OT: I’m bored...any flat earthers???

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

Here is the rest of the scientific organizations that support the idea that climate change has been impacted by human activity.

The absolute hubris of believing you know more than literally hundreds of thousands of experts in the field is jaw dropping.

Bod1ne · Mar 20, 2018

Line of sight proves the earth is round.

People are indeed f*&cking up the planet.

Pesto, artichoke hearts, red onion, kalamata olives, spinach & provolone.

Now, with that solved, how about we discuss important Duke stuff, like how will Zion fare playing against players over 6' tall for the first time? If AOC gains 15 lbs, will it be inappropriate to call him the Slim Reaper? What can K do to get 5* one-and-doners to stay 3 or 4 years like Roy does?

DukeDenver · Mar 20, 2018

The rate at which CO2 and surface temps are rising is the fact that is impossible to talk around. Arguing that humans are not the PRIMARY cause of these measurable trends is difficult. Just look at the graph of temperature over the last 1000 years.

That red part on the right perfectly overlaps the time period of extraction and burning of oil. You might say that is just a coincidence, but the burden is on YOU, not me, to prove it is from something else besides CO2. All I'm doing is measuring stuff in the air. I'm not pushing any agenda.

pisgah101 · Mar 20, 2018

DukeDenver said:
This thread is "heating up."

As a scientist, I will point out the inability to predict tomorrow's weather has zero to do with climate forecasting.

I have read some scientists' views that global warming is not mostly due to man's impact, but there is certainly more evidence to the contrary (97% of all papers from 2000-2013 to be exact). That's not to say there aren't some interesting facts supporting your views: like there was likely 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere at a time when glaciers dominated the Earth 400 million years ago. There is also evidence that solar cycles (whatever the hell those are) are a pretty important natural driver of climate change. No one is denying that natural forces aren't a major part of this, but the CO2 correlation and modelling is just too convincing for me at this point. I don't see the harm of trying to reduce emissions as much a possible without straining the economy. Money will always come first with human beings, so we need to operate within that paradigm. Environmentalism can be profitable.

Solid post thanks! I was more directed at the look down your nose at anyone who doesn't agree you you professor Dude

DukeDenver · Mar 20, 2018

pisgah101 said:
Solid post thanks! I was more directed at the look down your nose at anyone who doesn't agree you you professor Dude

I think that is a problem with many professors. I don't think less of people who are skeptical. I also don't find it necessary to get accusatory in these discussions. We all have reasons for our stances. Your perspective is not meaningless just because it's not popular.

QC Dukie · Mar 20, 2018

How come psychics never win the lottery?

pisgah101 · Mar 20, 2018

DukeDenver said:
I think that is a problem with many professors. I don't think less of people who are skeptical. I also don't find it necessary to get accusatory in these discussions. We all have reasons for our stances. Your perspective is not meaningless just because it's not popular.

Right. I mean for years we thought the earth was flat and we were wrong

Gotta bring it full circle hahaha!

DukefanKY · Mar 20, 2018

QC Dukie said:
How come psychics never win the lottery?

Or fill out a perfect bracket.....

dukephysics · Mar 20, 2018

pisgah101 said:
Right. I mean for years we thought the earth was flat and we were wrong

Gotta bring it full circle hahaha!

Flat Earth mostly predates modern science. As people moved away from philosophy and theology toward science to explain things, evidence started to clearly point to a spherical Earth.
The climate change issue today isn't entirely unlike the flat earth ideas from several hundred years ago. In one camp you have folks with an abundance of data that clearly points to human contributions to global climate change. In the other camp you have people who for whatever cannot seem to be convinced who push back in a number of ways.

dukedevilz · Mar 20, 2018

The problem with the tens of millions of different climate-change graphs out there, is they can be cherry-picked to prove your point. Also, I would note that most, perhaps all, of these prestigious scientific institutions are presenting adjusted data points. You don't have a Phd to understand there have been material differences in some of these adjustments. Take a look at some of the changes that you can find in the KNMI database.

screen_shot_2015-12-23_at_9.48.07_am.png

screen_shot_2015-12-23_at_9.47.41_am.png

screen_shot_2015-12-23_at_9.47.59_am.png

DukefanKY · Mar 20, 2018

I don't care what is causing global warming. I just wish it would warm the hell up in ky......4" of snow predicted tomorrow.

SoCal_Dukie3 · Mar 20, 2018

Here we go, "climate change", I mean "glo-bull warming", I mean "global cooling".....Ah forget about it.

Man-driven Climate change talk won't end anytime soon, there's too much money in it...

Mmmmm, pre-cooked bacon....

SoCal_Dukie3 · Mar 20, 2018

And yes the Earth is round....

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

pisgah101 said:
Solid post thanks! I was more directed at the look down your nose at anyone who doesn't agree you you professor Dude

Oh f that. I think we can look down our noses at people who think the Earth is f'ing flat. Give me a break, Pisgah... that is SO disingenuine. Stop acting like everyones thoughts are equally valid and everyone is a winner and everyone deserves a trophy and everyone knows as much as everyone else, and getting all upset that someone DOESN'T feel that way. You damn liberal commie.

vcugreg · Mar 20, 2018

Quick look at UNC fans walking in on an intellectual conversation...

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

SoCal_Dukie3 said:
Here we go, "climate change", I mean "glo-bull warming", I mean "global cooling".....Ah forget about it.

Man-driven Climate change talk won't end anytime soon, there's too much money in it...

Mmmmm, pre-cooked bacon....

Right? All that oil and coal money... Exxon's 20 billion dollar profit last year... Peabody's 6 billion... it PALES in comparison to those college professors and scientists out in the field... bunch of rich mofos. They just became scientists because of all that money!

But sure. You know more than the literal scientists posting in this thread.

****. The ego of some of you is insane. INSANE.

I don't get why some people struggle SO badly with saying "These people know more than me, so I will listen to them and learn from then." That's why I largely shut up during economic discussions or legal discussions or medical discussions or any number of topics where I am not informed or experienced enough to have an opinion that really means much.

Canadian Dukie · Mar 20, 2018

vcugreg said:
Quick look at UNC fans walking in on an intellectual conversation...

LOL

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

DukeDenver said:
I think that is a problem with many professors. I don't think less of people who are skeptical. I also don't find it necessary to get accusatory in these discussions. We all have reasons for our stances. Your perspective is not meaningless just because it's not popular.

See, I think less of people who bury their heads in the sand and will not listen to those with more experience.

I think less of people who are presented with facts and say "I don't care, I'm going to stick with what I think, even though it is based on nothing."

And I certainly think perspectives that are based on experience or information or facts are far more meaningful than perspectives that are just random and unsupported.

pisgah101 · Mar 20, 2018

TheDude1 said:
Oh f that. I think we can look down our noses at people who think the Earth is f'ing flat. Give me a break, Pisgah... that is SO disingenuine. Stop acting like everyones thoughts are equally valid and everyone is a winner and everyone deserves a trophy and everyone knows as much as everyone else, and getting all upset that someone DOESN'T feel that way. You damn liberal commie.

Haha poor guy can't stop can he. Once again please read what o said about flat earth. Reading comprehension must not of been taught when u got your fancy 12 year degree

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

pisgah101 said:
Haha poor guy can't stop can he. Once again please read what o said about flat earth. Reading comprehension must not of been taught when u got your fancy 12 year degree

Pisgah, this isn't a personal thing, so I'll back way, way off, as much as you are taking shots at me being a douche and a know it all and making fun of my "fancy degree" and my reading comprehension, all because I literally said that flat earth stuff is ridiculous and correctly guessed that you don't belive mankind has any impact on global warming.

So here it is, simply put:

*Anyone who thinks that there is ANY validity to "flat earth" is, at best, ignorant as hell.

* When you say flat earth stuff 'It is interesting' it sounds an awful lot like 'I am not going to flat out agree that the Earth is flat, but it IS possible...'

- If you think the "flat earth" theory is moronic but you are entertained by it, the same way we can be entertained by idiotic stuff, say so. In which case fine, I get it.

- If you think there is any validity to the "flat earth" theory, say so.

