Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from gwb-trading:

Reading abstracts of scientific papers and magically conjuring what the author's position is on global warming is NOT A SURVEY.

Here is the Anderegg 2010 abstract - it is NOT about 'publicly signed declarations - but about publications.

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data..."
More...

They surveyed the dataset. Why is that so hard to understand? Just how fucking stupid are you?


noun
ˈsərˌvā/
1.
a general view, examination, or description of someone or something.
"the author provides a survey of the relevant literature"
synonyms: study, review, consideration, overview; More

Here is what their survey of the data revealed...



Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,


and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
 
FC, I've tried to make this point before, but failed. It doesn't matter, from a scientific perspective, what opinions are. The only thing that matters is the data, it's interpretation, the models, and whether the models not only agree with the past, but correctly fit the future data as well. We are not there yet, so why not just relax until we know a lot more. We aren't even to the point of being able to positively identify what's right and what's wrong. Though we seem to be honing in on that. (Scientists, like all other humans, have opinions. But Mother Nature pays no attention to them whatsoever!)
 
Quote from piezoe:

...(Scientists, like all other humans, have opinions. But Mother Nature pays no attention to them whatsoever!)
More...
fc pays no attention to mother nature.
 
it was 97% of a subset.
they picked 77 agw nutter authors and 75 of them believe in agw.

you do not even understand what you are quoting.


Quote from futurecurrents:

They surveyed the dataset. Why is that so hard to understand? Just how fucking stupid are you?


noun
ˈsərˌvā/
1.
a general view, examination, or description of someone or something.
"the author provides a survey of the relevant literature"
synonyms: study, review, consideration, overview; More

Here is what their survey of the data revealed...



Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,


and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
More...
 
where is the science showing man made co2 causes warming?

who cares what an oil company says.

but if you want to play this game... I will represent the most recent peer reviewed paper to play the game.



Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes, nutters. Like Exxon.

You're such an asshole.

Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the world’s growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change
More...
 
Quote from jem:

97% claim exposed / debunked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-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.

...

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.
More...
 
More science....


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/11/21/G34843.1.abstract

Study: Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller 3000-5000 years ago than today
Posted on November 22, 2013 by Anthony Watts
From the University of Buffalo

Clues in the Arctic fossil record suggest that 3-5,000 years ago, the ice sheet was the smallest it has been in the past 10,000 years

shells in a hand
Shells from Greenland. By dating fossils like these, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. Credit: Jason Briner

Summary:

Ice sheets are like bulldozers. As they grow, they push rocks, boulders, clams, fossils and other debris into piles called moraines.
By dating ancient clams in moraines, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today.
The technique suggests that the Greenland Ice Sheet was at its smallest point in recent history 3-5,000 years ago — information that could improve our understanding of how ice responds to climate change.
 
Quote from jem:

where is the science showing man made co2 causes warming?

More...


You must be blind or can't read or have a very short memory.

Do I need to start again with the physical properties of CO2? Maybe you missed all of that science I presented on this very thread ?

Your stupidity and ignorance of the obvious and overwhelming science in no way supports the statement that there is no science showing AGW.

Being stupid is no support for a good argument.
 
Quote from jem:

it was 97% of a subset.
they picked 77 agw nutter authors and 75 of them believe in agw.

you do not even understand what you are quoting.
More...



The essential point is, by any reasonable metric, that 97% of the expert climatologists agree.

You can slimy-lawyer it and play with semantics all you want but the essential truth remains. 97%

Why do you deny the essential truth? Why are you so crazed? What the fuck is wrong with you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top