you seem to like me hitting you in the head with facts... AGAIN and AGAIN.
"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. " Which is .3%.
This was a peer reviewed paper which destroyed Cook's bullshit paper and your bullshit consensus.
99% of papers do not conclude that man causes most of the warming since 1990.
that is the current state of science you ignorant troll.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
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.
This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nationsâ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming â95% confidenceâ in the imagined â and, as the new paper shows, imaginary â consensus.
Climate Consensus and âMisinformationâ: a Rejoinder to âAgnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Changeâ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
Dr Legates said: âIt is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authorsâ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
...
more at link
Quote from futurecurrents:
What the hell are babbling about oh arm-less knight?
.3% what? That think you are sane?
The 97% number is pretty close. In essence the world's science community is as sure about it as they are that smoking is bad for one's health.
You are like the guy arguing tobacco is not bad.
It's a shame that you think you need to lie to support your fanatical ideology. Pretty sick if you ask me.
