Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[BritManToo]

40 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Based on what? 

Their inability to do simple math, as demonstrated in post #564.

[johnnybangkok]

So in essence what you climate change deniers are saying is that 97% of the world's climate scientists have conspired together to create an imaginary environmental crisis, only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, financially aligned politicians and oil companies?

 

Is that about right? 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

The same tired old shtick from you.  If you can't dispute the message, try your best to dispute the messenger.  That's really getting old, and making you look kind of silly.  I dare you to refute the actual evidence, and I don't care who pays you to do it.  

 

 

That's awfully presumptuous of you.  How do you know what the study was about?

-How was I disputing the messenger?

 

-Evidence of what?

 

-The study was climate research according to you. 

 

Interesting first it was conversation from someone you knew, and now she says the exact same words in a video. Are you sure you didn't meet her on Youtube?

[attrayant]

38 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

They didn't correct it themselves, they were entirely happy with the results.  A third party corrected it for them.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of science, where peers review your work and corrections are made.  Why does this shock you?

 

"We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error," said Keeling. "We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature."

 

 

40 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

As I said previously, these guys are hardly the cream of the crop.

Second rate scientists, producing 3rd rate science.

 

Again, based on what?  A math error?  Do you really thin no scientist has ever made a math error in their research before?  Id like you to name a few "first rate scientists" who have never made a math error in their lives.  Good luck with that.

 

Are you expecting that climate change theory will be completely disproved once this error is corrected? You should familiarize yourself with the process before you spout any more uninformed gibberish on how you think science is supposed to work.

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

-How was I disputing the messenger?

 

You imply that a scientists, and scientists in general can't be trusted to do their jobs because they get paid.

 

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

-Evidence of what?

 

That the issue at hand - global climate change - is real and actually happening, and will likely lead to disastrous results.

 

 

3 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Interesting first it was conversation from someone you knew, and now she says the exact same words in a video. Are you sure you didn't meet her on Youtube?

 

I asked her if I could post a screenshot of her email, and instead she pointed me to a video she made last year.  Is that not more preferable to an email screenshot that could be easily forged?  Can you explain why that's "interesting"?

 

And there you go again disparaging the source instead of refuting any of the evidence.  Even of I did "meet her on youtube", so what?  Why does that matter?  Again: address the points made, not the person making them.

 

By the way, Youtube is not a social networking site.  You don't hang out there and meet people.

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Again, based on what?  A math error?  Do you really thin no scientist has ever made a math error in their research before?  Id like you to name a few "first rate scientists" who have never made a math error in their lives.  Good luck with that.

Most organizations check before publishing.

A cast of 100s and nobody noticed.

 

Anyone been sacked or lose their funding?

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Most organizations check before publishing.

 

And still mistakes are made.  I hope that does not shake your faith in human beings too much.

 

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

A cast of 100s and nobody noticed.

 

Hundreds?  Where did you get this number?  And according to the story, somebody has noticed.  That's the whole reason for the story, in fact.  Once again: that's how science works.  Publish, peer review, replicate, make corrections, improve understanding.  Why do I need to keep repeating this?  

 

 

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Anyone been sacked or lose their funding?

 

JAQing off again?  Why don't you check and find out.

[canuckamuck]

35 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

You imply that a scientists, and scientists in general can't be trusted to do their jobs because they get paid.

 

 

That the issue at hand - global climate change - is real and actually happening, and will likely lead to disastrous results.

 

 

 

I asked her if I could post a screenshot of her email, and instead she pointed me to a video she made last year.  Is that not more preferable to an email screenshot that could be easily forged?  Can you explain why that's "interesting"?

 

And there you go again disparaging the source instead of refuting any of the evidence.  Even of I did "meet her on youtube", so what?  Why does that matter?  Again: address the points made, not the person making them.

 

By the way, Youtube is not a social networking site.  You don't hang out there and meet people.

-I didn't imply that in that post. I simply detailed all the happiness the grant money brings.

