Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
New Study Cornell Uni - 99.9% endorse AGW (Read 155 times)
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21516
Gender: male
New Study Cornell Uni - 99.9% endorse AGW
Oct 20th, 2021 at 2:35pm
 
First they started with 88,125 papers from between 2012 and November 2020. This was further distilled to 3000 papers. 282 were not climate related leaving 2718 papers.

The results -

Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts.
Rating/categorization      # of abstracts
1—Explicit endorsement with quantification      19
Impacts      7
Methods      9
Mitigation      3
2—Explicit endorsement without quantification      413
Impacts      204
Methods      78
Mitigation      124
Not climate-related      4
Opinion      1
Paleoclimate      2
3—Implicit endorsement      460
Impacts      95
Methods      119
Mitigation      199
Not climate-related      43
Paleoclimate      4
4a—No position      2104
Impacts      915
Methods      790
Mitigation      60
Not climate-related      235
Opinion      3
Paleoclimate      101
5—Implicit rejection      2
Methods      2
6—Explicit rejection without quantification      1
Paleoclimate      1
7—Explicit rejection with quantification      1
Methods      1
Grand Total      3000

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966#erlac2966s3

So 19 papers explicitly said AGW was having an effect and quantified it.
413 said there was AGW with no quantification. That is it could be good bad or indifferent.
460 Didn't actually say there was AGW but the authors of the study believed that they supported AGW.

So that's a total of 892 that the authors believed to endorse AGW.

2104 papers took no position. What?

Only 4 rejected AGW.

So to the washup -

892/3000 = 29.7%

It seems they are similarly mathematically challenged at Cornell as the SkepSci crew. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 60472
Gender: male
Re: New Study Cornell Uni - 99.9% endorse AGW
Reply #1 - Oct 20th, 2021 at 4:32pm
 
AGW - aintcha sick of it? I am. It's a massive con, like the EU, Biden, China, New Xiland's saintliness - wait, what?
Yes, NZ is a con.





While Saint Jacinda’s halo is slipping somewhat – the Covid elimination strategy has encountered some heavy weather and the lockdown remains in place – New Zealand continues to be praised for its commitment to NZE 2050. The Labour government even went to the trouble of passing legislation, The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, an action which is seen by those same elites and activists as a necessary part of quality climate policy.

There is, however, a teeny-weeny problem with New Zealand’s intent to achieve NZE 2050: some 43 per cent of its emissions are not included in the target because it only applies to ‘long-lived gases’. That would be the 43 per cent of emissions emanating mainly from the agriculture sector and those farting sheep and cows, in particular. To be sure, there is a separate target for this sector – a reduction of between 25 and 47 per cent by 2050 from 2017 levels. In other words, good but no cigar. Sensing perhaps her demotion from top of the climate action ladder, Jacinda did declare a climate emergency in 2020, although what that actually achieved is unclear. But of course her supporters love it: she really gets it and that’s important.

She also had the sense (or lack of it) to set up a Climate Commission headed by a chap who favours the hairshirt approach (people must change their ways) to dealing with climate change. Its website states that ‘we drive climate action in Aotearoa (New Zealand is so yesterday). Our independence means we can provide impartial advice, challenge and hold the government to account on climate action’. One of the main messages to the good folk of the land of the long white cloud is walk, cycle or use public transport. If you must use a car, make it electric.

Needless to say, the Climate Commission thinks that the country, whatever its name, really needs to lift its emissions reduction ambitions and to insist that farmers are made to do much more. It is widely accepted that massive reforestation will be required as part of the deal.

Weirdly, the Department of Environment has estimated that the cost for New Zealand of achieving NZE 2050 is the equivalent of 16 per cent of GDP, while the OECD thinks the cost of climate change for the country will be only 1 per cent of GDP between 2015 and 2060.

On this basis, the Labour government would be nuts to do anything more than it’s doing but Jacinda is scared of having a penalty awarded against her for insufficient intent. There is even talk of her staying home rather than mixing with the luvvies in Glasgow, thus sparing her the embarrassment of facing a ‘blah, blah, blah’ criticism from that other saint, Greta.

Of course, New Zealand is not the only one who is keen to demonstrate sufficient intent when it comes to the climate. The country’s host thinks that it can fully decarbonise its electricity grid by 2035 and expects to cut emissions by nearly 80 per cent by that date.

The UK also has an Act of Parliament, but there is no credible plan to achieve the targets, in part because its proposal to impose heat pumps as the only allowable form of domestic heating is in complete tatters. The reality is that the country will be pushed to keep the lights on at affordable prices in the coming years. But, hey, the intent will be there.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s not really the climate that we should fear but climate policy
. But just as lemmings jump off cliffs, many Western countries are intent on committing economic suicide to demonstrate their climate purity. The leaders of China, India and Russia, in particular, can sit back and enjoy the show.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/10/insufficient-intent/

As Churchill once, reportedly, said, “the only statistics you can trust are the ones you have falsified yourself”.  And all the influencers, like thee Dems in the US, the AGW cadres and various other right-on activist are adepts at falsifying stats and crowing about them.



Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print