Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:02 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ? 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Here apparently is how the alleged climate change consensus came to be and why it is nothing but hooey:

Quote:
The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.

The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who is probably the world’s leading climate economist. As the Australian blogger Joanne Nova summarised Tol’s findings, John Cook of the University of Queensland and his team used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along, a scientific no-no if ever there was one. The data could not be replicated, and Cook himself threatened legal action to hide them. Yet neither the journal nor the university where Cook works has retracted the paper, and the scientific establishment refuses to stop citing it, let alone blow the whistle on it. Its conclusion is too useful.


https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/0 ... e-science/



Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:25 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.




https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:54 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
A quote from Tol:

Richard Tol wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.


And his methods: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -consensus


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.


Quote:
The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Quote:
The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... mentpage=1


We can go on and on with the cut and paste war. Or, you can dazzle us more with your reasoning and scientific acumen of meteorology and climate modeling.

As I said before, there are apparently new grand inquisitors roaming the planet.



Last edited by ant on Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
We can go on and on with the cut and paste war. Or, you can dazzle us more with your reasoning and scientific acumen of meteorology and climate modeling.


I have no scientific acumen here. I'm repeating what I find online, as are you. Are you a denialist grand inquisitor? Or merely a pawn? :-D

It's intriguing how angry you get about all this. But then, I realize there's a bunch of stuff that's unspoken.
Anyone who believes that climate change is most likely anthropogenic because of the consensus is committing an ad populum fallacy. I know this and accept it, because to justify a belief either way means becoming a scientist and spending a decade pouring over all the details. This isn't going to happen with me. I can't justify my belief, and neither can you. But as a heuristic, it makes sense to go with the consensus. You haven't given any better alternative heuristic, so my mind isn't changed. I still believe that outright denial of climate change is immoral. This is another belief that can't be justified, and I accept that.

With that said, I wouldn't mind continuing a copy/paste war. It's an educational distraction.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
geo
Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
It's intriguing how angry you get about all this.


I'm actually amused by what you started here.
Did you honestly think I was going to let you off the hook when you said a while back you're a consensus science type of guy?
The recent immorality claim just added to the fun.

Your argument essentially boils down to the consensus is where it's at.
That is no argument at all when you start peeling away at it.., the evidence to back it up is not hard evidence. It's actually mushy. Add all the money and political gain and you get an entirely different picture. One that is not very flattering for self proclaimed climate moralists.
I think this type of game playing is poisonous to open science and to the community.

You're not arguing for the sake of understanding. You're arguing just to win a game of rhetoric.



Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
Did you honestly think I was going to let you off the hook when you said a while back you're a consensus science type of guy?


I didn't say that. Go back and look.

ant wrote:
Add all the money and political gain and you get an entirely different picture.


The political gain, sure, for politicians. But we're looking at the science, and the ones who are in the position to make or lose more money is the denialist crowd. Do you think big oil and big coal aren't pushing dark money by the millions into the denialist camp?

ant wrote:
That is no argument at all when you start peeling away at it.., the evidence to back it up is not hard evidence. It's actually mushy.


Prove it. Show me you understand the evidence well enough to know it's mushy.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4351
Location: NC
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 1914 times in 1433 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Interbane wrote:
Anyone who believes that climate change is most likely anthropogenic because of the consensus is committing an ad populum fallacy. I know this and accept it, because to justify a belief either way means becoming a scientist and spending a decade pouring over all the details. This isn't going to happen with me. I can't justify my belief, and neither can you. But as a heuristic, it makes sense to go with the consensus. You haven't given any better alternative heuristic, so my mind isn't changed. I still believe that outright denial of climate change is immoral. This is another belief that can't be justified, and I accept that.


I struggle with the consensus argument too, but as a layperson stumbling into the stupendously complex arena of climate change, the most reasonable position is to begrudgingly accept the opinion of scientists—keeping such belief at arm's length, of course, and realizing that the picture will become clearer as we amass more evidence. The evidence thus far doesn't justify a firm belief either way but, as I said previously, sometimes we have to make a judgment call before the science is settled.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
but as a layperson stumbling into the stupendously complex arena of climate change, the most reasonable position is to begrudgingly accept the opinion of scientists


We'll let Interbane esplain the science to us.
Especially me.
I don't understand it.
He does.

I'll listen to Interbane, begrudgingly.


Quote:
as I said previously, sometimes we have to make a judgment call before the science is settled.


While the scientists gather more evidence to settle the issue with evidence that is more convincing, we'll continue to put pressure on emerging industries like China, India and the entire East to cut their economic growth because we're destroying the environment, but we will eventually settle the science.



Last edited by ant on Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:47 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4351
Location: NC
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 1914 times in 1433 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
We'll let Interbane esplain the science to us.
Especially me.
I don't understand it.
He does.


I doubt he ever made that claim. Indeed, does anyone really understand climate science? It seems to me that climate science is an umbrella term that encompasses many scientific disciplines. And there are experts in some areas, but I doubt any one person is an expert in all areas.[/quote]

ant wrote:
While the scientists gather more evidence to settle the issue with evidence that is more convincing, we'll continue to put pressure on emerging industries like China, India and the entire East to cut their economic growth because we're destroying the environment, but we will eventually settle the science.


We will gain some understanding of climate science, but I don't know how much of a grasp we'll ever get. Seems like an awfully complex field. And too many variables and too many random elements.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
ant
Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
We will gain some understanding of climate science, but I don't know how much of a grasp we'll ever get. Seems like an awfully complex field. And too many variables and too many random elements.


Do you think there's moral justification in expecting emerging nations to drastically cut their emissions, and in so doing stalling their economic growth that's helping to raise people (and nations) out of poverty?
If this is a moral issue (like Interbane and Robert believe it is) are those nations immoral for not falling in line with Green programs?



Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7041
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
Do you think there's moral justification in expecting emerging nations to drastically cut their emissions, and in so doing stalling their economic growth that's helping to raise people (and nations) out of poverty?


No, I don't think that's moral either, even though you have an unspoken assumption. Who says cutting emissions would stall economic growth? I don't know that it would... I don't know that it wouldn't.

The gameplan we come up with should be moral, of course. Accepting the reality of climate change does not entail specific policies, cutting emissions or otherwise. I don't know what the best solution is, but I think Robert is on to something when he mentions Carbon farming.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4351
Location: NC
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 1914 times in 1433 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
ant wrote:
Quote:
We will gain some understanding of climate science, but I don't know how much of a grasp we'll ever get. Seems like an awfully complex field. And too many variables and too many random elements.


Do you think there's moral justification in expecting emerging nations to drastically cut their emissions, and in so doing stalling their economic growth that's helping to raise people (and nations) out of poverty?
If this is a moral issue (like Interbane and Robert believe it is) are those nations immoral for not falling in line with Green programs?


It is a moral issue, but I doubt that any nation would crimp its own economy for the good of the many. Also, as I believe Robert said once, such efforts would be miniscule, like pissing into the wind.

Americans, in particular, have a very high standard of living, which arguably extracts resources at the expense of poorer nations. In a sense we are competing for resources. On the other hand, first world nations help to create better medicines and technologies that benefit others. Crimping one nation's economy might actually make it worse for poorer nations. Economics is probably nearly as complex as climate science and we simply don't understand all the complex interactions at work.

NASA just published a report showing that many of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted at unsustainable rates. Politically we seem infatuated with climate science while there are actually a myriad of other environmental problems. I suspect that we aren't really able to see the big picture. We should continue to develop greener technologies, of course, though there's nothing really out there that comes close to replacing petroleum yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -of-water/


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
ant
Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:16 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Impact of C02 of human mortality and biospheric life

http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/sum ... ctsco2.php


Are we going to die of c02 poisoning or a runaway greenhouse effect if we dont cut emissions as recommended by scientists?
Is it immoral if we dont because of the risks to the living planet?

I wish someone would point to a climate model that accurately predicts a runaway Venus-like greenhouse disaster. So far our models need constant readjustments or replacements to predict the future.
No one can publically say no it aint so because a new prediction that affirms the ideological consensus always appears magically.
Kind of like astrology.. sorta. Or myther scholarship that can always introduce a new "theory"



Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:28 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: what is an alleged "scientific consensus" ?
Quote:
Scientific advisers should resist the temptation to be political entrepreneurs, peddling their advice by exaggerating how easy it is to transform the economy or deploy renewable technologies, for instance. Their task is to analyse critically the risks and benefits of political efforts and contribute empirically sound — and sometimes unwelcome — perspectives to the global climate-policy discourse.



http://www.nature.com/news/policy-clima ... ty-1.17468


In particular this means resisting the alarmist campaign who's Go-Green expectations are out of touch with socio-economic realities.



Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:05 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank