Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[Moviefan-2]

If had it been false someone in the denier camp would have said so and why they said so. Have anyone, besides yourself said so?

The "denier" camp? You sound like Groggy when you post things like that.

A person who says that we don't have the evidence to know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate is not a "denier."

In any event, I don't know about Powell's most recent pie chart, but previous versions certainly have been challenged:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

In my own words, I would say the problem with asking whether or not it is "false" is that it's the wrong question. The pie chart may be a factually correct representation of his interpretation of the papers, but it is exceptionally misleading.

It says two papers "reject" man-made global warming, and says nothing about the rest -- other than to cite the total number of papers he looked at. Did most of the remaining ones support global warming? Were they neutral? Did they even address global warming (Powell's catch phrases are quite broad)? We have no idea.

The pie chart tells you absolutely nothing.

But it creates the dishonest illusion of an overwhelming "consensus," when in fact the majority of papers may not have expressed a view one way or the other (that was certainly the case with Cook).

It's not technically false. It is probably more accurate to describe it as pretty much the same thing as a lie by omission. It is designed in such a way as to lead people to extremely false conclusions.

It's utterly worthless as research. Its sole purpose is to mislead.

And it undermines the argument that people who believe in AGW are focused on science. It is political propaganda of the worst kind.

 

[blackrock13]

The "denier" camp? You sound like Groggy when you post things like that.

A person who says that we don't have the evidence to know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate is not a "denier."

In any event, I don't know about Powell's most recent pie chart, but previous versions certainly have been challenged:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

In my own words, I would say the problem with asking whether or not it is "false" is that it's the wrong question. The pie chart may be a factually correct representation of his interpretation of the papers, but it is exceptionally misleading.

It says two papers "reject" man-made global warming, and says nothing about the rest -- other than to cite the total number of papers he looked at. Did most of the remaining ones support global warming? Were they neutral? Did they even address global warming (Powell's catch phrases are quite broad)? We have no idea.

The pie chart tells you absolutely nothing.

But it creates the dishonest illusion of an overwhelming "consensus," when in fact the majority of papers may not have expressed a view one way or the other (that was certainly the case with Cook).

It's not technically false. It is probably more accurate to describe it as pretty much the same thing as a lie by omission. It is designed in such a way as to lead people to extremely false conclusions.

It's utterly worthless as research. Its sole purpose is to mislead.

And it undermines the argument that people who believe in AGW are focused on science. It is political propaganda of the worst kind.

Just a quick red of your reference bring this reason for claiming the Powell claim false is this;

3. The 13,950 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter.

Then

3. Peer-Reviewed?


In his methods, Powell filtered his results by the 'articles' document type which includes content that may not be peer-reviewed depending on the specific journal,

but under methods description Powell says no such thing.

The first thing anyone who wishes to do a literature review needs to do is to decide what question they wish to answer. Many people seem to assume that my question was, “What percentage of scientists accept anthropogenic global warming [AGW]?” But that was not my question. Rather it was, “What fraction of peer-reviewed scientific papers reject AGW and what evidence do they present?” In other words, is there a scientific case against anthropogenic global warming? To answer that question, I needed to find peer-reviewed papers about global warming and review them sufficiently to judge whether they rejected anthropogenic global warming, or offered another alternative. One could go to the library and start reading articles, but that way would take a lifetime. Instead, I turned to the online Web of Science, a compendium of the peer-reviewed literature in all subjects. The WoS allows you to search articles by title, topic, author, date, journal, etc. in any combination.

Step 3
Search with Topic="global warming" AND Topic=" global climate change" in the second field. Use Publication Year=1991 and add a field for Articles or refine the search for articles only. This gives 11 results.


Therefore the total number of unique records for 1991 is 40 + 131 - 11 = 160


Repeat for each year. Or, an easier way is to do three searches for the entire period, 1991-2012, then combine the searches using the OR operator to remove the double counting. Still another way would be to export the records to Excel, then use Excel to identify and remove duplicates.


Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper rejects human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations.


The Web of Science also lists the number of times each article has been cited, and much more. At the bottom of the search page, you can export the results to an Excel file.


Note that some papers that one might expect to find listed were classified as "Review" or "Editorial Material" by WoS. I did not count those.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just a quick red of your reference bring this reason for claiming the Powell claim false is this;



but under methods description Powell says no such thing.

Actually, I didn't use the link that was cited as a reference. It was provided in response to your question about whether others had challenged Powell.

