Nope you are bullshitting
Basketcase lost! He was bullshiting!!
See above post #79
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
Basketcase lost! He was bullshiting!!
See above post #79
Just as I thought. According to you anything over 50% means those are the ones who support the Climate Change and anything less means they do not. That is not what "Limits of Confidence" are about. It just means that with at least a 50% certainty, they support the notion of Man Made Greenhouse Gases being the main reason for Global Warming. Does not mean that anything less than 50% of Limits of Confidence, then they do not support GHG. All it means is that they are not convinced that it is totally GHG, but they believe that it is responsible all the same. They could still either require more Scientific evidence in this respect, or that there are other factors that are alleviating it. As I said only 0.4% believe that Global warming is Fake, and that is the category that you belong to all with all your right wing skeptics. That is cut and dry!!
Now they could have a similar Survey that Climate Change is not a Reality. Then you would have your 0.4% of respondents split between the 0 and 100% Confidence Limits. The majority of the rest of the 99.6% would then be in the Category that GHG is a Reality, and the tiny numbers of do not know would make up the rest!!
Again where is the 66.6 % number that you plucked out of the figure 1a.1??? If you add all the blue colours like you mentioned, then it is close to 80% when you look at the "All respondents" top line. But the important stuff is if you calculate all the Publications, then only 88 out of 1882 Research studies are from skeptics. Then the Peer Reviewed Research Papers amount to 1794 that support the GHG Studies out of 1882 of the total Peer Reviewed Research Studies conducted on Global Warming / Climate Change including the deniers fake studies. That sums up to 95.32% is what the claims are regarding the Peer Reviewed Research studies that confirm the Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change is a Reality, and only 4.68% that are from the Fake Climate Change Deniers!!
Obviously you need to go to school to learn some proper Grammar and Statistical Mathematics. All you are good at is being a pathetic loser who goes on and on about "Checkmate". You must be poor at Chess as you do not realize when the Checkmates occur!!
Look you pathetic loser..
But that's not what the so called 97% consensus is. The 97% is the belief that human CO2 emissions are the main driver of global warming which could have catastrophic consequences to humanity.
This survey of 6600 scientists disputes that because only 66% of respondents hold that belief. 97% vs 66% is a big difference....
Checkmate Loser!!
Furthermore,
http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/pro...ientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/#iLightbox[gallery26691]/
‘Propaganda’: Top MIT climate scientist trashes ‘97% consensus’ claim
By Michael Bastasch|February 17th, 2016|Climate|119 Comments
Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.
“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Daily Caller New FoundationMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”
“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. “So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”
“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2,” he added.
Lindzen is referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.
Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position John Cookon [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
You've been called out for lying about the results of this poll.
And now you're trying to change the subject, typical denier.
Your 'ice age' theory is incredibly stupid.
NOAA says 2018 was 4th warmest year on record, in an undeniable global warming trend
Listen, your ignorance knows no bounds!! This survey was not about whether Global Warming is a Reality or not. If it was then only 0.4% of those surveyed in this study would say that yes it is not a reality. Now go back and look at all the threads from the past where all you right wing losers argued that Global Warming / Climate Change was Fake, it is only a cycle, and the weather will be back to the normal patterns. Yes, 0.4% agree with that tripe, but you make 99.999 % of the drivel type of noise on this board.
Back to what exactly this Survey is about. It is whether Man Made Green House Emissions are causing this warm up. When the Limits of Confidence is 0 -100%, then all of them agree that Climate Change / Global Warming is a Reality. Whether GHG is the cause, then most agree that it is, and the rest agree as well but also think that other factors should be taken into consideration. All in all over 80% believe that Climate Change has multiple factors besides GHG and then you can add the Do Not Know ones who also believe in Climate Change / Global Warming, but are not sure what causes them. In other words you have scored an own goal by posting this survey. Remember that the 97% of the Peer Reviewed Published Papers believe in Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change. It is in line with this particular survey. Well this media did a great job of surveying all the peer reviewed scientific papers:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange
So tell me if you now think that Climate Change / Global Warming is a Reality or not?? If you cannot answer this question then it is useless arguing with someone who is in tandem with the 0.4% of Climate Change Deniers!!
Anyway, you post about Richard Linden. Well read about how his own colleagues disputed his very non-scientific facts:
http://climate-science.mit.edu/news...y-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump
Last edited:
Either you should explain the scientific rationale for your claim of bullshit or just admit you have a conspiracy view of avoiding science you don't like.
The fact is less than 1% support your view that CO2 isn't playing a role.
And your drivel has claimed that the cooling has started yet actual measurements say we just had another year of excessive heat.
I can understand you not understanding science but you obviously don't understand what the word "lost" means.
Listen, your ignorance knows no bounds
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Truth about skeptical science A fucking Nazis and a cartoonist .. LOL
What a pathetic loser and a imbecile you are!
LOL
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Source: Skeptical Science Forums
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
HA....HA..HA... A fucking nazi & a cartoonist which is a climate expert!!
Checkmate .. YOU LOSE!!
EXCLUSIVE: NOAA RELIES ON ‘COMPROMISED’ THERMOMETERS THAT INFLATE US WARMING TREND
EXCLUSIVE: NOAA RELIES ON ‘COMPROMISED’ THERMOMETERS THAT INFLATE US WARMING TREND
4:31 PM 12/17/2015 | ENERGY
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.
“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.
These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.
Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.
Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.
“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.
Watts NOAA thermometers
Source: Watts Up With That
What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.
Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.
“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”
Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”
NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.
But there’s a bigger question: why is NOAA relying on so many poorly-sited thermometers to collect temperature data?
“It’s one of the factors they did not consider,” Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”
Christy and his colleague Dr. Roy Spencer created the first satellite datasets to observe global temperature trends in 1989, and have global data going back to 1979. Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 — a period of 21 years.
“We prefer satellite data because it’s a measurement of the bulk atmosphere,” Christy said, adding this is where global warming should be most apparent. Satellites also don’t need to go through the level of adjustments surface thermometers do.
Watts’ study is likely to be challenged by the global warming “establishment” because it challenges data they believe supports the idea that greenhouse gases are pushing the world towards dangerous warming.
“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”
https://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/...-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/
EXCLUSIVE: NOAA RELIES ON ‘COMPROMISED’ THERMOMETERS THAT INFLATE US WARMING TREND
4:31 PM 12/17/2015 | ENERGY
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.
“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.
These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.
Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.
Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.
“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.
Watts NOAA thermometers
Source: Watts Up With That
What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.
Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.
“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”
Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”
NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.
But there’s a bigger question: why is NOAA relying on so many poorly-sited thermometers to collect temperature data?
“It’s one of the factors they did not consider,” Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”
Christy and his colleague Dr. Roy Spencer created the first satellite datasets to observe global temperature trends in 1989, and have global data going back to 1979. Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 — a period of 21 years.
“We prefer satellite data because it’s a measurement of the bulk atmosphere,” Christy said, adding this is where global warming should be most apparent. Satellites also don’t need to go through the level of adjustments surface thermometers do.
Watts’ study is likely to be challenged by the global warming “establishment” because it challenges data they believe supports the idea that greenhouse gases are pushing the world towards dangerous warming.
“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”
https://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/...-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/the-fraudulent-97-consensus/
he Fraudulent 97% Consensus
MAY 12, 2015
tags: CO2, energy, IPCC, Obama, Oregon
The claim is repeated ad nauseam that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG), and that mankind is the cause. Atmospheric CO2 being the most recognized such gas.
There are two things wrong with the claim.
First, science isn’t decided by a consensus, or a committee. There are numerous instances where the consensus has agreed on a supposed scientific fact, only to have it overturned. Galileo is the most well known instance where one person overturned an existing consensus. More recently in 1983, Australian doctors Warren and Marshall determined that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria, which overturned the prevailing consensus at that time.
The Oregon petition has over 31,000 signatures of engineers and scientists, over 9,000 of whom have Ph.Ds, stating that greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, are not the cause of global warming.
While this is impressive, and turns the 97% claim on its head, it is still not proof that CO2 isn’t causing global warming.
Only the scientific method can make that determination.
Second, the 97% claim itself is bogus.
The claim has at least two points of origin.
One of the papers behind the 97% claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science .com.
Here is Cook’s explanation of his paper, “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
The initial problem with his statement is that virtually everyone agrees that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, so the statement has no particular importance.
Also, most people involved in the debate agree that greenhouse gases play some role in the warming, but not the main role. Most scientists who disagree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believe the role of greenhouse gases is small.
Cook’s methodology is why the paper is bogus.
He took 12,000 scientific papers and had people categorize them according to how surely the paper’s abstract endorsed the global warming hypothesis.
For starters, this process was based on opinions, with no set formula for assessing how surely the papers conformed with the GHG hypothesis. An abstract is also not necessarily what a paper includes, or concludes.
The process also excluded papers by the same scientist, essentially cherry picking papers included in the sample. This means the sample was not random, an important aspect of any study.
For example, Dr. Richard Tol said, “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
Dr. Tol’s papers were rated incorrectly, which, by itself would make the Cook claim invalid.
And Dr. Tol was not alone. Others made the same allegation. For example, Dr.
Nir Shaviv, said, “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
Friends of Science did an analysis of the 12,000 papers, and determined the following:
“The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts. “
65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
934 explicit endorse
2933 implicit endorse
8261 no position
53 implicit reject
15 explicit reject
10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man
“Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. “
With 8,261 of over 12,000 papers taking no position on the issue, it’s impossible for there to be a 97% consensus.
The Cook 97% claim is invalid, and is largely meaningless anyway since the main area of dispute is the extent that GHG are causing climate change.
Another earlier claim was made by Naomi Oreske’s in Science Magazine: “For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.”
Scores of scientists reported that their papers were not included or misinterpreted in Oreske’s 97% conclusion.
Her claim was also debunked, when science writer David Appell put the question to her: “On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay.”
The constant repetition of the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) is misleading at best, and, in point of fact, is fraudulent.
Even President Obama has repeated the claim, adding that it’s “manmade and dangerous” … an embellishment on an already fraudulent statement.
The 97% claim is pure propaganda.
Pinocchio. Photo by D. Dears
Using the invalid 97% claim to silence opposing views, is morally, and scientifically wrong. Perhaps, Pinocchio can attest to that.
When confronted by the claim, explain that it is fraudulent and has been disproven. Tell the person making the claim that there are over 31,000 engineers and scientists who have signed a petition stating that GHG are not the source of global warming, and while not absolute proof that GHG are not the cause, the petition dispels the idea that there is any consensus supporting the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that GHG cause climate change.
he Fraudulent 97% Consensus
MAY 12, 2015
tags: CO2, energy, IPCC, Obama, Oregon
The claim is repeated ad nauseam that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG), and that mankind is the cause. Atmospheric CO2 being the most recognized such gas.
There are two things wrong with the claim.
First, science isn’t decided by a consensus, or a committee. There are numerous instances where the consensus has agreed on a supposed scientific fact, only to have it overturned. Galileo is the most well known instance where one person overturned an existing consensus. More recently in 1983, Australian doctors Warren and Marshall determined that peptic ulcer disease was caused by bacteria, which overturned the prevailing consensus at that time.
The Oregon petition has over 31,000 signatures of engineers and scientists, over 9,000 of whom have Ph.Ds, stating that greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, are not the cause of global warming.
While this is impressive, and turns the 97% claim on its head, it is still not proof that CO2 isn’t causing global warming.
Only the scientific method can make that determination.
Second, the 97% claim itself is bogus.
The claim has at least two points of origin.
One of the papers behind the 97% claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science .com.
Here is Cook’s explanation of his paper, “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
The initial problem with his statement is that virtually everyone agrees that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, so the statement has no particular importance.
Also, most people involved in the debate agree that greenhouse gases play some role in the warming, but not the main role. Most scientists who disagree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believe the role of greenhouse gases is small.
Cook’s methodology is why the paper is bogus.
He took 12,000 scientific papers and had people categorize them according to how surely the paper’s abstract endorsed the global warming hypothesis.
For starters, this process was based on opinions, with no set formula for assessing how surely the papers conformed with the GHG hypothesis. An abstract is also not necessarily what a paper includes, or concludes.
The process also excluded papers by the same scientist, essentially cherry picking papers included in the sample. This means the sample was not random, an important aspect of any study.
For example, Dr. Richard Tol said, “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
Dr. Tol’s papers were rated incorrectly, which, by itself would make the Cook claim invalid.
And Dr. Tol was not alone. Others made the same allegation. For example, Dr.
Nir Shaviv, said, “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
Friends of Science did an analysis of the 12,000 papers, and determined the following:
“The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts. “
65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
934 explicit endorse
2933 implicit endorse
8261 no position
53 implicit reject
15 explicit reject
10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man
“Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. “
With 8,261 of over 12,000 papers taking no position on the issue, it’s impossible for there to be a 97% consensus.
The Cook 97% claim is invalid, and is largely meaningless anyway since the main area of dispute is the extent that GHG are causing climate change.
Another earlier claim was made by Naomi Oreske’s in Science Magazine: “For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.”
Scores of scientists reported that their papers were not included or misinterpreted in Oreske’s 97% conclusion.
Her claim was also debunked, when science writer David Appell put the question to her: “On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay.”
The constant repetition of the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is caused by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) is misleading at best, and, in point of fact, is fraudulent.
Even President Obama has repeated the claim, adding that it’s “manmade and dangerous” … an embellishment on an already fraudulent statement.
The 97% claim is pure propaganda.
Pinocchio. Photo by D. Dears
Using the invalid 97% claim to silence opposing views, is morally, and scientifically wrong. Perhaps, Pinocchio can attest to that.
When confronted by the claim, explain that it is fraudulent and has been disproven. Tell the person making the claim that there are over 31,000 engineers and scientists who have signed a petition stating that GHG are not the source of global warming, and while not absolute proof that GHG are not the cause, the petition dispels the idea that there is any consensus supporting the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that GHG cause climate change.
Does that mean that if we find a single link from you that's not from a climatologist we'll know for sure that all of your arguments are bullshit?
That is what you are arguing, right, only climatologists should be quoted here?
You are an idiot who believes Popular Technology that is a right wing media, who although they have many PhD members, none of them are in Climate Technology fields.
But it is good that you brought up John Cook who used to be a Comedian. However, what your right wing source fails to reveal to you is that he is:
"John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, researching cognitive science. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments.
John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016."
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/
He has also trained as a Solar Physicist. Show me where anyone from your source has the same credentials??
As usual you never get the facts for the whole story. Anyway I debunked your garbage that you had posted, and I noticed that you deliberately did not respond to my question. But you scored an own goal as you are a Climate Change Denier, that identified yourself with just the 0.4% of the Deniers in that Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Survey that you posted. Obviously, you could not comprehend what on earth you were trying to post!! :bump2:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf
John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western Australia in 2016.
As fucking shrink as a climate scientists. LOL !!
John Cook published a paper analysing the scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. And we know how flaw his methodology is LOL!!
What nonsense are you coming up from some right wing organization that is funded by oil companies such as Exxon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
Come up with some credible sources for a change. You are try to distract from the main argument that the original link that you posted proved that the number of Climate Change / Global warming Skeptical Scientists numbered only 0.4%. Now that I pointed it to you, all you will go on and on is try to deflect from that fact. LOL!!
Once again do you Believe that Climate Change / Global warming is Real?? Answer just one question for a change!!
It ain't about not liking it, it's about not respecting it. Because it's either irrelevant, junk or fraudulent.
Cook's paper is a stats paper on support amongst climatology.
You don't need a climatology degree to do a poll.
His work has been supported by every other poll with climatologists and scientists, by the way.
Nope
I said if we cause our own extinction
That has not been proven
I have explained this to you several times , but you are not smart enough to understand the distinction
Yawn
And You would be guessing wrong.
Q1. Tell us what the IPCC uses as the mean absorption time of C02 in their models ?
Q2. Why have the actual temperatures been coming in significantly lower than IPCC predictions ?
That is so ironic as many scientists who do not tow the party line on Climate Change have had their funding cut off, reassigned to non climate departments been ostracized in the science community, (silenced) and have been subjected to character assassinations by morons like Frankfooter
Socrates said "when debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
In a recent Twitter posting, Roger Pielke wrote: “Propaganda works: I count more than 160 articles at the Center for American Progress trashing me over the years.”
Oh so you speak for them do you ?
The survey was poorly done with many of these papers mis-classified as stated by scientists like Toll.
Are you going to misrepresent them again?
WTF ??
How much, how long and if it truly will be a catastrophe are the central questions of the hypothesis
WTF again??
I said many times I am neutral on the issue. neither accepting nor denying the proposed hypothesis
Yet you & the fool Frank Footer are absolutely determined to prove me wrong
But if I am neutral, what exactly are you attempting to disprove?
Think about that
If I do not agree with your position you say I am wrong
If I have determined I am undecided at this point in time, you say I am wrong again
the only only option you will allow is to agree 100% with you or you label me a denyer
That approach does not represent science
There is no place in science for browbeating and intimidating views that differ from yours
Science (& understanding) only progress if some question the status quo
Science is not a popularity contest and it is a very dark day for science when dissenting views are not permitted.
Well it might have helped him not mis-classify and mis-represent scientists
Science is not a proven or disproven by polls stupid
One formulates a hypothesis and tests that hypothesis against actual scientific data continuously.
BTW I have heard 55% was the result of one poll, however that is moot.
