Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from futurecurrents:

It's the rate of the warming that is the big problem.

Heat waves kill more people than all other weather events combined.
More...

More fabricated nonsense that is not factual. There are many studies demonstrating that cold kills more people than heat worldwide. Let's start here...

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/cold-weather-kills-more-people-heat

Of course a simple google search of 'what kills more people heat or cold' will find another 3.1 million results.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Here is the list again... since you appear to have problems facing the facts.

1100+ Peer Reviewed Papers Rejecting AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
More...

That is an't fact, it's bullshit.

I looked at this list and randomly looked at one paper. It said nothing about rejecting AGW at all. Remember? We went through this. It is a list of bullshit they hope no-one will ever check to see if it indeed says what it is purprorted to say.. It is the type of bullshit lies that the denier industry puts out. Try again. Try NASA, who says that there is 97% agreement. Or the weather channel or virtually every science org in the world. They all agree with the general science and NONE of them reject it and they all agree that almost all agree.

So you were babbling something?

You're like the kid holding the up the comic book saying it proves men can fly.

Get a clue.
 
how many times are you going to lie about this fc...

This is peer reviewed in a responsible journal.
destroys your all you baloney.

only .3 percent of 11000 papers support the idea that man is responsible for most of the warming.


http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9



Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ 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.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

That is an't fact, it's bullshit.

I looked at this list and randomly looked at one paper. It said nothing about rejecting AGW at all. Remember? We went through this. It is a list of bullshit they hope no-one will ever check to see if it indeed says what it is purprorted to say.. It is the type of bullshit lies that the denier industry puts out. Try again. Try NASA, who says that there is 97% agreement. Or the weather channel or virtually every science org in the world. They all agree with the general science and NONE of them reject it and they all agree that almost all agree.

So you were babbling something?

You're like the kid holding the up the comic book saying it proves men can fly.

Get a clue.
More...

Apparently you have reading comprehension issues. You can not even read the abstract of a paper and determine it does not support global warming alarmism. The entire list has a Table of Contents that breaks it down into categories. Obviously all the papers in the list refute the 'global warming' alarmism and supports the points of those who are quite properly skeptical about AGW.
 
Ummm no. Bullshit list. Bullshit.3% "study" . You guys are slinging pure bullshit.

If you can look at all the authoritative sources and evidence that I presented and still believe the small bullshit. You're an idiot. Period. There is no hope for you.

I showed proof that the consensus is overwhelming, the science - common sense.


You guys represent republican anti-science idiocy at it's finest. Congrats.
 
Quote from jem:

how many times are you going to lie about this fc...

This is peer reviewed in a responsible journal.
destroys your all you baloney.

only .3 percent of 11000 papers support the idea that man is responsible for most of the warming.


http://link.springer.com/article/10...1191-013-9647-9



Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ 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.
More...

I don't care what fucking journal this was in, it means nothing. You are pretending it does but it really doesn't. I'll believe NASA, NOAA and every other science org in the world over some bullshit irrelevant paper. You're a pathetic weaselly lying prick lawyer grasping at straws. Your actions in this manner help perpetuate the killing of people in the future and the ruination of this planet. It is immoral and evil. You suck.
 
nasa was quoting the now debunked stat from the now debunked Cook paper. It was simply garbage in garbage out.

besides if you question .3 percent number... ..
you just have to read the 11000 papers yourself and categorize them.

sooner or later you will realize that if those papers had any science showing man was responsible for the warming you would be able to produce them.







Quote from futurecurrents:

I don't care what fucking journal this was in, it means nothing. You are pretending it does but it really doesn't. I'll believe NASA, NOAA and every other science org in the world over some bullshit irrelevant paper. You're a pathetic weaselly lying prick lawyer grasping at straws. Your actions in this manner help perpetuate the killing of people in the future and the ruination of this planet. It is immoral and evil. You suck.
More...
 
mark says:
September 3, 2013 at 12:27 pm

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


Arguing over consensus is pointless to anyone that understands the scientific method. The late Michael Crichton said it well in a talk to Cal Tech:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top