Andrew Bolt

[StrappingTape]

Well this thread is title the Andrew Bolt.. and no I wasn't saying you agree with him but what you wrote was what people like him are arguing. You clearly don't agree with him.

 

[Moo87]

I wonder how long until that paper is retracted? It's littered with errors and bias:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ording-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

Not surprised.


Government spending on pro global warming research would dwarf any private company sponsored reports.

Anthony Watts website seems to be a frequent feature in many of the arguments here - it must be an oasis of unbiased, scientific information

His website was set up with funding from the Heartland Institute (who, by the way, previously funded a tobacco company to help them question the link between health risks and secondhand smoking) who have a strong track record promoting and funding climate skeptic work and conferences. They have received significant funding from oil companies, and have a preconceived view on climate change which they are fairly publicly seeking to promote.

Anyway, here is a link to NASA's statement on the consensus on climate change. They quote the 97% mark, taken from 3 separate systematic reviews. It also features statements from 18 prominent scientific associations consistent with human activities causing climate change.

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

[StrappingTape]

Anthony Watts website seems to be a frequent feature in many of the arguments here - it must be an oasis of unbiased, scientific information

His website was set up with funding from the Heartland Institute (who, by the way, previously funded a tobacco company to help them question the link between health risks and secondhand smoking) who have a strong track record promoting and funding climate skeptic work and conferences. They have received significant funding from oil companies, and have a preconceived view on climate change which they are fairly publicly seeking to promote.

Anyway, here is a link to NASA's statement on the consensus on climate change. They quote the 97% mark, taken from 3 separate systematic reviews. It also features statements from 18 prominent scientific associations consistent with human activities causing climate change.

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Tin Foil hat much? Did the Heartland Institute put a gun to those scientists heads who were quoted to make them agree with Watts?

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

I hardly think NASA has a surprising position considering it was headed up by a fanatical activist who actually quit his post so he could go and be a full time one. I can link to some studies showing there's no scientific consensus but they wouldn't count because there'd always be some evil group that we can just deflect the blame of the results to. The fact these studies that claim it are scientifically inept but are created just for headline for one side or the other seems lost on most people.

 

[Relativity]

The paper below is a systematic review on peer reviewed articles spanning 20 years (1991 to 2011) with 97% consensus that human activities contribute to climate change.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

From the above link;

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

97% of 32.6% (31.6%) of scientists studying AGW agree with it. Not 97%. You do understand this don't you? Anyway it is an irrelevent statistic as science is not consensus. Science is robust analysis. Consensus is used as an argument to shut down dissenting views.

 

[Relativity]

Anthony Watts website seems to be a frequent feature in many of the arguments here - it must be an oasis of unbiased, scientific information

His website was set up with funding from the Heartland Institute (who, by the way, previously funded a tobacco company to help them question the link between health risks and secondhand smoking) who have a strong track record promoting and funding climate skeptic work and conferences. They have received significant funding from oil companies, and have a preconceived view on climate change which they are fairly publicly seeking to promote.

Look! There's a unicorn!

 

[El_Scorcho]

From the above link;

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

97% of 32.6% (31.6%) of scientists studying AGW agree with it. Not 97%. You do understand this don't you? Anyway it is an irrelevent statistic as science is not consensus. Science is robust analysis. Consensus is used as an argument to shut down dissenting views.

The bolded part completely misses the point.

How many of that 66.4% of abstracts that mentioned global warming were from literature that was specifically trying to form a position on anthropogenic global warming? Potentially none of them? Just because they were studying in the field of global warming doesn't mean the focus of their research was on whether anthropogenic global warming occurs or not.

All we know is that of the studies that were prepared to make a position on it, 97.1% agree with it. We don't and can't know what the 66.4% who didn't form a position think and we certainly can't claim that they don't support global warming.

If election time rolls around and 33.6% of the vote in my electorate has been counted, and Family First has 97.1% of that vote, it would be crazy to make the assumption that only 32.6% of people in my electorate voted for Family First.

 

[Relativity]

The bolded part completely misses the point.

No you miss the point. Completely. From that link 31.6% of peer reviewed literature on climate abstracts backs anthropogenic global warming. 68.4% either have no position on AGW or were uncertain. Yet somehow from this study this is interpreted as 97.1% of scientists studying AGW agree with it. If you buy that mate then you've bought the bridge.

How many of that 66.4% of abstracts that mentioned global warming were from literature that was specifically trying to form a position on anthropogenic global warming? Potentially none of them? Just because they were studying in the field of global warming doesn't mean the focus of their research was on whether anthropogenic global warming occurs or not.

You really didn't read the quote did you? Just to repeat from the above link;

""We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."

All we know is that of the studies that were prepared to make a position on it, 97.1% agree with it. We don't and can't know what the 66.4% who didn't form a position think and we certainly can't claim that they don't support global warming.

Nor can we claim that 97.1% of them do, which is my point.

If election time rolls around and 33.6% of the vote in my electorate has been counted, and Family First has 97.1% of that vote, it would be crazy to make the assumption that only 32.6% of people in my electorate voted for Family First.

If you want a true electoral analogy then 100% have voted. 32.6% voted for AGW, 0.7% rejected it and 66.7% didn't vote or voted informal. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the winning candidate and certainly not backed by the 97.1% of the electorate as claimed.

To quote Mark Twain ; "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics." 97.1% falls into all 3 categories by any unbiased analysis.

 

[Rowd072]

I like Bolt. He really has some Balls. The science behind the whole global warming thing is just a joke. It just gives people in 'important' positions a reason to have a job. I mean, look at Tim Flannery. I can't wait for Tim's next big prediction on climate change......maybe Adelaide is about to be flooded by the sea due to melting polar ice caps, or is Perth about to disappear and become a dust bowl.....? These are the types of predictions we've heard............
It takes courage to disagree with the mainstream and Bolt has this.

 

[El_Scorcho]

No you miss the point. Completely. From that link 31.6% of peer reviewed literature on climate abstracts backs anthropogenic global warming. 68.4% either have no position on AGW or were uncertain. Yet somehow from this study this is interpreted as 97.1% of scientists studying AGW agree with it. If you buy that mate then you've bought the bridge.



You really didn't read the quote did you? Just to repeat from the above link;

""We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."



Nor can we claim that 97.1% of them do, which is my point.



If you want a true electoral analogy then 100% have voted. 32.6% voted for AGW, 0.7% rejected it and 66.7% didn't vote or voted informal. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the winning candidate and certainly not backed by the 97.1% of the electorate as claimed.

To quote Mark Twain ; "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics." 97.1% falls into all 3 categories by any unbiased analysis.

Look, it's a simple question. How many of the 66.4% of studies that didnt have a position on AGW were specifically trying to determine whether AGW occurs?

Just because a study mentions climate change in the abstract doesn't mean determining whether climate change is caused by humans was the purpose of the study.

If you can show me that many or most of those studies were specifically trying to determine whether AGW occurs or not and couldn't form an opinion, I'll completely back down and 100% concede the point.

All we know so far is that 97.1% of studies willing to agree or disagree with AGW agreed.

 

[Relativity]

Look, it's a simple question. How many of the 66.4% of studies that didnt have a position on AGW were specifically trying to determine whether AGW occurs?

Just because a study mentions climate change in the abstract doesn't mean determining whether climate change is caused by humans was the purpose of the study.

If you can show me that many or most of those studies were specifically trying to determine whether AGW occurs or not and couldn't form an opinion, I'll completely back down and 100% concede the point.

All we know so far is that 97.1% of studies willing to agree or disagree with AGW agreed.

An even simpler question. Do you believe that 97.1% of climate scientists studying AGW believe in AGW?

 

[El_Scorcho]

I can only go on what I read and hear. I'd suggest the figure would be a lot closer to 97.1% than 31.6%

 

[Relativity]

I can only go on what I read and hear. I'd suggest the figure would be a lot closer to 97.1% than 31.6%

Then I'd suggest that you are ignoring simple mathmatics to hear what you want to hear. Unfortunately the climate debate has gone from one of science to one of religious zealotry.

 

[El_Scorcho]

In what way am I ignoring simple mathematics?

 

[Moo87]

From the above link;

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

97% of 32.6% (31.6%) of scientists studying AGW agree with it. Not 97%. You do understand this don't you? Anyway it is an irrelevent statistic as science is not consensus. Science is robust analysis. Consensus is used as an argument to shut down dissenting views.

Sorry for the late reply - I have been away. Yes I completely understand. That is the selection criteria used to be part of the study, ie determining the relevant papers. The initial search was broad (as it should be), but not every paper that appears would be applicable (as I see El_Scorcho has already mentioned).

Also it deals with this in the paper. This next quote is taken directly from the discussion:

"Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72)"

StrappingTape No tin foil hat here

Just added that in as you mentioned funding in one of your previous posts. As to Watts article, it does raise questions regarding the methodology however it does not address the other aspect of that paper - the self reporting. From the article:


"We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

The questions I see which aren't really taken into account by this study are 1) the quality of research is not mentioned 2) publishing selection bias is not addressed.

Sorry not wanting to drag on an argument, but really just replied because there were a few posts stating there is no evidence for the argument/statement that the vast majority of scientists agree climate change is real and humans influence it.

 

[Northalives]

I like Bolt. He really has some Balls. The science behind the whole global warming thing is just a joke. It just gives people in 'important' positions a reason to have a job. I mean, look at Tim Flannery. I can't wait for Tim's next big prediction on climate change......maybe Adelaide is about to be flooded by the sea due to melting polar ice caps, or is Perth about to disappear and become a dust bowl.....? These are the types of predictions we've heard............
It takes courage to disagree with the mainstream and Bolt has this.

No, the joke is that some people would rather take the word of vested interests over that of those who devote their lives to scientific research to enhance the understanding of the natural world and in doing so, improve our lives.

Andrew Bolt is a racist f*****g arse hole who reckons that there is nothing wrong with the Murray Darling river system, the Stolen Generation is an exaggeration, the nuclear fall out problems at Fukushima are hysteria, the Chernobyl catastrophe wasn't and isn't serious and hardly anyone died because of it, fair skinned people can't possibly be Aboriginal, there's nothing wrong with taking a 5 or 6 year period from a graph and completely disregarding the rest of the graph and putting this up as absolute proof that climate change is not happening and then calling everybody who questions him, a "leftie".This is McCarthy era demonisation with the only difference being that people aren't called "commies" or "pinkos" any more, they're now "lefties" and just like McCarthy, Bolt is a dangerous piece of scum.

Those who "like" Bolt 'cause he "has the courage to stand up", are like the crackpots who "like" the anti-vaccination mob because they are "standing up" to mainstream science: you know, the same c**k head scientists that came up with heart and organ transplants, the ones that fight to save people's lives, the shit heads we go too when we have a medical problem, the liars who put people on the moon.

Andrew Bolt is at the margins of society but disgusting pigs like him sell newspapers and get ratings. Congratulations to those who reckon Bolt "makes sense". You are the ones who make sure that those responsible for things like the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Bhopal disaster, the Ontario Minamata disease, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Sandoz chemical spill and many, many more disasters; you Bolt lovers help keep the filth responsible for the above disasters not only out of jail but to continue on their merry way.

In fifty years time, Bolt will be viewed in the same way that the former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, the late Joseph Raymond "Joe" McCarthy is now viewed, that is, as a lying piece of shit.

 

[Relativity]

Sorry not wanting to drag on an argument, but really just replied because there were a few posts stating there is no evidence for the argument/statement that the vast majority of scientists agree climate change is real and humans influence it.

You misrepresent my posts. Nowhere have I said this. I just get annoyed when statistical trickery is used to claim that 97% of climate scientists that have submitted peer reviewed papers on AGW agree with it. Particularly when this is morphed into 97% of all climate scientists as was done in the Nasa site that you linked to above. I get no confidence in what organisations are saying when they pay lip service to accuracy.

 

[Relativity]

In what way am I ignoring simple mathematics?

Look. You can not take 97% of a selected section of data, and extrapolate that to be the universal truth. They have ignored 66.7% of the data. 66.7% of the peer reviewed papers were either unsure or uncommitted on AGW. To conveniently remove this section of the data and then claim that 97% of climate scientists studying AGW believe it to be true is statistical fraud.

 

[El_Scorcho]

That's exactly what I said.

97% of studies that were committed to making a call on AGW agreed with it

Plenty of other studies said nothing one way or the other.

I'm not trying to skew anything, but surely climate change deniers aren't claiming this as evidence to support their view? It's far, far more misleading to say that 66.7% weren't prepared to agree with AGW when (I'm assuming, show me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of that 66.7% of them probably weren't focusing their study on that.

 

[bomberclifford]

That's exactly what I said.

97% of studies that were committed to making a call on AGW agreed with it

Plenty of other studies said nothing one way or the other.

I'm not trying to skew anything, but surely climate change deniers aren't claiming this as evidence to support their view? It's far, far more misleading to say that 66.7% weren't prepared to agree with AGW when (I'm assuming, show me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of that 66.7% of them probably weren't focusing their study on that.

Do you recall what the specific gripe with Andrew Bolt was in this thread?
Wasn't it something about selective data sets aimed at skewing the results.
You're doing the same thing.

For the record, I do believe that human activity is having an impact on the planet's climate.
I just think that the hyperbole does more damage to the cause than it does help.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Do you recall what the specific gripe with Andrew Bolt was in this thread?
Wasn't it something about selective data sets aimed at skewing the results.
You're doing the same thing.

For the record, I do believe that human activity is having an impact on the planet's climate.
I just think that the hyperbole does more damage to the cause than it does help.

All i'm doing is arguing against Relativity's interpretation of the information because I believe it's misleading. If I can be proven wrong i'm happy to be. Everything else is conjecture. I didn't bring the 97% stat to the table here.

 

[power09]

check out this racist ****, having the same attitude towards racism as Andrew must make Morgan a evil, ignorant, racist arsehole.

 

[El_Scorcho]

When Morgan Freeman says that light skinned African American people would only reference their black heritage if it was for personal gain, get back to me.

There are plenty of arguments for or against Indigenous round. Bolt had made disgraceful racist comments and was called out on them a long time before Goodes was racially vilified on the weekend.

 

[Rowd072]

No, the joke is that some people would rather take the word of vested interests over that of those who devote their lives to scientific research to enhance the understanding of the natural world and in doing so, improve our lives.

Andrew Bolt is a racist f*****g arse hole who reckons that there is nothing wrong with the Murray Darling river system, the Stolen Generation is an exaggeration, the nuclear fall out problems at Fukushima are hysteria, the Chernobyl catastrophe wasn't and isn't serious and hardly anyone died because of it, fair skinned people can't possibly be Aboriginal, there's nothing wrong with taking a 5 or 6 year period from a graph and completely disregarding the rest of the graph and putting this up as absolute proof that climate change is not happening and then calling everybody who questions him, a "leftie".This is McCarthy era demonisation with the only difference being that people aren't called "commies" or "pinkos" any more, they're now "lefties" and just like McCarthy, Bolt is a dangerous piece of scum.

Those who "like" Bolt 'cause he "has the courage to stand up", are like the crackpots who "like" the anti-vaccination mob because they are "standing up" to mainstream science: you know, the same c**k head scientists that came up with heart and organ transplants, the ones that fight to save people's lives, the shit heads we go too when we have a medical problem, the liars who put people on the moon.

Andrew Bolt is at the margins of society but disgusting pigs like him sell newspapers and get ratings. Congratulations to those who reckon Bolt "makes sense". You are the ones who make sure that those responsible for things like the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Bhopal disaster, the Ontario Minamata disease, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Sandoz chemical spill and many, many more disasters; you Bolt lovers help keep the filth responsible for the above disasters not only out of jail but to continue on their merry way.

In fifty years time, Bolt will be viewed in the same way that the former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, the late Joseph Raymond "Joe" McCarthy is now viewed, that is, as a lying piece of shit.

Northalives, that was a very hostile response. I'm not a crackpot, I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[Schulzenfest]

There are too many states these days. Please eliminate three.

 

[Relativity]

That's exactly what I said.

97% of studies that were committed to making a call on AGW agreed with it

Plenty of other studies said nothing one way or the other.

I'm not trying to skew anything, but surely climate change deniers aren't claiming this as evidence to support their view? It's far, far more misleading to say that 66.7% weren't prepared to agree with AGW when (I'm assuming, show me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of that 66.7% of them probably weren't focusing their study on that.

Your reply belies your lack of objectivity. Could you please point out where I have "denied" the existence of climate change in any of my posts? You even quoted my post where I said "Anyway it is an irrelevant statistic as science is not consensus." My argument has been against the accuracy of the statistic and nothing else. You then go on to assume something with no basis and ask me to disprove it. No. You prove it. It is not part of my argument.