you keep repeating the same bullshit... so I will post the same response.
1. These are the stats from the Doran Paper itself.
-------------------
2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/
Oreskes data base also shows very few if any papers support your agw consensus and state man made co2 is causing warming. The vast majority are neutral... or if they did support the consensus they were using now failed computer models to speculate.
there is zero evidence man made co2 is causing warming and there is no consensus.
â0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%â
PRESS RELEASE â September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:
âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added]
The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
--------------
3. the vision prize pays people to pick answers...it is a clever scam. its by IOP the nutters who published cooks discredited paper.
http://www.visionprize.com/faq
How does the poll work?
Each Vision Prize question has two parts â the first part will ask which answer you believe to be most likely and the second part will ask you to predict how all participants will answer. Based on your answers and how accurately you predict the answers of the other participants, you will receive a Vision Score. The higher your Vision Score, the more you earn in charity gift cards to support the charity of your choice. Charity gift cards are our way of thanking you for your participation.
Not all participants will earn charity donations in every poll, but to maximize your Vision Score and charity donation, you should answer both parts of each question in accordance with your best guess even if you are very uncertain. All questions in this poll ask for your best guess about what you expect â not what you hope â will be the true outcomes. Gift Card winners can choose any public charity to which to donate their prizes through the Give page on the Vision Prize website. TOP....
The Vision Prize incentivized scoring system is designed to reward answers that represent your best guess of the true answer (which, for some questions, may not be known for many years). For the first part of each question, it does this by rewarding answers that are more common than the group expects them to be. (You are free to think strategically when giving your answer, but answering truthfully will earn you just as high a Vision Score.) For the second part of each question, the scoring algorithm rewards accurate prediction of the group's responses to the first part. Your Vision Score is a combination of these rewards. Refer to the example below, which illustrates high scores in a hypothetical case. TOP
4. The cook paper was debunked in a peer reviewed papers and here on site... where I explained to you what the abstract meant....
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ 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.
Doran was a bullshit reccount of as I said 75 of 77 of 3000 papers.
Every part of you consensus has been debunked and you can not reproduce it in real life because in real life the split is far different. So you rely on crooked counts like cooks... the al gore sponsored whore.