* About global warming... you can have your opinion, but it seems to be totally unsupported by nearly every scientist in the world. This is just fact; nearly every reputable science organization and scientist in the world says that mankind is having an impact on our climate. I literally posted an exhaustive list of world-wide, unconnected scientific organizations that support this idea.

So Pisgah, just tell me; how did you come to your conclusion that we are not having an impact? What scientists do you refer to? What have you read? And most importantly, what would it take to change your conclusion?

That's it. Not looking to get into a fight; you seem like a nice enough fellow, and I love your woodworking. But come on man... if you are truly a conservative, you cannot POSSIBLY believe that all opinions are equally valid and that everyones ideas are equal and that someone with no experience will have as valid a stance as someone with experience. That's like as liberal communist as can exist... it is like the epitome of "participation trophy." Its just not realistic.

FearTheBeard · Mar 20, 2018

I heard that cow farts are causing global warming. So, I do my part by eating as much steak as possible. Probably only makes it worse bc they need more cows, but dammit I love a good steak.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

FearTheBeard said:
I heard that cow farts are causing global warming. So, I do my part by eating as much steak as possible. Probably only makes it worse bc they need more cows, but dammit I love a good steak.

I always hear about this "cow fart" thing, but don't know much about it. Is the idea that our huge industrialized farming is resulting in unsustainable levels of methane?

dukedevilz · Mar 20, 2018

The Climate Change issue, in my opinion, is that the Science is not settled, nor will it ever be settled. In that Forbes article I referenced earlier, it was stated that only 1.6% of the scientists explicitly endorsed the belief that human emissions is responsible for more than 50% of man-made Global Warming. I don't doubt that human activity is warming the earth, but is it a material amount? Will it cause irreparable damage to the Earth? Is it feasible/ethical (think of the monetary impact this could have on third-world countries) to completely divest from carbon-based emissions? I've read multiple studies which indicate that temperatures have plateaued since 2001. I cringe at the thought of what the Paris Climate Agreement could have on economies. A team over at MIT estimated that if all the promised cuts from the accord were implemented, the global climate would be lowered by 0.2 degrees Celsius by the Year 2100. Talk about a homerun. The accord is estimated to cost between $1-2 trillion worldwide. That's hardly cost-effective.

I don't have any concrete beliefs, answers, or solutions to climate change. I'm just very skeptical of anyone that insists that the science is settled. Accepting the status-quo is the very abolition of science. How could we possibly measure the impact of carbon emissions on the climate? You can't theorize how much humans are contributing to the climate if you can't isolate the carbon-based energy consumption in the equation. Also, I'm very skeptical that you can predict the climate, as was alluded to earlier.

Will Happer, an American Physicist and Emeritus Professor at Princeton has stated "I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models. And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future. There’s a common-sense reason for this. The atmosphere’s complexity rivals that of the human brain. The sun, oceans, weather, clouds, and human interference play a part in how the atmosphere affects the climate. For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water. The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface. We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations."

...And yes, California is now regulating cow-farts. You can't make this stuff up.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/gov-jerry-brown-signs-law-regulating-cow-farts-landfills/

SoCal_Dukie3 · Mar 20, 2018

pisgah101 said:
Haha poor guy can't stop can he. Once again please read what o said about flat earth. Reading comprehension must not of been taught when u got your fancy 12 year degree

I'd love to see the debt behind those fancy pieces of paper.

**disclaimer: I'm all for higher education, but have no shame mocking those who try to put others down and beat their chest for that same higher education.**

DukefanKY · Mar 20, 2018

Here is what I think about flat earth. We have an upcoming weekend that looks favorable for us to make a final four, and we have adults, grown ups, arguing, calling each other names, and being disrespectful to each other about whether the earth is round or flat.....WTF??? After all the highs and lows with this team this year...the Mich St game without Bags, then the St John's game, then unc at Cameron, then unc in the ACCT, now here we are, able to just about taste the final four......and we are pissing on one another about the earth being flat?? I know that not one person in here really believes it's flat, but we would rather be sh*tty to each other about this stupid subject, than be fired up about what we may be getting ready to do. A bunch of 3rd graders would laugh at us for arguing about this.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

