Australian Politics Forum - Evidence for global warming.

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21391 Gender:	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #210 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:12pm Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:03pm: "I don't understand random error, therefore the scientists are wrong." So you don't understand the Gambler's Fallacy. It shows.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21391
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #211 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #212 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:42pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:12pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:03pm:

"I don't understand random error, therefore the scientists are wrong."

So you don't understand the Gambler's Fallacy. It shows.

I wondered if there was some reason why you think the Gambler's Fallacy is even relevant to measurement uncertainities, and the connection appears to be "Monte Carlo".

The Monte Carlo simulation doesn't have anything to do with the Monte Carlo Fallacy (Gambler's Fallacy), besides the fact that they are named after the same casino and are both related to probability.

Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #213 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:44pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

Classic cherry-picking.

Quote:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Back to top

IP Logged

goldkam

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 292

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #214 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:50pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

That is reading way too far into a scientific fact....

Firstly we are in 2019 not 2011 so there is over 8 years of data missing.

Secondly bodies such as the UN, NASA, Bureau of Meteorology amongst many other established bodies have confirmed and stipulate climate change is real and have linked human causation. This study hasn't considered any bodies, institutions or organisations..

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position. Additionally its highly interpretative when a person considers what 'expressing no position' actually means. How is 'expressing no position' measured in this study?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21391
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #215 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:57pm

Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:42pm:

The Monte Carlo simulation doesn't have anything to do with the Monte Carlo Fallacy (Gambler's Fallacy), besides the fact that they are named after the same casino and are both related to probability.

Good start. keep going. yo may get there yet.

"As a general rule of thumb, when you are adding two uncertain quantities and one uncertainty is more than twice as big as the other, you can just use the larger uncertainty as the uncertainty of the sum, and neglect the smaller uncertainty
entirely. (However, if you are adding more than two quantities together, you probably shouldn’t neglect the smaller uncertainties unless they are at most 1/3 as big as the largest uncertainty.) "

http://ipl.physics.harvard.edu/wp-uploads/2013/03/PS3_Error_Propagation_sp13.pdf

So the uncertainties don't get smaller. You just use the biggest one unless there are a number, Then they would be additive. They don't reduce the uncertainty.

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #216 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:05pm

goldkam wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

That is reading way too far into a scientific fact....

Firstly we are in 2019 not 2011 so there is over 8 years of data missing.

Secondly bodies such as the UN, NASA, Bureau of Meteorology amongst many other established bodies have confirmed and stipulate climate change is real and have linked human causation. This study hasn't considered any bodies, institutions or organisations..

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position. Additionally its highly interpretative when a person considers what 'expressing no position' actually means. How is 'expressing no position' measured in this study?

Easiest way to find out is to read the study.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240...

Quote:

No position: Does not address or mention the cause of global warming

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21391
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #217 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:08pm

Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:44pm:

Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus

You missed the first bit. So that gives 64.5% of abstracts that did endorse a position on AGW.

Now we take 97.2% of the 64.5% of ABSTRACTS remember, not climate scientists.

Which would give us 62.7% of abstracts not climate scientists. That is still a long way from 97" of climate scientists, which is the claim. Wink

And that Abstract feedback isn't the paper. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21391 Gender:	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #218 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:11pm Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:05pm: https://sci-hub.tw/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/17 48-9326/8/2/0240... Why use Sci_hub there? it is Open Source at iopscience which is who the authors presented it to. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Back to top	IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #219 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:13pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:57pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:42pm:

The Monte Carlo simulation doesn't have anything to do with the Monte Carlo Fallacy (Gambler's Fallacy), besides the fact that they are named after the same casino and are both related to probability.

Good start. keep going. yo may get there yet.

"As a general rule of thumb, when you are adding two uncertain quantities and one uncertainty is more than twice as big as the other, you can just use the larger uncertainty as the uncertainty of the sum, and neglect the smaller uncertainty
entirely. (However, if you are adding more than two quantities together, you probably shouldn’t neglect the smaller uncertainties unless they are at most 1/3 as big as the largest uncertainty.) "

http://ipl.physics.harvard.edu/wp-uploads/2013/03/PS3_Error_Propagation_sp13.pdf

So the uncertainties don't get smaller. You just use the biggest one unless there are a number, Then they would be additive. They don't reduce the uncertainty.

The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that something becomes less likely the more times it happens, like a coin landing on heads. It has nothing to do with uncertainty in measurement.

You've just got no idea.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21391
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #220 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:15pm

goldkam wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position. Additionally its highly interpretative when a person considers what 'expressing no position' actually means. How is 'expressing no position' measured in this study?

You would need to ask John Cook lead Author, Owner of Skeptical Science website.

Supplementary material available at -

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

As listed at the bottom of the paper.

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #221 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm

goldkam wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:50pm:

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:19pm:

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

If the other scientists (the 3%) want to publish something contradictory then there is nothing stopping them, except ridicule, honey bunch.

But Cook et al 2013 didn't get 97%.

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. "

So all these were publishing scientists, hence the abstracts.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,"

That leaves 33.6%.

"32.6% endorsed AGW,"

Quotes from - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So what you mean is 32.6% of publishing climate scientists, according to Cook et al endorsed AGW.

That is a L-o-o-ng way from 97%. Wink

That is reading way too far into a scientific fact....

Firstly we are in 2019 not 2011 so there is over 8 years of data missing.

Secondly bodies such as the UN, NASA, Bureau of Meteorology amongst many other established bodies have confirmed and stipulate climate change is real and have linked human causation. This study hasn't considered any bodies, institutions or organisations..

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position. Additionally its highly interpretative when a person considers what 'expressing no position' actually means. How is 'expressing no position' measured in this study?

Sort of puts your argument into another dimension blossom.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21391 Gender:	Re: Evidence for global warming. Reply #222 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:18pm Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:13pm: The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that something becomes less likely the more times it happens, like a coin landing on heads. Exactly. And the same with numbers. The more likely that the result will be tighter to the mean.
Back to top	IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #223 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:23pm

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:18pm:

Robot wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

The Gambler's Fallacy is the belief that something becomes less likely the more times it happens, like a coin landing on heads.

Exactly. And the same with numbers. The more likely that the result will be tighter to the mean. Wink

Yeah, you definitely don't understand the Gambler's Fallacy. You seem to think it is related to regression to the mean. It isn't.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21391
Gender: male

Re: Evidence for global warming.
Reply #224 - Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:26pm

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Firstly we are in 2019 not 2011 so there is over 8 years of data missing.

And that has not been addressed by anyone. Care to do it?

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Secondly bodies such as the UN, NASA, Bureau of Meteorology amongst many other established bodies have confirmed and stipulate climate change is real and have linked human causation.

That's quite correct. Now the challenge is to find what percentage. Wink

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Thirdly abstracts don't necessarily express the final position.

Actually they are supposed to. The Abstract should give arguments for, perhaps arguments against, and a simplified conclusion.

"Informative abstracts
The majority of abstracts are informative. While they still do not critique or evaluate a work, they do more than describe it. A good informative abstract acts as a surrogate for the work itself. That is, the writer presents and explains all the main arguments and the important results and evidence in the complete article/paper/book. An informative abstract includes the information that can be found in a descriptive abstract (purpose, methods, scope) but also includes the results and conclusions of the research and the recommendations of the author. The length varies according to discipline, but an informative abstract is rarely more than 10% of the length of the entire work. In the case of a longer work, it may be much less."

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/abstracts/

If the abstract doesn't present the final position, do you mean it uses a draft position?

Johnnie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

Sort of puts your argument into another dimension blossom.

If you had comprehended it, you would have seen the shortcomings of it. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged