Sea level rise

@metal-brain said
You are excusing false information as if it is normal.

What does that above assertion supposed to mean? I have absolutely no idea.
Does ANYONE here know what that might mean?

The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake of relying on the consensus project for false info. Now that they refuse to do so it is evident they are deliberate liars.

@metal-brain said
The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie.
Skeptical Science has had years to correct their mistake of relying on the consensus project for false info. Now that they refuse to do so it is evident they are deliberate liars.

Soooo.... the term "...excusing false information..."(your quote), means what, exactly?
Just like your post before that one, its gibberish.

The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie. There is no study to back up the claim.

People who claim they don't understand this can't prove it wrong, so they pretend it doesn't make sense even though they have debated this subject over and over again and understand what I am saying perfectly.

When humy says this doesn't make sense, what he is really saying is he understands it very well, but knows he cannot prove it wrong so he plays ignorant.

@metal-brain said
The Consensus Project's claim "man is the cause" is a lie. There is no study to back up the claim.

People who claim they don't understand this can't prove it wrong, so they pretend it doesn't make sense even though they have debated this subject over and over again and understand what I am saying perfectly.

When humy says this doesn't make sense, what he is really saying is he understands it very well, but knows he cannot prove it wrong so he plays ignorant.

There ARE such studies, hundreds of them. The fact you don't believe them is YOUR problem not the rest of the world. You have to admit you are in the minority here about climate change, 'here' meaning the whole of the science community. We have presented a number of sites showing the data and such but you just refuse to acknowledge such, and just SAYING, 'unproved' is NOT a defense when in fact it HAS been shown to be true and will be more and more obvious as time goes on and one report I just say said Carbon tax is the best way to deal with excess CO2, as much as you want to poo poo such ideas as CO2 excess causing climate change, it will become exceedingly obvious in the future and you are too stubborn, stuck on your old ways, to see that.
Things will NOT be all back to normal in 100 years, if we don't do CO2 sequestering and such on an industrial scale and such monetary techniques as carbon tax, we will be in deep shyte, at least our grandkids are and in light of that possibility if you are right, 100 years from now everything is just fine but if you are wrong, the world population of humans and many other species will be in deep jeopardy. Do you want to be the one making the decision to do nothing and have your grandkids cast you in a really negative light in the light of history?
I think it much better to try to deal with the problems now and find out it was not needed rather than NOT dealing with it and our grandkids never happen at all because our KIDS are dead from starvation or flooding. It's a long term bet.

@sonhouse said
There ARE such studies, hundreds of them. The fact you don't believe them is YOUR problem not the rest of the world. You have to admit you are in the minority here about climate change, 'here' meaning the whole of the science community. We have presented a number of sites showing the data and such but you just refuse to acknowledge such, and just SAYING, 'unproved' is NOT a ...[text shortened]... ids never happen at all because our KIDS are dead from starvation or flooding. It's a long term bet.

Show me the peer reviewed study. Talk is cheap and you know better after me correcting you countless times. You are in denial of the facts. You cannot say the majority of climate scientists agree with you when only a minority were polled. A minority is not a majority. Do you understand?

Show me the study.

@metal-brain said
Show me the peer reviewed study. Talk is cheap and you know better after me correcting you countless times. You are in denial of the facts. You cannot say the majority of climate scientists agree with you when only a minority were polled. A minority is not a majority. Do you understand?

Show me the study.

You seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.

To count as a scientific fact a claim has to be falsifiable, and it has to have been validated. Without having read the actual paper, if it's from a peer reviewed journal it will have fulfilled these criteria. So the actual fact is that of climatologists polled X% agreed with the statement Y. I don't know their exact method, but the analysis will have involved a null hypothesis - something along the lines of: "Climatologists are no more than 50% likely to agree with the statement Y". Then, given that assumption, worked out how likely there were to get X% of participants in the poll agreeing with Y. That likelihood tells you how reliable a statement like: "There is a consensus in climatology." is. So the claim is a scientific truth in that it's passed their quality control procedure. These results are not unshakeable but they are reliable in the sense I've tried to outline.

@deepthought said
You seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.

To count as a scientific ...[text shortened]... cedure. These results are not unshakeable but they are reliable in the sense I've tried to outline.

He has repeatedly showed an apparent lack of understanding of some extremely basic statistical concepts that you certainly don't have to have any real expertise in statistic like I do to understand and I think you have just touch on one of those lack of understanding.
If we at least more or less randomly sampled a proportion of a population (of something), and even if its an arbitrary 'small' proportion (say, only 1% of the whole population) and find X% of that sample as characteristic Y, then providing the total size of the sample it arbitrarily 'large' (say, 1000 individuals), then in most cases (but excluding cases of significant sample bias. But here is no evidence for significant sample bias in those statistics we mentioned earlier) we can rationally both think and assert that we should have some very high confidence that about X% (give or take some arbitrary 'small' percentage) of the whole population has characteristic Y. But he has repeatedly and wrongly implied this is not the case implying instead that if it isn't most/all of the population that is sampled then you cannot rationally have a high confidence that about X% of the whole population has characteristic Y. This is mainly where he shows an absence of understanding.

@deepthought said
You seem to think that we are obliged to have perfect information to make any knowledge claim. All polls involve questioning a subset and extrapolating to an entire population. The statistics come with confidence intervals to tell you how reliable they are. You'd need to show that the study design was flawed to effectively argue against it.

To count as a scientific ...[text shortened]... cedure. These results are not unshakeable but they are reliable in the sense I've tried to outline.

More biased jargon.

Show me a poll of climate scientists that polled a majority of climate scientists. The majority of a minority is still a minority. It is not truthful to claim a minority polled is a majority opinion. The only way you can factually assert a majority opinion is to poll a majority to begin with.

It is mind blowing to me that out of all of the money spent funding GW studies that nobody is spending money on a proper poll.

The consensus project lies and that is a fact. They have no peer reviewed study to back up their claim because it is a lie. You need to accept that fact.

@humy said
He has repeatedly showed an apparent lack of understanding of some extremely basic statistical concepts that you certainly don't have to have any real expertise in statistic like I do to understand and I think you have just touch on one of those lack of understanding.
If we at least more or less randomly sampled a proportion of a population (of something), and even if its an a ...[text shortened]... he whole population has characteristic Y. This is mainly where he shows an absence of understanding.

Let's say I polled some of the Senators to get their opinion on AGW. Instead of polling all 200 I only polled 60 because nobody else replied to the email I sent.

The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause. Then you ask how many of those 60 senators are republicans and I say it doesn't matter. Satisfied with that?

@metal-brain said
More biased jargon.

Show me a poll of climate scientists that polled a majority of climate scientists. The majority of a minority is still a minority. It is not truthful to claim a minority polled is a majority opinion. The only way you can factually assert a majority opinion is to poll a majority to begin with.

It is mind blowing to me that out of all of the money ...[text shortened]... ave no peer reviewed study to back up their claim because it is a lie. You need to accept that fact.

You're insisting on perfect information. It is not necessary for a poll to poll the majority. The statement only has to be 95% certain to be true (or whatever threshold they used). What reason do you have to believe that the sample is biased to people who believe whatever the poll was asking? To effectively argue against this you need to attack the study design beyond complaining that they didn't ask everyone.

@deepthought said
You're insisting on perfect information. It is not necessary for a poll to poll the majority. The statement only has to be 95% certain to be true (or whatever threshold they used). What reason do you have to believe that the sample is biased to people who believe whatever the poll was asking? To effectively argue against this you need to attack the study design beyond complaining that they didn't ask everyone.

Polling by e-mail with no follow up is sloppy and insulting to those that value proper polling. Have you ever heard of a spam folder? Also, how are climate scientists supposed to know it is a proper poll? Do you have any idea how many emails are sent climate scientists only for them to find out the poll questions are BS meant to get the result they want? Most probably wouldn't reply even if they did see it.

The end result is omitting the indifferent. Only the developmentally disabled would condone something so incredible stupid as to omit the indifferent and consider that a fair poll. Those and the politically biased not interested in the truth of consensus.

After all, if you will condone the consensus project spreading lies, why would you be interested in the truth elsewhere? Samuel George Morton thought the same way as you.

@metal-brain said
Let's say I polled some of the Senators to get their opinion on AGW. Instead of polling all 200 I only polled 60 because nobody else replied to the email I sent.

A sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.

The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause.

Then, unless you are given information that the poll was significantly sampled biased, and unless you have other relevant information to take into account that should change your estimates, your most rational default best guess should be that very roughly 59% of senators do indeed think that. However, because of the very low sample size (only 60) you will have to allow for a very wide margin of error such as 59% ± 20% with, say, a large 30% chance of the actual percentage being outside that range, which makes it highly uncertain and rough estimate. This is not the situation for the scientists polled because we have is a much larger sample size for that giving a much lower margin of error.

Then you ask how many of those 60 senators are republicans and I say it doesn't matter.

But it does matter so you would be wrong. It matters because if there is a much greater or much lesser proportion of republicans in the sample than that in the government then that means there would likely be significant sample bias. In contrast, there was no evidence of and no reason to think there would be significant sample bias in the poll of the scientists and you certainly have failed to yet show the contrary. So your point is?...

@humy said
A sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.
[quote] The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause. ...[text shortened]... there was no evidence of significant sample bias in the poll of the scientists. So your point is?...

Well, a rational argument might be to point to self-selection bias. One could argue that a hypothesis such as the following hasn't been ruled out:

"Climatologists who think global warming is due to anthropogenic causes are more likely to answer polls about it.".

The difficulty with a poll with a random email is that those that do hold a minority position might feel wary about responding to it. I haven't read the paper and don't have any kind of intuition about how likely that is.

@humy said
A sample of only 60 individuals would yield a relatively uncertain statistical result because that's a relatively low number for a sample. The number of scientists that took part in the polls was considerably more than 60 thus gives us a much more certain statistical result.
[quote] The poll shows that of those 60 Senators 58% of those 60 senators say man is not the main cause. ...[text shortened]... poll of the scientists and you certainly have failed to yet show the contrary. So your point is?...

60 out of 200 is 30%.

I am not aware of any poll of climate scientists that polled more than 30%
Are you?