🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8O-dnVuA9bUPwePSnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@bright.net>,
 "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:

<http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract>
Expert credibility in climate change

    William R. L. Anderegg a , 1 ,
    James W. Prall b ,
    Jacob Harold c , and
    Stephen H. Schneider a , d , 1

    a Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
    b Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto,
        Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;
    c William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and
    d Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University,
        Stanford, CA 94305

    Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review 
December 22, 2009)


Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert 
surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the 
tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public 
expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the 
level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the 
climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of 
dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level 
of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would 
inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 
1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to 
show that 

(i) 97�98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the 
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, and 

(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the 
researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the 
convinced researchers. 
---

Bite me.

> "Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message 
> news:wildbilly-53EF88.17595205042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> > In article <gK2dnYCaA4uOduDSnZ2dnUVZ_oMAAAAA@bright.net>,
> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Billy" <wildbilly@withoutta.net> wrote in message
> >> news:wildbilly-7C6A0A.21505204042012@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> >> > In article <jlajfb$ori$1@dont-email.me>,
> >> > Chom Noamsky <beaver@stew.tasty> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 3/31/2012 7:27 PM, RLW wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:18:28 -0400, Leonard wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Abracadabra,  No More Mediæval Warm Period!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <yada, yada, yada>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm starting to get the impression that few posting here actually 
> >> >> > know
> >> >> > what the "hockey stick" graph was intended to represent: runaway,
> >> >> > nearly
> >> >> > limitless increase in surface temperature.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A) We know that's wrong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > B) We know that the troposphere is getting warmer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (A) does nothing to disprove (B).  Indeed, (B) is something 
> >> >> > *observed*,
> >> >> > not a matter open to debate.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (B) means that a lot of weather patterns will change and a lot of 
> >> >> > ice
> >> >> > will
> >> >> > melt.  This doesn't mean Humanity will die off, but it will be very
> >> >> > damn'
> >> >> > expensive and inconvenient for a good many folks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'll hate having to explain to my grandkids that everyone stood 
> >> >> > around
> >> >> > debating whether it was happening instead of figuring out what 
> >> >> > impact
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > will have and how to solve some of the attendant problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> The assumption is it that warming will be all bad.  How many studies
> >> >> have been done on the potential benefits of global warming?  What it
> >> >> comes down to is the cost of adaption versus the cost of correction.
> >> >> That's assuming it can be corrected, and in the view of a substantial
> >> >> portion of the scientific community the results would be modest or
> >> >> negligible at best.
> >> >>
> >> >> The big problem is elements of the political sphere have been trying
> >> >> their best to hook irrelevant agendas to climate change, and to 
> >> >> exploit
> >> >> it as a tool to push things that wouldn't get backing otherwise.  Get
> >> >> people alarmed, induce feelings of insecurity, then they'll be less
> >> >> resistant when it comes to unpopular causes that have little or 
> >> >> nothing
> >> >> to do with climate change.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's interesting that the Darrell Kaufman study showed climate has 
> >> >> been
> >> >> experiencing a long term cooling trend, starting about 2,000 years 
> >> >> ago,
> >> >> and was projected to go on another 4,000 years. Is it possible we're
> >> >> actually better off with a little warming?  Quite possibly we've 
> >> >> averted
> >> >> a future LIA...
> >> >
> >> > We aren't talking about turning down the AC, because the AC will be