- the issue in your post was not the overall discussion of climate change. It was about someone you met who gave you a well rehearsed anecdote. I disputed the your point that the money doesn't go very far. I showed that it was very good grease for the wheels. 

- I don't really care about the YouTube part, it just seemed very odd that her video and your conversation were identical. Makes one think that she is getting a lot of mileage out of that little speech. She could make a shilling or two.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

So in essence what you climate change deniers are saying is that 97% of the world's climate scientists have conspired together to create an imaginary environmental crisis, only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, financially aligned politicians and oil companies?

 

Is that about right? 

Your 97% number has already been shown to be bogus. What else do you have?

    And where are the “climate change deniers”??????  

    Of course climate changes ! 

  Duh !!!!!!!

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

That's the whole reason for the story, in fact.  Once again: that's how science works.  Publish, peer review, replicate, make corrections, improve understanding.  Why do I need to keep repeating this?  

Probably because no other branch of science publishes rubbish then has themselves publicly corrected.

No this is not how real science works.

[canuckamuck]

25 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Probably because no other branch of science publishes rubbish then has themselves publicly corrected.

No this is not how real science works.

The other branches of science don't rely so heavily on emotion and propaganda either.

[mogandave]

 
You didn't provide a link to the study in question, so I will have to assume you mean this one: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (2013). From the abstract:
 

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

 

[snip]

 

Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

 
What do scientists do when they want to know how sound a study was?  They try to reproduce it.  There has been a follow-up study to determine if the findings of the 2013 study were accurate: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming (2016). Abstract:
 

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.

 

[snip]

 

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 
The only objection I could find was from non-experts (some of who were scientists, but had no relevent expertise in any of the fields that underlie climate science).
 
I'll respond to your list in another post.
 

I’m not clear. If:
66.4% expressed no position on AGW
32.6% endorsed AGW
0.7% rejected AGW
0.3% are uncertain about the cause

If we only include papers that have taken a position(33.6%) how do we conclude 97% agree?

[DrTuner]

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

You imply that a scientists, and scientists in general can't be trusted to do their jobs because they get paid.

I'd never trust a scientist that gets paid, he's working for the employer. I'd also never trust one that isn't paid, he isn't good enough to work for an employer.

 

I think the only one that can be trusted is the mad scientist. 

[attrayant]

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

If we only include papers that have taken a position(33.6%) how do we conclude 97% agree?
 

 

 

97% of published research is in agreement, not 97% of scientists.  

 

If a paper does not take a firm position either way, how can we include its opinion?  That's like counting people who didn't vote in an election.  They cast a wide net, but in the end counted only those published papers that had a firm conclusion.

 

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Their inability to do simple math, as demonstrated in post #564.

 

Simple math?  Have you even looked at the paper?  Here it is.  If you can look at this and tell me it's "simple math" you must be one of those elitist scientists we're always hearing about.

 

 

That's just a few snapshots stitched together.  Look at the paper.  The text is positively infested with dense, mathematical references.

[attrayant]

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

Your 97% number has already been shown to be bogus.

 

No it hasn't.  You, however, have more than demonstrated that you don't understand what that statement means.

 

Uh-oh, and what's this?

 

 

You had to make a correction?  Then according to the last few pages of this discussion, that invalidates your whole premise and casts doubt upon your ability to construct simple sentences.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Probably because no other branch of science publishes rubbish then has themselves publicly corrected.

No this is not how real science works.

 

Then tell me, how does "real science" work?  Throughout time, errors in research has been discovered and corrected.  Darwin, Kepler, Einstein... all had hypotheses and theories that were corrected and improved upon as additional evidence came in and their data was peer-reviewed.  That is EXACTLY how science works.  You must be thinking about religion, where nothing ever changes despite new evidence surfacing.

 

You are really exposing your ignorance of the basic processes of science.  I suggest you stop digging yourself deeper into that hole.

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The other branches of science don't rely so heavily on emotion and propaganda either.

 

I challenge you to read the study in question and quote some of the emotionally-charged statements, as well as the propaganda.  And since you said "heavily", I'll expect you to find quite a few of them.  Meanwhile I'll sit here and time your response with my handy stop watch calendar to see how long it takes.

[canuckamuck]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I challenge you to read the study in question and quote some of the emotionally-charged statements, as well as the propaganda.  And since you said "heavily", I'll expect you to find quite a few of them.  Meanwhile I'll sit here and time your response with my handy stop watch calendar to see how long it takes.

What study is in question? I was responding to Britman's post. Are you still talking about your friend the scientist?

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

What study is in question? I was responding to Britman's post. Are you still talking about your friend the scientist?

 

No, you were talking about "the other branches of science" that "don't rely so heavily on emotion and propaganda", the clear implication is climate science research and studies rely heavily on emotion and propaganda.  I'm getting tired of having to explain your own posts to you.

 

23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

What study is in question?

 

The study being questioned in these last few pages of the discussion is L. Resplandy, et al.; (which I went to the trouble of linking to in the post of mine that you quoted, wherein you asked "what study?"), in which somebody has found a math error and the study is being corrected.  That error has been pounced upon by Britman (whom you were quoting) as a reason to throw the entire assemblage of climate research overboard and never trust any scientist again, ever.

 

If you're going to respond to somebody, perhaps it's a good idea to see what they were responding to so you can get some context as to what we're talking about.  All this hand-holding is making my palms rosy.

[mogandave]

 
97% of published research is in agreement, not 97% of scientists.  
 
If a paper does not take a firm position either way, how can we include its opinion?  That's like counting people who didn't vote in an election.  They cast a wide net, but in the end counted only those published papers that had a firm conclusion.
 

So 97% of Climatologists do not agree, correct?

If a paper does not take a firm position either way, would we not include them as undecided?

[mogandave]

 
The study being questioned in these last few pages of the discussion is L. Resplandy, et al.; (which I went to the trouble of linking to in the post of mine that you quoted, wherein you asked "what study?"), in which somebody has found a math error and the study is being corrected.  That error has been pounced upon by Britman (whom you were quoting) as a reason to throw the entire assemblage of climate research overboard and never trust any scientist again, ever.
 
If you're going to respond to somebody, perhaps it's a good idea to see what they were responding to so you can get some context as to what we're talking about.  All this hand-holding is making my palms rosy.

Rosie Palms, I used to date her...

[attrayant]

44 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So 97% of Climatologists do not agree, correct?

 

I consider this an honest misquoting of the phrase "97% of climate research agrees..."  I don't think those who say "97% of scientists..." are intentionally mis-stating.

 

Quote

If a paper does not take a firm position either way, would we not include them as undecided?

 

A paper with a a 'No Position' abstract makes no statement on AGW, so why should we include them in a collection of papers that are either supposed to support or refute?  If a voter leave their ballot blank, can we look at that ballot and determine their preferred candidate?

 

It's also worth noting that in Cook, et al. (2013), 8547 of the authors were emailed and asked to self-rate their own paper as to whether or not the paper was an endorsement or rejection of AGW.  Their response was in line with what the authors of the meta-study determined, about 97%:

 

 

If you are wondering why some papers might take 'no position' on either accepting or refuting AGW, that's easy to answer. Imagine a scientist doing a study on ballistic missile reentry vehicle behavior.  Does the author need to say, in the abstract, whether or not they support or refute the theory of gravity?

 

Perhaps a 'no position' study was about the rate of CO₂ dissolving into seawater given a range of temperature variables, or something similar.  Such a study could be considered as related to climate change research but the study itself is not attempting to draw a conclusion on the overarching theory of AGW, and thus would be considered to have 'no position' on AGW.

 

 

 

 

 

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

No it hasn't.  You, however, have more than demonstrated that you don't understand what that statement means.

 

Uh-oh, and what's this?

 

 

You had to make a correction?  Then according to the last few pages of this discussion, that invalidates your whole premise and casts doubt upon your ability to construct simple sentences.

Your 97% number has already been shown to be bogus.

 

>"No it hasn't.  You, however, have more than demonstrated that you don't understand what that statement means."

