Nope, try again dummy.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Nope, try again dummy.
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
here is how your bullshit number was derived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...ce_opinion2.png
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.
see that last sentence...
So you had 472... scientist UE... but they only gave them a 2.5% weighting while they gave the other 195... a 97.5 percent weighting.
you are completely full of shit fc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...ists-consensus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...ce_opinion2.png
The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE.
see that last sentence...
So you had 472... scientist UE... but they only gave them a 2.5% weighting while they gave the other 195... a 97.5 percent weighting.
you are completely full of shit fc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...ists-consensus/
Yes we canââ¬Â¦kill eaglesââ¬Â¦with your tax dollars. On Friday, the Department of Fish and Wildlife won a lawsuit against a wind energy company over the killing of bald eagles.
from Washington Times:
The government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.
The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company...
from Washington Times:
The government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.
The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company...
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk.
the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.
Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased.
Yes, very good. You finally understand. Among the 200 top experts in the field ...97.5 % of them agree that AGW is real. That's the bottom line.
Maybe now you will also finally come to realize that it is similar ratio among all the world's science organizations.
Congrats. You have the dumbest most useless posts on all of ET. By far.
It's not a fail at all.
97%
Among the 200 top experts in the field ...97.5 % of them agree that AGW is real. That's the bottom line.
Maybe now you will also finally come to realize that it is similar ratio among all the world's science organizations.