> >> > airborne along with the semis and the containers that they were 
> >> > pulling.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >> Climate change will change gravity as well ??
> >>     <snicker>
> >> You do have a rich fantasy about what AGW means.
> >>     No wonder you're so easily sold on this scam.
> >>
> >>
> >> > The warmer the oceans, the more water vapor is in the air. When that
> >> > water vapor turns back to liquid water, it releases a lot of energy.
> >> > Energy that drives storms like hurricanes, or tornadoes. The warmer it
> >> > is the more water vapor there is, the more water vapor there is the
> >> > bigger the storms. Capice?
> >> >
> >>
> >> At least that's the SIMPLE model for the SIMPLETONS
> >> Too bad for you that the model is a bit more complex than that and there
> >> other factors that come in play.
> >>
> > I don't see a single citation from you to back up your bull shit.
> 
> Why don't you post a cite to support your (BULLSHIT) claim that AGW will 
> affect gravity "because the AC will be airborne along with the semis and the 
> containers that they were pulling."
> 
> After all that was YOUR claim
> 
> 
> > A simple mind like yours would like a simple answer, such as the rosy
> > economic forecast that Laffer gave Nixon that was horribly wrong because
> 
> <YAWN>
> I'll remind you that:
> a)    YOU are the simpleton making simplistic claims about water vapor
> b)    That water vapor claim goes COMPLETELY AGAINST the claim of the AGW 
> crowd, which claims it's CO2 that would directly affect planetary warming 
> and not water.
> c)    You also have clearly derailed in babbling about Laffer and Nixon
>         But hey, we're used to that. When you can't address the issue 
> either
>         - change the subject
>         - attack the messenger
>         - start babbling about something completely unrelated
>         ALL LOSER TACTICS by a loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Laffer use 4 inputs into his model, when serious economists use
> > hundreds, or thousands. We all know that CO2, CH4, and H2O will trap
> > heat in the atmosphere. We know that reduced albedo will trap heat on
> > the planet. We know that clouds will reflect potentially atmosphere
> > heating solar radiation back into space. We know that orbital forcing
> > can lower atmospheric temperatures. We know that aerosols can reduce
> > atmospheric heating, and on it goes. Most of us also know that it takes
> > a meteorologist to make sense of the different inputs. Are you a
> > meteorologist?
> 
> I'm a couple of ranks above a mere meteorologist.
> Actually I'm a mathematician and a Systems Engineer
>     I'm the type of guy the smart meteorologists would go to to design and 
> build their models.
>     (The stupid ones like the AGW and IPCC, try to cheap out, and instead of 
> hiring a decent professional like me, to build them a decent model that 
> would not only be able to back-check their data, but also project forward 
> without needing cherry-picking and cooking of the data, they cheap out and 
> screw the pooch by trying to do it themselves.
> And then gullible "useful idiots" like you come forward to babble your 
> ignorance
> 
> 
> > There are a few scientists that think that the models that we are using
> > are flawed, a very small minority. If you believe them, do you have a
> > pertinent reason, or just a gut feeling?
> >
> 
> How about 40 years of professional experience as a Mathematical and Systems 
> Engineer.
> 
> Also note that science is NOT a "consensus" thing.
> It's a:
> - "SHOW ME THE DATA" thing
> - 'LET'S SEE IF WE CAN REPLICATE YOUR EXPERIMENT AND GET THE SAME RESULTS" 
> thing
> - "LET'S RIP APART YOUR THEORY AND DATA AND SEE IF WE CAN RE-ASSEMBLE IT AND 
> GET IT TO REPEAT ITSELF" thing.
> 
> It's MOST DEFINITELY NOT, a "religious" thing where everyone is supposed to 
> toe the :party line".
> It's supposed to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.
> 
> The history of science is stuffed full with individuals who stood up to the 
> MAJORITY opinion and "prejudice of the day" and proved them wrong. OVER and 
> OVER again, the most consistent element in the history of science is that an 
> outsider comes along and blows apart what the majority believe and defend 
> tooth and claw.
> Whenever ignorati like you come along and claim that, since a great majority 
> of "scientists" agree, it must be true, and then ignore the questions that 
> are raised by the minority and try to denigrate that minority SOLELY BECAUSE 
> they are a minority, then I KNOW there is a pretty good chance that the 
> majority is WRONG.
> Just read your history of science to KNOW why ANY intelligent gambler would 
> bet on the minority.
>     IT'S NOT EVEN A GAMBLE.
> 
> Now you know why I consider you an ignorant shithead
>     Because your head is FULL of IGNORANT SHIT
>     Both about science and about the history of science.
> Come back after you have acquired an education on both subjects.
>

-- 
E Pluribus Unum

Know where your money is tonight? 
It's making the lives of Wall Street Bankers more comfortable.


The GOP is chasing us towards a cliff called "Obama."
Vote 3rd Party