 

      Well... yes... as a matter of fact... the 97% number HAS indeed been shown to be bogus.  Many times...

 Here is one...... but there are many, many more if you wish....

 

 "First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature."

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

There were a number of criticisms raised against the Cook paper right from the start, such as the clear misclassification of many papers, the fact that the vast majority of papers were to do with mitigation or impact rather than causes of warming, and the subjective nature of the assessments, carried out as they were by SkS (SkepticalScience) denizens.

 

But there is one issue of absolutely fundamental importance, which destroys any credibility the paper may have had.

 only 65 papers are identified as “quantifying AGW as 50%+”. Excluding the “No Positions”, there are 4011 papers classified in total, so we find that the number of papers agreeing that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” is only a tiny 1.6%, far from the 97% claimed.

 

As was pointed out by Lawrence Solomon, regarding the earlier 97% exercise, very few scientists would disagree that humans have some effect on climate, even if only urban heating or deforestation. 

The consensus, which Cook attempts to propagate, goes, as we all know, much further. If there are any doubts about this, Cook himself clarifies matters in his paper’s introduction:

 

We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).

 

And Cook’s co-author, Mark Richardson of the University of Reading, takes the lie one step further in this interview with the Institute of Physics:

 

 

"We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.”

http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html

 

 

It is clear that. from the very start, Cook and his colleagues were intent upon providing an eye-catching “consensus” which they could sell to the media, and which would be picked up by politicians and others in the establishment, regardless of what the evidence actually said.

The reality is starkly different. After searching through 12000 scientific papers, spread over 20 years, all they could only come up with was 65 which supported the supposed consensus.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/

[Catoni]

9 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Uh-oh, and what's this?

 

 

You had to make a correction?  Then according to the last few pages of this discussion, that invalidates your whole premise and casts doubt upon your ability to construct simple sentences.

 

     "Oh No ! !    I made a correction.  How horrible. That means that anything I say is not good. "

 

              You're joking... right ? ?   A person who makes a correction can't be trusted to have facts?  

 

So tell us.... you're correct 100% of the time ? ?  You never make a mistake ? ?     Or is the reality the fact that you have nothing left except to point out when a person makes a correction ? ?   Throw a bit of dirt at that and hope something sticks ?  Smear attempt ? ?   Okay....  

  Scaping the bottom of the barrel are we ? ?  55555 ????    You've got nothing left.  

 

  

[Catoni]

15 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

 

That the issue at hand - global climate change - is real and actually happening, and will likely lead to disastrous results.

 

 

 

>"That the issue at hand - global climate change - is real and actually happening, and will likely lead to disastrous results."

 

            So why the shock, awe, and alarm?      Global Climate Change ALWAYS is happening.  Disasterous results are much much worse during colder times.  Not warmer ! !    According to the prestigious British Medical Journal....The Lancet... and the C.D.C. in the United States.... cold kills about 20x more people than heat. 

 

    Climate Change has always been taking place since the planet got water and an atmosphere..  Changing sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes a little... sometimes a lot.   Surprise...surprise... 

 

  This little bit of warming since the L.I.A. ended about 1850, is nice and welcome...  

 

  Say "Hello" to planet Earth..    Seems like you and other Alarmist comrades just arrived. 

 

  Next....   try and tell us how the Arctic Ocean is supposed to be ice-free during the summer months by now. 

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

No, you were talking about "the other branches of science" that "don't rely so heavily on emotion and propaganda", the clear implication is climate science research and studies rely heavily on emotion and propaganda.  I'm getting tired of having to explain your own posts to you.

 

 

The study being questioned in these last few pages of the discussion is L. Resplandy, et al.; (which I went to the trouble of linking to in the post of mine that you quoted, wherein you asked "what study?"), in which somebody has found a math error and the study is being corrected.  That error has been pounced upon by Britman (whom you were quoting) as a reason to throw the entire assemblage of climate research overboard and never trust any scientist again, ever.

 

If you're going to respond to somebody, perhaps it's a good idea to see what they were responding to so you can get some context as to what we're talking about.  All this hand-holding is making my palms rosy.