My analysis of Powell's trash propaganda was solely my own.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Does that mean you retract the name of your creationist as one of your three trustworthy, legit climatologists who are deniers?

I never said anything about "trustworthy." Furthermore, the definition of "legit" that was used was agreed to by both of us.

In terms of the bet: yes, I am sticking with the three names that fulfilled your agreed upon definition of "legit."

You lost the bet. Stop being a baby about it.

 

[groggy]

The "denier" camp? You sound like Groggy when you post things like that.

A person who says that we don't have the evidence to know whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions affect the climate is not a "denier."
.

Yes.
When 97% of climatologists say they have 95% certainty and every legit scientific association backs them up, that puts you firmly in the denier camp.
You and a handful of fools like your creationist and a handful of ex-tobacco lobbyists now hired by the oil industy.

 

[groggy]

I never said anything about "trustworthy." Furthermore, the definition of "legit" that was used was agreed to by both of us.

I said 'legit' and you came back with someone you think fills that definition.
That person thinks the world is only 6,000 years old and you think that he is still a 'legit' climatologist.
And if you don't think he's 'trustworthy' why do you quote him?

I stand by my claim, your definition of legit climatologists is so fucked up that you include creationists.
You lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I said 'legit' and you came back with someone you think fills that definition.

I came back with three names of climatologists that met the definition of "legit" that you agreed to: they are employed and conduct research in recognized universities.

That was your definition as much as it was mine, since you accepted the terms of the bet.

You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes.
When 97% of climatologists say....

So, you still prefer political propaganda over science.

How sad.

 

[blackrock13]

Actually, I didn't use the link that was cited as a reference. It was provided in response to your question about whether others had challenged Powell.

My analysis of Powell's trash propaganda was solely my own.

.... and the link was at best weak, at worst fraud. So your still in a very small leaky boat. So you analysis of Powell research/article/graph is solely your own. That explains a lot, little more than a guess, off the mark and biased.

 

[groggy]

I came back with three names of climatologists that met the definition of "legit" that you agreed to: they are employed and conduct research in recognized universities.

That was your definition as much as it was mine, since you accepted the terms of the bet.

You lost.

Bullshit, this is your definition of legit.
In no way would I ever call a creationist a legit scientist, specifically if his science works on recreations of temperatures on times before his god says the earth existed.
This was your choice as what you think 'legit' is.

If you don't think he was legit, take his name back and go buy a book.
If you do think he's legit, well that just sums up how little you understand.

 

[groggy]

So, you still prefer political propaganda over science.

How sad.

Your claim that the thousands of reports and papers and the thousands of scientists work that the IPCC is 'political propaganda' is unfounded bullshit.
Tell me which of the papers submitted to the IPCC for their report was 'political propaganda'?

 

[blackrock13]

Interesting article outlining 12 of the loudest deniers and outlining their interrelationship with big industry and Republicans. For those who want to see past their short arms it's an enlightening read.

http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial

 

[nottyboi]

can someone tell me how the ice ages ended? ...and if so, why the same causes do not apply here?

 

[basketcase]

I don't need to read the papers because Powell's pie chart creates ....

Guess you're just smarter than the rest of us (and the majority of the scientific community).


Are you going to bother commenting on NASA's just released work or do you think you don't have to read that either?

 

[basketcase]

So, you still prefer political propaganda over science.

How sad.

You keep mentioning this but you choose to completely ignore the science.

There is a good reason why the vast majority of scientists believe in the anthropogenic causes of global warming and it's not because they're all on the take.

 

[basketcase]

Interesting article outlining 12 of the loudest deniers and outlining their interrelationship with big industry and Republicans. For those who want to see past their short arms it's an enlightening read.

http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial

But only the IPCC, NASA and others of their ilk have political agendas.

 

[basketcase]

On the scientific consensus:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Seems some pretty big name science organizations think MF is wrong.

 

[basketcase]

can someone tell me how the ice ages ended? ...and if so, why the same causes do not apply here?

Because we're not in an ice age?

 

[blackrock13]

Because we're not in an ice age?

In truth, the last ice age hasn't ended. It started about 2.5 million years ago. When palm trees return to the north shore of Alaska you can call it over.

 

[nottyboi]

Because we're not in an ice age?

that is not a good reason since the problem posed is climate change....I suppose back then you would have been crying about not being able hunt for polar bears year round.