So much for the "consensus" myth....

[SSDD]

You're right, 66% offered no opinion on the existence of AGW, which shows that they most likely accept that it is a real phenomenon.
Simple really.

That's sheer un-adulterated horseshit that only an avowed science denier could ever utter. Congrats, you have rendered yourself totally irrelevant to any further scientific discussions thanks to your mind numbing ignorance of science.

Interesting how bald faced assumptions like that get translated into hard science somehow in their minds, isn't it.

 

[SSDD]

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

The author of the "study" drew the wrong conclusion from the article. It is based on an unfounded assumption. He assumes that because an author of a study does not mention AGW that the author must believe in AGW. That sort of thinking is why climate science has become such a joke. The very hypothesis of AGW is based on unfounded assumptions as opposed to actual measured, observable, empirical evidence.

 

[SSDD]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

What was learned was that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW. The rest was nothing more than unfounded, bias driven assumption.

 

[SSDD]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

Nicely wrapped up.

Nicely if you aren't interested in the truth. The fact is that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted it.

 

[idb]

Try reading the article used by the OP and get back to me.
The OP has misconstrued the author's conclusion...whether you agree with the conclusion or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

The author of the "study" drew the wrong conclusion from the article. It is based on an unfounded assumption. He assumes that because an author of a study does not mention AGW that the author must believe in AGW. That sort of thinking is why climate science has become such a joke. The very hypothesis of AGW is based on unfounded assumptions as opposed to actual measured, observable, empirical evidence.

No, you're still mis-understanding the study.
His numbers are based on those that have stated an opinion on the cause of AGW, and these are overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the existence og AGW.
He puts aside those that state no express opinion.

"Actual measured, observable, empirical evidence" is not present in the conclusion you've drawn from the study.
If an author doesn't mention his opinion on the existence of AGW, how do you draw the conclusion that he doesn't accept it?

 

[idb]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

What was learned was that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW. The rest was nothing more than unfounded, bias driven assumption.

Please explain how you draw that conclusion from the study?
Point out how you can say that 'more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW.'

My conclusion is that you're just making stuff up - it isn't that hard to understand.

 

[idb]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

Nicely wrapped up.

Nicely if you aren't interested in the truth. The fact is that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted it.

Please explain how.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He assumes that because an author of a study does not mention AGW that the author must believe in AGW.

No he doesn't. THose are counted separately.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Almost every single physics paper I read fails to mention a position on general relativity. That must mean GR isn't accepted.

 

[gslack]

Almost every single physics paper I read fails to mention a position on general relativity. That must mean GR isn't accepted.

General relativity has been confirmed by all observations and experiments to date. But AGW theory has yet to be shown true in observations and experiments. And general relativity doesn't care about consensus,it just is.

Thats how science works. Consensus is for politicians not scientists.

 

[idb]

Almost every single physics paper I read fails to mention a position on general relativity. That must mean GR isn't accepted.

But...I thought gravity was THE LAW

 

[SSDD]

Please explain how you draw that conclusion from the study?

I draw that conclusion from the growing number of scientists who state that the paper mischaracterized thier position. For example:

Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper.


Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission..


Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation.


Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.


Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct.



Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?


Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.

You can bet that the list of scientists who say that cook mishcaracterized their positon will grow because cook started out with a predetermined outcome and like most of climate science, did what was necessary to achieve that outcome, up to lying and falsification.

Point out how you can say that 'more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW.'

There were a total of 65 papers that stated that human activity was the dominant force driving climate change...78 papers stated that humans were not responsible for any climate change. The rest were characterized based on what is turning out to be cooks bias and a growing number of scientists are coming out saying as much.

My conclusion is that you're just making stuff up - it isn't that hard to understand.

Pardon me if I don't put much stock in your conclusion. Clearly you aren't influenced by the facts any more than cook.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Almost every single physics paper I read fails to mention a position on general relativity. That must mean GR isn't accepted.

General relativity has been confirmed by all observations and experiments to date.

You sure?

But AGW theory has yet to be shown true in observations and experiments. And general relativity doesn't care about consensus,it just is.

Relativity is a person with feelings?

 

[gslack]

Almost every single physics paper I read fails to mention a position on general relativity. That must mean GR isn't accepted.

General relativity has been confirmed by all observations and experiments to date.

You sure?

But AGW theory has yet to be shown true in observations and experiments. And general relativity doesn't care about consensus,it just is.

Relativity is a person with feelings?

Yes poopie I'm sure.

General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General relativity

General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and black holes of a much more massive type, respectively.

The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which since have been observed indirectly; a direct measurement is the aim of projects such as LIGO and NASA/ESA Laser Interferometer Space Antenna and various pulsar timing arrays. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.

And your immature and ignorant claim is noted, mr. astrophysical modeler... LOL

 

[Saigon]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

What was learned was that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW. The rest was nothing more than unfounded, bias driven assumption.

Really?

Honestly, SSDD, is this REALLY the best argument that you can come up with?

Looking through this thread, the most salient point seems to be that only 0.7% of academic papers oppose climate change. Somehow you think this backs your case, though god knows how.

I really don't see that you guys could lower the standard of posting on this board much more if you tried - which leads me to suspect that you are.

 

[gslack]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

What was learned was that more papers explicitly rejected AGW than explicitly accepted AGW. The rest was nothing more than unfounded, bias driven assumption.

Really?

Honestly, SSDD, is this REALLY the best argument that you can come up with?

Looking through this thread, the most salient point seems to be that only 0.7% of academic papers oppose climate change. Somehow you think this backs your case, though god knows how.

I really don't see that you guys could lower the standard of posting on this board much more if you tried - which leads me to suspect that you are.

No silly person. The big point you keep denying is that 66% didn't state a cause to any warming, and only 32% did attribute it to AGW. Meaning no consensus..

Your BS was shown false by the very same apparatus that tries so desperately to claim "consensus" as being scientific, and that this "consensus" exist at all.

That's the problem with BS. Eventually it will bury itself..

 

[Saigon]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

And we also learned that .326% do endorse it. That means you lose by over a two to one margin. Thanks for playing now go away. LOSER!

This is EXACTLY why I put you on Ignore Mode, Westwall - you do not and can not not and will not ever post honestly.

The OP tells us:

a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW

Do you not understand what a decimal point is, or did you not think anyone would notice that you moved it to change 32.6% to 0.326%?

Don't bother to respond.

 

[gslack]

So what we learned from this thread is that 0.7% of academic papers do not accept AGW.

Everyone agreed?

We also learned that the OP grossly misrepresented the article he claimed to have read.

And we also learned that .326% do endorse it. That means you lose by over a two to one margin. Thanks for playing now go away. LOSER!

This is EXACTLY why I put you on Ignore Mode, Westwall - you do not and can not not and will not ever post honestly.

The OP tells us:

a whopping 32.6% endorse AGW

Do you not understand what a decimal point is, or did you not think anyone would notice that you moved it to change 32.6% to 0.326%?

Don't bother to respond.

Oh quit crying sissy, he misplaced a decimal point you moron.

And why not ACTUALLY IGNORE THE PEOPLE YOU CLAIM TO IGNORE, you whiny little baby. jesus man, you been "ignoring" me for months yet you still come around and talk about me and post to me without a quote most of the time..

Grow a backbone...LOL

 

[SSDD]

Really?

Honestly, SSDD, is this REALLY the best argument that you can come up with?

Looking through this thread, the most salient point seems to be that only 0.7% of academic papers oppose climate change. Somehow you think this backs your case, though god knows how.

Perhaps instead of "looking through" the information after being told by your priests what to think about it, you might actualy read it and apply some mental energy.

By the "study's" own guidelines, 65 papers state explicitly that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%). 78 papers reject the AGW hypothesis. The rest is nothing more than cook injecting his bias as indicated by the growing number of scientists who have stated that cook mischaracterized thier paper saying that the endorse the AGW hypothesis when, in fact, the paper did not.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Most cults ae quite small....perhaps around 0.7% of the population?

That is where you need to look for priests and myths and religious quakery.

That you want to be in that 0.7% is fine - that you get to call the remaining 95% of the population a cult, less so.