Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 22 of 22
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,399
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.



    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    And I guess any polling data is equally unreliable since they only poll maybe a thousand people yet they generalize that data to the entire population of the country.

    You don't understand sampling. It makes it impossible to have an intelligent debate here.
    And you fail to differentiate between "random" polling of the public and so-called "expert" climate scientists weighing in on a survey. There's a difference but maybe you can't put that together. They don't compare.





  2. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    9,253

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4G63 View Post
    And you fail to differentiate between "random" polling of the public and so-called "expert" climate scientists weighing in on a survey. There's a difference but maybe you can't put that together. They don't compare.
    Still hasn't addressed that his polling data is bullshit???

    Yup same old same old in the politics section, moving on nothing to see here.





  3. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Still hasn't addressed that his polling data is bullshit???

    Yup same old same old in the politics section, moving on nothing to see here.
    The polling data has been addressed. You guys clearly have no background in research methods which is fine as most don't. That being said, when you continue to criticize something that appears sound, you just make yourselves look bad.

    The survey was a web based survey which drew a 30.7% response from an audience of earth scientists. One might say, "well gee, only 30% responded". So what one has to do is take a look at the methodology behind web based surveys. According to those who research web based suveys, Cook et al.,2000 AND Kaplowitz et al., 2004, "This is a typical response
    rate for Web-based surveys". So what this means is that 30.7% is the typical response rate so a researcher can state that there were no extraneous variables affecting the response rate and the response rate was what was to be expected. Now you can surmise that maybe the 70% that didn't respond were all deniers but there is no evidence of that and the authors expecting this rebuttal of their survey add this statement upfront:

    "While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions
    on global warming theory".


    The results show that of these "earth scientists" 90% agree the temperature has risen and 82% agree that human activity has significantly contributed to it.

    The research methods align with typical web-based surveys and the questions asked are straight foward. The answers overwhelmingly support AGW. Those are the results. Period. Dispute them if want but what you can't intelligently say is that:

    1. This survey is corrupt nor,

    2. Earth scientists and especially climate scientists don't overwhelmingly support AGW.

    If you say either of those two statements, you are simply either

    1. Lack an ability to read scientific research and discern it's validity or

    2. are a partisan hack supporting carbon fuel industries.

    There is no other way around it.

    Notice that there is no conclusive evidence of AGW only that a survey, which appears to have a valid methodology, shows unequivocal support to the notion that those who study climate professionally endorse AGW.

    Plain and simple.









  4. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,399
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    "While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions
    on global warming theory".
    I'd like to think that in this day and age if you were gonna conduct a survey of "Earth Scientists" and use it as the definitive consensus for proponents of AGW it would be a little more professional and have "believers" sign their name to it. I think the anonymity of the scientists is weak personally and the mere fact that over 50% didn't reply, even when anonymous, makes it even worse.

    We're not taking a poll of who has the nicest ass on Jersey Shore or what the feelings are towards the POTUS or Congress. Its a survey thats been used to dispute deniers and shape debate. This "consensus" isn't a consensus when viewed apolitically. Especially when these "Scientists" have their paycheck riding on it.





  5. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4G63 View Post
    I'd like to think that in this day and age if you were gonna conduct a survey of "Earth Scientists" and use it as the definitive consensus for proponents of AGW it would be a little more professional and have "believers" sign their name to it. I think the anonymity of the scientists is weak personally and the mere fact that over 50% didn't reply, even when anonymous, makes it even worse.

    We're not taking a poll of who has the nicest ass on Jersey Shore or what the feelings are towards the POTUS or Congress. Its a survey thats been used to dispute deniers and shape debate. This "consensus" isn't a consensus when viewed apolitically. Especially when these "Scientists" have their paycheck riding on it.
    Surveys are almost always anonymous. There are a plethora of studies completed on the effect of anonymity on reliability of results. They are overwhelmingly in favor of anonymity.

    Secondly, when comment on "their paycheck riding on it" which is complete b.s. but if you want to push that talking point wouldn't anonymity encourage deniers to "come out fo the closet" here and represent vs. 90% of responders anonymously endorsing AGW? You contradict yourself in complaining about anonymity and at the same time accusing people of being dishonest because paychecks are riding on their answers.

    You do see that right?

    There are now at least two incidents on this thread where you make rather silly assertions and give either a link or an opinion that fly in the face of your assertion.

    I should just shut up and let you yourself. Its about the only time you win.









  6. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,399
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Surveys are almost always anonymous. There are a plethora of studies completed on the effect of anonymity on reliability of results. They are overwhelmingly in favor of anonymity.

    Secondly, when comment on "their paycheck riding on it" which is complete b.s. but if you want to push that talking point wouldn't anonymity encourage deniers to "come out fo the closet" here and represent vs. 90% of responders anonymously endorsing AGW? You contradict yourself in complaining about anonymity and at the same time accusing people of being dishonest because paychecks are riding on their answers.

    You do see that right?

    There are now at least two incidents on this thread where you make rather silly assertions and give either a link or an opinion that fly in the face of your assertion.

    I should just shut up and let you yourself. Its about the only time you win.
    I should have been more clear because I know you're slow. In real life, their paychecks depend on their "work" within the AGW studies and if their funding dries up because the truth finally comes out, they're screwed. Because it is anonymous, there's no accountability. Polling, for something as important as "climate change", needs to have people stand on that mountain and debate the deniers in public forums.

    I've got 3 questions for you that I'd like to see you answer honestly.

    • Do the scientists that work in AGW fields have a financial stake in promoting AGW?
    • Wouldn't it be counter-productive to "come out" in a survey, even if its anonymous?
    • Why are the scientists that "come out" and are supposedly bought by Big Oil less distinguished than these "anonymous" scientists who won't stand by their work?
    Last edited by 4G63; 09-20-2011 at 08:17 AM.





  7. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,399
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Another HACK steps forward.


    "Additional important climate drivers include complicated fluctuations of major oceanic currents and volcanic eruptions. Even if we could hold CO2 levels fixed, the climate would continue to change because of other influences. In a time of serious world problems, wasteful expenditures justified by nonproblems like CO2 make no sense."





  8. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4G63 View Post
    I should have been more clear because I know you're slow. In real life, their paychecks depend on their "work" within the AGW studies and if their funding dries up because the truth finally comes out, they're screwed. Because it is anonymous, there's no accountability. Polling, for something as important as "climate change", needs to have people stand on that mountain and debate the deniers in public forums.
    Your cynicism about academic research is rooted in your conservative outlook. You are anti-government and anti-intellectual which are hallmark traits of conservatives. Being someone who worked as research assistant through grad school, I can guarantee you that academic integrity is paramount for lead researchers. Most of them work for the integrity of science vs. money. Sure their research relies on grants but lead researchers typically don't take money from funders when there is an outcome desired by the funders...it runs contrary to academic integrity regardless of what yor conservative pundits suggest.

    Anonymity increases reliability of response. If you don't understand the importance of that there isn't much I can do moving forward. Maybe take a research methods class if you are so concerned about research integrity. I typically dreaded methodology classes in grad school because I never intended to be a scientist. I always wanted t be a clinician. Fortunately, I was required to take methodology classes which actually were well attuned to my more analytical side and I did well in them. I don't use those skills much anymore but the value of graduate education is the ability to decipher data. Working on research projects where I was charged with gathering data, I can guarantee you that integrity of data was paramount and I saw plenty of data individuals discharged from projects because they were sloppy. Lead researchers rely soley on the merits of their projects...their names depend on it. Few are willing to fudge data in order to continue to gain grants. It just doesn't work that way.




    [*]Do the scientists that work in AGW fields have a financial stake in promoting AGW?
    What is exactly their "stake"? And who is it that is willing to shell out billions to negatively frame carbon? Greenpeace? Solar panel companies? Al Gofre so he and write books? Who exactly from the climate change endorsing side has more at stake and more MONEY to spend on it than oil, coal, shale et al.?

    You really want to go down that road? If you think the AGW has more resources on it side than the carbon industries to fudge data in order to generate research grants, you are struggling.

    [*]Wouldn't it be counter-productive to "come out" in a survey, even if its anonymous?
    I don't get this question. Sure it would be, but who "came out"?


    [*]Why are the scientists that "come out" and are supposedly bought by Big Oil less distinguished than these "anonymous" scientists who won't stand by their work?
    who said they are less distinguished? and who says scientists don't stand by their work? This survey isn't some kind of political stunt...it is a survey. surveys are usuall anonymous. There is no reason to believe that any of the anonymous responders wouldn't come forward if asked.

    You seem really paranoid about this.









  9. #21

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    no comment on the ice core sample graph, I thought so.

    It's that big ball of gas in the sky, not the gasses coming from our tailpipe.

    You do know that stars are not constant correct?





  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    5,399
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Noble-winning Climate Scientist wakes up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Your cynicism about academic research is rooted in your conservative outlook. You are anti-government and anti-intellectual which are hallmark traits of conservatives.
    Actually, I'm neither. I believe that power is with the people, not the government. I've got no problem with a strong government, but its current size and scope are too large.

    I also enjoy watching intellectuals at TEDtalks. I learn many things from all sorts of people, including those that you would consider exceptionally bright.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    What is exactly their "stake"? And who is it that is willing to shell out billions to negatively frame carbon? Greenpeace? Solar panel companies? Al Gofre so he and write books? Who exactly from the climate change endorsing side has more at stake and more MONEY to spend on it than oil, coal, shale et al.?
    Tax revenues from charging every business for not being "green" enough. Ever heard of carbon credits? If AGW has too many opponents and the science doesn't stand up to scrutiny (it doesn't), then you'll have a tough time enacting laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    You really want to go down that road? If you think the AGW has more resources on it side than the carbon industries to fudge data in order to generate research grants, you are struggling.
    Maybe not. But dismissing the money involved in "green" technologies when several prominent AGW proponents are on the Climate Change Advisory board for Deutsche Bank (who have $60+ billion "green" portfolio) you may have a conflict there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    I don't get this question. Sure it would be, but who "came out"?
    You said above that they (the "scientists") could come out against AGW in this survey if it was an anonymous survey. I'm merely stating that they'd do no such thing even if it were anonymous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    who said they are less distinguished? and who says scientists don't stand by their work? This survey isn't some kind of political stunt...it is a survey. surveys are usuall anonymous. There is no reason to believe that any of the anonymous responders wouldn't come forward if asked.

    You seem really paranoid about this.
    When these scientists shape laws based on unsettled science, I have every right to be paranoid.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland