Australian Politics Forum - Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #90 - Aug 23^rd, 2019 at 11:16pm

When proven liars post crap it is best to check the source of their bullshit (If they are stupid enough to post links)!!!

Quote:

Science Publishing Group

Science Publishing Group is a publisher of academic journals and books. It has an address in New York, USA, but is based in Pakistan

Criticism of publishing practices

The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing. In an experiment, university professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons).

Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication. Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, in 2014 pseudonymously published a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics. The article contained an alleged proof of Buddhist Karma

About the author Ed Berry (Science Publishing Group)

Quote:

Most of us wish that Ed Berry’s denials of climate science are correct. Certainly, I do. None of us want to change how we get the energy to run our civilization. Unfortunately, we must change and Berry’s climate denials aren’t credible, never will be, and are extremely dangerous for the planet.

https://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-9f46cb44-cc7e-11e5-9150-6f7714cc2...

Quote:

Predatory publishers: the journals that churn out fake science

A vast ecosystem of predatory publishers is churning out “fake science” for profit, an investigation by the Guardian in collaboration with German publishers NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung Magazin has found.

More than 175,000 scientific articles have been produced by five of the largest “predatory open-access publishers”, including India-based Omics publishing group and the Turkish World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, or Waset.

But the vast majority of those articles skip almost all of the traditional checks and balances of scientific publishing, from peer review to an editorial board. Instead, most journals run by those companies will publish anything submitted to them – provided the required fee is paid.

Some people criticise NASA for their science....Go Figure???

Roll Eyes

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

Check out (link below) who is on the list of predatory journals (Science Publishing Group)

https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/10/predatory-publishers-the-jour...

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21387
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #91 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 1:01pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2019 at 11:16pm:

When proven liars post crap it is best to check the source of their bullshit (If they are stupid enough to post links)!!!

Poor petal. STILL Struggling. Tell us more about Cook et al 2013 that NASA still treats as gold standard.

I have given you the paper. I have provided the breakdown of the paper to show that it is Sch1st. But you still believe. Why is that?

But peer-reviewed is peer-reviewed. Wink

Wiki the choice of numpties on science. Grin

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2019 at 11:16pm:

https://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-9f46cb44-cc7e-11e5-9150-6f7714cc2...

The man who does science by newspaper. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21387
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #92 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 1:16pm

BTW - Did you read about the new paper in Nature Communications, part of Nature group.

They have had to pull part of the paper because it named names, without authority, a definite no-no. You would think a prestigious? magazine would have had their ethics staff all over it, as well as the peer-reviewers. But it is only other peer-reviewed magazines that are trash, apparently. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #93 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 2:31pm

I have already posted links that explain the 97% consensus and how it is misrepresented by Climate Change sceptics....People are free to click on the links and educate themselves or remain ignorant!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

I provide links to support my opinions....It is always best to fact check people's claims who do not supply links and make false claims!!!

These links explains the scientific consensus on Climate Change in detail!!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/sa...

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #94 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 2:41pm

Quote:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Link provided....
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Quote:

5 Key Tactics Climate Change Deniers Use and How to Counter Climate Change Denial

Technique #1: Frequent use of so-called “experts.”
When you read any claim about climate change, the first thing you should do is check the source. Who is making all these claims on climate change? Is this person an expert? Or is he or she a ‘fake ‘expert.

Technique #2: Perfecting the art of cherry-picking.
Climate change deniers are very good at cherry picking or selectively choosing the facts or details that can support their claims.

Technique #3: Use of faulty arguments.
The problem is that sometimes, it is very difficult for regular people to actually understand the science and sift through the arguments. This is an important arena that climate scientists are trying to address. But as individuals, we have a responsibility to be analytical and discerning.

Technique #4: Reducing climate change warnings to conspiracies or money-making efforts.
In recent times, there has been a lot of claims, by politicians mostly (who, it should be noted, often have suspicious motivations and vested interests), that the issue of climate change is a hoax. More alarmingly, Trump and his aides in the current administration say that it is a money-making effort to promote China and undermine the competitiveness of the United States.

Technique #5: Manipulation through the “keystone domino” strategy.
In late 2017, The Guardian reported on a new strategy of climate change deniers which it referred to as the “keystone domino.” Climate change deniers relentlessly attack and discredit specific issues, with the thinking that if these keystone dominoes fall, then it creates a chain reaction, toppling the entire case for climate change.

https://ecowarriorprincess.net/2018/03/key-tactics-climate-change-deniers-use-ho...

https://skepticalscience.com/agw-denial-explained-2.html

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #95 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 2:48pm

We can be generous and call it climate ignorance but the cynism in me suggest it is more like climate opportunist. If coalition supporters can get away with no environmental laws, they would go for it in an instance. As long as it is NIIMBY... but that's why they need the poor - to put it in their backyard. Except climate change crosses over fences.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21387
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #96 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:24pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 2:41pm:

Quote:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Link provided....
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So let's see which ones?

Cook et al again because phil doesn't comprehend?

"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."

So 66.4% expressed no position. That leaves 33.6%, which is a long way from 97%.

32.6% endorsed AGW, not that it was catastrophic, merely that they endorsed it.

Now the intersting bit - 97.1% of those that held a position - that is positive or negative endorsed the consensus.

So we have 97.1% of 32.6% plus 0.7% endorsed the consensus.

so 97.1% of 33.3% which equals 32.3%. Not even close to 97% of abstracts, not even climate scientists.

Then there was Oreskes et al They reviewed 928 papers.

She printed out hundreds of climate papers from 1993 onwards—eight years before the UN even made its ‘consensus’ statement!—and then checked their Abstracts, not for objections to said statement, but for data disproving it. Et voilà, the headline finding:

"No papers in the sample provided scientific data to refute the consensus position on global climate change."

Graph on findings in a later paper.-

original here -

http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/includes/media/NotwrongCl...

What? About 230 out of the 928 endorsed AGW? Grin

But perhaps I am being unkind and it was merely a coincidence that the number was the same. Wink

Doran & Zimmerman - the survey went to 10.257 scientists. 3,146 responded. But apparently they were running late for the pub so they only used a sub-sample of 79. But only 75 out of 77 of those 79 got the right answer.

Only 76 out of 79 thought that temperatures had risen since the 1880's.

Now petal you have the opportunity to respond and point out the errors, if any.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:30pm by lee »

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #97 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:30pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 2:31pm:

I have already posted links that explain the 97% consensus and how it is misrepresented by Climate Change sceptics....People are free to click on the links and educate themselves or remain ignorant!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

I provide links to support my opinions....It is always best to fact check people's claims who do not supply links and make false claims!!!

These links explains the scientific consensus on Climate Change in detail!!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-...

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/sa...

Roll Eyes

Quote:

5 Key Tactics Climate Change Deniers Use and How to Counter Climate Change Denial

Technique #1: Frequent use of so-called “experts.”
When you read any claim about climate change, the first thing you should do is check the source. Who is making all these claims on climate change? Is this person an expert? Or is he or she a ‘fake ‘expert.

Technique #2: Perfecting the art of cherry-picking.
Climate change deniers are very good at cherry picking or selectively choosing the facts or details that can support their claims.

Technique #3: Use of faulty arguments.
The problem is that sometimes, it is very difficult for regular people to actually understand the science and sift through the arguments. This is an important arena that climate scientists are trying to address. But as individuals, we have a responsibility to be analytical and discerning.

Technique #4: Reducing climate change warnings to conspiracies or money-making efforts.
In recent times, there has been a lot of claims, by politicians mostly (who, it should be noted, often have suspicious motivations and vested interests), that the issue of climate change is a hoax. More alarmingly, Trump and his aides in the current administration say that it is a money-making effort to promote China and undermine the competitiveness of the United States.

Technique #5: Manipulation through the “keystone domino” strategy.
In late 2017, The Guardian reported on a new strategy of climate change deniers which it referred to as the “keystone domino.” Climate change deniers relentlessly attack and discredit specific issues, with the thinking that if these keystone dominoes fall, then it creates a chain reaction, toppling the entire case for climate change.

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21387
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #98 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:32pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

I have already posted links that explain the 97% consensus and how it is misrepresented by Climate Change sceptics.

So tell us how "climate scientists"^TM misrepresent their numbers. Grin

poor petal. Shows he knows nothing about maths. Grin

They seem keen to make their own dominoes fall. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21097 Perth Gender:	Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush Reply #99 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:04pm Endorse 230 Refute 0
Back to top	If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21387 Gender:	Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush Reply #100 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:12pm philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:04pm: Endorse 230 Refute 0 yes petal. it all depends what your look for. 230 out of 928 = 24.8% another a long way from 97%. You really are mathematically challenged aren't you?
Back to top	IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #101 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:58pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:04pm:

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/clip_image006-1...

Quote:

928 papers???

Endorse 230
Refute 0

The following papers neither endorse nor refute Climate Change and are used to form a consensus....There is no break down of how many of these papers either endorse or refute Climate Change!!!

Methods
Impacts
Historical
Mitigation

Quote:

The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.

Quote:

Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-...

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21387
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #102 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 6:13pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 5:58pm:

Quote:
The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.

NASA however thoroughly endorses the 97%. I guess they didn't actually read the papers. Grin

BTW - Only one of the professional societies polled their members. The rest made a statement by dictat. The AMS figure is currently about 56%. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21387 Gender:	Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush Reply #103 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 6:16pm philperth2010 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2019 at 3:30pm: philperth2010 wrote Today at 12:31pm: I have already posted links that explain the 97% consensus and how it is misrepresented by Climate Change sceptics.. And now you say it isn't. Make up your mind petal.
Back to top	IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Scumo to bribe poor islands with 500 mill hush
Reply #104 - Aug 24^th, 2019 at 6:50pm

Everyone should be sceptical and not accept any conclusion is certain....This is how science works and is put under scrutiny....Whilst the Cook survey can be disputed "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans" (Tol)!!!

Quote:

"I mean it is pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and most likely human-made," Tol said on during a 2014 hearing on the IPCC. "But the 97 percent is essentially pulled from thin air. It is not based on any credible research whatsoever."

Tol was specifically referring to a 2013 survey by John Cook, who studies climate communication at the University of Queensland.

Cook’s study found that among over 4,000 studies that took a position on man-made climate change, 97.1 percent "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global phase" and 97.2 of 1,300 authors who responded agreed with the position.

Tol takes issue with Cook’s methodology. By his analysis of Cook’s data, the real figure is around 91 percent. (Cook replied critiquing Tol’s methodology and standing by his survey’s original finding of 97 percent.)

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans," Tol writes in his analysis. "I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this."

If someone was told with 91% probability they would die without an operation they would have the operation!!!

Roll Eyes

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/sa...

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged