the general public difficult. In particular the anthropic influence seems to be perceived in a distorted way; for example, a survey was conducted on a heterogeneous and vast audience, showing that with increasing technical competence positive responses to the question are more frequent if "... human activity is a significant factor in changing global temperatures on the planet »

Comments 1 - 25 of 25        Search these comments

1   Onvacation   2019 Aug 7, 8:12am  

There are skeptical researchers on the anthropic role in the current warming: they represent a minority in the scientific community, although in recent years their number has experienced a significant increase [10] . Among these "skeptics" are, among others, the Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis , as well as former members of various IPCC committees such as meteorologists Hajo Smit, Philip Lloyd and Roy Spencer , as well as atmospheric physicists like Fred Singer and climatologists John Christy and William D. Braswell. In particular, a theory antagonistic to global warming is the Gaia hypothesis by James Lovelock .

The criticalities expressed by these researchers are different, they arise from the decrease in the global average temperature that occurred approximately between 1940 and 1976 [11] (which mainstream climatologists tend to explain with the effects of global obscuration ) despite continuing to increase the concentration of CO 2 with the same constancyin the atmosphere in the same time interval, they note the lowering / stasis of the global temperature observed in the last decade with respect to the 1998 peak and the presumed politicization and extremization of the conclusive documents of the IPCC and express perplexity on the possibility of establishing a relationship of cause-effect between CO 2 increase and global warming. Some of them also underline the role of other natural climate factors among which the main one would be the variation of solar activity , but also the effect of cosmic rays , which would have a role on the formation of clouds in the lower troposphere and therefore on climate change while other scientific studies on suchcorrelation instead gave negative results (the CLOUD experiment underway at CERN in Geneva will try to unravel with certainty the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation). The validity of the current climate models used, which would not be able to effectively reconstruct the past climate nor be able to predict the stagnation of the last decade's overheating [12] , is also questioned, as well as for the estimation of climate sensitivity .
2   NuttBoxer   2019 Aug 7, 9:07am  

99% of scientists believe in getting paid to push an agenda.
3   Onvacation   2019 Aug 7, 10:26am  

NuttBoxer says
99% of scientists believe in getting paid to push an agenda.

I disagree. It's a very small percentage of corrupt and politically connected scie tists who are pushing the catastrophic AGW agenda. Michael Mann comes to mind.
4   NuttBoxer   2019 Aug 7, 10:28am  

Onvacation says
It's a very small percentage of corrupt and politically connected scie tists who are pushing the catastrophic AGW


Right, probably around 1%...
6   HeadSet   2019 Aug 7, 12:11pm  

marcus says


So, start talking about these solutions. Everything on that list works best with a sustainable level of 1st World population.
7   CBOEtrader   2019 Aug 7, 12:15pm  

HeadSet says
marcus says


So, start talking about these solutions. Everything on that list works best with a sustainable level of 1st World population.


Correct. It also works best w low taxation and private innovation, not tyranny.
8   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Aug 7, 1:06pm  

CBOEtrader says
Correct. It also works best w low taxation and private innovation, not tyranny.


Ah, the cognitive dissonance shows up: "No! Global Warming can't be happening. Otherwise that would mean humans have created a global problem requiring a global solution pushed from the top, instead of random actions of private individuals. The US gov is bad enough, the UN is tyranny. "

"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right. Can't let that happen. Damn it!"
9   theoakman   2019 Aug 7, 1:46pm  

I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry. 99% of scientists have no business or background to even frame an opinion on global warming.
10   HeadSet   2019 Aug 7, 3:08pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
CBOEtrader says
Correct. It also works best w low taxation and private innovation, not tyranny.


Ah, the cognitive dissonance shows up: "No! Global Warming can't be happening. Otherwise that would mean humans have created a global problem requiring a global solution pushed from the top, instead of random actions of private individuals. The US gov is bad enough, the UN is tyranny. "

"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right. Can't let that happen. Damn it!"


That is not even close to what CBOEtrader said. He was speaking of way to address the issue, not deny it. Notice how you quickly you turned it back into arguing with deniers, ironically saying that deniers do not want to deal with solutions. Two ways of dealing with the issue "from the top" are to stop 3rd world immigration and tariff the high polluting nations. Trump is the only one doing those.
11   marcus   2019 Aug 7, 3:28pm  

theoakman says
99% of scientists have no business or background to even frame an opinion on global warming


Common sense should take one far enough.

1) Accept the greenhouse effect as being a legitimate possible or even probable effect of increasing greehouse gases, with CO2's impact being significant (based in large part on what experts who have done the science say)

2) Not knowing for sure how much of the upward trend is an effect of increasing greehouse gases but knowing that the link to solar activity shows far less correlation correlation.

3) concluding that the probability is high enough (but not close to certain) that increasing co2 is a significant causal factor of GW, to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.
12   theoakman   2019 Aug 7, 8:07pm  

marcus says
theoakman says
99% of scientists have no business or background to even frame an opinion on global warming


Common sense should take one far enough.

1) Accept the greenhouse effect as being a legitimate possible or even probable effect of increasing greehouse gases, with CO2's impact being significant (based in large part on what experts who have done the science say)

2) Not knowing for sure how much of the upward trend is an effect of increasing greehouse gases but knowing that the link to solar activity shows far less correlation correlation.

3) concluding that the probability is high enough (but not close to certain) that increasing co2 is a significant causal factor of GW, to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.


You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?
13   marcus   2019 Aug 8, 2:08am  

theoakman says
You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?


Yes, math, but not accounting or data collection. The only Math involved is simple arithmetic, although I guess statistics/probability is involved in understanding how averages relate to "noise."

MY assumption is that being the 21st century, the sheer volume of data points is such that the averages should be meaningful. I got in a prolonged argument with someone a while back about whether averages can be more accurate and to a higher precision than individual data values. He made a confused argument about something he copied off the internet about experimental procedures and sig figs. I couldn't prove in an argument here, and it's not easy to prove whats extremely obvious to me. That is that temperature data readings should distribute around actual values in a way that would make the relative averages (of thousands of temp readings) way more accurate and to a higher precision than individual readings. I say relative averages, becasue data averages could be off target of actual temperatures due to some bias tendencies ( e.g. due more people rounding up than down), but that would repeat from year to year, making the changes in temperate averages still fairly accurate.

I could be wrong though, not about precision of average large number of readings versus individual data precision, but about noise that I haven't considered that is different from year to year, or corruption of data. It seems unlikely to me. Is NASA actually going through the trouble of making fake time lapse videos of the arctic ?

If I'm wrong above, it has little to do with the reasoning I laid out above, if you took the time to consider it.
14   CBOEtrader   2019 Aug 8, 5:26am  

marcus says
to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.


Was with Marcus all the way to this part. So far, the coordinated efforts haven't been reasonable, haven't worked, and seem to function as power grabs for the establishment billionaires and their cronies.

Private innovation is the way.
15   CBOEtrader   2019 Aug 8, 5:29am  

marcus says
although I guess statistics/probability is involved in understanding how averages relate to "noise."


His question isn't about averages. Go read the myriad of problems with worldwide data collection of temperature over time. When you see the scope of the problem, a .3 degree rise or whatever they say we've experienced could easily be structural error, i.e. noise.
16   CBOEtrader   2019 Aug 8, 5:35am  

marcus says
That is that temperature data readings should distribute around actual values in a way that would make the relative averages (of thousands of temp readings) way more accurate and to a higher precision than individual readings.


Have you read about the actual problem?

What do we do about sparse data collection at the poles, you know, the areas that are most in question?

What about the changes in processes of collecting data over 100 years? These aren't random changes, we are talking about widespread adoption of new techniques, new technology, and new ways to evaluate the results. How do we even relate data from 1920 to today?

None of this has anything to do w averages.
17   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 8:20am  

OccasionalCortex says
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT 'climate change' GRANT FUNDING PUT AT RISK.

I would say less than 99% of scientists are corrupt. I would think that at least 20% are moral and believe in the scientific method. Probably a larger percentage.

The problem is the small, vocal, corrupt and politically connected scamsters and their media mouth pieces that continue to spread the compost.
Lies the media propogate include the famous "97% of scientists believe. .."

Can any of you believers list a couple of scientists that believe we only have 12 years left?
18   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 8:24am  

Heraclitusstudent says

"And also that would mean these atheists liberal satanist scientists are right.

Other than Guy McPherson and Michael Mann can you name ONE "liberal satanist scientist"?
19   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 9:12am  

marcus says
Common sense should take one far enough.

Common sense should tell you if scientists make predictuons with a theory and the predictions fail maybe the theory is wrong.

Co2 caused global warming is a theory that has been disproven by facts.
20   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 9:14am  

marcus says
Not knowing for sure how much of the upward trend is an effect of increasing greehouse gases but knowing that the link to solar activity shows far less correlation correlation.

Are you are trying to say that co2 has more effect on global warming than the sun?
21   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 9:16am  

marcus says
concluding that the probability is high enough (but not close to certain) that increasing co2 is a significant causal factor of GW, to make coordinated world wide efforts to move away from fossil fuels in an expedited but reasonable time frame.

Why has co2 continued to rise and the temperatures have not?
22   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 9:38am  

theoakman says

You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?

How can climate scientists measure 2/100s of one degree worldwide average global temperature change between 2015 and 2016? The temperature has risen less than 1/2 degree in the last two decades and has been falling for the last couple of years. A far cry from the multiple degree rise the climate "scientists" have been predicting.
23   Onvacation   2019 Aug 8, 9:40am  

marcus says

I could be wrong though

Me too.
24   theoakman   2019 Aug 9, 8:04am  

marcus says
theoakman says
You teach math right? What's your opinion on signal to noise with respect to the temperature data on climate change?


Yes, math, but not accounting or data collection. The only Math involved is simple arithmetic, although I guess statistics/probability is involved in understanding how averages relate to "noise."

MY assumption is that being the 21st century, the sheer volume of data points is such that the averages should be meaningful. I got in a prolonged argument with someone a while back about whether averages can be more accurate and to a higher precision than individual data values. He made a confused argument about something he copied off the internet about experimental procedures and sig figs. I couldn't prove in an argument here, and it's not easy to prove whats extremely obvious to me. That is that temperature data readings should distribute around actual values in...


I'm not questioning the validity of the raw data we have in recent decades. The data is noisy because the temperature fluctuates up and down. Given those fluctations, you cannot statistically make the arguments that many scientists are making because it doesn't hold up to well established standards in statistical analysis. In fact, there is a movement now to get those standards lowered so they can make more assumptions not just in climate change, but in many other fields. The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
25   Onvacation   2019 Aug 9, 9:27am  

theoakman says
The idea of an "accelerating" temperature rise is not statistically valid as of now given the current data

Decelerating.

What, short of ice sheets extending down into Minnesota, would convince the alarmists that co2 does not cause rising temperature? At this point the correlation is negative.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions