Australian Politics Forum - The Myth of the 97% consensus claim

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #225 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 12:24pm

From a reference cited in lee's own reference; each year was warmer (analysis dated 2013 covering years up to 2012) than the vast majority of all other years since 1880:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/abstract

Quote:

The highest probabilities for the warmest year analysis (1880–2012) are associated with the years 2010 (~36%), 2005 (~28%), and 1998 (~11%). The current separation among the warmest observed years is relatively small compared to the standard errors of the NOAATMP time series. However, each year between 1997 and 2012 was warmer than the vast majority of all other years since 1880 at the 95% confidence level.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #226 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:00pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

It is people like you, who imagine that they can calibrate the climate and set at some optimum, are the real climate change deniers. You deny that the climate changes due to forces much, much bigger than any human influence. You think you can control global climate - you are the real climate change deniers.

It is very fortunate that human influence is so small that we are only talking about a few degrees change, otherwise humanity would already be extinct by its own greed.

How could humanity possibly limit climate change to 2 degrees when its influence on the climate is vanishingly small.

Climate changes regardless of human influence. Those who isnists that humanity can control the degree of climate change are the climate change deniers.

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #227 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:16pm

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

It is people like you, who imagine that they can calibrate the climate and set at some optimum, are the real climate change deniers. You deny that the climate changes due to forces much, much bigger than any human influence. You think you can control global climate - you are the real climate change deniers.

It is very fortunate that human influence is so small that we are only talking about a few degrees change, otherwise humanity would already be extinct by its own greed.

How could humanity possibly limit climate change to 2 degrees when its influence on the climate is vanishingly small.

Climate changes regardless of human influence. Those who isnists that humanity can control the degree of climate change are the climate change deniers.

If you are going to keep claiming that human influence is too small to affect the climate you have to actually present something that supports you claim.

We have 7 billion people pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric measurements confirm that CO2 is increasing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it is a molecule that contains more than 2 atoms. The trend of global temperatures is warming.

I think the evidence is pretty clear

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18852
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #228 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:20pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

From your own reference the statistics are that the NOAA temperature is significant at the 0.1 confidence level.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 12:24pm:

each year between 1997 and 2012 was warmer than the vast majority of all other years since 1880 at the 95% confidence level.

You have shown you do not understand the difference between "confidence levels" and "significance levels". If a 95% confidence level is good, how good is a 0.1confidence level?

As you are confused I will give you a link. Other research, by you, is indicated.

'Confidence intervals are frequently misunderstood, and published studies have shown that even professional scientists often misinterpret them.[7][8][9][10]

A 95% confidence interval does not mean that for a given realised interval calculated from sample data there is a 95% probability the population parameter lies within the interval, nor that there is a 95% probability that the interval covers the population parameter.[11] Once an experiment is done and an interval calculated, this interval either covers the parameter value or it does not, it is no longer a matter of probability. The 95% probability relates to the reliability of the estimation procedure, not to a specific calculated interval.[12] Neyman himself (the original proponent of confidence intervals) made this point in his original paper:[3]

"It will be noticed that in the above description, the probability statements refer to the problems of estimation with which the statistician will be concerned in the future. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that the frequency of correct results will tend to α. Consider now the case when a sample is already drawn and the calculations have given [particular limits]. Can we say that in this particular case the probability of the true value [falling between these limits] is equal to α? The answer is obviously in the negative. The parameter is an unknown constant and no probability statement concerning its value may be made..." '

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:25pm by lee »

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18852 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #229 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:23pm The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:16pm: I think the evidence is pretty clear Where is the evidence, not supposition, not climate models but evidence? Seeing that water vapour is the major component of the atmosphere, why do you think that CO2 is the main driver of AGW/Climate Change?
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #230 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:20pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 11:23pm:

You have no qualifications in the field, you have not compiled or even studied any of the data that has led the experts to conclude that AGW is happening and even if you did you couldn't understand it. All you have is what you cut and paste from sites set up and paid for by people with a powerful motive to discredit the scientists. So that leaves you with two choices (1)Your a sock; deliberately stabbing your species in the back for a few pennies ; (2) Your so stupid and criminally irresponsible that despite the consequences that the scientists have said we face, you're prepared to take the risk and back your judgment over the 97% of the experts who have devoted their working life to the study of climate science. Either way IMO your a contemptible "little" old man. What do you think. Which are you (1) or (2)? my Money's still on (1).

Wow I quote the paper the climate scientist wrote, with the reference. I show the very poor understanding of statistics he uses, with references; and yet you do not study the evidence. You merely engage in name calling.

Your is a belief system. Your climate scientists can never be wrong; they must be trusted implicitly.

No skin of my nose. It seems your intellect is impaired and you have no cognitive function.

I guess I was right; you are a fraud.

Mr. lee you are a blatant liar with no skin left on your nose.

From your own reference the statistics are that the NOAA temperature is significant at the 0.1 confidence level.

Following is preamble to table S1 of lee's reference page 6.

The 90% confidence interval (derived from ݏ௧௥ 169 ) is
170 calculated using the IPCC methodology. In parentheses is a 90% confidence interval (derived
from ݏ௧௢௧ 171 ) which accounts for the uncertainty of trend estimation as well as additional error due
172 to the uncertainty of the underlying annual values in NOAA’s global temperature time series.
173 Boldface indicates trends that are significant at the 0.10 significance level. An asterisk notes that
174 the trend is significant at the 0.10 level based on the uncertainty in the trend estimate using the
175 IPCC methodology only.

lee is using blatant deceit as a debating tactic.

That's what socks who cut and paste from denialist sites do.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18852 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #231 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:27pm ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:20pm: That's what socks who cut and paste from denialist sites do. Posted by: lee Mark & Quote Quote Another one who doesn't know the difference between levels of confidence and statistical significance. The Stupidity, it burns.
Back to top	IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #232 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:29pm

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

It is people like you, who imagine that they can calibrate the climate and set at some optimum, are the real climate change deniers. You deny that the climate changes due to forces much, much bigger than any human influence. You think you can control global climate - you are the real climate change deniers.

It is very fortunate that human influence is so small that we are only talking about a few degrees change, otherwise humanity would already be extinct by its own greed.

How could humanity possibly limit climate change to 2 degrees when its influence on the climate is vanishingly small.

Climate changes regardless of human influence. Those who isnists that humanity can control the degree of climate change are the climate change deniers.

How ignorant you sound. Why don't you ask "How could the earth be round and we don't fall off the edge". You don't know anything about the subject. You haven't spent a life time studying it. It is totally lacking in good sense and responsibility for you to insist to others that AGW is not true. Until you become an expert yourself (with all the study and time that that entails) you are a fool to insist that your view is to be preferred to what 97% of the experts are saying.

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #233 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:34pm

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:27pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:20pm:

That's what socks who cut and paste from denialist sites do.
Posted by: lee Mark & Quote Quote

Another one who doesn't know the difference between levels of confidence and statistical significance. The Stupidity, it burns.

lee's stupidity cannot be cured, it is induced by greed for it's master's money.

lee posts nonsense as fact and does not even analyze the information from it's sources and then announces his denial of global warming. lees purpose is to obfuscate and confound arguments that humans are a major cause of global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

ImSpartacus2

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6913

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #234 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:36pm

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:27pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:20pm:

That's what socks who cut and paste from denialist sites do.
Posted by: lee Mark & Quote Quote

Another one who doesn't know the difference between levels of confidence and statistical significance. The Stupidity, it burns.

You have no credibility because you haven't the common sense to be wary of the self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from and prefer your limited understanding of the subject over what 97% of the experts are saying. Answer the question. Are you a sock as I believe you are or just an irresponsible stupid bastard.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18852
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #235 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:42pm

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

You have no credibility because you haven't the common sense to be wary of the self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from and prefer your limited understanding of the subject over what 97% of the experts are saying. Answer the question. Are you a sock as I believe you are or just an irresponsible stupid bastard.

Let's see; I quoted Science Mag, IPCC, Statistics for Dummies,Wiki (more as collaboration than anything else), so if I am quoting " self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from", they are from the warmist side of the argument.

I guess that makes you, with your limited intellect, the "stupid bastard".

Back to top

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #236 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:24pm

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

You have no credibility because you haven't the common sense to be wary of the self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from and prefer your limited understanding of the subject over what 97% of the experts are saying. Answer the question. Are you a sock as I believe you are or just an irresponsible stupid bastard.

Let's see; I quoted Science Mag, IPCC, Statistics for Dummies,Wiki (more as collaboration than anything else), so if I am quoting " self interested sites you cut and paste your arguments from", they are from the warmist side of the argument.

I guess that makes you, with your limited intellect, the "stupid bastard".

You forgot to quote your main sources, Alfred E Neuman and Mad Magazine.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18852 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #237 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:31pm Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:24pm: You forgot to quote your main sources, Alfred E Neuman and Mad Magazine. They seem to be yours, but please feel free to link where I have cited them.
Back to top	IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim
Reply #238 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:36pm

lee wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 30^th, 2015 at 4:24pm:

You forgot to quote your main sources, Alfred E Neuman and Mad Magazine.

They seem to be yours, but please feel free to link where I have cited them.

You appear to be getting despondent about being denounced as a purveyor of obfuscation.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Myth of the 97% consensus claim Reply #239 - Aug 30^th, 2015 at 11:17pm We are not influencing the climate sufficiently to be able to claim a controlling influence. Refute it, bozos.i
Back to top	IP Logged