Facebook Fake Experts vs Clintel's scientists

A member (Stein Roger Nybakke) of our Australian Climate Sceptic Facebook group posted a link to the Clintel.nl pages (link). This was rated false by Climatefeedback.org.

As should be realised, science is not rated by numbers. The story of Professor Barry Marshall bucking against all "scientific" opinion re gastric and peptic ulcers and winning a Noble prize should warn people.

A bit of background on Climatefeedback.org revealed the "experts?"
Amber Kerr Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, DavisExpertise: Agricultural impacts of climate change, Ecosystem-climate feedbacks, Land use change and forestry, Societal adaptation
Note: Her expertise relies on impacts of climate change. Her only published paper (link) contains the following (inter alia):
  • Increasing global temperatures are likely to have major impacts on agriculture;
  • We used literature synthesis to create several sensitivity indices;
  • To estimate exposure.
Giorgio VacchianoAssistant Professor, Università di Milan 
Mitch Lyle Professor, Sr. Research, Oregon State University 
Timothy OsbornProfessor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit
Twila Moon Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder 
Victor Venema Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany
These six scientists have refuted the work of the clintel.nl scientists from all over the world. Including
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH CANADA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS / ENGLISH CANADA
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
So far, we outnumber the "experts" 3 to two. (6 Professors to 3 professors)

From Belgium we add:
Emiel van Broekhoven, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Antwerp.
Christophe de Brouwer, MD, Honorary Professor of Environmental and Industrial Toxicology, 
Samuel Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics at the Free University of Brussels
Georges Geuskens, Emertitus Professor of Chemistry, Free University of Brussels and Expert Publicist on Climate Science
Raymond Koch, Retired Research director at Lab. Plasma Physics, RMA Brussels and Fellow Lecturer at UMons
Henri A. Masson, Emeritus Professor Dynamic System Analysis and Data Mining, University of Antwerp
Ferdinand Meeus, Retired Research Scientist, IPCC expert Reviewer AR6
Jean Meeus, Retired Meteorologist, Brussels Airport, Author Best Seller Astronomical Algorithms 
Yes!  16 (including 5 more professors) to their six!  ....but wait! There's more!

From Denmark we add:
Bjarne Andresen, Professor of Physics, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Johannes Krüger, Emeritus Professor, dr.scient, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen
Niels Schrøder, Geophysist/Geologist, Associate Professor Institute of Nature and Environment, Roskilde University, Denmark 
Now 20 (3 profs) to their 6.

From France also:
Benoît Rittaud, Associate professor of Mathematics at University of Paris-Nord, President of the French Association des climato-réalistes. ECD Ambassador
Jean-Charles Abbé, former research director at CNRS, labs director (Strasbourg, Nantes) in Radiochemistry, expert at NATO and IAEA
Charles Aubourg, full professor at the University of Pau, geophysicist.
Bernard Beauzamy, university professor (ret.), chairman and CEO, Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (Paris).
Jean-Claude Bernier, emeritus professor (University of Strasbourg), former director of the Institute of Chemistry of the CNRS
Pierre Beslu, former searcher and head of department in the french Nuclear Energy Commission (CEA).
Michel Bouillet, PhD Human Geography, Emeritus Professor, Former Associate Researcher at the MMSH (Aix-en-Provence)
Christian Buson, PhD in agronomy, director of research in a company (impact studies in environmental issues, sewage treatment).
Sylvie Brunel, full professor at Sorbonne University, geographer and economist, former president of the humanitarian organization Action against Hunger (Action contre la faim).
Philippe Colomban, CNRS Research Professor, Former Head of Laboratory at Université Piere-et-Marie Curie, Expert in Hydrogen-based Energy Storage
Jacques Colombani, Former Research Director retired from ORSTOM-IRD, numerous Studies in Hydrology and Climatology and Specialist in Fluid Mechanics. Member of the Board of ORSTOM for twenty years
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences, former director of the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris
Pierre Darriulat, Professor of Physics, Member of the French Academy of Sciences
Gérard Douet, PhD in Nuclear Physics, Retired Engineer at CERN, Technical Manager on Digital Transmission and Video Encoding
Hubert Dulieu, Emeritus Professor Applied Ecology, Formerly Senior Researcher in the CNRS, President of the National Scientific Research Committee, Vegetal Biology Section (XXVII)
Patrick Fischer, Associate Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Bordeaux 27. François Gauchenot, governance specialist, founder of Saint George Institute.
Francois Gervais, Emeritus Professor of Physics and Material Sciences, University of Tours
Gilles Granereau, Former meteorologist, currently project manager environment and tourism in a public institution. Worked on coastal risks, marine erosion, sand dune fixation, hydraulics, forest management, botany.
Maximilian Hasler, Associate Professor in Mathematics, University of French West Indies
Claude Jobin, Retired A&M Engineer Specialized in Microwave Communication
Philippe de Larminat, Professor at École Centrale de Nantes, specialist of business process modeling
René Laversanne, Former researcher at the CNRS, 16 patents. 7 European Climate Declaration September 26, 2019
Christian Marchal, astronomer and mathematician, former research director at the French National Office for Aerospace Studies and Research, former professor at the Observatory of Paris (1980-93), former assistant professor at Polytechnic School (1981-92).
Marc le Menn, Head of Metrology-Chemistry Oceanography Lab, Brest.
Charles Naville, R&D Exploration Geophysicist, IFP Energies Nouvelles
Rémy Prud’homme, Emeritus Professor in Economics at University of Paris-Est, Former Deputy Director Environment, Directorate of OECD 47
Isabelle Rivals, Associate professor in Statistics at ESPCI Paris
Jean Rouquerol, Emeritus Research Director at CNRS Marseille, Expert in Gas Adsorption and Calorimetr
Étienne Vernaz, former Director of Research of CEA (Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique) in France, Professor at INSTN (Institut National des Sciences et Techniques Nucléaires).
Brigitte Van Vliet-Lanoë, geoscientist, Emeritus Research Director (CNRS, Université de Bretagne Occidentale), stratigraphy and paleoenvironments, Quaternary and Holocene.
Théa Vogt, retired CNRS searcher, géomorphology, Quaternary palaeoenvironments, soil and desertification remote sensing 56. Henri Voron, Retired Civil Chief Engineer, Specialized in Water Management
Adding 31 to 20 (51) to their six(6) (16 more professors)

German Scientist who signed the list:
H.J. Bandelt, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, University of Hamburg
Dietrich Bannert, Professor Honoris Causa, University of Marburg
Lars Birlenbach, Dr. in Chemistry, University of Siegen
Klaus Döhler, Professor of Pharma sciences, University of Hannover
Friedrich-Karl Ewert, Emeritus Professor Geology, University of Paderborn
Hermann Harde, Emeritus Professor of Experimental Physics and Materials Science, Helmut Schmidt-University, Hamburg
Werner Kirstein, Emeritus Professor of Climatology, University of Leipzig
Stefan Kröpelin, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Free University of Berlin and University of Cologne, Specialized in Climate Change of the Sahara
Ulrich Kutschera, Professor of Plant Physiology &Evolutionary Biology at the University of Kassel, Germany, and Visiting Scientist in Stanford USA
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Professor of Operations Research (i.R.) HTW of Saarland, Saarbrücken
Lothar W. Meyer, Emeritus Professor of Material Engineering, Chemnitz University of Technology, Saxony Entrepreneur ‘Nordmetall GmbH’, Member of the Board of ‘Vernunftkraft Niedersachsen’
Carl-Otto Weiss, Emeritus Professor in Non-linear Physics, Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy, Former President of the German Meteorological 
Now 43 to 6.....(11 more professors)

 From Ireland we add:
Jim O’Brien, Chair, Irish Climate Science Forum, Expert Reviewer IPCC AR6, ECD Ambassador Tony J. Carey, BA (Natural Sciences), Clare College, Cambridge
Ultan Murphy, B.Sc(Hons) Chemistry, Industry Science Professional
J. Philip O’Kane, Emeritus Professor, School of Engineering, University College Cork
Peter O’Neill, Retired, Expert Reviewer of IPCC AR6
Dr. Brian N. Sweeney, Founding Chairman of Science Foundation Ireland
 48 and counting....(1 professor)

From Italy: only counting their Proffesori there are 51!
From the Netherlands, out of their 57 climate experts, there are 21 professors;
From Norway, 17 experts of which 10 are professors;

Adding professors only we get 130.

We have Sweden we have 18 climate experts including 12 professors;
Switzerland                   2-1
United Kingdomn       22-3
Australia                     75-5
Brazil                           7-3
Canada                       17-5
China                           3-2
India                            1-0
Japan                           1-1
New Zealand             14-1
Russia                          1-1
Sth Africa                   3-3
USA                          45-14

So, out of Clintel's 500+ climate experts, there are 181 professors and assistant professors; out of Climatefeedback.org  six experts there are 3 professors and assistant professors.

Do they really believe in the fraudulent 97% of scientist believe (a religious term) in the #agwFraud?

Do they really believe that their 6 scientists know more than our 500+climate experts?
If their 97% is right, they would have to come up with

Clintel #
if 3% 500
Then 1% 166.666667 0.01
So 100%= 16666.6667 1
Climatefeedback.org really need  to get another 16,667 experts to counter Clintel.nl's 500+experts.

Do they really believe that their  3 professors and assistant professors know more than our 181 professors and assistant professors?

If their 97% consensus is right, they would have to come up with
Clintel #
If 3%+ 181
Then 1% 60.3333333 0.01
So 100%= 6033.33333 1
Climatefeedback.org really need  to get another 6030 experts to counter Clintel.nl's 181 professors and assistant professors.

As noted above, as Albert Einstein once said:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”  
See    AGW - A falsified hypothesis 


Come Clean, Facebook! Let your so-called experts be challenged!












Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The calculations shown do not match what you are claiming. You mention ({their 6} vs {your 500}) and
    ({their 3} vs {your 173}) but the numbers 6 and 3 never appear in your calculations. So clearly, your
    calculations have nothing to do with the size of their staff.

    What your calculations ATTEMPT to show is the number of scientist needed to support the figure of 97%. The calculations in your "proof" (if they were done correctly) would have given the TOTAL number of scientists, of which your 500 or 173 would be the ones who refute (3%). You still would have to subtract your 500 or 173 from the TOTAL to represent the ones who support (97%).
    To correctly say they "really need to get another" # "experts to counter Clintel.nl's", you would have to
    subtract their staff (6 or 3) from the supporters (the 97%) to find out how many more they would need.

    Even worse, the calculations in your flawed equations are wrong! If 500 represents 3%, then
    166.6666666... would represent 1%, but you somehow came up with 133. You couldn't even get 5 ÷ 3
    right. With respect to the example using 500, your numbers 13,333 and 13,297 are both wrong. 13,333 should have been 16,667. To calculate this, you would divide your 500 by the number which represents the percentage of the ones who refute (3%). The number for 3% is 0.03, so you get 500 ÷ 0.03 ≈ 16,667. And 13,297 should have been 16,667 - 500 - 6 = 16,161 (the number of extra experts they would need to support the figure of 97%).
    Then for your example using 173, instead of using two numbers (13,333 and 13,297 in your previous
    example) you only used one (and that wasn't even done right). Your 5870 (the TOTAL scientists) should have been 173 ÷ 0.03 ≈ 5,767. And then from that, to find the supporters you get 5,767 - 173 = 5,594. And finally, of the supporters you subtract their staff to get how many more they would need 5,594 - 3 = 5,591.

