Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (753096)	11/16/2013 12:58:38 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578303

Hi Alighieri; Re: "Well, no...22% don't disagree. I would urge you to examine the make up of the 22...only 2% disagree. The rest seem to be unsure or think both human and natural causes are to blame but don't assign ratio to each." The lefty claim is that 97% of scientists agree that global warming has been proven to be primarily caused by man. The poll (which you seem to be accepting!) shows that only around 78% agree with this. The others disagree. That is, they believe that the cause is unknown, etc. Sadly for you, the debate was defined by your side to the effect that "the science is settled". But 22% of those polled do not agree that the science is settled. This is the disagreement. And it's too late now to retreat from the "science is settled" position. To retreat now would be to admit that you lied. Even if that past history weren't an albatross around your neck the public would ask itself "We've spent billions of dollars on climate science and they still don't know if man causes global warming??? What a waste of money." Re: "A number of studies have been conducted which have analyzed thousands of reviewed papers and they conclude that there is overwhelming consensus on the subject. Do a little research on these...they are pretty easily found." The people interested in doing this sort of research are people who are very concerned about global warming. Real scientists are doing real science. This is political science, not climate science. Such people cannot be trusted (by the other side) to research fairly. In fact, the alarmists believe that the fate of the world hangs in the balance of their making a good case. It's like listening to babble from religious people. The analysis of the papers is faulty. For example, when I brought up a paper (here on this thread) that had to do only with the climate of prehistoric Greenland, somebody concluded that it was support for global warming simply because the paper mentioned that the results could be used to help predict the effect of future warming. Some of the scientists whose papers were classifed as "supporting global warming" vehemently disagreed. This is well known in the skeptic community. To understand this belief you need to read skeptic papers on the subject, some of which quote the scientists involved, for example: Richard Tol: "Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral." wattsupwiththat.com To get real polling data on what scientists think now, you have to use an independent unbiased pollster now. Stuff from your side that dates back 3 years is not acceptable for two reasons. First, it's from a biased source. What the heck, why don't we get rid of peer reviewed science and just use the papers on the www.skepticalScience.com website, LOL. Second it's out of date. This refusal to accept polling data from the other side is a principle of political reality that you would accept if the tables were turned. Suppose that the Republican party arranged for a poll of scientists, or the American people, or the scientific literature or whatever, and the results of the poll was something you disagreed with. Would you believe that the Republican party had made a fair and unbiased poll? Of course not. You would know that the Republicans had their finger on the scale. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That's why you have to have polls by big polling companies. Both sides trust them more than they trust the other side. Even if the poll is "fair", the author gets to decide what questions to ask and this biases the interpretation of the poll. Suppose I wanted people to believe that the American public is in favor of abortion. I would ask "Should abortion be legal?" On the other hand, if I wanted people to believe that the American public is against abortion, I would ask "Should all abortion be legal, even when the baby is old enough to survive on its own outside the womb?" So no, you can't rely on polls by activists to show what activists want to believe. And similarly, polls that are more than 2 years old are polls about old science. The climate field is very young and the facts are moving quickly. The pause was not expected. -- Carl