97 percent myth

[JBG]

Earth's climate has been changing since long before humans ever appeared on it's surface. Now we find out from "scientists" that we've been the cause of it all along.

It's warmed a lot since the winter of 1708-9.

 

[Lemmi]

It's warmed a lot since the winter of 1708-9.

OMG thanks! Great song, I'd not heard it before.

 

[JBG]

OMG thanks! Great song, I'd not heard it before.

I picked it up during the freewheeling Napster era. Al Stewart has been a favorite of mine since Junior Year high school, in 1974. A friend with twice my IQ turned me on to him.

 

[Lemmi]

Can't beat this one for lifting one's spirit.

 

[JBG]

^^^^
His best known, but give a listen to Nostradamus, Roads to Moscow, Warren Gamaliel Harding, Post World War II Blues. History set to music.

 

[Crick]

Yup and breathe out Carbon Dioxide. We must be assholes to do this. I want to laugh. But his kind blame man and it makes me sad he is so anti human about climate.

Robert, who is the highlighted person?

 

[Crick]

Morning Carl. Do you believe Dr Peterson when he says there are more fat poor people than thin poor people?

I don't seem to have gotten a reply. Let's put this question out to the general audience here. Does anyone here believe that, across the entire world, there are more fat poor people than thin poor people?

 

[Crick]

You didn't use big words, you engaged in the fallacy of excessive verbosity.

The "97%" were STILL self-selected, smug asshole.

The last several large studies looked at research papers published in refereed journals. They were NOT self-selected.

 

[Crick]

You didn't use big words, you engaged in the fallacy of excessive verbosity.

I didn't write that material. I cut it and I pasted it. And every word was pertinent and on topic. So take your "excessive verbosity" and shove it up your uneducated ass.

The "97%" were STILL self-selected, smug asshole.

Here is the last entry in the surveys section of Wikipedia's article on the scientific consensus on climate change:

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse 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.[7][85]​

The numbers are not self selected. The papers surveyed were selected at random. The results are in EXCESS of 97% not skeptical of AGW. FOUR papers out of 3,000 expressed skepticism towards the human cause perspective.

97% is not a myth. It is an understatement.

 

[Oddball]

I didn't write that material. I cut it and I pasted it. And every word was pertinent and on topic. So take your "excessive verbosity" and shove it up your uneducated ass.

Here is the last entry in the surveys section of Wikipedia's article on the scientific consensus on climate change:

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse 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.[7][85]​

The numbers are not self selected. The papers surveyed were selected at random. The results are in EXCESS of 97% not skeptical of AGW. FOUR papers out of 3,000 expressed skepticism towards the human cause perspective.

97% is not a myth. It is an understatement.

What you copy-pasted is the same old crap that you warmer cultist loons always copy-pasta...Just more of it.

And your vaunted "97%" STILL self-selected, fucking liar....They're so embarrassed about getting caught at it, that they pulled the "study" from public vies.

The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

The graphic below comes via our friends at [un] skepticalscience , assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global w...

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

 

[Crick]

What you copy-pasted is the same old crap that you warmer cultist loons always copy-pasta...Just more of it.

Just saying it's crap doesn't mean shit. What you need is some evidence. Your problem is that there isn't any because these numbers are facts.

And your vaunted "97%" STILL self-selected, fucking liar....They're so embarrassed about getting caught at it, that they pulled the "study" from public vies.

From your link

The graphic below comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.​

Here is the actual graphic from Skeptical Science

The Skeptical Science article examined the disconnect between what scientists actually believe, what the news reports and what the public thinks. There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that the Earth is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

Don't you find it a little embarrassing that with over 21 studies on the topic available for review, AGW deniers CONSISTENTLY single out a single, small scale study, done over twenty years ago, that statistically was completely valid? The problem is that the general public and, apparently AGW deniers in particular, are grossly unfamiliar with the tenets of statistical sampling. And then there's their propensity to just lie.

 

[Robert W]

Robert, who is the highlighted person?

I think you are asking about a general term .... kind. His kind.

 

[Robert W]

Just saying it's crap doesn't mean shit. What you need is some evidence. Your problem is that there isn't any because these numbers are facts.

From your link

The graphic below comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.​

Here is the actual graphic from Skeptical Science

View attachment 880265

The Skeptical Science article examined the disconnect between what scientists actually believe, what the news reports and what the public thinks. There is no doubt that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept that the Earth is warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions.

Don't you find it a little embarrassing that with over 21 studies on the topic available for review, AGW deniers CONSISTENTLY single out a single, small scale study, done over twenty years ago, that statistically was completely valid? The problem is that the general public and, apparently AGW deniers in particular, are grossly unfamiliar with the tenets of statistical sampling. And then there's their propensity to just lie.

GW happens due to changes happening around the Planet. So who are the deniers?

You got upset you were called out, but not by name. So here you are doubling down and blaming man again. When it was pointed out you blame man, you got all huffy about it.

 

[Crick]

I think you are asking about a general term .... kind. His kind.

In your initial post you used the term "his kind" meaning people like this individual. I think we both know to whom you were referring. And earlier, you had asked me for examples. That's all.

 

[Crick]

GW happens due to changes happening around the Planet. So who are the deniers?

There are a range of them. Some deny that the world is getting warmer. Some deny that it is being caused by human GHG emissions. Some deny that the warming presents any threat or risk of harm. Many claim that it is a hoax propagated by liberals either seeking power, money, or the destruction of the modern world.

You got upset you were called out, but not by name.

That was not what I look like when I'm upset Robert. Poster Ding might have a better idea. I don't actually mind people talking about me as long as they don't lie. A number of posters here frequently lie about me and what I have said or done here. I call THAT out when it happens.

So here you are doubling down and blaming man again.

Humans are responsible for AGW. It's what the A means.

When it was pointed out you blame man, you got all huffy about it.

That wasn't huffy and what I was pointing out was you talking about me in the third person with others, something you seemed to claim you did not do.

 

[Robert W]

In your initial post you used the term "his kind" meaning people like this individual. I think we both know to whom you were referring. And earlier, you had asked me for examples. That's all.

When his kind blames man for global climate, pardon me when I defend this man. I want to thank you for your kind reply.

 

[Robert W]

I didn't write that material. I cut it and I pasted it. And every word was pertinent and on topic. So take your "excessive verbosity" and shove it up your uneducated ass.

Here is a poster acting very rude. But when I say his kind, well he brings it up.

 

[Crick]

Here is a poster acting very rude. But when I say his kind, well he brings it up.

Here is a quote from Poster Oddball whom I was addressing

What you copy-pasted is the same old crap that you warmer cultist loons always copy-pasta...Just more of it.

And your vaunted "97%" STILL self-selected, fucking liar....They're so embarrassed about getting caught at it, that they pulled the "study" from public vies.

Was it rude of poster Oddball to call me a "warmer cultist loon" and a "fucking liar"? Perhaps you could chat about that with one of the other posters.

 

[Robert W]

There are a range of them. Some deny that the world is getting warmer. Some deny that it is being caused by human GHG emissions. Some deny that the warming presents any threat or risk of harm. Many claim that it is a hoax propagated by liberals either seeking power, money, or the destruction of the modern world.

Let's focus on humans. Let's not operate as were it cooling off.
First on the warming and the hockey stick.
When the X axis represents eons of time, but the Y axis represents a very small change, it is not alarming. It is pretty ordinary in fact.

I trust your engineering experience will clearly allow you to understand this.
I am not discussing denial in generic terms. I am discussing alarmism. Why cause the reader to say "Oh shit, i must be a jerk to warm the planet"
Humans are not jerks. We are not all scientists. We are not all engineers. My exposure to being an engineer is in part due to what i studied in college. I also invented a very fast nailing machine to nail hardwood flooring. It was a design process taking up to 2 years to accomplish, primarily due to my being a construction worker and out of town a lot of the time. I also worked with Engineers working for Fiberboard Corporation and they felt they trusted me to make changes to their designs so long as I showed them to the engineers. It helped them that i understood enough about this that though their errors were seldom and mostly small change, I was awarded the ability to make such changes.
I invented a machine that sanded both sides of Paddle boards used by water enthusiasts.
I owned a machine shop where I hired machinists to help me do the work.

My firm under my direction made parts for firms working with space agencies. I speak of the Air Force and not NASA. We made a lot of packing and weighing machines used to package soap. We also made a lot of machine parts for the corrugated box industry. We made parts for the electronics industry. We made parts used at a steel mill. We made parts for a firm that made pumps to pump oil around oil fields.
I am saying in short that I am not a dumb hick.

 

[Robert W]

Here is a quote from Poster Oddball whom I was addressing



Was it rude of poster Oddball to call me a "warmer cultist loon" and a "fucking liar"? Perhaps you could chat about that with one of the other posters.

YES. I would not even bring it up but for the complaint you have lodged involving me.