OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Three times the raging hurricane season,....Where ? I missed it, or is it still in the works ?
2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Three times the raging hurricane season,....Where ? I missed it, or is it still in the works ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Do you know how small,...I mean nano, 200 years is to geological time clock ? On record is the best the can come up with.
Scare tactics............
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You're a walking argument for birth control.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
How much does NASA need next year ??
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
No, it's not real. No, everyone doesn't know it. MMGW is just the latest in a long line of attacks on the oil industry. That's it. Fortunately, nothing significant will EVER be done about it. You should have seen these simpletons cheer like they won the triple crown when Obama threw out a few million bucks to investigate the possibility of a program to train solar panel repairman.
Time to move on to the next manufactured crisis, I'm off to rev my 6.8L in the driveway for an hour or two.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Me too. I love flaccid liberal memes, especially the first hundred times they're trotted out.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Still waiting for a peer reviewed study which contradicts anthropogenic global warming though.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It has to, they have thermometers set up to monitor,...
Proof....
Proof....
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Hang on, I'll be right back with that for you. If I'm not back in 15 minutes...just wait longer.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
The methodology used in this is pretty interesting. The abstract implies that 97% of the 1372 climate researchers agree on something. Of the 1372 researcher in the study, 66% agree with tenets of ACC, not 97%. At least that is how I read it. Here is the methodology description:
Materials and Methods
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.
Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher's four top-cited articles in any field (search term “climate” removed). Overall number of publications was not used because it was not possible to provide accurate publication counts in all cases because of similarly named researchers. We verified, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.
To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers. We acknowledge that there are other possible and valid approaches to quantifying the level of agreement and relative credibility in the climate science community, including alternate climate researcher cutoffs, publication databases, and search terms to determine climate-relevant publications. However, we provide a useful, conservative, and reasonable approach whose qualitative results are not likely to be affected by the above assumptions. We conducted the above analyses with a climate researcher cutoff of a minimum of 10 and 40 publications, which yielded very little change in the qualitative or strong statistically significant differences between CE and UE groups. Researcher publication and citation counts in Earth Sciences have been found to be largely similar between Google Scholar and other peer-review-only citation indices such as ISI Web of Science (20). Indeed, using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise (e.g., higher levels of publications and more experts considered) because it archives a greater breadth of sources than other citation indices. Our climate-relevant search term does not, understandably, capture all relevant publications and exclude all nonrelevant publications in the detection and attribution of ACC, but we suggest that its generality provides a conservative estimate of expertise (i.e., higher numbers of experts) that should not differentially favor either group.
Publication and citation analyses are not perfect indicators of researcher credibility, but they have been widely used in the natural sciences for comparing research productivity, quality, and prominence (21–24). Furthermore, these methods tend to correlate highly with other estimates of research quality, expertise, and prominence (21–26). These standard publication and citation metrics are often used in many academic fields to inform decisions regarding hiring and tenure. Though these methods explicitly estimate credibility to other academics, which might not directly translate to credibility in broader discourse, polls suggest that about 70% of the American public generally trust scientists’ opinions on the environment, making this assessment broadly relevant (27). Criticisms of the two methods center around issues of self-citation, additionality of multiple authors, clique citation, and age demographic (e.g., age distribution where older researchers can accrue more publications and citations) differences between groups (21–26, 28, 29). All of these criticisms are expected to have the least influence at high levels of aggregation (e.g., an entire field) and high levels of citations, both of which are analyzed here (21–23, 25, 28, 29).
Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here. However, citation analysis research suggests that the potential of these patterns to influence results is likely to decline as sample size of researchers, possible cliques, and papers analyzed for citations considered increases (22, 25–28). By selecting an expansive sample of 1,372 researchers and focusing our analysis only on the researchers’ four most-cited papers, we have designed our study to minimize the potential influence of these patterns. Furthermore, we have no a priori basis for assuming any citation (e.g., self-citation rates) or demographic differences (e.g., age effect on publications or citations) between CE and UE groups. Preliminary evidence suggests these differences would likely favor the UE group. From the ∼60% of researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect alone. Therefore, these methods are likely to provide a reasonable estimate of the preeminent researchers in each group and are useful in comparing the relative expertise and prominence between CE and UE groups.
Ultimately, of course, scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given the immediacy attendant to the state of debate over perception of climate science, we must seek estimates while confidence builds. Based on the arguments presented here, we believe our findings capture the differential climate science credentials of the two groups.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The problem is one side refuses to accept defeat, even when they're shown the scientific evidence. Some people simply refuse to believe it, no matter what, because it contradicts their beliefs. Their beliefs are actually what's more important, not what's true. So now we're at a point where the deniers are dismissed, as they rightly should be because we don't have time to entertain their denial forever. They have reached a point where they're so strong in their beliefs that they dismiss the science.
Unfortunately for people like you, there are a lot more people like me involved these days who feel hey, we're sorry you feel that way, but like I said, we don't have time to baby you into the future and there simply aren't enough people like you out there who disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus to make any significant difference.
Is it "censorship" when someone says a holocaust denier is stupid or when he gets laughed out of academia like the kook he is? Or when someone believes we never landed on the Moon, is it censorship when you call him an idiot and say his ideas are retarded and that landing on the Moon is scientifically verifiable and requires no faith to accept it?
No, it's not censorship. It's calling stupid out for being stupid, and when you side with a tiny fraction of the population over the overwhelming majority of scientists in every field, you're stupid, and you should be called out for it. Now if you can't handle the criticisms that come along with being stupid for denying something so scientifically obvious, well, my advice to you would be not to share your private opinions on a public forum. Your heinie remains pain-free, nobody is subject to reading such stupidity, win/win!
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately for people like you, the people like me that you think you have the power to dismiss (you don't), are successfully stopping your agenda in its tracks. it must really suck to be so right and yet, not be able to do shit.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Like I said, people like you believe what you want regardless of what the truth actually is
Enjoy the delusion
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well, fuck me, I stand corrected. Please give us the list of sweeping and enacted legislation that has come about, courtesy of the devastating victory the MMGW proponents have enjoyed. Legislation now, not short lived executive orders or EPA mandates that are just an extension of Obama's agenda. Here, I'll get you started.
1. None
2.
3.
Go crazy with it, I'm dying to read them all.
Obamacare got passed. Pretty sure that agenda wasn't stopped. Ah health care for all!!