Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Yes, that's right. 97% of climate scientists agree on the basics of man made global warming, essentially all the world's science organizations, and CO2 warms the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas. It does not cool. And only one paper out of thousands rejected AGW. When directly surveyed the scientists agreed. 97% agreed.
Now jerm, go take your meds and find a murderer to defend.
Now jerm, go take your meds and find a murderer to defend.
.03 % or 41 fo 11,000 papers supported your agw claims. what you write is debunked fraudulent garbage.
Regarding the 97% thingy...thought this was an interesting read. I'm sure I'll get the typical FC response of being an "idiot" or "stupid" or "dumbass", because that's pretty much all he does in response.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...experts_agree_if_you_dont_shut_up_121700.html
It is a happy conceit in the climate change community that true believers are sophisticated, fact-based practitioners of science and that skeptics essentially are a bunch of superstitious nitwits who refuse to respect the -- all bow -- climate change consensus.
If that were true, you would expect the science-loving know-it-alls to welcome opportunities to challenge the arguments of "deniers" of global warming. To the contrary, climate change groups have been engaging in a spirited battle to muzzle dissenters and pressure news organizations not to publish skeptical opinion.
Last week, Charles Krauthammer, a physician by training, wrote a column that took on what he called the myth of "settled science" on climate change. Krauthammer observed that the consensus can be wrong -- as a new study that rebuts the efficacy of annual mammograms suggests. He pointed out the weaknesses of climate models, referred to the "pause" in the rise of surface temperature over the past 15 years and then compared climate change Cassandras to religious zealots.
Critics were free to rebut Krauthammer point by point. Alas, some preferred to respond without content or argument.
Under the hashtag "Don'tPublishLies," Hill Heat Editor Brad Johnson joined a campaign to pressure The Washington Post not to run the Krauthammer column. He later boasted that 110,000 people had joined his censorship crusade.
The muzzle-the-critics corner has friends in the media, too. Last year, the Los Angeles Times revealed it won't print letters that deny a human cause to global warming.
On Sunday, Brian Stelter of CNN's "Reliable Sources" contended that "some stories don't have two sides." There's no need to present climate change dissenters, he argued, because "between 95 percent and 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it's damaging the planet and that it's man-made."
That's one of those factoids that warming believers love to repeat. Apparently, it is an amalgam of two statistics. A 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found a 95 percent certainty that humans are the cause of global warming. A 2013 British study of peer-reviewed papers found that of the 33 percent of papers that had taken a position on global warming, 97 percent endorsed the "consensus" position.
That is hardly a surprise. True believers have been hounding dissenters out of the climate community for years. I've written about skeptical state climatologists who were stripped of their titles. Former Delaware climatologist David Legates once told me he warned students to keep their mouths shut if they had doubts about global warming. The grant money goes to the believers. Hal Lewis, professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society to protest "global warming corruption."
It makes you wonder: If climate change alarmists are so thoughtful and smart and fact-based, why do they deny the existence of serious critics?
The choice, after all, has them peddling an odd scientific proposition: The experts all agree, and they're always right.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...if_you_dont_shut_up_121700.html#ixzz2uMq2duSg
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...experts_agree_if_you_dont_shut_up_121700.html
It is a happy conceit in the climate change community that true believers are sophisticated, fact-based practitioners of science and that skeptics essentially are a bunch of superstitious nitwits who refuse to respect the -- all bow -- climate change consensus.
If that were true, you would expect the science-loving know-it-alls to welcome opportunities to challenge the arguments of "deniers" of global warming. To the contrary, climate change groups have been engaging in a spirited battle to muzzle dissenters and pressure news organizations not to publish skeptical opinion.
Last week, Charles Krauthammer, a physician by training, wrote a column that took on what he called the myth of "settled science" on climate change. Krauthammer observed that the consensus can be wrong -- as a new study that rebuts the efficacy of annual mammograms suggests. He pointed out the weaknesses of climate models, referred to the "pause" in the rise of surface temperature over the past 15 years and then compared climate change Cassandras to religious zealots.
Critics were free to rebut Krauthammer point by point. Alas, some preferred to respond without content or argument.
Under the hashtag "Don'tPublishLies," Hill Heat Editor Brad Johnson joined a campaign to pressure The Washington Post not to run the Krauthammer column. He later boasted that 110,000 people had joined his censorship crusade.
The muzzle-the-critics corner has friends in the media, too. Last year, the Los Angeles Times revealed it won't print letters that deny a human cause to global warming.
On Sunday, Brian Stelter of CNN's "Reliable Sources" contended that "some stories don't have two sides." There's no need to present climate change dissenters, he argued, because "between 95 percent and 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it's damaging the planet and that it's man-made."
That's one of those factoids that warming believers love to repeat. Apparently, it is an amalgam of two statistics. A 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found a 95 percent certainty that humans are the cause of global warming. A 2013 British study of peer-reviewed papers found that of the 33 percent of papers that had taken a position on global warming, 97 percent endorsed the "consensus" position.
That is hardly a surprise. True believers have been hounding dissenters out of the climate community for years. I've written about skeptical state climatologists who were stripped of their titles. Former Delaware climatologist David Legates once told me he warned students to keep their mouths shut if they had doubts about global warming. The grant money goes to the believers. Hal Lewis, professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society to protest "global warming corruption."
It makes you wonder: If climate change alarmists are so thoughtful and smart and fact-based, why do they deny the existence of serious critics?
The choice, after all, has them peddling an odd scientific proposition: The experts all agree, and they're always right.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...if_you_dont_shut_up_121700.html#ixzz2uMq2duSg
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
The author of that article is a bonehead. The 97 % figure comes from multiple studies, surveys, polls and examination of the literature. Not from some "amalgamation" of the two things mentioned. Honestly toe, if you can't see the bias in this article right from the first paragraph, I can see how you are so confused. Pure propaganda.
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009
97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys 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).
Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24
we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?
This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists
"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.
We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009
97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys 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).
Powell examined nearly 14,000 abstracts, searching for explicit rejections of human-caused global warming, finding only 24
we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.
We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?
This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists
"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.
We also found that the consensus has strengthened gradually over time. The slow rate reflects that there has been little room to grow, because the consensus on human-caused global warming has generally always been over 90% since 1991. Nevertheless, in both the abstract ratings and self-ratings, we found that the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
fraudcurrents with another fraudulent study. they took the 3146 answers and then only reported on the results of 77 of them.
note-- i dealt with the powell study a few days ago...
which is why a peer reviewed paper found that only 41 out of 11000 papers supported the consensus nutters like fraudcurrents support.
note-- i dealt with the powell study a few days ago...
which is why a peer reviewed paper found that only 41 out of 11000 papers supported the consensus nutters like fraudcurrents support.
97% of climate scientists agree on the basics of man made global warming, essentially all the world's science organizations, and CO2 warms the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas. It does not cool. And only one paper out of thousands rejected AGW. When directly surveyed the scientists agreed. 97% agreed.
And why shouldn't they? The science is simple and obvious.
And why shouldn't they? The science is simple and obvious.
Frankly, a climatologist would have to be an idiot to not understand that rising levels of GHG's will and has caused the earth to warm. It's incredibly simple and obvious. That's why only 3% deny it. And they work for Exxon.
This is why over 800 scientists including Nobel Laureates signed the U.S. Senate report stating that AGW does not exist. Yeah, right. This is why the leaders of Climate Departments at 3 of the top 5 science universities have stated implicitly that AGW does not exist.
You appear to have an infatuation with the number 97. Let me fill you in - 97% is the percentage of the earth's population that is brighter than you.
