Having trouble finding the science behind climate change

[Citizen T]

When you have 19 data points that say "x", and 1 data point that says "x-3", you tend to look at why that one data point is so different from the rest.

I've also read enough of the "big oil" studies that I feel pretty justified in deriding them, since they're almost always riddled with basic physics errors.

Since they are riddled with basic physics errors, I'm sure you can provide 3 or 4 example studies - pointing out those basic physics errors?

[petej0]

One of my pet peeves with this is the reports of monetary damage. When they say things like "2013 broke records in the amount of damage." as evidence of a more powerful storm. With inflation isnt going to be expected. For example, if you built a library in 2000 for $20m it got destroyed in 2005 by a tornado its damages are reported in replacement cost. So it gets replaced in 2005 for $30m and gets destroyed again in 2010 its damages are reported in replacement cost, which this time is $40m. Or am I missing something?

It is the same with movies. These reports of movies making so much money, but if ticket prices keep rising, wouldnt it be expected that the same number of tickets would give a greater return?

[Garnier Fructis]

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...mate-Change-97

I will see you in a week

The legates/monckton paper is a masterpiece in bad statistics, and I'll lay it out once again even though I've already pointed it out in other threads.

The paper makes a glaringly obvious error, and Monckton's discussion of the paper makes a big error as well. Here they are, Monckton's discussion first:
1) When comparing the abstracts which did express an opinion, he tosses the "implicit endorsement" pile but keeps the "implicit rejection" pile and then draws conclusions from it. There's really no unbiased justification to be had here; why is the endorsement data somehow less reliable then the rejection data? When you can willy nilly toss data to draw a conclusion, the conclusion is meaningless.

2) The big one: The paper counts the total number of abstracts which express an opinion, and then says that only 41 endorse the IPCC stance, leading to a figure of .3%. The big error is that the authors assume without justification that all the papers which do not express an opinion are in contradiction to the IPCC stance.

When you do not know the actual stances of the whole population, but you have a not-insignificant sample from which you do have the stances, statistics tells you that the whole population will not differ substantially from the sample. Yet Legates et. al. have, in lieu of actually using statistics, just categorized them in the most impartial way possible and then tried to pass it off as statistics.

[Citizen T]

The legates/monckton paper is a masterpiece in bad statistics, and I'll lay it out once again even though I've already pointed it out in other threads.

The paper makes a glaringly obvious error, and Monckton's discussion of the paper makes a big error as well. Here they are, Monckton's discussion first:
1) When comparing the abstracts which did express an opinion, he tosses the "implicit endorsement" pile but keeps the "implicit rejection" pile and then draws conclusions from it. There's really no unbiased justification to be had here; why is the endorsement data somehow less reliable then the rejection data? When you can willy nilly toss data to draw a conclusion, the conclusion is meaningless.

2) The big one: The paper counts the total number of abstracts which express an opinion, and then says that only 41 endorse the IPCC stance, leading to a figure of .3%. The big error is that the authors assume without justification that all the papers which do not express an opinion are in contradiction to the IPCC stance.

When you do not know the actual stances of the whole population, but you have a not-insignificant sample from which you do have the stances, statistics tells you that the whole population will not differ substantially from the sample. Yet Legates et. al. have, in lieu of actually using statistics, just categorized them in the most impartial way possible and then tried to pass it off as statistics.

You cannot assume that those without opinions fall within the same statistical models as those with opinions. The claim is that 97% of studies support AGW. Those without opinions did not support it nor did they reject it. They are a complete 3rd category. Some are probably rejectors but because of the open ridicule of rejectors just didn't give an opinion. Some - most likely the majority - just did not come a conclusion one way or the other which is still refutation of the 97% statistic.

[Garnier Fructis]

You cannot assume that those without opinions fall within the same statistical models as those with opinions. The claim is that 97% of studies support AGW. Those without opinions did not support it nor did they reject it. They are a complete 3rd category. Some are probably rejectors but because of the open ridicule of rejectors just didn't give an opinion. Some - most likely the majority - just did not come a conclusion one way or the other which is still refutation of the 97% statistic.

None of what you said changes the fact that the conclusion of .3% is unjustified. Furthermore, your reasoning for why they didn't give an opinion is wrong. It's not that they haven't come to that conclusion or that they're afraid of ridicule. It's because the research not expressing an opinion is research where an opinion is not necessary; things like establishing errors for ice core samples from site x or y or whatever, or measuring snowfall levels in a certain geographic region.

This is basically just a fancier version of the argument that your sample size isn't large enough until you have a census, at which point the whole point of statistics has been thoroughly killed off.

[Vyxn]

The legates/monckton paper is a masterpiece in bad statistics, and I'll lay it out once again even though I've already pointed it out in other threads.

The paper makes a glaringly obvious error, and Monckton's discussion of the paper makes a big error as well. Here they are, Monckton's discussion first:
1) When comparing the abstracts which did express an opinion, he tosses the "implicit endorsement" pile but keeps the "implicit rejection" pile and then draws conclusions from it. There's really no unbiased justification to be had here; why is the endorsement data somehow less reliable then the rejection data? When you can willy nilly toss data to draw a conclusion, the conclusion is meaningless.

2) The big one: The paper counts the total number of abstracts which express an opinion, and then says that only 41 endorse the IPCC stance, leading to a figure of .3%. The big error is that the authors assume without justification that all the papers which do not express an opinion are in contradiction to the IPCC stance.

When you do not know the actual stances of the whole population, but you have a not-insignificant sample from which you do have the stances, statistics tells you that the whole population will not differ substantially from the sample. Yet Legates et. al. have, in lieu of actually using statistics, just categorized them in the most impartial way possible and then tried to pass it off as statistics.

see the argument you just made also is applied to the false method used on the 97% consensus if it is wrong to make an assumption which do not express an opinion be against to the IPCC stance then it is true to say that they cant be used as an endorsement to the IPCC stance that was done to come to the 97% consensus

but why don't we hear from many of the scientist that there opinion studies and papers that was falsely used to come up with that 97% consensus




[Infracted]

[Citizen T]

I didn't make any mention at all of the 0.3% statistic. I'm refuting that the 97% and it is used far far more than the 0.3% is used.

[Endus]

Since they are riddled with basic physics errors, I'm sure you can provide 3 or 4 example studies - pointing out those basic physics errors?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...arguments.html

The reason you don't see big, impressive academic papers debunking this stuff is the same reason you don't see big, impressive academic papers debunking the theory of alchemy, or young-earth creationism, or leprechauns. Because these things are so completely without any justifiable basis that they aren't worth giving that much consideration to, to begin with.

[Citizen T]

see the argument you just made also is applied to the false method used on the 97% consensus if it is wrong to make an assumption which do not express an opinion be against to the IPCC stance then it is true to say that they cant be used as an endorsement to the IPCC stance that was done to come to the 97% consensus

but why don't we hear from many of the scientist that there opinion studies and papers that was falsely used to come up with that 97% consensus

well said... this is exactly what I was attempting to say

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...arguments.html

The reason you don't see big, impressive academic papers debunking this stuff is the same reason you don't see big, impressive academic papers debunking the theory of alchemy, or young-earth creationism, or leprechauns. Because these things are so completely without any justifiable basis that they aren't worth giving that much consideration to, to begin with.

The poster I quoted was the one that said that those big oil company studied were riddled with "basic physics errors". I'm just asking for him to support such a broad and obviously made up argument.

[Garnier Fructis]

see the argument you just made also is applied to the false method used on the 97% consensus if it is wrong to make an assumption which do not express an opinion be against to the IPCC stance then it is true to say that they cant be used as an endorsement to the IPCC stance that was done to come to the 97% consensus

but why don't we hear from many of the scientist that there opinion studies and papers that was falsely used to come up with that 97% consensus

Again, you're missing the whole point. If you have a group of 10,000 and you have a sample of 1,000, the conclusion you draw from the sample should not deviate substantially from the entire group.

So if the data says 97% of the 1,000 think "x" and 3% think "y", then the correct statistical conclusion is that about 97% of the whole group thinks "x".

The argument I made doesn't apply the way you think it does because you have not understood the 2 paragraphs I wrote.

[Endus]

The poster I quoted was the one that said that those big oil company studied were riddled with "basic physics errors". I'm just asking for him to support such a broad and obviously made up argument.

And I did. Those links explain each and every one of those errors in detail. You'll have to follow the links to get to each specific refutation, but it's all in there.

[wowaccounttom]

the science is simple.

human race + industrialism = dead planet

[Citizen T]

And I did. Those links explain each and every one of those errors in detail. You'll have to follow the links to get to each specific refutation, but it's all in there.

Slate? Shall I refute with articles from Fox News?

the other two - Grist.org and skepticalsience.com are both websites that exists only to push the AGW agenda. I can list links to dozens of sites that refute the arguments carried on those two sites. There is no point in using these types of sites to present an argument. Their existence relies on the belief that AGW exists otherwise they will fall into obscurity.

This is the whole point of my argument on this thread. If the so called 97% (which really isn't 97% but that is being argued otherwise) were to suddenly say AGW didn't exist, they would be out of a job. Their entire careers and livelihoods are now relying on being right and can't afford to change their minds even when predictions of doom fail to appear. They just keep making new predictions of doom and hope no one catches on.

[Garnier Fructis]

Thanks for making me work really hard since I'm not in the habit of saving bullshit to my favorites folder.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...nd_minimum.pdf

The rather funky assertion made at the start of page 4 essentially amounts to the claim that reduced solar irradiation in the future will decrease the concentration of greenhouses gases while at the same time increasing the amount of light reflected into space, and that this will lead to a feedback loop that pushes us into an ice age.

The basic physics error here is that there is no physics here.

For a more hilarious example, a gem I found in a book stated that because the ocean has a higher heat capacity in the air, the ocean cannot warm and instead dictates how the air warms. Which is fail thermodynamics.

[Endus]

Slate? Shall I refute with articles from Fox News?

Or you could consider the content, independent of the source.

the other two - Grist.org and skepticalsience.com are both websites that exists only to push the AGW agenda. I can list links to dozens of sites that refute the arguments carried on those two sites. There is no point in using these types of sites to present an argument. Their existence relies on the belief that AGW exists otherwise they will fall into obscurity.

Then what you're saying is you don't actually care about the science. Considering that's what those sites discuss.

There is no "AGW agenda". It's invented nonsense that only exists in the minds of climate change deniers. There's no "gravitational theory agenda", or "evolution agenda". They're just science, like the current state of anthropogenic climate change theory.

This is the whole point of my argument on this thread. If the so called 97% (which really isn't 97% but that is being argued otherwise) were to suddenly say AGW didn't exist, they would be out of a job. Their entire careers and livelihoods are now relying on being right and can't afford to change their minds even when predictions of doom fail to appear. They just keep making new predictions of doom and hope no one catches on.

Completely and utterly false.

Most of these people are academics who are paid to contribute to their fields. They don't get bonus money depending on the conclusions they draw. If the evidence supported a change in the theory, they'd write papers about it, and the theory would change, and we'd move on. That's how science works.

In fact, people write papers all the time, and show that they've identified a previously-unrecognized factor. That suggestion is then examined by other scientists, and it's either found to be wanting (they can't replicate the results, or there's a flaw in the method), or it's found to be well-conducted and sound and is incorporated into the current models, to improve them.

You're spouting complete nonsense.

[Citizen T]

Or you could consider the content, independent of the source.



Then what you're saying is you don't actually care about the science. Considering that's what those sites discuss.

There is no "AGW agenda". It's invented nonsense that only exists in the minds of climate change deniers. There's no "gravitational theory agenda", or "evolution agenda". They're just science, like the current state of anthropogenic climate change theory.



Completely and utterly false.

Most of these people are academics who are paid to contribute to their fields. They don't get bonus money depending on the conclusions they draw. If the evidence supported a change in the theory, they'd write papers about it, and the theory would change, and we'd move on. That's how science works.

In fact, people write papers all the time, and show that they've identified a previously-unrecognized factor. That suggestion is then examined by other scientists, and it's either found to be wanting (they can't replicate the results, or there's a flaw in the method), or it's found to be well-conducted and sound and is incorporated into the current models, to improve them.

You're spouting complete nonsense.

In all of these statements, you are defending the source of your information and criticize the sources of contrary information even if from peer reviewed science. Here is a good page for you: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8. Just as good of a source as what you posted. It lists several peer reviewed articles that are contrary to AGW. I'm sure you'll be convinced by the content of the studies rather than the source. /sarcasm

[Northy]

but it's cold out today. da republicans was right, global warming is liberal hooey.

[Garnier Fructis]

In all of these statements, you are defending the source of your information and criticize the sources of contrary information even if from peer reviewed science. Here is a good page for you: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8. Just as good of a source as what you posted. It lists several peer reviewed articles that are contrary to AGW. I'm sure you'll be convinced by the content of the studies rather than the source. /sarcasm

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

Sweet, you found a basic physics error for me. The error: proof by (misinterpretation of) second law of thermodynamics.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0312244v1

This one is just bizarre, unless the claim is that wheat prices somehow determine global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/29...1431.2.summary

Kerr's paper isn't even a contradiction to the theory. It's speaking to a different question, and shouldn't even be included on the list as evidence against.

[Fexus]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

Sweet, you found a basic physics error for me. The error: proof by (misinterpretation of) second law of thermodynamics.

This made me laugh really hard. How did this get published?

[Jaymega]

Climate change is real my friend. I am sure that there are studies out there that are 100% scientifically driven with 0 politics involved. Politics only becomes a thing when you want to figure out why it is happening and what we can do to influence it one way or the other.

I just want to add something my professor pointed out. I must admit, he leans right. According to him and his colleagues, Climate change debates are dictated by the scale of time you are talking about. He feels that a proper debate for climate change needs to include data for a few 100,000 years at a minimum given the Earths age. People don't think that scale so they only use data for the last couple hundred years or a few thousand at most. That is absolutely miniscule and insignificant when you are talking about something such as global climate changes.

I tend to agree since the climate was way different in the time of the dinosaurs than it was in the Ice age and even now. Changes like that take a massive amount of time. Far more time than the general public cites when arguing climate change.

Another pet peeve of mine is people acting like the United States = the entire world. Like we alone are in control of climate change. Yup, a country of what? 300 million+ can change the world in spite of what 7 billion others do. Yup, we are that powerful and influential right? I get that we all need to do our thing, but I feel more emphasis needs to be put on other nations. We can go 100% green and it would have little effect on climate change (if it is true that humans are causing it).

Sorry for my little rant. I hope the other posters have helped you more than I. I will search my University's database and try to get you some articles and leads.Peer reviewed stuff.