Where is the Consensus survey

[ding]

He must be. I have seen stupid here but Abu really takes the cake. Other than massive cut/paste the idiot hacks the cut/paste so the it is almost unreadable.

Almost?

 

[elektra]

Almost?

have you noticed, no comment by crick, and this is his, so to speak, forte

 

[jc456]

SAME Place I linked Previous except the article Got a New set Hot-Linked Footnotes to each study as it has been revised as entry now goes recent to older instead of the reverse
THANKS for this second chance to BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STUPID MAGAt Brain.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[162] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[163] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[164]

A 2013 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainties about it.[165] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[166] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[167]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[168] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[169]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% and 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Surveys prior to 2010​

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[170] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[171][172][173][174]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[175] A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[176] To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[177]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".[178][179] Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."[179][180] Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category."[179]

Existence of a Scientific Consensus​

The public substantially Underestimates the degree of Scientific Consensus that Humans are Causing Climate change.[181] Studies from 2019–2021[182][183][184] found Scientific Consensus to range from 98.7–100%.
A question that frequently arose in popular discussion was whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[26] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[79]
• US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science ..."[185]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[186]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[72]
• American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus ... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[187]
• Network of African Science Academies: "A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change."[75]
• International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[122]
• Australian Coral Reef Society,[188] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases ... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming ..."[189]

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change​

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1990s.[190] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."[191] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[3]

2020s​

Myers et al., 2021​

Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[4]

Lynas et al., 2021​

In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.[3]

2010s​

Powell, 2019​

In 2019, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board,[192] analysed titles of peer-reviewed studies published in the first seven months of 2019 and found not a single study disagreed with the consensus view. When the titles implied uncertainty about the cause of climate change, the abstracts or the article in its entirety were examined. The total amount of articles found via Web of Science was 11,602.[2]

Verheggen et al., 2014​

In 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[193] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.[194]

Powell, 2013​

James L. Powell analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming.[195][196][197][198] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[199][200][201]

John Cook et al., 2013​

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[202] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[202]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation, as anticipated in a chapter published in 2007,[203] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[202]

A 2016 study entitled Learning from mistakes in climate research examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".[204]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011​

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[205][206]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[206]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010​

Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored fewer than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[207][208]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

2000s​

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009​

This paper is based on the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[209] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago. They received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 (97.4%) answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

Bray and von Storch, 2008​

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[210] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[211] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[212]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[210]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[210]

STATS, 2007​

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.[213][214]

Oreskes, 2004​

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[215] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

Bray and von Storch, 2003​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[216] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate change denial mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change deniers of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on 22 December 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[217] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."[216]

1990s​

• In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[190] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. Most of the scientists accepted that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
• A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
  
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[218]
  • George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, 3 September 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[219]
• Stewart, T. R.,[220] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6–7.
• In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[221] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
• Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3

`EVERY STUDY Is Hot-Footnoted.
That is how Wiki does every entry.
`

`

Nice try, that’s what is called conned! It all reads well but deceitful as fk! Conned!!



Even cherry picked

 

[jc456]

Scientific consensus​

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.[1][2]

Consensus is achieved through scholarly communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate,[3][4][5][6] and peer review. A conference meant to create a consensus is termed as a consensus conference.[7][8][9] Such measures lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[10] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community, or consensus review articles[11] or surveys[12] may be published. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.

Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the Public sphere but Not necessarily controversial within the Scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[13][14] climate change,[15] the safety of genetically modified organisms,[16] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[10]

Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[jc456]

thank you, we are getting somewhere, and this is as close as we get, an article describing what the study found. we never get the study

It’s in this video .

BTW, the demofks won’t answer

Study says the opposite of 99%

 

[elektra]

Crick here is your proof, crick

 

[Crick]

Crick here is your proof, crick

Proof of what?

 

[elektra]

Proof of what?

what you asked for

 

[Crick]

what you asked for

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[elektra]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

wikipedia? dictating there is consensus is not proof that there is a consensus.

Give us the paper? The study. You know there is a study and you know what happens when you post the study. We get to see it is an author of a paper that says the scientists agree by applying a narrow criteria to a minority of the published papers.

a scientific consensus is now a wikipedia page, brilliant

 

[Crick]

wikipedia? dictating there is consensus is not proof that there is a consensus.

Give us the paper? The study. You know there is a study and you know what happens when you post the study. We get to see it is an author of a paper that says the scientists agree by applying a narrow criteria to a minority of the published papers.

a scientific consensus is now a wikipedia page, brilliant

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Learn to read.

 

[jc456]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Learn to read.

he did and he responded, and as usual, you ignored it. way to go!!

 

[elektra]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Learn to read.

. Out of the 10 929 invitations, we received 2780 responses, corresponding to a response rate of 25%. The previous survey of geoscientists conducted in 2009 yielded a response rate of 31% (Doran and Kendall Zimmerman 2009), although other more recent surveys of scientists have yielded lower response rates ranging from 9% to 16% (Besley et al 2018).

The survey was developed to assess the current state of consensus on AGW among geoscientists. The survey also included questions about other impacts, responses, and conceptions about AGW, however we do not focus on the other questions in this paper. Additionally, participants provided multiple self-reported indicators of their expertise on climate change, such as the highest level of education completed, number of scientific papers published, and number of years worked in the field of climate change.

Only 10,929 invitations to a survey were sent out? Why not invite all the geo-scientists to participate?

Of the almost 11k invitations, only 25% of the people responded? Meaning that there is not a 97% or better consensus amongst scientists.

How many geo-scientists are there? 300K? So, they ask less than 5% to participate in the survey, they actually get 1% to answer. With 1% of the geoscientists participating they conclude there is a 97% consensus?

Pure bullshit. If the scientists did not answer, if they were never asked, you can not conclude what their opinion is or if their work even relates to man made global warming

and of course, do not forget, we do not get to see the actually just what we are to BELIEVE

 

[Crick]

Only 10,929 invitations to a survey were sent out? Why not invite all the geo-scientists to participate?

Of the almost 11k invitations, only 25% of the people responded? Meaning that there is not a 97% or better consensus amongst scientists.

How many geo-scientists are there? 300K? So, they ask less than 5% to participate in the survey, they actually get 1% to answer. With 1% of the geoscientists participating they conclude there is a 97% consensus?

Pure bullshit. If the scientists did not answer, if they were never asked, you can not conclude what their opinion is or if their work even relates to man made global warming

and of course, do not forget, we do not get to see the actually just what we are to BELIEVE

You need to actually learn something about sampling.

 

[jc456]

You need to actually learn something about sampling.

yeah, come on and explain how 100 people speak for a million again.