Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Forbes, via Watts Up With That:
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
:
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
Wonder if there will be a rebuttal to this, soon, with the ritual “Hooray, we’re still doomed!” overtone permeating throughout.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
House of Eratosthenses: Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all.
Sorry, but petroleum engineers, which constitute a large portion of the survey, are not scientific experts on climate. Nevertheless, a plurality of respondents support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 03:43If by “petroleum engineers” what you mean to say is “meteorologists,” then that is a valid observation to make.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 03:54mkfreeberg: If by “petroleum engineers” what you mean to say is “meteorologists,” then that is a valid observation to make.
We were referring to the Organization Studies survey you cited. As for the meteorologist surveys, the first survey was broadcast weather reporters, which are not typically scientists, while the second survey included those with a minimum baccalaureate, which also are not typically scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 04:04Was Eratosthenes a scientist?
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 04:14mkfreeberg: Was Eratosthenes a scientist?
Yes, a scholar a scientist of a first rank.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 04:16So a scientists is one who simply does science.
You’re claiming to know what these people do? How do you know this?
FTA:
So we have two surveys of knowledgeable professionals, producing more-or-less identical results which you obviously don’t like. And now it seems you’re re-defining the word “scientist” as a matter of convenience, to disqualify whatever informed views don’t support the conclusion you’re trying to push.
Y’all probably can’t pop the cork on the “Hooray we’re still doomed!” champagne just yet…
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 04:24mkfreeberg: So a scientists is one who simply does science.
That’s right.
mkfreeberg: You’re claiming to know what these people do? How do you know this?
By looking for their published research.
mkfreeberg: So we have two surveys of knowledgeable professionals, producing more-or-less identical results which you obviously don’t like.
Well, they certainly are professionals, in that they make money at what they do, however, most are not professional scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 04:31Ah, so you have manufactured a requirement that they must have published research or else their opinions don’t count.
Defense of this humans-warming-the-globe premise, seem to consistently come back to this framework of “everyone who agrees with us, agrees with us.” Why can’t alwarmists just admit there’s a controversy?
Reminds me of the Cutter/Cupp thing. Can’t say — alright, both concerns are valid, now here are the reasons why my statements merit greater credibility and greater attention. It always has to be: Those other concerns are not real. All the time. It’s just weird.
What’s it like playing poker with your folks, I wonder. “My pair of threes beats your full house, because your cards aren’t real.” Monopoly: “You can’t get $200 for passing Go, because your token doesn’t actually exist.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 04:55Remember, these are the same people who can blithely assert that Sarah Palin isn’t a real woman, Clarence Thomas isn’t really black, etc. Saying that a guy who does science every day isn’t a scientist is child’s play to them.
Remember too that these are the same cuttlefish who, in other threads, keep going on and on about how reasonable restitution is, and how treating whole classes of people unequally advances equality. A knack for creating unpersons is very handy when you have that mindset. I hear Sibera’s very nice this time of year.
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 08:03mkfreeberg: Ah, so you have manufactured a requirement that they must have published research or else their opinions don’t count.
No, just evidence. Scientists publish. It’s rather the point.
mkfreeberg: Why can’t alwarmists just admit there’s a controversy?
Don’t know what you mean by “alwarmists”, but there is a controversy, just not a scientific one. It’s cultural and political.
Severian: Remember, these are the same people …
Palin in a woman. Thomas is black. And if someone uses the scientific method to investigate the natural world, they are a scientist.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 08:14And if someone uses the scientific method to investigate the natural world, they are a scientist.
Except that’s not the whole definition, according to you yourselves:
Scientists publish. It’s rather the point.
And so Morgan will repeat his point about Eratosthenes doing science — haven’t we been here before? — and round and round and round we’ll go again, because every time you back yourselves into a rhetorical corner, you’ll squirt out some squid ink and presto, they’ll be some new, as yet unheard of condition for what a “real scientist” does.
When you spend all your time looking for little gotcha! moments — when you expend such vast amounts of energy missing each and every point that doesn’t agree with your preconceptions — it’s very hard to process evidence.
