A poll re the value of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

[Muhammed]

And, yo, Billy Boy. If Legates' results were accurate, why did direct inquiries of the authors of those studies show they believed their studies reflected an even greater acceptance of the IPCC central conclusion than did Cook's review of the papers themselves? How does that work out exactly?

Direct evidence proved fraud.

 

[SSDD]

Feel free to continue researching any of these questions. And, if you should come across a better explanation for the observations, please bring it forth. But till then, claims that AGW is invalid, or unsupported or refuted are shite.

Since observation does not match the model prediction the explanation is that the models are wrong...since the models are based on a flawed understanding of physics, then clearly the explanation is that the understanding of physics is flawed...based the models on an accurate understanding of physics and then the observation will match the model prediction..

PS, SSDD has a strong habit of using quotations out of context and making outright claims that they mean something that their context clearly demonstrates they do not. It was my understanding that such practices were a violation of the rules here, but SSDD seems to have exceptional leeway in such regards. [/quote]

Guess you don't understand what context is.....you quote regarding killing skeptics is used in its entirety...it is in my quote in precisely the context in which you used it....you are the only liar here crick..

 

[Crick]

Good luck with that. And do us a favor and learn how to do a fucking quote. In the previous thread (cooling Antarctica), you attributed a bunch of what look like Ian's quotes to me. And then you were fool enough to conclude that I agreed with Ian. HAHAHAHAHaaaaa

 

[bripat9643]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

It's also an "established fact" that many Americans believe in bigfoot. That doesn't make the existence of bigfoot a fact.

Is there a consensus among any group of experts that bigfoot exists? No. You know, Billy, a scientist would not have made such a stupid argument.

In 1960 there was a consensus among geologists that the continents were fixes in their current location.

So what is the credibility of "consensus?"

 

[SSDD]

Good luck with that. And do us a favor and learn how to do a fucking quote. In the previous thread (cooling Antarctica), you attributed a bunch of what look like Ian's quotes to me. And then you were fool enough to conclude that I agreed with Ian. HAHAHAHAHaaaaa

Wow...you are reduced to taking that much pleasure in finding a simple formatting error in a post? Must suck to be you.

 

[SSDD]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

It's also an "established fact" that many Americans believe in bigfoot. That doesn't make the existence of bigfoot a fact.

Is there a consensus among any group of experts that bigfoot exists? No. You know, Billy, a scientist would not have made such a stupid argument.

In 1960 there was a consensus among geologists that the continents were fixes in their current location.

So what is the credibility of "consensus?"

Historically, the credibility of consensus is very low...the number of times the consensus has been dead wrong are legion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. Anyone who disagrees will get this link in reply.

Consensus on WHAT EXACTLY?? That the Earth will literally destroy itself if the 2degC trigger is hit?

To have a consensus -- you need to have a QUESTION --- CrickHam.

WHAT IS THE FUCKING QUESTION????

 

[jc456]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

I can't answer any of those choices because none of them line up to reality. there should have been one more choice, there is no such thing as consensus in science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A poll re the value of the consensus on Bigfoot, the Piltdown Man, brontosaurus, cold fusion

 

[Old Rocks]

That a large consensus exists among climate scientists supporting the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is an established fact: The Earth has experienced warming over the last 150 years and the primary causes of that warming are human activities, particularly CO2 emissions and deforestation. Numerous polls, surveys and studies have found support among climate scientists to range from the 85 to very close to 100% and that support to be increasing over time.

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

I can't answer any of those choices because none of them line up to reality. there should have been one more choice, there is no such thing as consensus in science

Really, no such thing as consensus? Then why do we have textbooks on Geology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, ect.? There is, indeed, consensus on many things in science. Scientific Theories are the presently accepted overarching explanatons, backed with observations, experiments, and facts, concerning the universe.

The fact that this has escaped you is evidence of your immense ignorance of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

A poll re the value of the consensus on Bigfoot, the Piltdown Man, brontosaurus, cold fusion

Damn, Frank, no scientists that I know of are pushing the existance of Bigfoot, Piltdown Man Hoax was exposed by a scientist, not an ignorant ass like you. Brontosaurus? Silly ass, wrong head on from a very similiar animal. And whether you call it Apatasaurus or Brontosaurus, it is very interesting animal that existed long ago. Cold fusion? Again, scientists showed that was doubtful.

No scientific consensus on any of those things you posted. Again, just more silly nonsense from a willfully ignorant individual.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, yo, Billy Boy. If Legates' results were accurate, why did direct inquiries of the authors of those studies show they believed their studies reflected an even greater acceptance of the IPCC central conclusion than did Cook's review of the papers themselves? How does that work out exactly?

Direct evidence proved fraud.

You make the claim. Prove it. You cannot because you are another ass that never completed high school level science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A poll re the value of the consensus on Bigfoot, the Piltdown Man, brontosaurus, cold fusion

Damn, Frank, no scientists that I know of are pushing the existance of Bigfoot, Piltdown Man Hoax was exposed by a scientist, not an ignorant ass like you. Brontosaurus? Silly ass, wrong head on from a very similiar animal. And whether you call it Apatasaurus or Brontosaurus, it is very interesting animal that existed long ago. Cold fusion? Again, scientists showed that was doubtful.

No scientific consensus on any of those things you posted. Again, just more silly nonsense from a willfully ignorant individual.

if there was a way to get control of the US economy by belief in Bigfoot, you'd be calling people Bigfoot DENIERS!

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Frankie Boy, I don't want control of the US economy. I would not know what to do with it. But I do understand a great deal of science, particularly the Earth sciences. And I understand enough physics to know that GHGs do warm our atmosphere. And that we are seeing that warming right now.

Now the same people that are at the top of the heap today will still be at the top when the changeover to renewables is made. Except for one or two that are just two stupid to realize that is the future. So the economics will not change, other than the fact that solar and small wind gives an individual homeowner the option of making his own energy for his home and vehicle. But, of course, you think that is a bad thing, the individual getting out from under the thumb of the big energy corporations.

 

[Muhammed]

And, yo, Billy Boy. If Legates' results were accurate, why did direct inquiries of the authors of those studies show they believed their studies reflected an even greater acceptance of the IPCC central conclusion than did Cook's review of the papers themselves? How does that work out exactly?

Direct evidence proved fraud.

You make the claim. Prove it. You cannot because you are another ass that never completed high school level science.

It was proven a long time ago.

 

[Crick]

Again, Muhammed, Cook et al interviewed thousands of the authors of the studies he had reviewed and asked them if their studies accepted AGW. The number of "yes" answers was higher than the results his team had arrived at studying the papers directly. Please explain how you gibe that against Legates 0.5%?

You claim fraud (in Cook's results?) was "proven long ago". If that is the case, you should have no problem showing us the proof.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, Muhammed, Cook et al interviewed thousands of the authors of the studies he had reviewed and asked them if their studies accepted AGW. The number of "yes" answers was higher than the results his team had arrived at studying the papers directly. Please explain how you gibe that against Legates 0.5%?

You claim fraud (in Cook's results?) was "proven long ago". If that is the case, you should have no problem showing us the proof.

Cook Et Al is a huge pile of excrement... And NO HE DID NOT INTERVIEW ANYONE.. why do you lie crick? IF Cook had interviewed any of the 1944 papers he would not have made his 97% assertion on just 77 papers of those papers..

 

[Crick]

Again, Muhammed, Cook et al interviewed thousands of the authors of the studies he had reviewed and asked them if their studies accepted AGW. The number of "yes" answers was higher than the results his team had arrived at studying the papers directly. Please explain how you gibe that against Legates 0.5%?

You claim fraud (in Cook's results?) was "proven long ago". If that is the case, you should have no problem showing us the proof.

Cook Et Al is a huge pile of excrement.

And this sentiment is based on what?

.. And NO HE DID NOT INTERVIEW ANYONE

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...D0787345017807EE26C.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Emphases mine
Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research

why do you lie crick?

I clearly did not lie. You did.

IF Cook had interviewed any of the 1944 papers he would not have made his 97% assertion on just 77 papers of those papers..

Let's do the math Billy.

His initial selection was 11,944 (not "1944") whose abstracts matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

66.4% of those abstracts (7,931) expressed no position on AGW. That leaves 33.6% (4,013 papers) that did

32.6% (3,894 papers) of those abstracts endorsed AGW

0.7% (83 papers) rejected AGW

0.3% (36 papers) were uncertain

3,894 + 83 + 36 = 4,013 and
4,013 + 7,931 = 11,944

3,894 papers endorsing AGW / 4,013 papers expressing a position = 97.1%

THEREFORE
97.1% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW agree with the IPCC conclusion

I do not know where you are getting "77 papers". That sounds as if you've got Cook et al 2013 (linked above) confused with Doran and Zimmerman 2009 "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

I think if you're going to call a published study "a huge pile of excrement" you might first want to determine that you are actually talking about the study you think you're talking about. I bet that's something real scientists learn in the third grade Billy Boy (see my sig).

 

[Iceweasel]

The question here is: Do you believe that consensus increases the odds that the theory of AGW itself is correct?

Polling, opinion and consensus isn't science. Post the facts and I'll drop my skepticism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Naw, Silly Billy does not care what the truth of the matter is, he will just rattle on. Anyone making the claims he has about his education is obviously adverse to the truth on any subject.