dukedevilz said:
The Climate Change issue, in my opinion, is that the Science is not settled, nor will it ever be settled. In that Forbes article I referenced earlier, it was stated that only 1.6% of the scientists explicitly endorsed the belief that human emissions is responsible for more than 50% of man-made Global Warming. I don't doubt that human activity is warming the earth, but is it a material amount? Will it cause irreparable damage to the Earth? Is it feasible/ethical (think of the monetary impact this could have on third-world countries) to completely divest from carbon-based emissions? I've read multiple studies which indicate that temperatures have plateaued since 2001. I cringe at the thought of what the Paris Climate Agreement could have on economies. A team over at MIT estimated that if all the promised cuts from the accord were implemented, the global climate would be lowered by 0.2 degrees Celsius by the Year 2100. Talk about a homerun. The accord is estimated to cost between $1-2 trillion worldwide. That's hardly cost-effective.

I don't have any concrete beliefs, answers, or solutions to climate change. I'm just very skeptical of anyone that insists that the science is settled. Accepting the status-quo is the very abolition of science. How could we possibly measure the impact of carbon emissions on the climate? You can't theorize how much humans are contributing to the climate if you can't isolate the carbon-based energy consumption in the equation. Also, I'm very skeptical that you can predict the climate, as was alluded to earlier.

Will Happer, an American Physicist and Emeritus Professor at Princeton has stated "I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models. And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future. There’s a common-sense reason for this. The atmosphere’s complexity rivals that of the human brain. The sun, oceans, weather, clouds, and human interference play a part in how the atmosphere affects the climate. For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water. The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface. We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations."

...And yes, California is now regulating cow-farts. You can't make this stuff up.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/09/19/gov-jerry-brown-signs-law-regulating-cow-farts-landfills/

The beauty of science is that it is almost NEVER settled. Science is just hypothesis and results that support it and can be replicated. But science can ALWAYS change. If the vast majority of scientists found that we are NOT having an impact on the climate, that would be a HUGE huge huge relief.

That said... there reaches a point when science is widely accepted. This seems to be one of them, and one that a great many people with a lot of experience in the field are saying is vital to pay attention to, for the well being of our species.

As for the article (which was written by someone with no background in the sciences as far as I can tell, but who does seem rather invested in fossil fuels... he actually wrote a book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels", is considered one of the top climate change deniers in the world, and runs a FOR PROFIT pro-industry think tank)... it is a bit fuzzy. For example, that 1.6% thing you quoted is completely unattributed or supported; it literally just says "one observer" came up with that, and that's it. No idea who, what, when... nothing.

Also, it seems to focus on a single word from the summary of a single paper; "main". But it does NOT challenge the idea that 97% of scientists in that particular collection of published works say that mankind has had an impact on our climate, and it in no way, shape, or form undermines the thousands of statements made by thousands of climate scientists and organizations that clearly state that, since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has contributed to a change in our climate that is leading to problems.

The first page of that article is particularly illogical, but you didn't talk about it, so I won't either.

Will Happer, who is indeed quite accomplished, is not a climate scientist, and was also caught in a sting in which he was writing in support of mankind having no impact on our climate in exchange for money, and even tried to hide those payments. On top of that, many of his fellow scientists say he is flat out wrong, and he has been called out as being wrong on many occasions, including when he argued that more CO2 is actually a GOOD thing, because it will make plants happy. Honestly, I am not even sure what he is saying... that humans cannot figure out complex systems, and that water cannot be figured out because it moves around a lot? Regardless, I am not sure his view alone is enough to outweigh the views of so many others.

I appreciate you discussing it rationally and in depth, and even with links!

As for the California bit... you are being a bit sensationalist, I think. The bill focuses on short-lived climate pollutants, including those from landfills, and which apparently have a bigger impact than expected, and pushes to do things like use methane produced to produce energy, all in an attempt to push back the impact of carbon based pollutants long enough to develop technology that is capable of dealing with them. Don't get all distracted by the media using "cow farts" to get clicks and miss the point of the actual law

BlueDaveil · Mar 20, 2018

Bod1ne said:
Now, with that solved, how about we discuss important Duke stuff, like how will Zion fare playing against players over 6' tall for the first time? If AOC gains 15 lbs, will it be inappropriate to call him the Slim Reaper? What can K do to get 5* one-and-doners to stay 3 or 4 years like Roy does?

