Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
I am saying that the most recent peer reviewed paper on the subject said that far less than 1% of the papers on this subject conclude man made co2 is causing significant or measurable warming... and if I recall only 34 % say that they think man is responsible for more than half the warming.
I see a lot of NASA and IPCC and Obama quotes of the now entirely debunked paper by Cook.
So when you are making claims... I would like to see the source material not quotes about the studies but the studies themselves.
Oh, you mean the most recent piece of deceptive denier bullshit? That is absolutely and absurdly wrong? How can you lie so easily and without shame?
This is what NASA says........
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Oh wait, I get it. Among all the climate science papers only a small percent actually say anything about man made global warming.......because most of those papers are not directly addressing the question.
In other words, only a very small percent actually have this sentence "Man has caused global warming"
Very clever.....liar.
Jerm, what would consider to be "science that shows man has caused the warming", because I have shown it to you already in multiple ways and you seemingly have simply ignored it. It's getting ridiculous.
For instance this simple, accurate, factual chart is very good evidence just by itself. Especially when combined with the simple fact that CO2 is the most important, non self-limiting, greenhouse gas on earth.
For instance this simple, accurate, factual chart is very good evidence just by itself. Especially when combined with the simple fact that CO2 is the most important, non self-limiting, greenhouse gas on earth.
its seems you have no idea what you were trying to say... so ... lets make this clear.
" 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:"
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.
" 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:"
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.
you have never shown any science showing man made co2 causes warming.
for instance... you just posted a chart... but provided no science showing the co2 causes warming.
The only science we have that could be attached to a co2 vs temp chart is that historically change in co2 has trailed change in temps.
I have given you links to scientists and charts which show that co2 trails temps many times.
yet you still ignorantly post your chart as if it stands for something it does not show.
for instance... you just posted a chart... but provided no science showing the co2 causes warming.
The only science we have that could be attached to a co2 vs temp chart is that historically change in co2 has trailed change in temps.
I have given you links to scientists and charts which show that co2 trails temps many times.
yet you still ignorantly post your chart as if it stands for something it does not show.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Jerm, what would consider to be "science that shows man has caused the warming", because I have shown it to you already in multiple ways and you seemingly have simply ignored it. It's getting ridiculous.
For instance this simple, accurate, factual chart is very good evidence just by itself. Especially when combined with the simple fact that CO2 is the most important, non self-limiting, greenhouse gas on earth.
CO2 lags temperature by 800 years. Anyone saying differently has been ignoring the data and creating their own personal fantasy.
The 800 year lag â graphed
The 800 year lag â graphed