So you refute the science of climate change because you disagree with the proposed policy remedies. Riiiight.
Tiny Tim Was Right! The Ice Caps Are Melting!
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
So you refute the science of climate change because you disagree with the proposed policy remedies. Riiiight.
I refute that we simple humans can stop the climate from changing.
No amount of electronic bank transfers will EVER stop the climate from changing.
I can recommend an alternative methodology if you want to check for yourself.
Academic journals have something called impact factors, it`s basically a way of ranking journals in a particular discipline based on the average number of citations a paper from that journal receives.
For the past few years, the top journals have been Journal of Climate, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (open access, no paywall!), and Climate Dynamics.
Pick an issue from one of the journals, or many journals from one month, and just sample. To be scientifically rigorous of course you should randomly sample (to eliminate bias) from the population, which includes far more than the top 5. Check out the abstracts. How many support the mainstream view, and how many do not? Count abstracts that offer no indication towards the mainstream view or contrarian views as not a success, and those that do obviously as successes. Ignore papers on methodology development that make no conclusions one way or the other. So now you have a number of abstracts you viewed (minus the excluded method papers), the number of successes, and the probability of a success. You can test the 97% figure for yourself with an online binomial probability calculator, to test the statistical hypothesis that the 97% figure is true. All you need is three numbers, the number of trials (number of sampled articles), the number of successes (articles supporting human induced climate change) and a test expected proportion (the 97% figure estimated by other studies of the literature).
As an example, suppose you sampled 24 articles, and 20 of them are supporting human induced climate change. This is less than 24*0.97=23.3 expected. But of course there is a distribution of results we should expect, so we need to take into account the distribution of possible results, i.e. 1 fail 23 successes, 2 fails 22 successes, etc. The calculator will determine the probability of the number of observed successes given the expected proportion of successes. If there is evidence that the expected proportion is wrong, the probability calculated will be less than our significance level. The standard is 5% or 0.05.
So, at the standard 5% level of significance, do we have evidence that the expected proportion is wrong?
Sign and binomial test
The answer is no. Not until we have 18 or fewer successes out of 24 does the probability fall below our 5% level of significance.
You can test this for yourself Twila, it's very simple, and it's what we scientists do! Just three numbers in a calculator is all you need, and you'll very likely learn something along the way!
You can test this for yourself Twila, it's very simple, and it's what we scientists do!
Speak for yourself. I'm just trying to hide the decline. :lol:
Maybe you needed glasses back in 2010 when it was being discussed in a thread you posted in:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/68017-our-cooling-world-16.html#post1316206
Avro produced a few links. If you have reason to dispute it, then let's see it. You can try what I suggested to Twila too.
Wow. 100% confirmed even when the powers that be keep admitting over and over they have no clue.
Last edited:
One survey? Is this what scientists do, use only one small sample? And the survey did not say 97% agree with AGW it said 97% agree that things got warmer in the last 100 years but 16% didn't think it as AGW.
Why doesn't Nye debate any of theses scientists all of whom disagree with the IPCC??
- Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]
- Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[20]
- Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[21]
- Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[22]
- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
- Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
- Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
Last edited:
Why? Maybe those scientists aren't clouded by emotion. The minute emotion was played on, all science went out the window.
Why don't you debate me? Are you afraid of the outcome? Or, maybe like you and I, Nye and those scientists have never been approached to debate each other, or offered to one another?
I have no idea why a person whom I do not know hasn't done something with another person whom I do not know. I'll leave the speculation and gazing in a crystal ball to folks like yourself and Derpy.
Donations are not what bothers me......Believers can donate to their hearts content..Then you've found your religion!
It does not worry me what you believe. You have some money and you will be called on to sacrifice for your beliefs if the ultimate goal of eco-utopia is reached.
I love animals too... some are very tasty.
Not naive at all. At one time I actually believed that the motivation was more than money. But after following the conferences it all came down to money. Each and every solution is the raiding of western nation bank accounts and wealth distribution.
Twila is already lost as I am sure you are.
Oh and in addition... under alarmists plans... western industries CAN continue business as usual providing they pay for the foot print. Oh and the world's second largest economy can continue as usual without paying a dime. Now how does that stop the climate from changing?
It's the extra that we will all have to pay in taxes, and what we're already paying as consumers for goods that are up in prices just because kneejerk regulations to placate the gullible greenies.....
That one survey is the like the hockey stick graph. That one survey has been riddled with holes but the survey stuck... 97% of all scientists believe that man is responsible for climate change and the alarmists have not backed down from it. It's great propaganda.
What "holes" are those?
I don't want to know, I just want to see the dancing baby Spiderman again.