Not 0.3% but 97% of the world's climatologists agree

[jem]

why don't you... the chart was taken from the data in the study.

I will present it again.

from wikipedia it shows you that it was a subset of climate scientists... those agw nutters published in (pro nutter you can bet) journals "recently".

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement.

 

[futurecurrents]

So to recap :

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) So for today...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)


So, so far we have three different studies by different authors showing at least a 97% consensus. More to come.

 

[fhl]

Senate democrats plan all night talkathon on climate change tonight through tues morning according to a usatoday article linked at drudge.

Two notables from article.

1. Democrats in close races next election will not participate.
I guess they are too scared to participate in this hoax.

2. There will be no legislation discussed at the talkathon. Only discussion of the need to do something about this <s>issue</s> hoax.
Obviously using the playbook from obamacare on how to push through a gigantic lie.
"Find out what's in it after we pass it."

 

[futurecurrents]

So to recap :

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) So for today...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)


So, so far we have three different studies by different authors showing at least a 97% consensus. More to come.

 

[fhl]

so to recap:

Senate democrats plan all night talkathon on climate change tonight through tues morning according to a usatoday article linked at drudge.

Two notables from article.

1. Democrats in close races next election will not participate.
I guess they are too scared to participate in this hoax.

2. There will be no legislation discussed at the talkathon. Only discussion of the need to do something about this issue hoax.
Obviously using the playbook from obamacare on how to push through a gigantic lie.
"Find out what's in it after we pass it."

 

[jem]

actually to recap....

97% claim exposed / debunked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/


“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – 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 Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [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 “dangerous”.

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.

 

[futurecurrents]

actually to recap....

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examinedb explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950[/img]. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

And how many times do I have to tell that that is an absurd criteria. You just don't want to listen or be reasonable. What the fuck is wrong with you? Climate research papers will hardly ever explicitly state anything along those lines. It is not the purpose they are written.

What's more telling is how many rejected the overwhelming consensus. At most...three percent.

 

[gwb-trading]

So to recap :

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) So for today...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)


So, so far we have three different studies by different authors showing at least a 97% consensus. More to come.

 

[Mercor]

Senate democrats plan all night talkathon on climate change tonight through tues morning according to a usatoday article linked at drudge.

In keeping with their theme they should do this by candlelight.

 

[jem]

its far less absurd than you quoting "studies" which talk about papers explicitly rejecting the consensus...

You are the troll trying to promote something as scientific with a fraudulent consensus and no science.

actually to recap....



And how many times do I have to tell that that is an absurd criteria. You just don't want to listen or be reasonable. What the fuck is wrong with you? Climate research papers will hardly ever explicitly state anything along those lines. It is not the purpose they are written.

What's more telling is how many rejected the overwhelming consensus. At most...three percent.