- Severian | 08/17/2013 @ 08:56Severian: And so Morgan will repeat his point about Eratosthenes doing science — haven’t we been here before?
If Eratosthenes never communicated his findings, we would have no evidence that he did, in fact, do scientific work. If these weather broadcasters are all working in science, they must be doing it in secret, because the vast majority have never communicated their findings.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 13:51Silly Eratosthenes. He never published in a proper, peer-reviewed journal. What business does a library administrator have forming opinions about planet sizes anyway?
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 14:01mkfreeberg: Silly Eratosthenes. He never published in a proper, peer-reviewed journal.
Eratosthenes published for the benefit of his peers. The vast majority of weather broadcasters have not published scientific work.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 14:07You checked?
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 14:12mkfreeberg: You checked?
We’re familiar with the literature.
But as you are the one claiming it constitutes a valid appeal to authority, it behooves you to show they are experts in the field for which they are being cited.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 14:23We’re familiar with the literature.
Oh so you know the names of the survey participants? When you said “the vast majority have never communicated their findings” I figured that was an informed comment of some kind. Y’all sure made it look like one.
But as you are the one claiming it constitutes a valid appeal to authority, it behooves you to show they are experts in the field for which they are being cited.
No, I really don’t think so. The survey is valid, I never promised to follow those five bullet points (actually it’s six) y’all like to use, and y’all are the ones who wish to discard this artifact that contradicts the conclusions you want to reach. You should make available your research showing you collected the names of these survey participants, searched for their published works, and came up empty.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 14:29mkfreeberg: The survey is valid
The survey is valid. The appeal to authority “It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus” is faulty.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 14:53“Faulty” in the sense that it doesn’t jive with what you’re used to reading, or want to hear.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 15:06mkfreeberg: “Faulty” in the sense that it doesn’t jive with what you’re used to reading, or want to hear.
No. We’re happy to consider contrary positions. It’s faulty because it doesn’t represent a survey of experts in the field, but claims to.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 15:10No. We’re happy to consider contrary positions. It’s faulty because it doesn’t represent a survey of experts in the field, but claims to.
You don’t know that. You’re pretty much inventing fiction that the survey participants have not published any scientific work. So your statement “happy to consider contrary positions” is demonstrably false.
- mkfreeberg | 08/17/2013 @ 15:16mkfreeberg: You don’t know that.
Not with certainty, but we are familiar with the literature, most scientists have a PhD, and a simple sampling of weather broadcasters doesn’t yield many citations. However, we’re more than willing to reconsider based on any evidence you present. At this point, we have a survey of people, most of whom have no apparent scientific qualifications.
- Zachriel | 08/17/2013 @ 18:17Not with certainty, but we are familiar with the literature, most scientists have a PhD, and a simple sampling of weather broadcasters doesn’t yield many citations. However, we’re more than willing to reconsider based on any evidence you present. At this point, we have a survey of people, most of whom have no apparent scientific qualifications.
Y’all are the ones who made the claim: “The vast majority of weather broadcasters have not published scientific work.” I think most people would think, as I thought, that you had some numerator and denominator in mind when you said “vast majority.” Do y’all mean to say y’all just made a claim and y’all can’t back it up?
It might help to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas. You might contradict yourselves less, for one thing.
- mkfreeberg | 08/18/2013 @ 04:26mkfreeberg: Y’all are the ones who made the claim: “The vast majority of weather broadcasters have not published scientific work.”
Yes, and we provide our reasons for the claim, which you have yet to address. Yes, a plumber can be a scientist, but a survey of plumbers is not a survey of scientists, because most plumbers are probably not also scientists. But if it will help, we will simply restate our claim.
The survey includes people with no apparent scientific credentials, hence the claim they are scientists is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 08/18/2013 @ 06:48But since you don’t know that, you have made a claim that you cannot support. Why don’t you go gather the evidence to support the claim you’ve made, come back, and make it again when you understand enough to make the claim.