-I was responding to the post above mine Post #580. the clue is that I actually quoted it and included it in my post. However, it is true that the climate science industry is massive and heavily funded and supported by all types of people from nursery school to Hollywood, because it is an emotional issue. Without the emotion we wouldn't be having these discussions so frequently. All sorts of important scientific discoveries and theories develop in other fields all the time and very few of them find the headlines.

 

Your second statement is a hyperbolic assumption on your end. No one is suggesting that we never trust all scientists again. Only the ones whose careers depend entirely on the threat being dire and have released misleading information. But this revelation of the math error which was easily noticed by other clever folks after the study was released, demonstrates that the urgency to bolster the hysteria is superseding the normal checks and balances of science. Add to this the emotional aspect, and the tendency for the media to breathlessly promote and inflate any threat that warming may bring, makes Climate science an incubator for junk science and sloppy proclamations.

 

The math error birthed this entire thread. This thread states in the OP

Quote

Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe.

 

HUMANITY HAS only about four years left to stabilise global temperatures and save the world from environmental catastrophe stemming from extreme climate change, scientists have warned.

This is kind of nonsense that makes people distrust the the methods of the climate science industry. 

[mogandave]

 
A paper with a a 'No Position' abstract makes no statement on AGW, so why should we include them in a collection of papers that are either supposed to support or refute?  If a voter leave their ballot blank, can we look at that ballot and determine their preferred candidate?
 
It's also worth noting that in Cook, et al. (2013), 8547 of the authors were emailed and asked to self-rate their own paper as to whether or not the paper was an endorsement or rejection of AGW.  Their response was in line with what the authors of the meta-study determined, about 97%:
 

 
If you are wondering why some papers might take 'no position' on either accepting or refuting AGW, that's easy to answer. Imagine a scientist doing a study on ballistic missile reentry vehicle behavior.  Does the author need to say, in the abstract, whether or not they support or refute the theory of gravity?
 
Perhaps a 'no position' study was about the rate of CO₂ dissolving into seawater given a range of temperature variables, or something similar.  Such a study could be considered as related to climate change research but the study itself is not attempting to draw a conclusion on the overarching theory of AGW, and thus would be considered to have 'no position' on AGW.
 
 
 
 
 

So to be clear, what the study shows is that of the papers published specifically intended to support or disprove AGW, 97% conclude with support of AGW, is that correct?

[Catoni]

12 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

 

You had to make a correction?  Then according to the last few pages of this discussion, that invalidates your whole premise and casts doubt upon your ability to construct simple sentences.

 

>"You had to make a correction?  Then according to the last few pages of this discussion, that invalidates your whole premise and casts doubt upon your ability to construct simple sentences."

 

        

    Oh.... so horrible I made an error and corrected it.  So that invalidates my whole premise and casts doubt upon my ability to construct simple sentences."

 

      So I guess since it's been now found that climate scientists made a huge mistake also...  that invalidates their whole premise and casts doubt upon their ability to do good science.... or even mediocre science for that matter.

 

  Or do you use double standards ? ?   Just wondering how consistant you are in applying judgment and consequences. 

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

of the papers published specifically intended to support or disprove AGW, 97% conclude with support of AGW, is that correct?

 

 

[my emphasis]

 

No.  You are not understanding the scientific process again.  Studies don't begin with a conclusion.  No study gets funded if it says "we intend to support the theory of AGW".  That's called a fishing expedition and would never get funded.  Why should a research council waste precious resources if they already assume to be true that which the research wants to study?  Try getting a grant to prove the validity of the law of gravity and see how much money you get.  You'll get none, of course.  Does that therefore mean the law of gravity is a hoax?

 

A study starts with a hypothesis based on an observation.  It then attempts to either support or reject the hypothesis, based on the available evidence.  Based on whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected, we can draw a conclusion as to whether the hypothesis supports the overarching theory of AGW.  The researchers might assume or suspect, before they begin, that their research will support AGW theory, but in the end, the results may end up disappointing them in which case they get to throw away their hypothesis and report negative findings.