Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[gwb-trading]

More "scary" charts from the AGW alarmists with the Y axis and data manipulated to perpetuate their fabricated propaganda.

 

[jem]

are you fricken kidding me... who the hell are you. you have nothing correct.

Bro, he's stated on here that he lives with his mommy. A bachelor. A real shame that that bloodline will be lost.

 

[jem]

what I think is irrelevant.
these are the facts...

its not 97% is 41 out of 11000 papers.

if there are so many organization and scientists believe in you agw crap...

Why don't you produce the science showing man made co2 causing warming?

seriously do you realize what idiots you are?
you can't produce any science yet you claim there is some sort of consensus of science?

Real scientists admit we do not know if adding more CO2 or greenhouse gases to our environment causes warming or cooling.






here is the original post... showing the idea of a consensus is bullshit.

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.

 

[Lucrum]

You keep repeating that the chart is manipulated. How so?

The Y axis should start at a lower value. I thought we'd already covered this. You're not just playing dumb, are you?

You don't know the X from the Y

Actually I do and have proven so in just our exchange alone

....Start Y at zero (strange, as I doubt the Earth had zero CO2 in the atmos.)

A valid point, but that chart is still set up to intentionally alarm sheep too stupid to know they shouldn't be alarmed.

You sitting in your hovel, missing teeth and suffering from strabismus, doesn't make it so.

Doesn't make WHAT so?

Both axis are linear.

Asked answered and conceded repeatedly now. Why do you keep repeating it?

We're now 33% above the pre-modern era. The majority of gains (off previous scale-high of 300ppm) in the last 60 YEARS.

So man has had SOME influence, so fucking what? CO2 is still only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Get back to us when it reaches 1%. Then maybe if you hold a gun to my head, I'll shit my pants over it. If it'll it make you feel better.

Yeah, the f*cking data is scary. You'd be scared sh*tless if you could read above a 2nd grade level.

AGAIN, dumb ass- It's not scary to me. I'm not an AGW alarmist, like you. I'm not the buffoon running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Screaming "we're all gonna die" if we don't drastically raise carbon taxes immediately.

 

[Ricter]

what I think is irrelevant.
these are the facts...

its not 97% is 41 out of 11000 papers.

if there are so many organization and scientists believe in you agw crap...

Why don't you produce the science showing man made co2 causing warming?

seriously do you realize what idiots you are?
you can't produce any science yet you claim there is some sort of consensus of science?

Real scientists admit we do not know if adding more CO2 or greenhouse gases to our environment causes warming or cooling.






here is the original post... showing the idea of a consensus is bullshit.

Those 41 papers are by the scientists that think Man is responsible for ALL of the recent warming?

 

[gwb-trading]

Those 41 papers are by the scientists that think Man is responsible for ALL of the recent warming?

And rest are by scientists whose papers had no position on AGW or do not support AGW.

 

[Ricter]

And rest are by scientists whose papers had no position on AGW or do not support AGW.

I'll concede without checking that there also are probably 40 or so papers that state Man is not responsible for ANY of the recent warming.

 

[jem]

that last sentence of yours is killing me.
don't buy into the evangelical hard line.
I doubt we know what it takes to go to hell.
We are not the Judge of eternal things.

I have no trouble judging fraudcurrents to be a troll without science here on ET.

NO brainproof the quantities themselves will not change nor did I at anytime say imply or infer they would. I don't like the intentional misuse of charts to create unnecessary alarm. And yes I know which axis is X and which is Y. WTF is wrong with YOU? Because I'm not trying to change the data dumb ass, only it's presentation. Your chart makes the data look more dramatic than the change in data really is. It's that simple. I don't have a God, stupid. I'm probably going to Hell.

 

[gwb-trading]

You keep repeating that the chart is manipulated. How so? You don't know the X from the Y and you're now going to school us on how to read a chart. Start Y at zero (strange, as I doubt the Earth had zero CO2 in the atmos.) You sitting in your hovel, missing teeth and suffering from strabismus, doesn't make it so. Both axis are linear. We're now 33% above the pre-modern era. The majority of gains (off previous scale-high of 300ppm) in the last 60 YEARS.

Yeah, the f*cking data is scary. You'd be scared sh*tless if you could read above a 2nd grade level.

Here is the global warming alarmist bible on utilizing charts...

How to Lie, Cheat, Manipulate, and Mislead using Statistics and Graphical Displays
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf

Note how all the charts posted from AGW Alarmists adhere to the points outlined in the presentation.

 

[Lucrum]

Here is the global warming alarmist bible on utilizing charts...

How to Lie, Cheat, Manipulate, and Mislead using Statistics and Graphical Displays
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf

Note how all the charts posted from AGW Alarmists adhere to the points outlined in the presentation.

I don't think brainproof has the intellectual honesty to admit what's going on with many if not most of these alarmist charts and graphs. He's too busy massaging his holier than thou self righteous internet persona.