Your claim is: The vast majority of weather broadcasters have not published scientific work. So, what you need to do is go out and find out who these weather broadcasters are, and prove the negative that they have not published scientific work. It’s your claim.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 06:23mkfreeberg: But since you don’t know that, you have made a claim that you cannot support.
Thought it was fairly obvious that most plumbers are not climate scientist. However, we restated our claim.
The survey includes people with no apparent scientific credentials, hence the claim they are scientists is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 07:51But your claim is that they are not.
Do you make a point of supporting your claims, simply by pronouncing support is required for the opposite, and then demanding it? That is not how you support a claim.
Your claim, again, was that the vast majority of weather broadcasters have not published scientific work.
How vast a majority? How many weather broadcasters are you including? How many, within them, have not published scientific work? What is the numerator and what is the denominator? It’s your claim.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 08:18mkfreeberg: But your claim is that they are not.
No, we retracted that claim in lieu of this claim: The survey includes people with no apparent scientific credentials, hence the claim they are scientists is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 08:20Okay well if you’re retracting the claim, perhaps we should discuss this more honestly, and achieve agreement on that which is really just obvious: It is the content of the conclusion of the survey, not its methodologies or the body of its participants, that persuades you to discard the results and counsel others to do the same.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 08:33mkfreeberg: It is the content of the conclusion of the survey, not its methodologies or the body of its participants, that persuades you to discard the results and counsel others to do the same.
No, we already stated our objections.
The survey includes people with no apparent scientific credentials, hence the claim they are scientists is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:02The survey includes people with no apparent scientific credentials, hence the claim they are scientists is unsupported.
Key word being “apparent.” So your objection is based on something you don’t know. We agree on that, right?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 09:15mkfreeberg: Key word being “apparent.”
That’s right. They might be scientists, they might not. It’s an unsupported claim.
You do realize it’s silly to survey plumbers, then claim their opinion represents a scientific consensus.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:25Can’t see where the survey was taken of plumbers…where did you find that?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 09:28mkfreeberg: Can’t see where the survey was taken of plumbers…where did you find that?
Your argument works the same for any survey that claims scientific consensus that doesn’t limit the sampling to scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:42So your claim supports the issue, which is that you don’t think the survey was made of scientists. But you bring no evidence to support your claim.
So I guess what we would agree on is this: If it could be shown that this survey is not made of scientists, then the following statement would be found to lack support:
And I would agree with that.
Now, you need to go out and find some evidence to help us decide this.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 09:49mkfreeberg: So your claim supports the issue, which is that you don’t think the survey was made of scientists.
Our claim is that the claim the survey supports a scientific consensus is unsupported.
mkfreeberg: If it could be shown that this survey is not made of scientists, then the following statement would be found to lack support
No, that isn’t necessary. The statement says “these scientists”, but the survey sample wasn’t of scientists. While it’s rather ridiculous to dispute that a survey of people working outside of science won’t properly represent scientific opinion, we are merely saying that any statement in reference to the survey that uses the term “these scientists” is unsupported.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 09:56Okay, so you’re theorizing that the survey participants were “working outside of science” and that some miscommunication developed while some of the Forbes article was being written, or while some of the original report was being written.
If I’m understanding that right, you’re effectively providing a rebuttal to one “unsupported” statement, by way of another unsupported statement.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 11:50mkfreeberg: Okay, so you’re theorizing that the survey participants were “working outside of science”
That’s obvious, but not necessary to pointing to the lack of support.
mkfreeberg: and that some miscommunication developed while some of the Forbes article was being written
That’s right. The Forbes article did not accurately represent the study.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 11:56The Forbes article did not accurately represent the study.
So the problem is with Forbes’ write-up. Where exactly did they go wrong?
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 12:08mkfreeberg: So the problem is with Forbes’ write-up. Where exactly did they go wrong?
By conflating weather broadcaster with scientist.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 13:11Well, hell, I’m convinced. After all, they said that “we are familiar with the literature, most scientists have a PhD, and a simple sampling of weather broadcasters doesn’t yield many citations.”
They pulled a few names of weather broadcasters out of a hat, ran those names through Google Scholar, and didn’t come up with many citations. So it’s absolutely ironclad, as long as we assume
— that they actually did pull the names of some weather broadcasters
— that this name-pulling was unbiased
— that the names they pulled were the same weather broadcasters as the ones in the survey
— that their CVs are available online to check whether or not they have PhDs
— that one can only do science with a PhD
— that “few citations” is identical to “no citations”
— that “citations” is the only valid criterion for determining who is or isn’t a scientist…
&c.
But other than that, it’s airtight. Exactly the kind of rigor I’d expect from climate scientists.
- Severian | 08/19/2013 @ 14:12Forbes:
Organization Studies:
Think you may be getting confused by the next paragraph out of Forbes:
The whole point is, when your real scientists are surveyed and then the results tabulated, the percentages don’t change much. Your “conflating weather broadcaster with scientist” gotcha-moment seems to miss this.
It helps to actually argue from a position, instead of trying to come up with gotchas.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 14:45Severian: They pulled a few names of weather broadcasters out of a hat, ran those names through Google Scholar, and didn’t come up with many citations.
It doesn’t have to be ironclad. The survey is just a sampling too. If even a small percentage of weather broadcasters are not climate scientists, then it’s not a valid survey of scientific opinion. In any case, even though it’s rather obvious that most weather broadcasters are not climate scientists, we withdrew the claim in lieu of stating the claim of consensus was unsupported.
mkfreeberg: The whole point is, when your real scientists are surveyed and then the results tabulated, the percentages don’t change much.
You haven’t provided a survey of climate scientists. Weather broadcasters and engineers are not climate scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 15:16Reminds me of the Cutter/Cupp thing. Can’t say — alright, both concerns are valid, now here are the reasons why my statements merit greater credibility and greater attention. It always has to be: Those other concerns are not real. All the time. It’s just weird.
What’s it like playing poker with your folks, I wonder. “My pair of threes beats your full house, because your cards aren’t real.” Monopoly: “You can’t get $200 for passing Go, because your token doesn’t actually exist.”
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:33Are you saying weather broadcasters and engineers are climate scientists? What about plumbers?
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 15:42I’m saying, you don’t get smarter when you get rid of information, you get smarter when you take it in, even if you subsequently find problems with it.
Looks like this is a whole new paradigm shift for y’all. Getting smarter — by adding to the information you have, not by coming up with excuses to get rid of the information.
After we finish educating y’all about it, maybe y’all can get hold of Ms. Cutter and pay it forward. Save her from making an ass out of herself on the teevee.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:45Battleship: That wasn’t a REAL torpedo you launched, so even though your coordinates are right, you don’t get a point.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:46Chess: Ordinarily you COULD take my Queen, but I’ve declared your pawn isn’t real.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:46Those other concerns are not real. All the time. It’s just weird.
Isn’t it, though? And coming from the same folks who in another thread are lecturing us about the French Revolution. Do they have PhDs in modern French history, do you think? An extensive list of publications? Does it say “modern French historian” on their business cards? If not, I guess we’re to conclude that their concerns aren’t real. Unless, of course, that rule only applies in this thread….
- Severian | 08/19/2013 @ 15:46Blackjack: That other face-card is a phantom card…so you hold a ten, not a twenty.
- mkfreeberg | 08/19/2013 @ 15:47mkfreeberg: That wasn’t a REAL torpedo you launched …
Engineers are real, but not {usually} scientists. Weather broadcasters are real, but not {usually} scientists. A claim of a scientific consensus must, by definition, make reference to the expertise of scientists.
- Zachriel | 08/19/2013 @ 15:50[…] actually build in the real world. It might be lacking in pure mathematical elegance, and maybe engineers “aren’t real scientists,” but you can actually drive a car over the damn thing. And that’s the test: Does […]
- An Ass of U and Me | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/21/2019 @ 09:02