Technocrat » 10 Jan 2016 9:05 pm wrote:
Except it hasn't. And the source that was used to "debunk" it actually confirmed it by saying "there is broad consensus among climate scientists." There only stops being consensus
when you include irrelevant people in the survey like mathematicians, doctors, biologists, petroleum geologists, engineers etc.
Golfboy had egg on his face when his own source refuted his argument.
I'm not saying the consensus stopped. I'm saying it never started - at least, as far as your bullshit "meta-study" goes. The bullshit study - to which you wisely did not link - used the same prestidigitatious mathematcs as that guy you barely ever heard of used in the film you never watched, Wink wink. The sample used was "those who published and stated an opinion on the causes of climate change." So far, so good. The sample amounted to less than 1% of accredited climatologists, and only about 2% of those who pubished. The overwhelming majority who published did not state an opiion (I no longer remember the precise number that DID opine, but your unlinked source does state it, and it is miniscule).
The group that sample was used to predict was "all climatologists, published and unpublished, who did or did not state an opinion."
That is a different and discrete group. The rules of statistics forbid using people born in May to predict the attitudes of people born in June.
The very greatest claim that could have been made was this: OF THOSE who stated an opinion, 97% opined that climate changes was IN SOME MEASURE
anthropogenically caused. IF your source had used math responsibly in that limited regard
, it would STILL have been massively in violation of the rules of statistics - because it would not have been accounting for factors which could have skewed the results.
For example, it MIGHT be that those who disagree publish less papers - perhaps because a "This is false and here is why" position paper doesn't bear repeating, whereas those who agree get new evidence to interpret every year or even more often than that.
Then, too. some might consider it it suicidal to disagree with the global warming establishment, which would suppress requests for publication. And then there is the fact
that a plot was discovered and revaled to both punish nay sayers professionally AND
squelch their ability to publish. To what degree the exposed plan was a success may never be known. So, without factoring these inhibitions into the equation, blithely stating the results as if they stand as representative is a misuse of statistical analysis.
But that's not all that's wrong - your source is not finished with its sacrilege against the noble field of statistics.
In statistical analysis, there is a predictable scatter among those who answer, whether in the negative or in the positive. You will have heard of this scatter and will have experienced it with your students - it's refered to as the "bell curve." So it is a virtual CERTAINTY that among those who are counted in your "consensus" are folks ranging from, "It's happening, it's catastrophic, and we're causing it," to, "It's happening, but not appreciably, and we're at cause, but only about 2% - the rest is caused by nature."
Rolling those outliers into some fabricated "consensus,: notwithstanding they are at loggerheads, is dishonest and cagey - downright slimy, really.
That is why your consensus is silly: Because it broke a half dozen rules in being stillborn.THE RULES APPLY TO YOU, NOT JUST TO US.
By the way, these rules ARE TAUGHT in statstics 101 - this is not arcana that I am hipping you to.
By the further
way, I HAVE read the study, obviously - yes, I, who according to your lies do not read links. I go to links in order to prove or debunk them. If you're just spamming to give me busy work, then I do not bother.