World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data

[1bad65]

Science is not determined by a popularity contest. It's determined using data.

And your side was popped fudging the data, TWICE.

The concept explaining such malfeasance was popularized by Barry Scheck as "garbage in, garbage out".

At that point, the debate is over.

[1bad65]

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” -Michael Crichton

[SterlingStained]

That's your job. You cited the 97% figure, so you need to back it up by providing the sample size.

You can't can you?

Which just proves all you did was mindlessly parrot a DNC talking point.

Maybe next time do some independent research on your end before posting.....

Mostly likely. You said you agree with the scientists. So all those claims against climate change that Koch Brothers and Exxon were trying to downplay back then are true.

I don't want to get in the middle of this, and I feel like I should be upfront an honest in saying I believe human HAVE impacted climate change - if by sheer virtue of of population and extreme alteration of landscapes to fit our needs (deforestation for cattle raising, home steading/city development, pollution of waterways, etc.). Having said that, I speak with no environmentally scientific basis other than the handful of stories or articles I've read that seem to substantiate this claim. Although I do make room that it is possible that the need to create the appearance of danger to sustain and grow the field of environmentally conscious research could influence humans to extort facts to continue to provide them with grants, or even entire careers. However I feel the volume of people who back climate change as being heavily influenced by man makes it hard to argue against.

Never the less, you requested knowledge of sample size for the magical "97%" claim, so here you are:

http://www.usnews.com/news/national/...limate-concern

From: Harris Interactive survey
Sample size: 489
Findings: 97% agree global temperatures have risen, 74% agree it is heavily influenced by humans

There are also numerous scientific publications who have published the commonly held belief that "most scientists agree."

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten.../1686.full.pdf

From: Studied carried out by Naomi Oreskes
Sample size: 928 scientific research papers
Findings: 75% of papers either supported or examined the impact of man made climate change, 25% examined the methods used to conduct such research, 0 out of the 928 studies researched contradicted the claim of human influence. So that's a 100% support ratio - assuming the selection by Naomi Oreskes wasn't cherry picked...(some have understandably faulted their method of selection)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...30002/abstract

From: Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman published in the peer reviewed Eos Journal
Sample size: 77 replies specifically relating to human influence of climate change
Findings: 75 (out of 77) replied they believed humans made significant impacts, so 97.4%

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf

From: William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold, & Stephen Schneider published in Proceedings of National Academy of Science
Sample size: 1,372 climate researchers
Findings: 97% of the published data from the 1,372 supported the idea of anthropogenic climate change (or ACC).

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../2/024024/meta

From: The Institute of Science - Environmental Research Letters
Sample size: 11,944 abstracts that had been published from 1991-2001 with usage of the words "climate change" or "global warming"
Findings: 66.4% expressed no viewpoint on human influence, 32.6% supported human influence, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were unsure. So of the 33.6% (4,013) of papers that spoke directly to topic of if human influence global warming or not, 97% supported human causes.

------

Again, I'm not saying definitively that humans are responsible for climate change (although I do personally believe we are) - I'm just providing you with the requested sample sizes, and sources of the claims that "97% of scientists agree." Within the scientific community, there is a consensus...and it does seem that the magic number of 97% does come up repeatedly.

the 97% of scientist claim is a talking point factoid that cannot be proven.

how can you claim to have polled 97% of scientists and all their specialized fields?

so there must be a list of all 100% of scientists in the world from all sort of fields?

what kind of scientist? there are many different scientists with different specialties.

it is LITERALLY impossible to prove 97% of whatever specialized field agrees with whatever.

its a way to snooker gullible idiots into believing some legit sounding factoid without actually backing it up.

its utterly absurd and impossible to think that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST in the world from all different fields was polled.

Pure talking point bull****.

[BoxingPugilist]

the 97% of scientist claim is a talking point factoid that cannot be proven.

how can you claim to have polled 97% of scientists and all their specialized fields?

so there must be a list of all 100% of scientists in the world from all sort of fields?

what kind of scientist? there are many different scientists with different specialties.

it is LITERALLY impossible to prove 97% of whatever specialized field agrees with whatever.

its a way to snooker gullible idiots into believing some legit sounding factoid without actually backing it up.

its utterly absurd and impossible to think that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST in the world from all different fields was polled.

Pure talking point bull****.

Except that given a large enough sample size, you can reasonably project the kind of consensus that exists. You're right, you can't poll every single person in a field, just like you can't poll every handyman to ask if when placing a screw it's better to use a screwdriver than a hammer. But you could poll a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, and you would see numbers come back that support the idea that screwdrivers are the consensus tool to use when screwing in a screw.

And again, my point was not that it is an inarguable fact - scientific theory is constantly evolving, and perhaps in time the science will come back to disprove this...HOWEVER, his request was to provide the basis for where the sample pool was and what the sample size was to come up with the figure that "97% of scientists agree" - I am not arguing the merit or validity of such claims - I just provided a number of published cases where in the scientific community agreed at roughly 97% that human's influence climate change.

[SterlingStained]

Except that given a large enough sample size, you can reasonably project the kind of consensus that exists. You're right, you can't poll every single person in a field, just like you can't poll every handyman to ask if when placing a screw it's better to use a screwdriver than a hammer. But you could poll a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, and you would see numbers come back that support the idea that screwdrivers are the consensus tool to use when screwing in a screw.

And again, my point was not that it is an inarguable fact - scientific theory is constantly evolving, and perhaps in time the science will come back to disprove this...HOWEVER, his request was to provide the basis for where the sample pool was and what the sample size was to come up with the figure that "97% of scientists agree" - I am not arguing the merit or validity of such claims - I just provided a number of published cases where in the scientific community agreed at roughly 97% that human's influence climate change.

1. sigh....smdh.

2. hi sunspace.

3. if you say 97% of scientist agree, there must be a list somewhere of 100% of all scientist. can you come up with that list?

if there is 97% of something, then there must be a 100% of that thing (list of scientists).

4. if you cannot come up with that list, then that 97% claim is nothing more than made up gibberish mean to sucker low IQ social justice warrior simps like you.

5. science does not proceed by CONSENSUS. Science is not democratic. Science is the DICTATORIAL TRUTH.

Only the truth exists. Not the majority or consensus.

6. Science is the truth. at one point the CONSENSUS was that the earth was flat. It took one man's TRUTH, to challenge it. You dont vote and get a CONSENSUS for the theory of gravity to be true.


7. the only way for 97% of scientist claim this is that if you had an index of ALL the scientists. You cant do that. it does not exist hence that bandied around number is pure balderdash.

8. there are a lot of scientists who challenge the climate change 'CONSENSUS" on the actual imminent dangers of climate change like atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

9. that's the chairman of atmospheric sciences at MIT and he has challenged the assertion of the climate change "consensus" and have called them climate alarmists and says the world is not in some imminent danger.

10. The science is not settled on this. just like we dont really know for sure how many jews where actually killed by adolf hitler and the nazis. oliver stone has said multiple times that the mob mentality, the mainstream media has PREVENTED any challenge to the 6 milliion jews killed number.



Its the same with this 97% of all scientist agree about climate change.

People like you just want to blindly accept whatever the television, media, mob mentality is pushing as gospel.

Sorry, not everybody thinks like you.

[1bad65]

On top of the truth that Sterling presented, there's even more.

Another point that can be stated is that this '97% consensus' came out BEFORE the latest example of the data being fudged.

So that begs the question; now that we know the data used by the supposed 97% of scientists was altered and manipulated, and thus any conclusions drawn from it must be negated, how can anyone continue to tout this number?

[DARKSEID]

People who have never been to college or who don't possess any kind of valid higher education should really not be allowed to speak about these types of issues.

[siablo14]

You're not keeping up, again.

I contradicted nothing. I never challenged the 97% figure, but simply asked for the sample size used to arrive at it.

Telling you can't provide it.

Just be honest. You copied-and-pasted a talking point and when asked specifics you don't know them and thus cant cite them.

Quit playing games and be honest here. That, or simply cite the sample size for the figure YOU presented....

Yeah. I never read indepth. No argument there. Now that we got that clear.

I ask if you ran across any link that challenged it because I would like to read.

I get the vibe that you view everything as a challenge. Some people even if they disagree with you on most things aren't looking to win every argument with you. Some of us just want to read some new information.

Have you ran across any links discrediting that 97%? A simple yes or no will do.

[siablo14]

On top of the truth that Sterling presented, there's even more.

Another point that can be stated is that this '97% consensus' came out BEFORE the latest example of the data being fudged.

So that begs the question; now that we know the data used by the supposed 97% of scientists was altered and manipulated, and thus any conclusions drawn from it must be negated, how can anyone continue to tout this number?

Share that example.

[1bad65]

I get the vibe that you view everything as a challenge....

Not at all, but I can see how one may think that.

I've stated many times, debate is the only thing that proves which stances/policies/beliefs/etc can stand up to scrutiny. It's essential in that regard.

A smart person once told me "Changing one's mind as the facts change is a sign of high intelligence". I live by that. That's why I love to debate. If I'm wrong or in error and my beliefs cannot stand up in open debate, I need to see that so I can change my beliefs to ones that can stand up in open debate.

Unlike many people, I do not just dig in, wage battles of attrition, and refuse to accept reality and facts I may not like.

Have you ran across any links discrediting that 97%? A simple yes or no will do.

The answer to that question was presented earlier.

You're again not keeping up.