You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
IPCC Report say Panic Now
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Only 41 papers out of 14000 supported the global warming consensus and of those that I read, they all relied on now failed climate models.
as far as doran only 75 out 3000 responses to the survey were used.
in short there is no climate consensus. the consensus is a fiction.
Yes, and up is actually down. Deluded ideologically deranged douchebag.
if you have such a strong consensus... how come you can't produce any papers showing man made co2 causes warming?
97% claim exposed / debunked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/
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.
97% claim exposed / debunked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/
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.
What we are seeing is a standard liberal productiom.
Step one, invent a "crisis." Important because a "crisis" demands immediate action without a lot of thought.
Step two, declare the subject closed to debate. We see this constantly, eg affirmative action, school bussing, gay marriage, abortion, immigration. The left does nto want to debate the underlying issue, so they declare it "settled" and start name-calling if anyone dares to try and discuss it. "Racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "1percenter", "nativist", 'isolationist", and now "denialist", chosen to link AGW sceptics with Holocaust deniers.
Step three, enlist the media to carry water for you. They are only too happy to accommodate their masters.
Step four, lie to the public about what you are trying to accomplish. Getting health care for the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor" sound a lot better than seizing control of the health insurance market and setting up a giant wealth redistribution scheme in the process.
Step five, never retreat, no matter how horrible the results, see Wars on Poverty, Drugs, etc.
Step one, invent a "crisis." Important because a "crisis" demands immediate action without a lot of thought.
Step two, declare the subject closed to debate. We see this constantly, eg affirmative action, school bussing, gay marriage, abortion, immigration. The left does nto want to debate the underlying issue, so they declare it "settled" and start name-calling if anyone dares to try and discuss it. "Racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "1percenter", "nativist", 'isolationist", and now "denialist", chosen to link AGW sceptics with Holocaust deniers.
Step three, enlist the media to carry water for you. They are only too happy to accommodate their masters.
Step four, lie to the public about what you are trying to accomplish. Getting health care for the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor" sound a lot better than seizing control of the health insurance market and setting up a giant wealth redistribution scheme in the process.
Step five, never retreat, no matter how horrible the results, see Wars on Poverty, Drugs, etc.
well analyzed.
What we are seeing is a standard liberal productiom.
Step one, invent a "crisis." Important because a "crisis" demands immediate action without a lot of thought.
Step two, declare the subject closed to debate. We see this constantly, eg affirmative action, school bussing, gay marriage, abortion, immigration. The left does nto want to debate the underlying issue, so they declare it "settled" and start name-calling if anyone dares to try and discuss it. "Racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "1percenter", "nativist", 'isolationist", and now "denialist", chosen to link AGW sceptics with Holocaust deniers.
Step three, enlist the media to carry water for you. They are only too happy to accommodate their masters.
Step four, lie to the public about what you are trying to accomplish. Getting health care for the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor" sound a lot better than seizing control of the health insurance market and setting up a giant wealth redistribution scheme in the process.
Step five, never retreat, no matter how horrible the results, see Wars on Poverty, Drugs, etc.
What we are seeing is a standard liberal productiom.
Step one, invent a "crisis." Important because a "crisis" demands immediate action without a lot of thought.
Step two, declare the subject closed to debate. We see this constantly, eg affirmative action, school bussing, gay marriage, abortion, immigration. The left does nto want to debate the underlying issue, so they declare it "settled" and start name-calling if anyone dares to try and discuss it. "Racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "1percenter", "nativist", 'isolationist", and now "denialist", chosen to link AGW sceptics with Holocaust deniers.
Step three, enlist the media to carry water for you. They are only too happy to accommodate their masters.
Step four, lie to the public about what you are trying to accomplish. Getting health care for the uninsured and "you can keep your doctor" sound a lot better than seizing control of the health insurance market and setting up a giant wealth redistribution scheme in the process.
Step five, never retreat, no matter how horrible the results, see Wars on Poverty, Drugs, etc.
If you don't run for public office, or at least start teaching history classes to high school kids who DESPERATELY need it, I'm gonna be mad at you! Lol! Good post, as always.
...Step five, never retreat, no matter how horrible the results, see Wars on Poverty, Drugs, etc.
Don't retreat, reload!
Only 41 papers out of 14000 supported the global warming consensus and of those that I read, they all relied on now failed climate models.
as far as doran only 75 out 3000 responses to the survey were used.
in short there is no climate consensus. the consensus is a fiction.
1)Oreskes found that out of all the papers on climate science between 1993 and 2003 that not a single one rejected the consensus position.
2) Doran in 2009 found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. ..... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
3)...in 2010 Anderegg did a study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010)
4) The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
vision prize participants
the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
For today.....
5) Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
if you have such a strong consensus... how come you can't produce any papers showing man made co2 causes warming?
97% claim exposed / debunked.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/
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.
1)Oreskes found that out of all the papers on climate science between 1993 and 2003 that not a single one rejected the consensus position.
2) Doran in 2009 found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. ..... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
3)...in 2010 Anderegg did a study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010)
4) The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.
vision prize participants
the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
For today.....
5) Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
if you have such a strong consensus... how come you can't produce any papers showing man made co2 causes warming?
.
Here's another chance to look like a fool. Read this and then say there is no science. Just one more time.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm