July 19th, 2010, 07:56 PM
Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm
:wink:Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg are all skeptical of "man-made" global warming (AGW).
Teller (Dr. Strangelove) died seven years ago. Got any new news?
On the other hand there is some current research reported in PNAS by the very recently (today) deceased Prof. Steven Schneider:
Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that 97-98% of climate researchers examined who are most actively publishing in the field support the IPCC conclusions, i.e., are convinced by the evidence for human-caused climate change, and that the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of researchers questioning the findings is significantly below that of convinced researchers. The authors of this first-of-its-kind study used metrics of climate-specific expertise and overall scientific prominence to examine expert credibility among scientists who agree with or question the primary conclusions of the IPCC….
Dr. Teller (Father of the Hydrogen Bomb) was still skeptical of AGW.Originally Posted by Bunbury
PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only checked the top 4 papers for their "citation analysis" not for the total amount of results using the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors. Thus none of their numbers were verified.
Not to mention, why were they searching for climate patents? Their "results" were obtained by searching Google Scholar using the search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate". By default Google Scholar is set to search both "articles and patents" yet no mention of searching only for articles is in the paper. So why were they searching for climate patents and how is a patent that contains the search word "climate" a relevant "climate publication"?
Even better they cherry picked away skeptics "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher". So if a scientist published only 19 or less papers on climate he is not considered an "expert". They did this intentionally as they noted "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group." Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth. It cannot be ignored that skeptics extensively publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define "experts".
Conclusion: the study is worthless due to Google Scholar illiteracy and Cherry Picking.
Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada)
Global warming's Stephen Schneider: The Light That Failed (Environmental Policy Examiner)
A New Blacklist (Roger A. Pielke Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Studies)
PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce (Doug L. Hoffman, Ph.D. Computer Science)
The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun (Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Here's Prof. Schneider discussing some of the criticisms. Presumably his last ever interview.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/i...t-credibility/
None of that addresses any of my criticisms. Not to mention your comments are offtopic.
I didn't read your criticisms.None of that addresses any of my criticisms. Not to mention your comments are offtopic.
Poptech, your objections appear trivial and biased. The authors of the paper make very clear the limitations of their methodology, but the study as an insight into aspects of the debate that have hitherto gone unquantified. It is open to those holding opposing views to conduct a more rigorous anlaysis with similarily well defined methodology. That is the way progress is made. To reject the findings out of hand, as you have done, is cavalier, short sighted and smacks of inherent ineptness on your part.
Let me address one aspect of your objection. Do you deny that, in general, experts within any field of science publish more papers than non-experts in that field? If you contend otherwise we have nothing more to say: I don't argue with fools. If you accept this contention, then please defend your claim that identifying experts based upon their publication numbers is cherry picking.
My objections are based on an actual understanding of how Google Scholar works and that by not verifying every single result, any conclusions drawn in that paper are meaningless.
You are missing the very basis of the argument. Defining who or who is not a "expert" is subjective. Since I have established that defining who is an expert is "subjective" I have successfully defended my claim of cherry picking. Skeptics have extensively published,
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Poptech...
You have to remember, being a Climatologist alone does not make one a real research scientist. Takes just one more class from being a Meteorologist which uses causation to correlation. When you show them real work submitted by real scientists of other disciplines of the geosciences, they then say "that doesn't count. They aren't climatologists." I also believe the agenda is taught in schools, and paid for by legislators in grants who have a vested interest to have one more way to control the public. The 2011 budget plans has several billion dollars for climate change. I stopped counting when I located $92.1 billion. It keeps going on.
Worse yet, the budget is more than 1/3rd financed by debt. We definitely don't need to spend on Global Warming when it is not a proven science. must really be important to the powers to be.
He's using people like Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson for support - he's a long way from worrying about distinguishing actual climate researchers from random PhDs.
But it is disappointing to see the number "seven". The past three or four cycles of this semi-yearly media event -
the one where the corporate media pros ballyhoo some list of scientists who signed a petition or appeared at a conference or answered a poll or something that the media pros are claiming indicates their disagreement with major findings of the AGW crowd -
have featured much larger and more impressive numbers.
Recent cycle numbers have been in the hundreds, even thousands. 7? C'mon guys.
Or six, actually - here's Dyson on AGW:
I do not consider these eminent physicists just "random PhDs", four of which have published climate related papers.
No seven as he does not support alarm,Or six, actually - here's Dyson on AGW
He is not "skeptical of AGW". He does not belong a list of scientists who are skeptical of AGW. He thinks AGW is real and significant. He belongs on a list of scientists who think AGW is real and significant - "major", as he puts it.
Was he one of the "four" who have published "climate related papers" of some kind? Then you are down to three of six with any even tangentially related expertise, mostly old and/or dead.
Past lists of this sort have included hundreds of scientists, and if you are willing to include people like Dyson (and that's the only way you can get impressive lists of that kind) the only barrier to your listing similar numbers is sloth. You guys getting lazy, or what? Propaganda is hard work, son - you have to get after it.
He is not, he is on a list of scientists skeptical of AGW alarm.
Nah, still at seven eminent physicists.
Sorry to break it to you but Dyson signed the Global Warming Petition Project.
If this list does not impress you then there should be no need for you to comment on it.
Just found it interesting that $92B is in the ballpark of what coal and gas production has been costing the US in environmental and health cost per year according to the last study by the National Academy of Sciences (other less credible sources claim much higher)
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=12794
Well you should have posted that list, instead of the one titled "Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW".
And you should have left Dyson off of the list you did post.
Then you would not have appeared to be lying about what the people on your list actually said and believed.
But as far as I know there is no such list, of any length, that does not present false claims about the scientists on it. It's a rain of lies, this denialist media barrage - there just isn't any other way to describe it. If you guys have a case here, why can't you present it without doing things like listing Dyson among the AGW skeptics?
Without presenting people like Edward "H-bombs make good earth moving equipment" Teller as climate experts?
Without accepting the work of people like Fred Singer and other minions of the Exxon funded think tanks?
I did post that list and he is on it.
No one is lying you just are incapable of clicking on links.
You have nothing as usual which is why you are likely funded by green organizations to post such lies.
If you refer back to the OP of this thread, you will find that you or someone using your name has posted a list entitled "Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW". Freeman Dyson's name is on it. Freeman Dyson is not skeptical of AGW, according to his own statements quoted here and many others. Therefore, he does not belong on that list.
Neither does Ed Teller, being both dead and unable to hold current opinions based on recent research, and not - at the time of his skepticism - an eminent physicist.
The list is at least 2/7 falsehood, in other words. Does that bother you?
[quote="iceaura"]Make that at least, 5/7. It is near certain that Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow NS William Nierenberg don't have an opinion because they are also dead.
There is no such list as the list you click on in the link explicitly says "alarm".
Teller was skeptical until he died in 2003. I find it humorous that you do not consider a developer of the Hydrogen bomb an eminent physicist. Nothing on the list is false as it is all sourced. Your denial of their skepticism does not bother me, no.
Make that 7 out 7 skeptics as they all had an opinion before they died which was not in support of alarm.
I have been talking - explicitly, clearly, and pointedly - about the list you posted, with your title and your chosen "quote", in the OP.
If there is some other and different list, by somebody else somewhere, I'm sure that is fascinating to some people but I don't care about it. The OP is the topic of this thread.
It was intersting that in the thread title as well as the initial post the word "Alarm" was left out. The tactic is a page from that the incredible scientific institution of seven people out of an Oregon farmhouse.
But I suppose if we're down to a list, half of which are dead (and have no opinions), and some of which deliberately ended their distinguished careers with similar disinformation campaigns about the damaging effects of tobacco and acid rain for similar reasons, to protect giant businesses from regulation--well that's not much to go on.
Try clicking on the link, it explicitly says alarm.
That has been corrected.
They explicitly had opinions as quoted. Your lies about them are debunked in the rebuttal section. Your desperation is noted however.
I don't care about any other lists, or links, or whatever.
The OP, the topic of the thread, has been your list, titled by you, as you originally posted it on this forum. All of my comments are on that topic.
If you want to make a different thread about some other list, or link, or whatever, you should do that. When you "correct" your OP like that, you are compounding your original dishonesty.
That is a serious matter, on a forum such as this.
It is clear you don't care about the truth and instead wish to argue from your strawman position as the truth does not support your dishonesty. What is a serious matter is your continued propaganda.
I'll just remind folks this is a science forum. So far this thread doesn't have any and appears more of a troll than anything else. For example opinions of dead people aren't very scientific...(to say the least).
Let it die or add some science.
The opinions of scientists is not scientific? Interesting logic. I understand you do not want anyone to read the post but that is a different matter.
Opinions are potentially interesting. The opinions of scientists are often interesting. The opinions of eminent scientists are likely to be interesting.
However, opinions are not scientific, even when they come form eminent scientists.
Science is based upon observation, hypothesis, experimentation and so on. Opinions have no place in the scientific process. Therefore it is logical and accurate to state that the opinions of scientists are not scientific.
So then you agree any claims of consensus is not scientific.Opinions are potentially interesting. The opinions of scientists are often interesting. The opinions of eminent scientists are likely to be interesting.
However, opinions are not scientific, even when they come form eminent scientists.
Science is based upon observation, hypothesis, experimentation and so on. Opinions have no place in the scientific process. Therefore it is logical and accurate to state that the opinions of scientists are not scientific.
Not at all. You make an unwarranted jump to a concussion.
The consensus is that the balance of evidence and observation and experiment support the interpretation of anthropogenic global warming. That is not the opinion of scientists, that is the agreement by the vast majority of scientists that the evidence points in a particular direction.
Fail,Not at all. You make an unwarranted jump to a concussion.
The consensus is that the balance of evidence and observation and experiment support the interpretation of anthropogenic global warming. That is not the opinion of scientists, that is the agreement by the vast majority of scientists that the evidence points in a particular direction.
Consensus (defined) - "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"
You just rejected the claims of consensus as scientific, thank you very much.
Man you are getting desparate.Consensus (defined) - "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"
You just rejected the claims of consensus as scientific, thank you very much.
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
A scientific consensus, which is what this one is, is not an opinion. It is a common agremment that a particular hypothesis or theory is a sound one, or that a set of observations are accurate, or a suite of experiments valid. It is a position on a particular matter.
You do realise that is why the definition includes the word or? Because, like many words, consensus has multiple meanings. The meaning of consensus in this context - the scientific context - is as I have outlined above.
Now please stop playing silly little word games that you have no chance of winning. It makes your arguments appear weaker than they are and your personality as weak as it is.
Position (defined) - "an opinion"Man you are getting desparate.Consensus (defined) - "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole"
You just rejected the claims of consensus as scientific, thank you very much.
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
A scientific consensus, which is what this one is, is not an opinion. It is a common agremment that a particular hypothesis or theory is a sound one, or that a set of observations are accurate, or a suite of experiments valid. It is a position on a particular matter.
You do realise that is why the definition includes the word or? Because, like many words, consensus has multiple meanings. The meaning of consensus in this context - the scientific context - is as I have outlined above.
Now please stop playing silly little word games that you have no chance of winning. It makes your arguments appear weaker than they are and your personality as weak as it is.
Epic Fail.
Thank you for confirming that you do not believe a consensus is scientific.
Potech, seriously: get a life.
You can play your childish word games till the seas evaporate, but it will not alter the facts.
There are multiple meanings for position. do we have to go through all of them? Do I have to explain to you which ones are meant when we talk of a scientific position? A position adopted as the result of a scientific consensus? Not an opinion. Not a guess. Not a wild assed speculation. No, a carefully reasoned, evidentially substantiated, well developed, thorougly researched position, which - when held by a number of experts in the field - constitutes a consensus.
Now go away and play with the traffic: your babblings are scaring the childrren.
No need to get so excited because you simply invalidated one of your "positions". :-D
Actually no Ophiolite did not invalidate anything just because of the word usage. Semantics as an argument against ANYTHING is not a viable way of disproving anything.
Do you actually have any arguments other then trying to act immaturely, as the semantics game is commonly abandoned after leaving jr high?
It was not I that locked the thread, but, after reading the last few posts, it's clear that poptech is not making scientific arguments or willing to discuss the scientific merits of the topic. Rather he/she seeks to obfuscate and use fallacy.
Consider this a formal and official warning to stop as it is considered trolling.
| « the oil well in gulf | Warmest June on record » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