    YOU LITERALLY DID NOT GET EVEN ONE SINGLE THING RIGHT!

    You should find another subject about which to blog. I know there's no chance in hell you will publish
    this comment in you blog, but could you at least give me some kind of response so I know you got this.
    If I was writing a blog and someone pointed out my mistakes, I would be very appreciative and want to
    thank them. From what I gather about your political orientation, I'll never hear back from you. I hope
    you prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My email is Beavis4skin@gmail.com just in case you might actually try to respond to my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oooh..You're very angry aren't you Beavis!
    How dare anyone call out this abominable hoax which you've been convinced by the UN's endless propaganda is real...
    My advice to you is to break away from the UN group think you're clearly trapped in, (if you can), then open your eyes and ears and take good look at the beautiful world around you. Then, if you still have any common sense left (which the propaganda you've probably been swallowing everyday of your morbid life) hasn't completely erased, you will wake up and realize what a blatant hoax it is and that you've been truly duped - conned. Its not supported by science its drummed into the minds of children and gullible fools with scientific jargon they don't understand with the intention of not only fooling them but to scare them witless abut a non-existent 'problem' It's obviously been very successful in unnecessarily scaring you Beavis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am angry! However, I would argue that my post was not, because pretty much the whole thing was a calculation tutorial. It would be more accurate to say it was critical. If it had been angry, there would have been insults or at least some sarcasm. In the past, some of my posts have been angry, but I've found that anger does little to advance a point of view. A compelling argument stands on the merit of the ideas it presents. So my revised approach is to try to leave my personal feelings out my writing and to use my anger as motivation to take action. Although I think this has helped me to raise my game, there's always room for improvement. For example, even though I wouldn't say it was angry, I'd say I was a bit heavy-handed where I wrote, "Even worse, the calculations in your flawed equations are wrong!" It wasn't really necessary to use the adjectives "worse" and "flawed". Not something I would call a regret, or anything to apologize for, more like something to tweak as an improvement.
      On the other hand, to say that YOUR post is NOT angry would be a pretty tough sell. I really love how you accuse ME of being angry, and then start ranting at full throttle without missing a beat! To prove my point, I'm looking at adjectives which are "a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it", because these are the words you used to describe me or the things that you associate with me. You used abominable, morbid, blatant, gullible and witless which are all negative and certainly not complimentary. Directing these words at me is consistent with the behavior of an angry person. You did use two positive adjectives, "good" and "beautiful", but they were not used in reference to me. As I stated earlier, I used two negative adjectives, "worse" and "flawed", but these were in reference to calculations a person made and not the person.
      If you can back up the claims you made, I'd be interested to see what you come up with.





      P.S. Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467619886266





      adjective

      noun
      a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.
      https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNREOE9BP_73U54oG6h6D4P0nvzxtA%3A1576846050668&source=hp&ei=4sL8XYvSJZHz-gTVuImwBA&q=adjective&oq=adjective&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.2109.5434..7865...1.0..0.115.889.5j4......0....1..gws-wiz.......35i39j0i131j0i67.KQSXKx3fKnE&ved=0ahUKEwiLy9mlocTmAhWRuZ4KHVVcAkYQ4dUDCAg&uact=5



      abominable

      adjective
      1 formal : worthy of or causing disgust or hatred : DETESTABLE
      2 : very bad or unpleasant
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abominable



      morbid

      adjective
      1. characterized by or appealing to an abnormal and unhealthy interest in disturbing and unpleasant subjects, especially death and disease.
      https://www.google.com/search?q=morbid&oq=morbid&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



      blatant

      adjective
      (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly.
      completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious.
      https://www.google.com/search?q=blatant&oq=blatant&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



      gullible

      adjective
      easily deceived or cheated.
      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gullible



      witless

      adjective
      foolish; stupid.
      to such an extent that one cannot think clearly or rationally.
      https://www.google.com/search?q=witless&oq=witless&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Delete

Post a Comment





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!