He will just jump higher and dunk harder

Yes, Mildly Muscular Reaper sounds dumb

Stop getting every top 5 prospect and stop calling timeouts

Canadian Dukie · Mar 20, 2018

I actually like Mildly Muscular Reaper!

Mac9192 · Mar 20, 2018

I'm not touching this debate. One thing I do know, and that's we lose Friday and my temperature will rise.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

dukedevilz said:
The problem with the tens of millions of different climate-change graphs out there, is they can be cherry-picked to prove your point. Also, I would note that most, perhaps all, of these prestigious scientific institutions are presenting adjusted data points. You don't have a Phd to understand there have been material differences in some of these adjustments. Take a look at some of the changes that you can find in the KNMI database.

Do me a favor? I don't quite get what the data adjustment that these Daily Wire graphs are showing means. Can you explain?

@DukeDenver if you can explain it, that would be great too. I don't get it.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

SoCal_Dukie3 said:
I'd love to see the debt behind those fancy pieces of paper.

**disclaimer: I'm all for higher education, but have no shame mocking those who try to put others down and beat their chest for that same higher education.**

Such a pussy. Ignores someone, and then invents something that never got said (put people down and beat their chest about higher education) to suit his strange obsession and then bravely says how he just HAS to stand up against it.

DukeDenver · Mar 20, 2018

dukedevilz said:
The problem with the tens of millions of different climate-change graphs out there, is they can be cherry-picked to prove your point.

Take a look at some of the changes that you can find in the KNMI database.

So are you proving the point that you can make it look like global temps are cooling by cherry picking unadjusted data from 4 random cities from around the world?

That's true, you can. The problem is the graphs I showed before combine data from thousands of cities and the data adjustments are logical, not designed to influence the outcome.

I'll give you the final word, and I'm bowing out of this topic as we've got some bad blood brewing now. Why did OP start this mess? Oh wait, I did...

DukeDenver · Mar 20, 2018

TheDude1 said:
Such a pussy. Ignores someone, and then invents something that never got said (put people down and beat their chest about higher education) to suit his strange obsession and then bravely says how he just HAS to stand up against it.

c1fdd8e9e6778a6e41bf545b1e0bf23355e4f653dde183e8e9719b486cc89f1c.jpg

dukedevilz · Mar 20, 2018

TheDude1 said:
The beauty of science is that it is almost NEVER settled. Science is just hypothesis and results that support it and can be replicated. But science can ALWAYS change. If the vast majority of scientists found that we are NOT having an impact on the climate, that would be a HUGE huge huge relief.

That said... there reaches a point when science is widely accepted. This seems to be one of them, and one that a great many people with a lot of experience in the field are saying is vital to pay attention to, for the well being of our species.

As for the article (which was written by someone with no background in the sciences as far as I can tell, but who does seem rather invested in fossil fuels... he actually wrote a book called "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels", is considered one of the top climate change deniers in the world, and runs a FOR PROFIT pro-industry think tank)... it is a bit fuzzy. For example, that 1.6% thing you quoted is completely unattributed or supported; it literally just says "one observer" came up with that, and that's it. No idea who, what, when... nothing.

Also, it seems to focus on a single word from the summary of a single paper; "main". But it does NOT challenge the idea that 97% of scientists in that particular collection of published works say that mankind has had an impact on our climate, and it in no way, shape, or form undermines the thousands of statements made by thousands of climate scientists and organizations that clearly state that, since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has contributed to a change in our climate that is leading to problems.

The first page of that article is particularly illogical, but you didn't talk about it, so I won't either.

Will Happer, who is indeed quite accomplished, is not a climate scientist, and was also caught in a sting in which he was writing in support of mankind having no impact on our climate in exchange for money, and even tried to hide those payments. On top of that, many of his fellow scientists say he is flat out wrong, and he has been called out as being wrong on many occasions, including when he argued that more CO2 is actually a GOOD thing, because it will make plants happy. Honestly, I am not even sure what he is saying... that humans cannot figure out complex systems, and that water cannot be figured out because it moves around a lot? Regardless, I am not sure his view alone is enough to outweigh the views of so many others.

I appreciate you discussing it rationally and in depth, and even with links!

As for the California bit... you are being a bit sensationalist, I think. The bill focuses on short-lived climate pollutants, including those from landfills, and which apparently have a bigger impact than expected, and pushes to do things like use methane produced to produce energy, all in an attempt to push back the impact of carbon based pollutants long enough to develop technology that is capable of dealing with them. Don't get all distracted by the media using "cow farts" to get clicks and miss the point of the actual law

John Cook is the one who was evaluating the 11,000+ peer-related articles into 7 different levels. David Friedman was calling him out for lumping level 2
(explicit endorsement without quantification) and level 3 evaluations (implicit endorsement) in with level 1 (explicit endorsement with quantification) - those 3 categories comprise the 97%. 66.4% of the authors of these articles didn't even express an opinion on AGW.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html

dukedevilz · Mar 20, 2018

TheDude1 said:
Do me a favor? I don't quite get what the data adjustment that these Daily Wire graphs are showing means. Can you explain?

@DukeDenver if you can explain it, that would be great too. I don't get it.

Here's what the author said:

For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.

DukeDenver · Mar 20, 2018

dukedevilz said:
Here's what the author said:

For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS, two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true. Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.

That doesn't really explain anything. All he says that is that "many" places show the opposite. How many is "many"? and what were the adjustments in the NASA data?

I like pizza, go Duke! We better stomp Cuse into a flat Earth shape.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

dukedevilz said:
John Cook is the one who was evaluating the 11,000+ peer-related articles into 7 different levels. David Friedman was calling him out for lumping level 2
(explicit endorsement without quantification) and level 3 evaluations (implicit endorsement) in with level 1 (explicit endorsement with quantification) - those 3 categories comprise the 97%. 66.4% of the authors of these articles didn't even express an opinion on AGW.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html

So the way I am reading that first link...

Cook said that 97% of the abstracts that took a position on the theory of AGW said that it was "mainly" caused by humans, but that only 33% of the abstracts overall even TOOK a position in the first place, meaning that, in reality, only about 32% of the abstracts specifically said that AGW is "mainly" man-caused.

But the general population took that 97% number to mean that 97% of THE TOTAL NUMBER of abstracts took the stance that AGW is man-caused?

That second part is interesting, though.

When they then had the actual AUTHORS of the paper analyze their OWN abstracts, 65% of them felt their papers took a stance on AGW, and 97% of those people agreed that mankind is "mainly" causing AGW, which would leave you with roughly 64% of scientists in the entire study believing that AGW is "mainly" man-caused.

As for the second link yeah, I think I said that earlier? The issue is "MAIN" cause of AGW. But that does NOT discount that 97% of the papers cited DO say that mankind is A cause of AGW. And hey, if 97% of scientists think that mankind at least playing SOME part in AGW, and roughly 64% think we are the MAIN cause of AGW... that seems relatively important.

TheDude1 · Mar 20, 2018

DukeDenver said:
That doesn't really explain anything. All he says that is that "many" places show the opposite. How many is "many"? and what were the adjustments in the NASA data?

I like pizza, go Duke! We better stomp Cuse into a flat Earth shape.

Hey Denver, a question... since you are a scientist of some sort (feel free to correct me)... in your personal experience, how often do scientists do research with more attention to funding than on the actual results? That is a talking point I see reflected often... that scientists are often bought and paid for by grants and the like, and their results reflect that. Any personal experience there?

skysdad · Mar 20, 2018

It's flat. Fell off of it one time. Thought I'd never get back.

OFC

SoCal_Dukie3 · Mar 20, 2018

Wow I must have missed the personal attacks....must be the block feature lol.

I don't think anyone here believes the Earth is flat, but for glo-bull warming? That's a different story not even worth debating.

OT: I’m bored...any flat earthers???

Cameron Crazy

Recruit

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Moderator

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Moderator

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

All American

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

All Conference

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Moderator

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

All Conference

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Cameron Crazy

Devils Illustrated Hall of Famer

Cameron Crazy

Similar threads