Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from jem:

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.
More...

Who fucking cares?

The price of tea in China is going up.

You're just desperately flinging more shit. Your aim sucks and your shit smells.
 
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.


But still, there is 97% consensus. Isn't that funny?

You are such an idiot.
 
Quote from piezoe:

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!)
More...

Yes science is not decided by other's opinions. But it certainly matters what the top experts in the sciences opinions are.

Besides "from a scientific perspective" the science and data are obvious and so common sense a ten year old can understand it. So of course jem and many other Republicans can't.
 
its funny you keep lying about a consensus.


it was only 97% of the 33% who endorsed agw. .

see... this is the abstract of the cook paper... from cook himself.

you have been an ignorant troll this whole thread.. and you did not even bother to look up the debunked paper...

you have been misquoting and lying your ass off for years...
this is proof.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.




Quote from futurecurrents:

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.


But still, there is 97% consensus. Isn't that funny?

You are such an idiot.
More...
 
Upon more detailed study the data now apparently shows co2 levels matching but trailing change in ocean temps. CO2 does not lead temps it follows the change in ocean temps.

that is what the studies are starting to show right now.

Salby crushed your agw nutter b.s.





Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes science is not decided by other's opinions. But it certainly matters what the top experts in the sciences opinions are.

Besides "from a scientific perspective" the science and data are obvious and so common sense a ten year old can understand it. So of course jem and many other Republicans can't.
More...
 
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...

Had they only selected a little different subset, it could have been 100%.

:D
 
Quote from jem:

its funny you keep lying about a consensus.


it was only 97% of the 33% who endorsed agw. .

see... this is the abstract of the cook paper... from cook himself.

you have been an ignorant troll this whole thread.. and you did not even bother to look up the debunked paper...

you have been misquoting and lying your ass off for years...
this is proof.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
More...


Blah blah blah

Hey asshole. It's 97% by any reasonable metric.

You are a fucking liar.
 
Quote from jem:

Upon more detailed study the data now apparently shows co2 levels matching but trailing change in ocean temps. CO2 does not lead temps it follows the change in ocean temps.

that is what the studies are starting to show right now.

Salby crushed your agw nutter b.s.
More...

Yes asshole. CO2 can both lead and lag temps. This is basic fact. Why you are too stupid to understand it is unknown.

Salby is a dick. Like you.
 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

However it should be noted that there an asshole on a trading forum that disagrees. So we can't be sure of the science.

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top