Yes, 97%

[Vigilante]

That information is about as surprising as the FACT that over 90% of American blacks voted for a HALF black man! The only thing that makes scientists agree on more than the black vote, is that government grants, and financial support from ORGANIZATIONS that have a perceived investment in the bullshit that man is causing GW agree! ....SURPRISE AGAIN!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

You're smarter than that Todd. Don't let your politics lead you away from what you know to be true.

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

I am smarter than that, that's why I laugh at the idea that 75/3146 means that 97% of scientists agree.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

100% of Old Rocks, Crick and Rolling Thunder BELIEVE in AGW!

We have Consensus

Science = Settled!!

 

[Crick]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

You're smarter than that Todd. Don't let your politics lead you away from what you know to be true.

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

I am smarter than that, that's why I laugh at the idea that 75/3146 means that 97% of scientists agree.

I'm pretty sure you can read. So when the text YOU QUOTED states "76 0f 79 climatologists who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who have also published more than 50% of their recent, peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" I would have thought you would understand why it was not 76 out of 3,146. Why didn't you take your logic to its obvious conclusion and tell us that only 76 out of 4 billion humans (0.0000019%) accept AGW? It's precisely as accurate as your first statement and you'd get to use all those zeroes!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

You're smarter than that Todd. Don't let your politics lead you away from what you know to be true.

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

I am smarter than that, that's why I laugh at the idea that 75/3146 means that 97% of scientists agree.

I'm pretty sure you can read. So when the text YOU QUOTED states "76 0f 79 climatologists who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who have also published more than 50% of their recent, peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" I would have thought you would understand why it was not 76 out of 3,146. Why didn't you take your logic to its obvious conclusion and tell us that only 76 out of 4 billion humans (0.0000019%) accept AGW? It's precisely as accurate as your first statement and you'd get to use all those zeroes!

I would have thought you would understand why it was not 76 out of 3,146.

I do understand, because showing the real numbers would refute the claim that there is an almost complete consensus.

Why didn't you take your logic to its obvious conclusion and tell us that only 76 out of 4 billion humans (0.0000019%) accept AGW?

4 billion humans did not respond to the poll. 3146 did, and 75 of them believed that "human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures", according to your source.

 

[Crick]

1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
2) Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid? They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers, which was the IDEA from the get go.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you disagree with the OP observations? What portion of climate scientists or peer reviewed climate science publications do you believe accept AGW as valid?

How many Scientologists believe Scientology works?

 

[Crick]

I imagine a large portion of climate scientists believes that climate science is capable of making accurate and meaningful statements concerning the functions of the Earth's climate. But that's not what you wanted to hear, is it. Do you believe climate science and AGW are one and the same thing? Apparently you do. Unfortunately such a belief is simply wrong.

 

[Rotagilla]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

"scientists" used to think the earth was flat...and people believed them.
"scientists" used to think the sun revolved around the earth...and people believed them.
"scientists" used to think man would never fly. ..and people believed them.

isn't that "hilarious", too?

 

[SSDD]

 

[IanC]

These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.

 

[Crick]

And you haven't answered the question. The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field. The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate

 

[Crick]

Do you really want to bring up Legates? Really?

 

[Crick]

These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.

I would say the useless idiocy is the persistence of deniers in claiming such majorities don't exist. I could put a survey up here performed by god himself of a hundred million climate scientists from all the planets of the galaxy and the first response would read "75 out of 79, yeah, that's something."

 

[SSDD]

Do you really want to bring up Legates? Really?

Truth is truth whether you like it or not...the 97% claims are bullshit and anyone who makes them at this point, after all the debunking and exposing of flawed methods etc, is flatly a liar...of course we all knew that about you already...didn't we?

 

[Crick]

From a comment on Skeptical Science shortly after Legates letter was published in an education journal.

I ran some calculations on the detailed results as released on this site. They show that to obtain a 0.3% "consensus rating", Legates et al had to only count papers rated 1, and then also exclude any papers categorized as "impacts" and "mitigation".

The first step not only excludes every paper that endorses the consensus without explicitly quantifying the contribution of humans, or only implicitly endorses the consensus - it actually counts them and neutral (rating 4) papers as disendorsing the consensus. That follows because they are not rejecting the 32.6% of all abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus in Cook et al, but the 97.1% "among abstracts with AGW position". So, either it is a deliberate strawman by quantifying something they know to belong to a different category (% among all abstracts) or they are tacitly asserting that all abstracts have a position on AGW, and that overwhelmingly that position is a refusal to endorse AGW. Curiously they are willing to assert this without any sign that they themselves have rated the abstracts. They are insisting that their a priori rating is better than Cook et al's empirical rating.

Excluding "impacts" and "mitigation" papers is even more dubious. First, it confuses "endorses" with "is evidence of". A paper about marigolds could "endorse" AGW by simply noting that they think AGW is true. That is not evidence of AGW, and nobody pretends otherwise. It merely indicates the opinion of the authors about AGW (ie, they think it is true). And, of course, Cook et al is not trying to measure the level of evidence, but the distribution of opinions. In fact, it is one of the main arguments of the pseudo-skeptics that a consensus is not evidence, but here they ignore that distinction and pretend that Cook et al by trying to measure consensus is actually trying to measure evidence, the only basis on which excluding "mitigation" papers would be relevant.

It is worse than that, however, for a large portion of "impacts" papers are about the climatological impacts of increasing CO2 levels. They make findings about such things as the likely temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, or from historical and projected CO2 emissions. These are exactly the sort of papers that do provide evidence about whether or not anthropogenic emissions have caused >50% of recent temperature increases. Yet Legates et al want to exclude them as irrelevant (while counting them among "abstracts with [an] AGW position".

The contortion of reasoning involved in their claim is, as you can see, beyond belief.

--Tom Curtis

 

[Crick]

And then there's this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Bedford_2013_agnotology.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

That's a meaningless claim. 10% of the warming could be considered "significant," but that would mean curing CO2 emissions would be pointless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
2) Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid? They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers, which was the IDEA from the get go.

I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.

You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?

Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid?

It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them.

They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers,

They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent.
Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I imagine a large portion of climate scientists believes that climate science is capable of making accurate and meaningful statements concerning the functions of the Earth's climate. But that's not what you wanted to hear, is it. Do you believe climate science and AGW are one and the same thing? Apparently you do. Unfortunately such a belief is simply wrong.

Climate Science just isn't science