Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

We know that the levels of CO2 have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution and that they did so at the same time as the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning started.

We know this 40% rise was due to man's burning of these fuels by logic, simple math and things like isotope analysis.

 

[futurecurrents]

So, given the properties of CO2 and the fact that it's levels have increased by 40% and that at least 10% of the earth's greenhouse effect is due to CO2 we would expect the GH effect to go up by at least 4% and for temperatures to rise.

And of course they have..

But could it be the sun?

Nope.

 

[futurecurrents]

I keep coming back to this chart because it is correct and illuminating...

 

[futurecurrents]

The preceding is why 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations agree with the basics of AGW science.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The preceding is why 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations agree with the basics of AGW science.

This is the 100th plus time that FC has posted this fabricated nonsense that has been disproven many times previously.

There is no 97% consensus. All the surveys performed in 2012/2013 show under a 50% scientific consensus on AGW.

Don't you get tired of posting the same recycled nonsense?

Sort of like a gerbil in a treadmill getting nowhere... and just about as sharp-witted.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

This is the 100th plus time that FC has posted this fabricated nonsense that has been disproven many times previously.

There is no 97% consensus. All the surveys performed in 2012/2013 show under a 50% scientific consensus on AGW.

Don't you get tired of posting the same recycled nonsense?

Sort of like a gerbil in a treadmill getting nowhere... and just about as sharp-witted.

Do you ever tire of being crazy? You're pathetic and delusional.

Of course there is 97% consensus. The science is overwhelming and obvious. That's why NASA says it's 97%.

Did you understand ANY of my previous posts?

 

[futurecurrents]

gwb...

This might help with your confusion


Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant


because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).

 

[jem]

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.

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]

Quote from jem:

"Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”."



Nor did he bother asking if the price in tea in China is rising which has about as much relevance.

Do you think everyone is as stupid as you are and consider this trash "study" worth anything?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The preceding is why 97% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations agree with the basics of AGW science.