Australian Politics Forum - Re: Climate Science

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #360 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

Hello? Hello?? You can come out of the echo chamber now. We know you can emote.
Can you kindly point us to the scientific consensus, as requested.

Here's your big chance to express an original thought about what you know.

Well there has actually been some research carried out on that. This study includes Climatologists and the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Quote:

...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes

In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

here are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. (Lobby groups are not scientific institutions regardless of their self-designated names)

Now please note that I'm just answering your question here. Don't accuse me of 'appeal to authority', even though "appeal to authority" is arguably a lot more accurate than "appeal to the mob"

Sorry if I posted out of turn Foolosophy.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:39pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #361 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 4:54pm

muso wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

Hello? Hello?? You can come out of the echo chamber now. We know you can emote.
Can you kindly point us to the scientific consensus, as requested.

Here's your big chance to express an original thought about what you know.

Well there has actually been some research carried out on that. This study includes Climatologists and the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Thanks for this.

I am not nitpicking about definitions but would like to know at what point does the 'significant' in survey question 2 kick in. Statistically significant?

Ten percent would be significant but not causative. See what I'm getting at?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #362 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 5:49pm

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 4:54pm:

muso wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2011 at 10:08am:

Hello? Hello?? You can come out of the echo chamber now. We know you can emote.
Can you kindly point us to the scientific consensus, as requested.

Here's your big chance to express an original thought about what you know.

Well there has actually been some research carried out on that. This study includes Climatologists and the general public.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Thanks for this.

I am not nitpicking about definitions but would like to know at what point does the 'significant' in survey question 2 kick in. Statistically significant?

Ten percent would be significant but not causative. See what I'm getting at?

I'm not nitpicking about your amazing sense of creativity, but how on earth do you turn 97.4% into 10% considering that your original question was about "scientific consensus" ?

Know what I mean? nudge nudge

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #363 - Mar 16^th, 2011 at 11:03pm You misunderstand (again, yawn). I mean 'significant' in survey question No.2 to which 97.4 % of respondents said yes: "2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" At what statistical point does contribution become 'significant'?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #364 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 11:03pm:

You misunderstand (again, yawn).

I mean 'significant' in survey question No.2 to which 97.4 % of respondents said yes:

"2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

At what statistical point does contribution become 'significant'?

Well that depends on the data type. This is a simple yes, no answer, so it can't be described as 6 sigma (99.9997%) or 3 sigma (99.73%). If they had used one of those annoying scaled agreement surveys (Strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree type of thing) they could possibly justify the use of a multiple of standard deviation. You can also build in supplementary questions into the survey that can test the validity of a response even further.

In this case, I'd go with p-value. By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Quote:

The amount of evidence required to accept that an event is unlikely to have arisen by chance is known as the significance level or critical p-value: in traditional Fisherian statistical hypothesis testing, the p-value is the probability of observing data at least as extreme as that observed, given that the null hypothesis is true. If the obtained p-value is small then it can be said either the null hypothesis is false or an unusual event has occurred. It is worth stressing that p-values do not have any repeat sampling interpretation.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:14am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #365 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:10am

Soren's Religious Laws:

1. Carbon dioxide is NOT a product of the fossil fuel combustion process

2. Carbon dioxide concentration is NOT increasing the Earth's atmosphere

3. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a greenhouse gas.

4. The only experts on Climatology are employees and ex-exmployees of the fossil fuel industry corporations.

5. All legislative changes enacted by the Australian Parliament in order to decarbonise the economy must first be authorised by the Coal/gas/Oil and Auto multinational corporations (an by authorise I mean block)

6. All peer reviewed journal articles and research published by climatologists, atmospheric chemists and climate modelling experts etc MUST NOT be referred to as credible or relevant.

7. The official international body that will provide information and proposed actions on AGW to the public is to be headed by EXXON-MOBIL corporation and the PEABODY coal company.

8. All environmental organisations are to be placed on the terrorist list.

(lack of space and time prohibits me from listing all 389 of Soren's Laws as delivered from the mountain top on beelzebub's tablet

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #366 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 17^th, 2011 at 12:01pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #367 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am NewsFlash Soren = Muso
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #368 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am: NewsFlash Soren = Muso NON NewsFlash Fool = Fool
Back to top	IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #369 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:45pm

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

NewsFlash

Soren = Muso

NON NewsFlash

Fool = Fool

Soren is now using my material

They say that mimickiery is the highest form of flatery

But knowing what Soren stands for (or should I say what Soren doesnt stand for) I cant help but feel insulted

Soren's irreversible law of delusional dishonesty is geing played out in the public area ladies and gentlemen

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #370 - Mar 17^th, 2011 at 9:09pm

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:45pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

NewsFlash

Soren = Muso

NON NewsFlash

Fool = Fool

Soren is now using my material

They say that mimickiery is the highest form of flatery

But knowing what Soren stands for (or should I say what Soren doesnt stand for) I cant help but feel insulted

Soren's irreversible law of delusional dishonesty is geing played out in the public area ladies and gentlemen

(Imperium, is that you? Are you doing an Alene Composta? Very funny. Grin

)

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Climate Science
Reply #371 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 9:42am

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 9:09pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:45pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 7:07pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

NewsFlash

Soren = Muso

NON NewsFlash

Fool = Fool

Soren is now using my material

They say that mimickiery is the highest form of flatery

But knowing what Soren stands for (or should I say what Soren doesnt stand for) I cant help but feel insulted

Soren's irreversible law of delusional dishonesty is geing played out in the public area ladies and gentlemen

(Imperium, is that you? Are you doing an Alene Composta? Very funny. Grin

)

Imperium? sounds radioactive

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #372 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:39pm Foolosophy wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am: NewsFlash Soren = Muso No mate. If we compliment each other, you can be sure there's a certain subtlety to that compliment.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate Science
Reply #373 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:44pm

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

muso wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

By the way, I'm impressed that you're asking questions on statistics.

Thanks. I think it's a linguistic question, really. After all, statistics is the art of interpreting numbers (in a way physics or chemistry aren't).

For example (and I mean for example only)
The Japanese earthquake has a "significant' effect on stockmarkets around the world - they have been dropping by about 2-6 %. If human CO2 emission's impact is around that level of significance (and raised no other considerations), then the do absolutely nothing about it approach would be beyond dispute.

Pissing into Sydney harbour will increase its temperature and add to its ammonium levels. I am resolutely against against pissing into the harbour - but not for these reasons. If these were the only arguments against it, I'd encourage the practice for its convenience value, if nothing else.

You think that 'significant' is too vague a term for a survey? Maybe, but that's nitpicking to the n'th degree.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate Science Reply #374 - Mar 18^th, 2011 at 12:46pm Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2011 at 9:09pm: (Imperium, is that you? Are you doing an Alene Composta? Very funny. ) No. It isn't Imperium.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged