Kamikuza said..

log man said..
99.4 is the latest........it's gone up!!!

Oh cool. I'll just take your word for it. That's how science works after all and we all know how much the left loves science

I posted the study......I didn't DO the study.......so you don't have to take my word for it.

And as for the Left loving science? well look at all the Climate change deniers. Are they Left or Right? What about conservation ideas in general. The Left dominates. Don't see too many Right wing conservatives involved in it. What about gender theory? the right is still insisting there are 2 genders.....yeah nah.

Face it mate, Conservatives have become a haven for grumpy deadbeat know it alls that think their experiences and knowledge trump science.

Tamble said..

log man said..

Tamble said..
OK, this a is a dangerous area to comment on and I generally don't.
But in a world where simply suggesting that the climate change models might be over-skinning the cat will get you sacked from your university and the hope of getting funding for a contrarian paper let alone published in a peer reviewed journal when all the reviewers are relying on grants that make it necessary to come up with headline worthy disaster outcomes is zilch, maybe a review of published papers isn't the way to find out what most scientists actually think.

You could just ask them (probably preferably anomalously; but I don't know).
The guy who did ( A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members) came up with 52%
journals.ametsoc.org/action/cookieAbsent

You can't just have a "contrarian paper" it has to hang together as a scientific paper. A paper is a paper, it has to prove itself free from any political biases. how many are there? not many.

You need to get funding for the research from bodies/organisations which are now heavily populated with those who's professional reputations and future sources of funding research in turn rely on the climate orthodoxy. Then it is peer reviewed by those who also rely on the climate orthodoxy.

Chances of publication. Near zero.

I know people like to say that, but really if you want to become the most famous scientist since.....Lord Moncton, then all you have to do is show that the idea of GW that's current is wrong.

Instant fame!

Oh, and, Is there really "2 sides"?

log man said..
Here you go

www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

Seems like the douchebag Cook was right on the money

Ooh, doubling-down on the cherry-picked headlines and bad science.

Do you not understand what I'm talking about or do you just not care about the actual science so long as the fable is backing up your narrative?

Nuccitelli was co-author with Cook on at least the original "paper" claiming 97% consensus based on their aggregation of results.

Y'know, the one that had a bunch of authors of the papers they "sampled" write and say things like "that isn't what I said in my paper" or "you're misrepresenting my results".

I'm sure you know all this, I'm sure you don't take these headlines at face value. Surely not.

And because of how much you seem to love The Guardian, here's another article casting doubt on Cook et al's (that includes Dana Nuccitelli) method: www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

And here's why the 97% and Cook et al are bad science: www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

Science is a method, not a result. There have been times in history when all scientists agreed on the science and they were all wrong. Plate tectonics is ironically one such example.

The science on AGW is clear -- mankind is changing the climate. The arguments now are about how much.

So this reductionist protectionism is unnecessary ... unless you have to protect your ideological narrative because your scientific method is so bad. Can you say "dogma" children?

In other words, you're spinning **** to drive the narrative because you don't care about the actual science.

log man said..
Oh, and, Is there really "2 sides"?

With regards to the 97%, there are MORE than 2 sides ... the problem is that like Cook, people with a narrative to push, have reduced it to two sides. They've lumped such data as "man is the main cause" in with "man is a cause" and magicked the 97% out of much lower figures, as well as taking implication as endorsement and ignoring papers that took no position: judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

Read his own paper. It's right there.

Don't do bad science. Not even once.

Mr Milk said..
"man is a cause" is the only variable that we can influence

Not necessarily. But it's a good place to start.

Kamikuza said..


Theodore Roosevelt, who pretty much started conservation movement in the US, was ... a Republican. Look it up.

Just a quibble; TR was a Republican of the old school. The GOP and Dems swapped some principles and changed dramatically in the 60s. TD had more in common with the current Dems than the current GOP vis a vis conservation and civil rights.

Mark Windows talks about the history of Climate Change on the Richie Allen show. He talks about the origins starting with the Brundtland report in 1987 after it was decided that the old world system was not working and was to be replaced by the 4th World.

Interview starts at thirty minutes in:

.be

log man said..
Judith curry..... haha! I know what you are. You're a denier from years back who's now trying to save face but still thinks people like Curry are credible.
this is brilliant we now get to see a climate denier trying to climb down with out getting splinters up his arse.
This is the sort of thing I could write a new telly show on.

Proving my point again and again.

"The left", and it seems especially you, are not interested in science (or even discussion of the science!) unless it reinforces your narrative.

That link wasn't about climate change or whatever, it was specifically about the bad science Cook et al produced. Again for the slow reader -- not about climate change itself, about the bad science Cook got up to.
www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

I've made my position on AGW pretty clear, and you're 100% wrong. Again. What a shock. But don't let that stand in the way of your strawmanning.

You're so engaged in the ideology you simply can't allow any challenge to the dogma. Nothing new there, "the left" has had this problem forever.

BTW Curry has written two books and published 150 papers on climate change. Just wondering where I can read yours, log jam? I mean, you're obviously in a position of intellectual and educational superiority with the research to back up your dismissal of people like Curry?

...this science stuff is all a bit beyond you, isn't it?

log man said..
Just on Curry.

skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

Seems Curry is the deniers go to scientist......even though she says some things the that are totally rejected by the mass of climatologists.


Just on Cook:
skepticalscience.com/vide-cook-97-percent.html


skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.html

climate.nasa.gov/blog/938/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/15/research-shows-yet-again-that-theres-no-scientific-debate-about-climate-change/

www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

BTW. Cooks study isn't "the science" it's a report on the scientists thoughts. The scientists do the actual science and people like Cook and Oreskes report on it. In fact Cooks study is hardly important to anybody who backs science and scientists. Most people really don't get upset if it's 97 or 99 or 80. We all know a vast number of scientist agree. The only people who lose their **** about whether or not it's 99. whatever are GW deniers who are searching for any, any little desperate argument.

Skeptical Science is Cook and his pals... They set that website/blog up specifically because their paper was getting flack. Cook's PhD paper IIRC.

Your last Guardian link is by a guy who also worked on the original paper, as I've already said. Vested interests, you say?

There's no debate about certain aspects of climate change.

There IS about how Cook put his paper together, what the numbers he presented actually represent and how they went about it. You know, the methodology -- the science of doing science itself. Unrelated to the topic of climate change,

I realize now you can't understand the difference

The consensus *may* be 97% among scientists, but "the scientist's thoughts" isn't even what Cook's paper was about. Which you'd know, if you'd even bothered looking at the abstract of the paper...!

But hey, I get it, it's a religion, you can't have the dogma questioned in any way in case you lose control of the narrative...just ask Cook himself:

"If the public think that climate scientists agree about what is causing global warming, then the public thinks we need to act on it," he said. "If the public thinks scientists disagree, then we might as well wait until the scientists work it out before we do anything about it."
www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

All about the narrative. Wouldn't be the first scientist to fudge the facts for the cause.

So what you're saying is by deleting past climactic events is not trying to persuade a narative.

Kamikuza said..

log man said.
mate no one cares about cook and 90 percent or whatever.......it's only deniers trying to poke a tiny hole in the gw thing.

Denier, yes, denier......what else would you call someone that calls GW "a religion"...... cites Curry, a champion of the deniers......argues about whether or not there's consensus.

No, I called your treatment of AGW a religion -- you treat the "science" like dogma that can't be challenged. You have your infallible prophets and your heretics who dare question them.

That's NOT science.

Ok, let's not call it science then........lets call it the worst bit of science eva

Does that mean we agree on the thousands of other papers, written by actual climate scientists that conclude that the science is very strong and reliable.

Why would this 99.9 guy get your attention?

Nasa +Un=97%

hilly said..
Thought the science was pretty compelling now eg climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That's correct. But it's not the point here and that is not what the Cook paper was about.

And it just begs the question: what's going on with the 3%? That's like 360 studies that produced a different answer...

I thought Big Oil had more money...

Kamikuza said..

log man said.
Why would this 99.9 guy get your attention?

Because you said you were all about the science, unlike "the right" who are morons and will believe anything.

I said "the left" only cares about the science when it supports their narrative.

I introduced the Cook paper, because it's a great, simple example of bad science being presented as pure fact to support the narrative.

The result was predictable, and proved my point.

Got it now? It's not about AGW or climate change.

so you're all hung up about the 99 percent thing. why hang your hat on that. It seems incredibly strange to say. "yes i agree that human induced climate change is real and happening and we need to do something about it ........but im outraged about whether 97 percent of a poll of scientists is accurate".........It's like saying You agree with the IPCC report but you're totally appalled by the font they used in the report.