The 95% consensus is now just 43%

[David S]

please produce the science that makes them pretty darn sure.

the peer reviewed papers I find ... many which have been presented here show the sun and the tides have a lot do with warming and cooling.

The recent guesses we see with respect to co2 are based on the idea it can amplify warming. A few years ago there were guesses it could impact clouds causing warming... but then cloud research shows clouds can also cause cooling

So in short we have no real idea if man made co2 causes warming, cooling or nothing... when you look at the science.

So would I respect these guys opinion if they were not paid to have... sure.
But even then I would want to see the science not failed models.

Do you have any peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

We don't need to debate whether we are warming outside natural variation right now.
lets just stick to peer reviewed science.

Now... for background... you should know I do believe in preserving and conserving the environment. I just would like to see some peer reviewed science before we surrender more freedom to cap and trade exchange owners and govt officials.

Here you go: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

 

[David S]

Here you go: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

please produce the science that makes them pretty darn sure.

the peer reviewed papers I find ... many which have been presented here show the sun and the tides have a lot do with warming and cooling.

The recent guesses we see with respect to co2 are based on the idea it can amplify warming. A few years ago there were guesses it could impact clouds causing warming... but then cloud research shows clouds can also cause cooling

So in short we have no real idea if man made co2 causes warming, cooling or nothing... when you look at the science.

So would I respect these guys opinion if they were not paid to have... sure.
But even then I would want to see the science not failed models.

Do you have any peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

We don't need to debate whether we are warming outside natural variation right now.
lets just stick to peer reviewed science.

Now... for background... you should know I do believe in preserving and conserving the environment. I just would like to see some peer reviewed science before we surrender more freedom to cap and trade exchange owners and govt officials.

And this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

 

[gwb-trading]

Here you go: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Oh... the old 97% figure because a survey of scientific papers don't explicitly reject AGW. However only 1% of the same set of papers support AGW. Cook's survey with it's pie chart is nonsense.

About as valid as this...

 

[gwb-trading]

Here you go: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

[David S]

Oh... the old 97% figure because a survey of scientific papers don't explicitly reject AGW. However only 1% of the same set of papers support AGW. Cook's survey with it's pie chart is nonsense.

About as valid as this...

Actually, no. The study found that 97% of the papers which expressed an opinion on the cause of Climate Change stated that the causes were anthropogenic. That is far beyond "not explicitly rejecting," it is actually a direct agreement.

 

[gwb-trading]

Actually, no. The study found that 97% of the papers which expressed an opinion on the cause of Climate Change stated that the causes were anthropogenic. That is far beyond "not explicitly rejecting," it is actually a direct agreement.

Most of the papers take NO POSITION on AGW. Even their authors stated so.

 

[gwb-trading]

 

[David S]

Most of the papers take NO POSITION on AGW. Even their authors stated so.

"We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?" (emphasis mine)

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

 

[David S]

Check your sources: "In fact, the Legate et al. paper seems to actually be a comment on an entirely different paper (Bedford & Cook, 2013) but then veers into a discussion of the Cook et al. consensus study. As a basic summary, the Legates et al. paper appears to essentially redefine the Cook et al. study and then point out that they got the wrong answer. Quite a remarkable strategy. You’re wrong because you didn’t do what we thought you should do."

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/

 

[gwb-trading]

Check your sources: "In fact, the Legate et al. paper seems to actually be a comment on an entirely different paper (Bedford & Cook, 2013) but then veers into a discussion of the Cook et al. consensus study. As a basic summary, the Legates et al. paper appears to essentially redefine the Cook et al. study and then point out that they got the wrong answer. Quite a remarkable strategy. You’re wrong because you didn’t do what we thought you should do."

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/

The Legate paper demonstrates conclusively how absurd Cook's methods and assertions are - that is the entire intent of the Legates paper. Criticizing the Legates paper for bring an inverse mirror of Cook's methods ("redefining the Cook paper") simply serves to demonstrate the absurdity of Cook's paper.

What is your response to the hundreds of scientists who stated that Cook falsely classified their papers (stating they support AGW when the paper has no position on AGW)