vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
i'm amused by the ad hom replies you put up instead of addressing the issues I presented. Do you respond in that fashion whenever your ideas are challenged or questions?
The science of AGW was settled decades ago? When was that precisely and by what mechanism? Can you supply support with a citation? Or did you pull that assertion out of your ass with the attendant gas and turds?
Instead of citations you support your claims with the notion that science has moved on. That is hardly a set of data; it is just a weak narrative by you. And, it certainly not the way science works. I can't imagine Einstein accepting Newton's Gravity Theory as settled and moving on.
The heliocentric journey of earth was tested by predicting and verifying the flights of manned space craft, and data collecting roborockets to name but a few successful experiments. What were the climate change predictions that were verified outside of cranky, cantankerous, quarreling computer models? Even the ice core studies contain anomalies and divergences.
For the Doran study, as in many other surveys in other fields, a low response rate to a survey solicitation is a valid issue. Why wouldn't it be? Can you defend it? Without attacking my gentlemanly person?
In the Cook study the 97.1% agreement conclusion arises from a response sample of only 33.7% of abstracts that had an opinion on AGW. How do you defend that as solid science? Well, of course you fail to present a scientific or mathematical defense but resort instead to accusing me of "willful ignorance."
Of course, you are correct: I did not examine all of the studies. Hell, you can't even defend the two that I criticized.
But, okay, have a look at Bray and von Storch from 2003. Just 14 years ago, not the decades when scientists are no longer, so you claim, interested in the question because the "science is settled" and are moving on to other things.
Here is the criticism from your citation:
The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]
One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[34]
The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree".
The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."[citation needed]
Really? The numbers are shite! How can you defend it as a reliable survey? Obviously, you can't so I suppose if you have not hidden yourself away you will come out and defend these flawed results with some scurrilous slanders about me . . . and really, I am such a pleasant and upright fellow. tsk, tsk.
_____________________________
vML
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|
RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread