The Nobel Prize (for propaganda)
- Thread starter trysail
- Start date
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The Consensus That Wasn’t: Less Than 1%, Not 97%
by William Briggs, Ph.D.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/20838/
...Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates.
In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus.
Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists.
However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education...
In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus.
Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists.
However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education...
Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,197
What a useful word. Ideally fitted to 'social media', I suspect.
And to more than Climate change !
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...All of this “hottest year on record” nonsense is absurd, we are talking about very small changes in the average temperature. The surface temperature records are only accurate to +-0.2°C at best and almost all of the last 35 years of satellite and weather balloon data fit between -.2°C and +.2°C...
-Andy May, Ph.D.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.
Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science [in this presentation], but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”
–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
ht tp://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
What Is Seen And What Is Not Seen, Climate Edition
May 09, 2017
by Francis Menton
...Over in the world of climate reporting, what is seen is the constant drumbeat of articles about the "hottest" day/month/year ever. You have seen lots of those over the past year. Quick, now, when was the last one? Unless you follow this closely, you very likely won't know. And, can you think of seeing any recent article revealing that some recent period was not the hottest day/month/year/whatever? Neither can I. That's the "unseen." You can be forgiven for coming away with the impression that things just keep getting hotter and hotter.
For considerations of brevity, I'll leave out the first half of last year, and start in July. The New York Times headline on July 9 was "Record High Temperatures in the First Six Months of the Year." (Accompanied by a picture of a house engulfed in flames, of course.)
The average temperature across the contiguous United States for the first six months of this year has been the warmest on record — and by a considerable sum — dating back to 1895, according to a monthly report released Monday by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Then, on August 8, it was this: "What Cornfields Show, Data Now Confirm: July Set Mark as U.S.'s Hottest Month." Of course, they are explicit in making sure you know to draw the conclusion that the succession of "hottest" months proves the underlying trend toward catastrophe:
It may come as little surprise to the nation’s corn farmers or resort operators, but the official statistics are in: July was the hottest month in the lower 48 states since the government began keeping temperature records in 1895. . . . “This clearly shows a longer-term warming trend in the U.S., not just one really hot month,” Mr. Crouch [climatologist at NCDC] said.
And, on September 12, "August Ties July for Hottest Month on Record."
It just keeps getting hotter. August has tied July for the distinction of being the hottest month since record-keeping began in 1880, NASA said in a news release on Monday.
Notice that this series of articles was in turn driven by a comparable series of press releases issued by the government propagandists.
And then, when were the next articles? October, November, December? Try to find them. On January 18, we get "Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year":
Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014.
OK, but was there anything that happened to temperatures toward the end of the year that you'd like to tell us about? Nothing that you can find here.
And then, somehow, all these press releases and follow-on articles just disappeared. Any guesses as to what might be happening? Perhaps we should just go and check in on the satellite temperature data set over this period:
Aha! The global lower atmosphere temperature has dropped a full .56 deg C (that's almost exactly one full degree F) since its peak in February 2016. Do you think that any of these people would have the common decency to openly admit that fact and discuss it honestly? Don't kid yourself.
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/5/8/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-climate-edition
For considerations of brevity, I'll leave out the first half of last year, and start in July. The New York Times headline on July 9 was "Record High Temperatures in the First Six Months of the Year." (Accompanied by a picture of a house engulfed in flames, of course.)
The average temperature across the contiguous United States for the first six months of this year has been the warmest on record — and by a considerable sum — dating back to 1895, according to a monthly report released Monday by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
Then, on August 8, it was this: "What Cornfields Show, Data Now Confirm: July Set Mark as U.S.'s Hottest Month." Of course, they are explicit in making sure you know to draw the conclusion that the succession of "hottest" months proves the underlying trend toward catastrophe:
It may come as little surprise to the nation’s corn farmers or resort operators, but the official statistics are in: July was the hottest month in the lower 48 states since the government began keeping temperature records in 1895. . . . “This clearly shows a longer-term warming trend in the U.S., not just one really hot month,” Mr. Crouch [climatologist at NCDC] said.
And, on September 12, "August Ties July for Hottest Month on Record."
It just keeps getting hotter. August has tied July for the distinction of being the hottest month since record-keeping began in 1880, NASA said in a news release on Monday.
Notice that this series of articles was in turn driven by a comparable series of press releases issued by the government propagandists.
And then, when were the next articles? October, November, December? Try to find them. On January 18, we get "Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year":
Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014.
OK, but was there anything that happened to temperatures toward the end of the year that you'd like to tell us about? Nothing that you can find here.
And then, somehow, all these press releases and follow-on articles just disappeared. Any guesses as to what might be happening? Perhaps we should just go and check in on the satellite temperature data set over this period:
Aha! The global lower atmosphere temperature has dropped a full .56 deg C (that's almost exactly one full degree F) since its peak in February 2016. Do you think that any of these people would have the common decency to openly admit that fact and discuss it honestly? Don't kid yourself.
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/5/8/what-is-seen-and-what-is-not-seen-climate-edition
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
If you want to see a point-by-point dissection of just how completely wrong an NPR report (because NPR is completely bent and doesn't do any fact-checking) on sea level was, read this:
https://www.masterresource.org/sea-level-rise-climate-change/npr-sea-level-rise-bungling/
Would NPR ever admit to a colossally inaccurate report ? Would NPR ever admit that its journalists routinely violate journalistic standards of impartiality ?
You weren't born yesterday. You know the answers.
NPR defines the word hypocrisy. Don't believe a single word out of their mouths on the topic of climate.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Are you vying for the Propaganda Prize yourself?
Your "historic norms" are "bullshit".
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Did he read his own graph?
The first one he posted, "Arctic Sea Ice Extent", has 2017 starting lower than both 2016 and the 1981-2010 average. Proving that there's less ice due to global warming.
The second one he posted, "Antarctic Sea Ice Extent", shows 2017 as having less sea ice than 2016 and the 1981-2010 average. He literally just showed us that global warming is real because there's less sea ice than last year.
Finally, 2017 is very much outside the average.
What a shock he can't read his own graph.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Destroying the Planet? President Trump did the unthinkable for many – he announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Accords). The reaction of the horrified was predictable. How dare he? A bit of history is useful in explaining the reaction...
For decades, Washington, and many in the West, have been inundated by propaganda that human greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide (CO2), are the principle cause of dangerous global warming / climate change, without any compelling physical evidence supporting the claim. The Supreme Court even ruled that CO2, vital for life as we generally recognize it, is a pollutant that the EPA can regulate if it deems CO2, and other greenhouse gases, endanger human health and welfare.
The effectiveness of this propaganda can be seen by the reaction to Mr. Trump’s announcement that his administration is pulling out of the Paris Agreement. One is tempted to call it “shock and awe.” The lack of hard evidence that that Paris Agreement will do anything meaningful is scarcely mentioned.
On the website WUWT, Anthony Watts repeated the graph by Bjorn Lomborg projecting the difference by the year 2100 of a) doing nothing, b) completing the promises under Paris by 2030, and c) continuing all the promises under Paris from 2030 to 2100. Completing the promises by 2030 will reduce projected surface temperatures in 2100 by 0.05 degrees C; continuing the promises will reduce projected temperatures in 2100 by 0.17 degrees C.
Given that the projections are for about 85 years, the results are meaningless. Given that none of the climate models used to make such projections have been validated, the results are absurd. Given that many of the instruments used, such as the ones at US airports, have a specified internal accuracy of plus or minus 1 degree C, the projections are ludicrous. [Note, if repeated measurements are made in the same manner and by using the same instrument, and assuming errors are normally distributed, the error declines by a function of the square root of the number of measurements. But, this logic does not apply for measurements from numerous instruments of the same type, much less for measurements from numerous types of instruments.]
In short, we are witnessing outrage expressed over a political decision by those whose scientific position is ludicrous. They have succumbed to... propaganda...
For decades, Washington, and many in the West, have been inundated by propaganda that human greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide (CO2), are the principle cause of dangerous global warming / climate change, without any compelling physical evidence supporting the claim. The Supreme Court even ruled that CO2, vital for life as we generally recognize it, is a pollutant that the EPA can regulate if it deems CO2, and other greenhouse gases, endanger human health and welfare.
The effectiveness of this propaganda can be seen by the reaction to Mr. Trump’s announcement that his administration is pulling out of the Paris Agreement. One is tempted to call it “shock and awe.” The lack of hard evidence that that Paris Agreement will do anything meaningful is scarcely mentioned.
On the website WUWT, Anthony Watts repeated the graph by Bjorn Lomborg projecting the difference by the year 2100 of a) doing nothing, b) completing the promises under Paris by 2030, and c) continuing all the promises under Paris from 2030 to 2100. Completing the promises by 2030 will reduce projected surface temperatures in 2100 by 0.05 degrees C; continuing the promises will reduce projected temperatures in 2100 by 0.17 degrees C.
Given that the projections are for about 85 years, the results are meaningless. Given that none of the climate models used to make such projections have been validated, the results are absurd. Given that many of the instruments used, such as the ones at US airports, have a specified internal accuracy of plus or minus 1 degree C, the projections are ludicrous. [Note, if repeated measurements are made in the same manner and by using the same instrument, and assuming errors are normally distributed, the error declines by a function of the square root of the number of measurements. But, this logic does not apply for measurements from numerous instruments of the same type, much less for measurements from numerous types of instruments.]
In short, we are witnessing outrage expressed over a political decision by those whose scientific position is ludicrous. They have succumbed to... propaganda...
-Ken Haapala
Carnal_Flower
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 31, 2014
- Posts
- 6,896
Just out of curiosity, why would the entire Western World [sic--because the whole world besides the US and Syria agree now] collaborate on such a giant hoax?
The whole world is in on a nefarious plot, why? Shits n giggles?
The whole world is in on a nefarious plot, why? Shits n giggles?
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
It starts with education in science; something that is very poor in the US and getting worse. Other countries elect politicians who actually have some scientific knowledge, and their educational systems don't include bible verses in geology classes.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Their politicians also aren't bought and paid for shills.
Take a look at how much money the Koch brothers give to the GOP. Hell, the fucking Secretary of State used to be the damn CEO of Exxon and they'd fucking hire goons squads to torture people.
urguyscott
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Posts
- 1,393
Has anyone ever figured out what Obama did to win the Nobel Peace Prize? I keep asking people, but no one can come up with anything. Maybe the Committee misspoke and meant the Nobel Piece of Crab Prize. Now that I can understand him winning.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
What, this again? Don't you know how to use Google?
Ahem. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/obama-facts.html
Further info: Since Obama left office, international diplomacy and cooperation between the US and other nations has dropped into the crapper. And here's a link for that, too. http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26...lics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Smack dab? How scientific. So you don't see the downward trend. Maybe you need to make your desktop level.
There they are again—
those terribly inconvenient facts:
Global Sea Ice Area:
right smack dab where it was thirty-eight (38) years ago.
Similar threads
