Australian Politics Forum - a green future means more mines

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21524 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #60 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:25pm FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:23pm: This literally says they worked out who believes AGW is real by only reading papers that took a position at all. Yes but it wasn't 97% was it? FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:23pm: Tax you say? Yep. For my ex and also the fiscal fiend.
Back to top	IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #61 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:30pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:25pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:23pm:

This literally says they worked out who believes AGW is real by only reading papers that took a position at all.

Yes but it wasn't 97% was it? Roll Eyes

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:23pm:

Tax you say?

Yep. For my ex and also the fiscal fiend.

I'll ask again. Why do you believe NASA is lying about math, or can't do math?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21524 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #62 - May 25^th, 2022 at 3:41pm FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:30pm: I'll ask again. Why do you believe NASA is lying about math, or can't do math? So you don't believe your lying eyes?
Back to top	IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6625 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #63 - May 25^th, 2022 at 4:03pm lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 3:41pm: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:30pm: I'll ask again. Why do you believe NASA is lying about math, or can't do math? So you don't believe your lying eyes? It's like you're an idiot. You are claiming that NASA is deliberately lying. What's their motivation?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21524 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #64 - May 25^th, 2022 at 4:34pm FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:03pm: It's like you're an idiot. You are claiming that NASA is deliberately lying. What's their motivation? You saw the maths. You can do the maths. Why is it my fault you don't want to believe the maths?
Back to top	IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #65 - May 25^th, 2022 at 4:36pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:34pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:03pm:

It's like you're an idiot. You are claiming that NASA is deliberately lying. What's their motivation?

You saw the maths. You can do the maths. Why is it my fault you don't want to believe the maths? Roll Eyes

OK, so you can't back this up at all? interesting.

What I saw was that they only counted relevant studies, ones that took a position on AGW. What's your suggested methodology?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21524
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #66 - May 25^th, 2022 at 4:44pm

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:36pm:

OK, so you can't back this up at all? interesting.

So maths isn't any kind of suit for you. Good to know. The maths backed me up. Wink

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 4:36pm:

What I saw was that they only counted relevant studies, ones that took a position on AGW. What's your suggested methodology?

Actually they didn't if you read it properly.

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm:

"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 they found out of 11,944 examined a small percentage that supported AGW. The scientific method is if you are going to examine 11,9944 papers you include those that don't hold a position.

You don't jump off the horse midstream because it doesn't show what you wanted it to show.

In their original they even had a spot for "More than 50% AGW". They got 3 64 papers so they bundled them into the rest

Under under endorsement level

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

64/11944 or if you prefer 64/4114

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 25^th, 2022 at 5:10pm by lee »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15656
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #67 - May 25^th, 2022 at 6:31pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm:

From their original paper -

"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."

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

So they got their results from only looking at the papers that suited their purpose. That is not how science is done.

Read the extract again.

1. "2/3rds expressed no position on AGW".

OK. So presumably that group did not address the AGW-CO2 emissions theory at all.

2. "1/3 endorsed AGW", ie about 4000 of the papers examined did accept AGW-CO2 emissions as a cause of global warming.

3. The last sentence seems to be a restatement ("97%") of the second point.

As far as "science not working that way", the complexity of climate renders 100% truth impossible to achieve.

So close the filthy, price-gouging, health-destroying fossil industry, ASAP.

Resource mobilization, not finance, is...oh never mind.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21524
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #68 - May 25^th, 2022 at 6:52pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 6:31pm:

1. "2/3rds expressed no position on AGW".

Very good.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 6:31pm:

2. "1/3 endorsed AGW", ie about 4000 of the papers examined did accept AGW-CO2 emissions as a cause of global warming.

Nope.

"published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

If we look at the original paper -

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=&yt=

"Search Abstracts".

So only 65 papers (according to Cook et al) out of over 4,000 said that most of the warming is human caused. Again not 97% of anything. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15656
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #69 - May 25^th, 2022 at 9:25pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:

Nope.

"published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

If we look at the original paper -

I'm reading from your linked article which said 1/3rd of c.12,000 articles on global warming accepted AGW-CO2 emissions.

Quote:

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=&yt=

"Search Abstracts".

"Skeptical science"? ....er....

Quote:

So only 65 papers (according to Cook et al) out of over 4,000 said that most of the warming is human caused. Again not 97% of anything. Roll Eyes

"....most of the warming...."...so a matter of degree, as I said yesterday.

Meantime there is no skepticism about the egregious negative effects of the filthy, pricing-gouging, fossil pirates.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21524
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #70 - May 25^th, 2022 at 9:39pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:25pm:

I'm reading from your linked article which said 1/3rd of c.12,000 articles on global warming accepted AGW-CO2 emissions.

Very good.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:25pm:

Quote:
https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=&yt=

"Search Abstracts".

"Skeptical science"? ....er....

Skeptical Science is the b log run by John Cook one of the authors of the paper. Another is Dan Nuticelli of the Guardian.

"Our team of citizen science volunteers at Skeptical Science has published a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, as the Guardian reports today. "

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/1...

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:25pm:

"....most of the warming...."...so a matter of degree, as I said yesterday.

Yes but you have reached out to your alarmist side. Only 65 papers said more than 50% of warming was due to AGW. You were saying it's ALL to do with AGW. Edit: Since the Industrial Revolution in fact. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:25pm:

Meantime there is no skepticism about the egregious negative effects of the filthy, pricing-gouging, fossil pirates.

So you have found evidence for PM2.5 deaths? Please provide the peer-reviewed paper. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15656
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #71 - May 25^th, 2022 at 9:47pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:39pm:

Yes but you have reached out to your alarmist side. Only 65 papers said more than 50% of warming was due to AGW. You were saying it's ALL to do with AGW. Roll Eyes

I'm alarmed at the filthy health-hazardous, price-gouging fossil industry. (fun and games if diesel hits $2.50 a liter soon).

Quote:

So you have found evidence for PM2.5 deaths? Please provide the peer-reviewed paper. Grin

Why do you think car manufacturers installed anti-pollution gear? Hint: not just CO2 concerns.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21524
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #72 - May 25^th, 2022 at 10:01pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:47pm:

I'm alarmed at the filthy health-hazardous, price-gouging fossil industry. (fun and games if diesel hits $2.50 a liter soon).

oh dear. you lost another argument. And not one death to PM2.5 and it has been around since 1997.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 9:47pm:

Why do you think car manufacturers installed anti-pollution gear? Hint: not just CO2 concerns.

Because it was mandated. And all on the back of statistical study. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15656
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #73 - May 25^th, 2022 at 10:51pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 10:01pm:

oh dear. you lost another argument. And not one death to PM2.5 and it has been around since 1997.

Congested EU capitals restricted diesels several years ago...not only because of AGW.

Quote:

Because it was mandated. And all on the back of statistical study. Roll Eyes

That's right; statistics showing a correlation between consumption and death.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21524
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #74 - May 26^th, 2022 at 11:48am

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 10:51pm:

lee wrote Yesterday at 8:01pm:
oh dear. you lost another argument. And not one death to PM2.5 and it has been around since 1997.

Congested EU capitals restricted diesels several years ago...not only because of AGW.

And still no EVIDENCE. Why is that so difficult for you? Shocked

thegreatdivide wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 10:51pm:

That's right; statistics showing a correlation between consumption and death.

And not one recorded death. Jeez you are really focused on this. Now focus on finding this evidence. Statistics can't tell how someone lived or died. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged