Anthropogenic global warming myth

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The experts are called "climate scientists." They're the folks who spend a lot of time studying the climate. They tend not to agree with conspiracy theorists who believe that there is a conspiracy among climate scientists to hide the truth from the public.

Except for the "climate scientists" who disagree with other "climate scientists" or others in the world who have a memory longer than 35 seconds who can recall how many times "scientists" have been not only wrong, but horribly wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The experts are called "climate scientists." They're the folks who spend a lot of time studying the climate. They tend not to agree with conspiracy theorists who believe that there is a conspiracy among climate scientists to hide the truth from the public.

I hope you realize Freaky is the original Arrogant Kaze, right?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The experts are called "climate scientists." They're the folks who spend a lot of time studying the climate. They tend not to agree with conspiracy theorists who believe that there is a conspiracy among climate scientists to hide the truth from the public.

We have been over this before. There is no consensus that man is the main cause of global warming. It is a myth.
You tried to make the case that I was wrong and you failed more than once. Stop reading that stupid skeptical science link. The consensus project is bunk and I proved that to you.

Most climate scientists DO NOT believe man is the main cause of global warming. Everyone who has tried to prove me wrong on this thread has failed!

Fabian, take note of my post before this.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
We have been over this before. There is no consensus that man is the main cause of global warming. It is a myth.
You tried to make the case that I was wrong and you failed more than once. Stop reading that stupid skeptical science link. The consensus project is bunk and I proved that to you.

Most climate scientists DO NOT believe man is the main cause of global warming. Everyone who has tried to prove me wrong on this thread has failed!

You mean myth like this?:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

In fact there IS a consensous and THEY all say mankind is responsible.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
We have been over this before. There is no consensus that man is the main cause of global warming. It is a myth.
You tried to make the case that I was wrong and you failed more than once. Stop reading that stupid skeptical science link. The consensus project is bunk and I proved that to you.

Most climate scientists DO NOT believe man is the main cause of global warming. Everyone who has tried to prove me wrong on this thread has failed!

It is kind of insane that you've resurrected this thread, premise still intact. It was abandoned because you proved yourself wrong.

Go back and look at your own posts. You linked two studies that showed a scientific consensus of 67% and 65% agreement among members of scientific societies and active publishing scientists, respectively, that agreed that man-made global warming was >50% of global warming since the mid-20th century.

What are you still talking about?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
It is kind of insane that you've resurrected this thread, premise still intact. It was abandoned because you proved yourself wrong.

Go back and look at your own posts. You linked two studies that showed a scientific consensus of 67% and 65% agreement among members of scientific societies and active publishing scientists, respectively, that agreed that ...[text shortened]... ng was >50% of global warming since the mid-20th century.

What are you still talking about?

When did I prove myself wrong? As I recall, the poll was not exclusively climate scientists.

If I am wrong show me the link that has the info you claim. Make sure they are climate scientists though. That was the criteria of this thread when I created it. Also make sure it is a poll, not a ridiculous article based on climate models that have failed more often than not to predict the future. If that is what you are referring to I proved you wrong on my "predicting the past" thread. Climate models are a joke and you know it!

Originally posted by @metal-brain
When did I prove myself wrong? As I recall, the poll was not exclusively climate scientists.

If I am wrong show me the link that has the info you claim. Make sure they are climate scientists though. That was the criteria of this thread when I created it. Also make sure it is a poll, not a ridiculous article based on climate models that have failed m ...[text shortened]... proved you wrong on my "predicting the past" thread. Climate models are a joke and you know it!

We went over this already. They scored each polling participant for recent publication history in climate-related research. Among highly published climate scientists, it went up to >70% who attribute >50% of global warming to anthropogenic causes. Among all participants it was 65%.

Your link: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/

The actual study: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Climate models are a joke and you know it!

You never showed any evidence of that.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You never showed any evidence of that.

Yes I did. Countless times as a matter of fact. Future predictions are wrong more often than right.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/

Predicting the past does not count. Only future predictions have to be right the first time. All others can be wrong countless times and covered up by overly zealous alarmists looking for funding to keep their jobs.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
We went over this already. They scored each polling participant for recent publication history in climate-related research. Among highly published climate scientists, it went up to >70% who attribute >50% of global warming to anthropogenic causes. Among all participants it was 65%.

Your link: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majorit ...[text shortened]... /default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

Here is an excerpt from the link you posted:

"Approximately 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Question 1 was answered by 1868 respondents"

Most people did NOT participate in the survey. This means the study is incomplete and unreliable. It is kind of like football players donating their brains for concussion study. Of course they are more likely to have brain damage. Even the most concerned people about concussions admit this. You cannot force football players to donate their brains so the study is flawed as far as numbers go.

Until most scientists participate in the poll the study is deeply flawed and not worth putting faith into.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Here is an excerpt from the link you posted:

"Approximately 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Question 1 was answered by 1868 respondents"

Most people did NOT participate in the survey. This means the study is incomplete and unreliable. It is kind of like football players donating the ...[text shortened]... scientists participate in the poll the study is deeply flawed and not worth putting faith into.

Most people did NOT participate in the survey. This means the study is incomplete and unreliable.

Wrong.
It can be mathematically shown that a survey that doesn't ask most people (say it asks just 1% ) can, depending on conditions, nevertheless easily result in an estimate (of something) that is reliable within a few percent.
For example, a probability of less than, say, 1%, might creditably be rationally assigned to the estimate (of something) being inaccurate by more than, say, 5%. Why do you think that estimates are sometimes shown with error-bars?
I CERTAINLY should know because I have actual expertise in statistical analysis and I am actually currently doing cutting-edge research in, amongst other things, statistical analysis. I am even writing a book about it.
But you don't actually need to have such expertise to know about how estimations by scientists can be (and often are) reliable because that would be complete overkill; you only have to know the very basics of how science works with estimations which is something any first-year science student should know.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Here is an excerpt from the link you posted:

"Approximately 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Question 1 was answered by 1868 respondents"

Most people did NOT participate in the survey. This means the study is incomplete and unreliable. It is kind of like football players donating the ...[text shortened]... scientists participate in the poll the study is deeply flawed and not worth putting faith into.

"Most people don't participate in a survey" means that the group is not representative of the whole? This is your evidence that anthropogenic climate change consensus is a myth?

It does not follow that this says anything about their accuracy, and you need to go beyond that to convince me otherwise. This sample size is plenty large enough, and it was nearly 30% of respondents, which is actually pretty high for a survey.

Especially given the corroborative data from other polls, which landed on nearly exactly the same number. You dismissed that study for some other dubious reason but the fact remains that both studies polled thousands of scientists and identified the same percentage of scientists that believe man made global warming is >50% of total.

And the criticism remains from earlier, Why did you post the links if you don't think they're worth putting faith into?

Originally posted by @humy

Most people did NOT participate in the survey. This means the study is incomplete and unreliable.

Wrong.
It can be mathematically shown that a survey that doesn't ask most people (say it asks just 1% ) can, depending on conditions, nevertheless easily result in an estimate (of something) that is reliable within a few percent.
For examp ...[text shortened]... ow science works with estimations which is something any first-year science student should know.

I've seen CNN call senate races after they count 1% of the vote (especially if one candidates winning by a 2/3 majority).

Is it even conceivable that, with 30% polling, that 65% number could be flipped. It would have be an exceedingly minute possibility.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Yes I did. Countless times as a matter of fact. Future predictions are wrong more often than right.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-ha ...[text shortened]... untless times and covered up by overly zealous alarmists looking for funding to keep their jobs.

Countless times you've been unable to articulate why or how Dr. Roy Spencer is defining a "Wrong" climate model. I think it's remarkable that the models in the graph predicted the exact temperature of the planet 15 years into the future. Did you even read that article? What is he talking about?

If you're waiting for a bus, and it's 45 seconds late, is the bus schedule wrong?

Edit: one more question: If you're going to define something as wrong or junk, what degree of predictive accuracy would be right or not junk?