Pie Chart

[pjclarke]

Let's imagine he'd done it the other way around, assuming that an article doesn't agree with Global Warming if it doesn't explicitly say it does; what would the result have been? Of course, any answer is speculative, but I think this author's methodology, erm, how to put it technically, sucks.

But that is a distortion of what he actually did; the denominator was simply a keyword search result to find all climate articles, so the pie chart shows the number of studies explicitly disagreeing with AGW divided by all articles, whether pro- anti- or neutral on AGW.

I guess you could get a rough estimate of papers that explicitly underpin the dominant paradigm by counting the references in the most recent IPCC report, of which there are over 18,000, the majority from peer-reviewed literature, so even on that methodology the 24 'anti-' studies is a tiny, tiny proportion.

[BrilloPad]

The fact the sascretin believes in AGW (will at least when anyone who is against AGW posts he responds with "cretin HTH BIDI") makes me think it is probably bollux.

Which is a great pity as after the summer of 2006 I bought a/c and am still waiting to be smug about it.

[d000hg]

Surely we're overdue for a Global Warming thread?

You may have noticed that our house 'sceptics' EO, BB and DP and friends rely almost exclusively on media reports, opinion pieces, books, newspapers and other unreviewed secondary sources to make their case.

No, they post as many meaningless graphs as you do.

[SimonMac]

WGAS what low-status cretins think? You might as well ask the opinion of a 3 year old or some remote untouched tribe in the Amazonian jungle for all the sense these morons make.

Well, by that post it seems you do for one!

[sasguru]

You may have noticed that our house 'sceptics' EO, BB and DP and friends rely almost exclusively on media reports, opinion pieces, books, newspapers and other unreviewed secondary sources to make their case.

WGAS what low-status cretins think? You might as well ask the opinion of a 3 year old or some remote untouched tribe in the Amazonian jungle for all the sense these morons make.

[Mich the Tester]

...I think this underlines that we need to stop treating the delayers/inactivists with any respect; they have no scientific basis or underpinnings whatsoever, yet they have delayed effective action by perhaps a decade; which may end up as the difference between a manageable <2C rise and a catastophic >4C increase in global temperatures, perhaps millions of avoidable deaths.

No it doesn't. Science is about disagreeing, and it's certainly not about showing no respect for your opponents; that edges toward ad hominem arguments. As for talking about the 'millions of avoidable deaths' you're arguing from adverse consequences in a rather similar way to religious extremists; 'if you don't start believing now then you'll suffer eternity in damnation'. Now then, I'm not convinced either way, but I tend to lean towards the cautious attitude that there are plenty of good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use, quite aside from CO2. But you're not making things more credible here by attacking your opponents; attack their ideas and don't resort to cataclysmic doom stories.

And by the way, from your source's methodology;

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that "reject" human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.
Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1tBXZ)

Let's imagine he'd done it the other way around, assuming that an article doesn't agree with Global Warming if it doesn't explicitly say it does; what would the result have been? Of course, any answer is speculative, but I think this author's methodology, erm, how to put it technically, sucks.

[SimonMac]

[SupremeSpod]

I'm having a case of deja vu.

Again?

[MarillionFan]

I'm having a case of deja vu.

[BlasterBates]

I always welcome pj's threads because he does a much better job than anyone else of convincing people that AGW is a load of b*llox.

[SupremeSpod]

Surely we're overdue for a Global Warming thread?

You may have noticed that our house 'sceptics' EO, BB and DP and friends rely almost exclusively on media reports, opinion pieces, books, newspapers and other unreviewed secondary sources to make their case.

Which seems odd, given that the reality (or otherwise) of anthropogenic climate change is essentially a scientific question, and usually for such questions one turns to the reviewed academic literature. I wonder if this pie chart provides a clue ?



Just a personal view but I think this underlines that we need to stop treating the delayers/inactivists with any respect; they have no scientific basis or underpinnings whatsoever, yet they have delayed effective action by perhaps a decade; which may end up as the difference between a manageable <2C rise and a catastophic >4C increase in global temperatures, perhaps millions of avoidable deaths.

Enjoy your evening.

Source Guest | Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Congratulations, you've reinforced my opinion that you're a chunt.

Take this and **** off.

[pjclarke]

Surely we're overdue for a Global Warming thread?

You may have noticed that our house 'sceptics' EO, BB and DP and friends rely almost exclusively on media reports, opinion pieces, books, newspapers and other unreviewed secondary sources to make their case.

Which seems odd, given that the reality (or otherwise) of anthropogenic climate change is essentially a scientific question, and usually for such questions one turns to the reviewed academic literature. I wonder if this pie chart provides a clue ?



Just a personal view but I think this underlines that we need to stop treating the delayers/inactivists with any respect; they have no scientific basis or underpinnings whatsoever, yet they have delayed effective action by perhaps a decade; which may end up as the difference between a manageable <2C rise and a catastophic >4C increase in global temperatures, perhaps millions of avoidable deaths.

Enjoy your evening.

Source Guest | Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart