[Vision2020] When the Lunatics Run the Asylum

Wed Feb 15 22:02:16 PST 2017

 Rose Huskey quoted:

"A 2013 study published in *Environmental Research Letters* by Australian
researchers John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined 11,944
climate paper abstracts published from 1991 to 2011. Of those papers that
stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is
real and caused by humans."
-----------------
The actual paper referenced above is here: *Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature  *15 May 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Interesting to note that the 97 percent agreement "that climate change is
real and caused by humans" indicated in the research above is nearly
exactly the same percentage noted in the following research done by
different researchers published in 2009 the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences.  The research referenced below is quite specific that
there is 97-98 percent agreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, a
strongly worded assessment of the causes of global warming being human
sourced.  A scientist can agree that climate change is real and caused by
humans, but qualify their assessment by including a major natural variable
contribution.  If there is a major natural contribution, some will argue
humanity has less reason to address the human causes of global warming.

The following researchers indicate the dissenting views are from less
qualified scientists (my wording).

A couple of quotes from the article are pasted in below:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

*Expert credibility in climate change  *April 9, 2010 (sent for review
December 22, 2009)

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their
publication and citation data to show that (*i*) 97–98% of the climate
researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the
tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
and (*ii*) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the
researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the
convinced researchers."

"Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate
scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse
gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the
Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century
(1 <http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#ref-1>–3
<http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#ref-3>). "
----------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Rose Huskey <rosejhuskey at gmail.com> wrote:

> However “honest” Mr. Foreman finds his opinions, they are abysmally
> indefensible (and profoundly ignorant) when compared to verifiable facts.
> The following article explains, at least in part, his inability to
> recognize the thinking errors he made in his curiously wrongheaded approach
> to climate change in his response to a constituent..
>
> Rose Huskey
>
> “At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority
> of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated
> to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the
> vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big
> bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science.
> How did this happen?
>
> An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William
> Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted,
> Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single
> generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions
> that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction.
> “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether
> different have thus *jumped together*,” he wrote in his 1840 book *The
> Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences*, “belong only to the best
> established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a
> “convergence of evidence.”
>
> Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with
> anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is.
> The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association
> for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American
> Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American
> Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological
> Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most
> notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW
> is in fact real. Why?
>
> It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is
> not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book
> skeptical of relativity theory entitled *100 Authors against Einstein*,
> “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that
> there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen,
> tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level
> rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate
> of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW
> doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if
> one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not
> how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus,
> they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence
> *and* show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory
> that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning
> evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
>
> A 2013 study published in *Environmental Research Letters* by Australian
> researchers John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined 11,944
> climate paper abstracts published from 1991 to 2011. Of those papers that
> stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is
> real and caused by humans. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of
> studies? What if they're right? In a 2015 paper published in *Theoretical
> and Applied Climatology*, Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological
> Institute, Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined the 3 percent and found
> “a number of methodological flaws and a pattern of common mistakes.” That
> is, instead of the 3 percent of papers converging to a better explanation
> than that provided by the 97 percent, they failed to converge to anything.
>
> “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused
> global warming,” Nuccitelli concluded in an August 25, 2015, commentary in
> the *Guardian*. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital
> cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97%
> expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by
> the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus
> are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they
> seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve
> fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.” For
> example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar
> cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the
> authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier
> data.
>
> Such practices are deceptive and fail to further climate science when
> exposed by skeptical scrutiny, an integral element to the scientific
> process.
>
> This article was originally published with the title "Consilience and
> Consensus"
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@
> moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Saundra Lund
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 11:10 AM
> *To:* 'Moscow Vision 2020'
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] When the Lunatics Run the Asylum
>
>
>
> Visionaries:
>
>
>
> Prior to the election, some of us were aware of the unhinged extremism
> that is Dan Foreman, which is why he *lost* the Republican primary in
> Latah County for sheriff.  Rank partisanship -- rather than running a
> worthy candidate – “inspired” the local GOP party to decide that particular
> loser would make a great fill-in candidate for senator.  SMH.  While many
> folks weren’t aware of the depths of Foreman’s extremism, one thing is
> certain:  *local Republican party leaders* *absolutely knew* and backed
> him anyway.  Their plan was to keep a tight lid on his extremism for public
> consumption just to get someone elected with a “R” after his name rather
> than run a quality candidate.  Sad!
>
>
>
> The rest of us – at least those of us with connected brain cells, anyway –
> realized how completely out of touch with reality Foreman was in early
> January when he was outed by in an article entitled, “Idaho lawmaker
> would charge women who have abortions with murder
> <http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article125859554.html>
> .”
>
>
>
> And, this theocrat craving man just continues to let his freak flag fly
> high, and we can now add anti-science and anti-common sense to his litany
> of “antis” which include (but are not limited to) anti-women, anti-child,
> anti-public education, anti-road, anti-public & common good, and
> anti-Constitution.
>
>
>
> Oh, and we can also add that he’s a voracious consumer of Fake News.  Sad!
>
>
>
> If there are any reasonable people who haven’t yet realized the depth of
> betrayal of our district by local Republican party leadership, here’s a
> letter he recently wrote to a constituent
> <http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?u=87dde331565b4cee6328a4a13&id=2c0bf8aa42&e=4950b149ab>
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny, right?  Here’s a man
> lamenting the loss of critical thinking skills who himself lacks the
> critical thinking skills to recognize he’s pushing fake news, for the love
> of God, and who is fine with gutting and dumbing down public education so
> our children will *never* develop the critical thinking skills he’s
> whining about.
>
>
>
> And, all of this from a man who couldn’t critically think himself out of a
> wet paper bag.  Sad!
>
>
>
> It’s no wonder intelligent life-long Republicans here in Latah County have
> been worried for quite a few years and have quit being “party” people with
> the spread of the rabid extremism that has infected the state and local
> Republican parties.  Perhaps that exodus is a significant factor in the
> local Republican party not having a quality candidate to run for the senate
> in the last election.
>
>
>
> Several weeks ago – after that first article – I heard rumors of a recall
> effort.  Does anyone know anything more about that?  If the local
> Republican Party lacks the ability to keep this horror in check or convince
> him to step down so someone not unhinged can step up to represent us,
> perhaps a recall is the way to go.
>
>
>
>
>
> Saundra Lund
>
> Moscow, ID
>
>
>
> *To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men.*
>
> *~ Abraham Lincoln*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20170215/ae39ffb0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 128538 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20170215/ae39ffb0/image001-0001.png>