Wrapping up the warmest December ever recorded in this country.

[lutraphile]

yea sure.

They kicked his party out of the Senate just over a month ago yet we are to believe this?

not

Corporate funding and disinformation is winning
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities- NASA

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

There's no such thing as a complete consensus, that's an oxymoron. No, they do not all agree, your brother pulled the wool over your eyes.

Okay, not literally complete consensus. A paltry 97%.

 

[westwall]

yea sure.

They kicked his party out of the Senate just over a month ago yet we are to believe this?

not

Corporate funding and disinformation is winning
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities- NASA

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

There's no such thing as a complete consensus, that's an oxymoron. No, they do not all agree, your brother pulled the wool over your eyes.

Okay, not literally complete consensus. A paltry 97%.

A number that has been proven false innumerable times... Yet you silly people ignore those facts and say we're the "deniers"


"The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make"



EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Phony Claim That 97 of Scientists Agree on Global Warming

 

[lutraphile]

yea sure.

They kicked his party out of the Senate just over a month ago yet we are to believe this?

not

Corporate funding and disinformation is winning
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities- NASA

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

There's no such thing as a complete consensus, that's an oxymoron. No, they do not all agree, your brother pulled the wool over your eyes.

Okay, not literally complete consensus. A paltry 97%.

A number that has been proven false innumerable times... Yet you silly people ignore those facts and say we're the "deniers"


"The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make"



EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Phony Claim That 97 of Scientists Agree on Global Warming

It comes from a couple of different surveys

97% happening, 84% manmade, 5% skeptical
96% manmade (this is one Zimmerman one)
97% manmade
< .2% of published papers reject manmade

 

[westwall]

yea sure.

They kicked his party out of the Senate just over a month ago yet we are to believe this?

not

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

There's no such thing as a complete consensus, that's an oxymoron. No, they do not all agree, your brother pulled the wool over your eyes.

Okay, not literally complete consensus. A paltry 97%.

A number that has been proven false innumerable times... Yet you silly people ignore those facts and say we're the "deniers"


"The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make"



EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Phony Claim That 97 of Scientists Agree on Global Warming

It comes from a couple of different surveys

97% happening, 84% manmade, 5% skeptical
96% manmade (this is one Zimmerman one)
97% manmade
< .2% of published papers reject manmade

And all of them are wrong, consisting of a massively cherry picked data set. In other words, it's a FRAUD!

 

[Crick]

Prove to us that ANY of those surveys are wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

Corporate funding and disinformation is winning
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities- NASA

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

Science doesn't use the term "consensus". That's your first problem. Science is interested in facts. The facts are that none of the predictions made by the globull warmists has happened. None of them. Consensus is a political term. Scientists, real scientists don't give a rats hind end about consensus.

The consensus science of old told us that the world was flat. We sceptics proved those silly fools wrong. Just like we're proving you wrong, yet again.

Here we have ol' Walleyes proving his stupidity or senility one more time. It was the Church that insisted on a flat earth, not scientists.

Eratosthenes Calculation of Earth s Circumference

In 240 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes made the first good measurement of the size of Earth. By noting the angles of shadows in two cities on the Summer Solstice, and by performing the right calculations using his knowledge of geometry and the distance between the cities, Eratosthenes was able to make a remarkably accurate calculation of the circumference of Earth. Let's take a closer look at how he did it!

The early scientists, called natural philosophers, knew the earth was round. Just as anyone reading your posts realize that you are not a scientist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Prove to us that ANY of those surveys are wrong.

Its been done many times.. But here is some comments about Legates Et AL..

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.

John Cook and Nuccitelli have had other papers flat out rejected since their last fiasco..

Source

 

[westwall]

Corporate funding and disinformation is winning
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities- NASA

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

Science doesn't use the term "consensus". That's your first problem. Science is interested in facts. The facts are that none of the predictions made by the globull warmists has happened. None of them. Consensus is a political term. Scientists, real scientists don't give a rats hind end about consensus.

The consensus science of old told us that the world was flat. We sceptics proved those silly fools wrong. Just like we're proving you wrong, yet again.

Here we have ol' Walleyes proving his stupidity or senility one more time. It was the Church that insisted on a flat earth, not scientists.

Eratosthenes Calculation of Earth s Circumference

In 240 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes made the first good measurement of the size of Earth. By noting the angles of shadows in two cities on the Summer Solstice, and by performing the right calculations using his knowledge of geometry and the distance between the cities, Eratosthenes was able to make a remarkably accurate calculation of the circumference of Earth. Let's take a closer look at how he did it!

The early scientists, called natural philosophers, knew the earth was round. Just as anyone reading your posts realize that you are not a scientist.

Tell that to Wegener. Your branch of "consensus" science said he was wrong too, and like them, you too are wrong. That's why you have to go on your all out propaganda push to try and save your collective asses.

Put another way, there is no "consensus" on what the speed of light is, or the height of Everest, or the boiling point of water, or the gravitational acceleration of an object on Earth. Consensus is not needed. They are known facts.

Come back when you have a fact to discuss.

 

[Billy_Bob]

yea sure.

They kicked his party out of the Senate just over a month ago yet we are to believe this?

not

Let's see.......skeptical research has received 100 million dollars over the years.... Globull warmers have received well over 100 billion. So....which number is bigger?

The issue is that the media makes it out to be some kind of debate when it is a complete consensus. You don't have to get huge amount of funding to understand the data btw, my bother is a private sector climate scientist and I assure you, anyone schooled in the field accepts it is happening and caused by humans.

There's no such thing as a complete consensus, that's an oxymoron. No, they do not all agree, your brother pulled the wool over your eyes.

Okay, not literally complete consensus. A paltry 97%.

A number that has been proven false innumerable times... Yet you silly people ignore those facts and say we're the "deniers"


"The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make"



EconomicPolicyJournal.com The Phony Claim That 97 of Scientists Agree on Global Warming

It comes from a couple of different surveys

97% happening, 84% manmade, 5% skeptical
96% manmade (this is one Zimmerman one)
97% manmade
< .2% of published papers reject manmade

Too Funny.

They each cite each other and then Cooks piece of crap...

 

[Old Rocks]

You dumb fucks, consensus exists on many issues in science. Such as evolution, which equations to use in certain chemical reactions, ect.

If you don't believe that there is consensus on AGW, why don't you present some presentations from the meetings of Scientific Societies like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union? Surely if there is a debate on AGW, you will find the issue being debated in these societies.

 

[westwall]

You dumb fucks, consensus exists on many issues in science. Such as evolution, which equations to use in certain chemical reactions, ect.

If you don't believe that there is consensus on AGW, why don't you present some presentations from the meetings of Scientific Societies like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union? Surely if there is a debate on AGW, you will find the issue being debated in these societies.

Bullshit. Consensus is NOT SCIENCE! Consensus is a political term that has no business being in the lexicon of a scientist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You dumb fucks, consensus exists on many issues in science. Such as evolution, which equations to use in certain chemical reactions, ect.

If you don't believe that there is consensus on AGW, why don't you present some presentations from the meetings of Scientific Societies like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union? Surely if there is a debate on AGW, you will find the issue being debated in these societies.

I think this applies..

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Wegener Continental Drift hypothesis was never rejected on the grounds of evidence he presented. The matching geological and paleontological records he pointed out were not debated, however, there was simply no way of plowing fragile continetal crust material through the much stronger oceanic basalts. And no evidence that had ever happened. There were enough other scientists pointing out similiar matching areas on differant continants, some actually doing so before Wegener, that most accepted that they had somehow been connected. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that the mechanism for the movement of the continents was demonstrated. And the resultant paradigm revolutionized Geology.

 

[mamooth]

The inbred cult nature of the deniers becomes apparent when you diagram out what other blogs each head blogger says they read.

data blog.pageTitle

Denier blogs, they're in their little yellow ghetto. Each denier blogger refuses to look at any sources outside of Denierstan, so the crazy there, it just self-reinforces. Mainstream climate blogs, they link to science all across the spectrum.

 

[Crick]

Prove to us that ANY of those surveys are wrong.

Its been done many times.. But here is some comments about Legates Et AL..

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.

John Cook and Nuccitelli have had other papers flat out rejected since their last fiasco..

Source

1) Ten years ago, science historian Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Twenty-five percent of the papers studied methodology or paleoclimatic issue and took no explicit or implicit position on the current global warming issue. Of the remaining 75% of papers, ALL explicitly or implicitly accepted anthropogenic climate change.

2) Three years later, in 2007, on behalf of George Mason University's Statistical Assessment Service, Harris Interactive (a market research firm and source of the Harris Poll), conducted a survey of 489 individuals randomly selected from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Their survey found that 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased. 84% agreed that this warming was induced by human activity while 5% said they thought human activity had not contributed to greenhouse warming.

3) In August of 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different nations and received responses from 373 of them (18.2%). One question was "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" All respondents answered that they were so convinced to at least some extent. Zero of the respondents answered that they did not agree at all. A second question was "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 98.65% agreed to some extent. 1.35% stated that they did not agree at all.

4) Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 Earth scientists. They received responses 3,146 of them (30.7%). They analyed these responses for the demographics of the respondents. 79 respondents were climatologists for whom more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications had concerned climate change. Of these 79 climate change experts, 77 believed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperatures. This poll is frequently mentioned by AGW deniers who seem to believe - or intend to give the impression - that all of AGW is based on the opinion of 77 climatologists. The conclusion of Doran and Zimmerman was that the more someone knew about the climate and climate change, the more likely it was to believe that human activity was the primary cause of global warming.

5) That conclusion was supported by a 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneide, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 publishing climate scientists. The study found that 97-98% of the most actively publishing researchers accepted AGW and that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

6) In 2013, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters found 4,014 abstracts out of 11,944 examined that contained the terms "global warming" or "global climate change". Out of these 4,014, 97.1% accepted AGW as valid

7) Former National Physical Science Consortium executive director James Powell performed an analysis 13,950 articles on climate change and global warming published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2012. 24 of them (0.17%) rejected AGW. A second analysis by Powell examined 2,258 articles by 9,136 authors published in the 13 months between November 2012 and December 2013. 9,135 of the 9,136 authors accepted AGW.

8) October 2011: in a follow-up to their 2007 study, researchers Farnsworth and Lichter from George Mason University did an analysis of 998 scientist-members of either American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society paper who had all been lsited in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science. Of the 489 who returned completed questionnaires, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed. 85% of respondents regarded the "likely effects of global climate change" as moderate to severe/catastrhophic

9) I didn't want to paraphrase this one.
Wikipedia, Survey of Scientist's Views on Global Warming

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions.
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Prove to us that ANY of those surveys are wrong.

Its been done many times.. But here is some comments about Legates Et AL..

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.

John Cook and Nuccitelli have had other papers flat out rejected since their last fiasco..

Source

1) Ten years ago, science historian Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Twenty-five percent of the papers studied methodology or paleoclimatic issue and took no explicit or implicit position on the current global warming issue. Of the remaining 75% of papers, ALL explicitly or implicitly accepted anthropogenic climate change.

2) Three years later, in 2007, on behalf of George Mason University's Statistical Assessment Service, Harris Interactive (a market research firm and source of the Harris Poll), conducted a survey of 489 individuals randomly selected from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Their survey found that 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased. 84% agreed that this warming was induced by human activity while 5% said they thought human activity had not contributed to greenhouse warming.

3) In August of 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different nations and received responses from 373 of them (18.2%). One question was "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" All respondents answered that they were so convinced to at least some extent. Zero of the respondents answered that they did not agree at all. A second question was "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 98.65% agreed to some extent. 1.35% stated that they did not agree at all.

4) Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 Earth scientists. They received responses 3,146 of them (30.7%). They analyed these responses for the demographics of the respondents. 79 respondents were climatologists for whom more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications had concerned climate change. Of these 79 climate change experts, 77 believed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperatures. This poll is frequently mentioned by AGW deniers who seem to believe - or intend to give the impression - that all of AGW is based on the opinion of 77 climatologists. The conclusion of Doran and Zimmerman was that the more someone knew about the climate and climate change, the more likely it was to believe that human activity was the primary cause of global warming.

5) That conclusion was supported by a 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneide, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 publishing climate scientists. The study found that 97-98% of the most actively publishing researchers accepted AGW and that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

6) In 2013, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters found 4,014 abstracts out of 11,944 examined that contained the terms "global warming" or "global climate change". Out of these 4,014, 97.1% accepted AGW as valid

7) Former National Physical Science Consortium executive director James Powell performed an analysis 13,950 articles on climate change and global warming published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2012. 24 of them (0.17%) rejected AGW. A second analysis by Powell examined 2,258 articles by 9,136 authors published in the 13 months between November 2012 and December 2013. 9,135 of the 9,136 authors accepted AGW.

8) October 2011: in a follow-up to their 2007 study, researchers Farnsworth and Lichter from George Mason University did an analysis of 998 scientist-members of either American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society paper who had all been lsited in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science. Of the 489 who returned completed questionnaires, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed. 85% of respondents regarded the "likely effects of global climate change" as moderate to severe/catastrhophic

9) I didn't want to paraphrase this one.
Wikipedia, Survey of Scientist's Views on Global Warming

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions.
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

lol...... Every single one is a Wikipedia entry... Can be changed and manipulated at a whim and is controlled by alarmist who are rewriting history.. Pretty big pile of crap there..

 

[elektra]

The United States is hardly at little more than 1% of the entire surface of the earth, your idea that one month in a year in less than 2% of the World makes a difference is laughable.

 

[Crick]

Prove to us that ANY of those surveys are wrong.

Its been done many times.. But here is some comments about Legates Et AL..

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.

John Cook and Nuccitelli have had other papers flat out rejected since their last fiasco..

Source

1) Ten years ago, science historian Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Twenty-five percent of the papers studied methodology or paleoclimatic issue and took no explicit or implicit position on the current global warming issue. Of the remaining 75% of papers, ALL explicitly or implicitly accepted anthropogenic climate change.

2) Three years later, in 2007, on behalf of George Mason University's Statistical Assessment Service, Harris Interactive (a market research firm and source of the Harris Poll), conducted a survey of 489 individuals randomly selected from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Their survey found that 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased. 84% agreed that this warming was induced by human activity while 5% said they thought human activity had not contributed to greenhouse warming.

3) In August of 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different nations and received responses from 373 of them (18.2%). One question was "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" All respondents answered that they were so convinced to at least some extent. Zero of the respondents answered that they did not agree at all. A second question was "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 98.65% agreed to some extent. 1.35% stated that they did not agree at all.

4) Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 Earth scientists. They received responses 3,146 of them (30.7%). They analyed these responses for the demographics of the respondents. 79 respondents were climatologists for whom more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications had concerned climate change. Of these 79 climate change experts, 77 believed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperatures. This poll is frequently mentioned by AGW deniers who seem to believe - or intend to give the impression - that all of AGW is based on the opinion of 77 climatologists. The conclusion of Doran and Zimmerman was that the more someone knew about the climate and climate change, the more likely it was to believe that human activity was the primary cause of global warming.

5) That conclusion was supported by a 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneide, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 publishing climate scientists. The study found that 97-98% of the most actively publishing researchers accepted AGW and that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

6) In 2013, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters found 4,014 abstracts out of 11,944 examined that contained the terms "global warming" or "global climate change". Out of these 4,014, 97.1% accepted AGW as valid

7) Former National Physical Science Consortium executive director James Powell performed an analysis 13,950 articles on climate change and global warming published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2012. 24 of them (0.17%) rejected AGW. A second analysis by Powell examined 2,258 articles by 9,136 authors published in the 13 months between November 2012 and December 2013. 9,135 of the 9,136 authors accepted AGW.

8) October 2011: in a follow-up to their 2007 study, researchers Farnsworth and Lichter from George Mason University did an analysis of 998 scientist-members of either American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society paper who had all been lsited in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science. Of the 489 who returned completed questionnaires, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed. 85% of respondents regarded the "likely effects of global climate change" as moderate to severe/catastrhophic

9) I didn't want to paraphrase this one.
Wikipedia, Survey of Scientist's Views on Global Warming

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions.
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

lol...... Every single one is a Wikipedia entry... Can be changed and manipulated at a whim and is controlled by alarmist who are rewriting history.. Pretty big pile of crap there..

They may all be verified by the links provided in the reference section Billy Bob.

 

[Old Rocks]

Returning to the op;

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

 

[skookerasbil]

You dumb fucks, consensus exists on many issues in science. Such as evolution, which equations to use in certain chemical reactions, ect.

If you don't believe that there is consensus on AGW, why don't you present some presentations from the meetings of Scientific Societies like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union? Surely if there is a debate on AGW, you will find the issue being debated in these societies.

Bullshit. Consensus is NOT SCIENCE! Consensus is a political term that has no business being in the lexicon of a scientist.

That is exactly right..........same as "trickle-down" economics. A political term.......not one progressive has ever been able to identify a single economist who wrote a book or presented as policy, "trickle-down economics". The progressives have cornered the market on semantics trickery.

People will notice how often progressives ( all strong AGW advocates ) are very loose with terms like "increased"........"higher"........"many"..........."down"............"up"..........."advanced"..............for example, they will say temperatures have "increased" but upon closer inspection, they have increased by something like 1/20 of one degree. Its just intellectual dishonesty on steroids..........

When you place the terms in context, they often expose an agenda..............vagueness is very effective on the simpletons of the world.......and the AGW crusaders know it too.