Are you just pretending that you don`t know that this 97% cooked Cook consensus is bogus or are you really still totally unaware that it was indeed a totally fraudulent claim.
I am aware that it is a well-established fact and that the denier attempts to disprove it have been absurd and pathetic.
How can you not know...that`s almost impossible unless you refuse to Google.
How can you hold the opinion you seem to hold unless you refuse to look at the facts. Why don't you have a quick perusal of
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and explain how you can maintain such a position in the face of that information.
Here is a video that sums it up what all the studies about Cook`s 97% consensus cooking have revealed:
F.fwd. to 4:55
There have been no "studies"
about Cook's study. There was David Legates crap that attempted to refute Cook but it was absolutely laughable and accomplished nothing but destroy Legates' own career.
Cook had 2 of his enviro-activists collecting 12 to 13 000 papers that mentioned global warming and they found only 41 papers that met Cook`s 50% AG-Warming criteria and explicitly stated it.
Your grasp of the facts here is woefully in error. Cook's study is publicly available at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2,Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters,
Volume 8,
Number 2
It is not particularly long. His results have been borne out by similar studies by Powell, Anderegg and Oreskes and by polls, surveys and studies of climate scientists by several others. Legates' is the only study that has found less than 85% support among climate scientists for the conclusions of the IPCC. And given that Legates contention, that only 0.3% of all climate studies affirmed the IPCC conclusion, was based on the presence of a specific statement (ie, if a study did not explicitly state that it supported the IPCC conclusions, Legates assumed it rejected those conclusions AND included in the rejection all studies, including those that expressed no opinion whatsoever) the logical validity of Legates work is absolutely nil.
b.t.w. the IPCC uses a much higher 90% (!!!) human caused GW criteria
Please explain what you mean by this statement. What criteria are you claiming the IPCC uses and to what purpose? Being just slightly familiar with the IPCC's confidence criteria I would not hesitate to suggest that you're spewing bulllshit of whose meaning even you have not a clue.
Even though he could only find 41 papers that explicitly stated that the CO2 emissions due to human activity drives the climate. That`s a far cry from a 97% consensus of qualified scientists, wouldn`t you say ?
Your statement is a far cry from anything approaching a fact. You are confusing the work of Cook et al and Legates. Cook was never looking for explicit statements. That was Legates procedure. Apparently you're unfamiliar with it as well. It may be seen (if you've a strong stomach) at
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Your parroting the "97%" demonstrates exactly the same ridiculous intransigence of this Sierra club idiot:
Your reference to a YouTube video as if it actually had some scientific or statistical validity is the worst of desperation-driven, denier pseudo science.
I'm not parroting anyone. I am reciting what my references show to be facts. Every objective study of the consensus among climate scientists towards the IPCC's conclusions have shown very high to nearly unanimous support.
Perhaps it does exceed your attention span or is it that you just don`t have an up to date PC or wide band Internet access to watch something like this and finally wake up and smell the coffee:
If you want to criticize anyone's attention span you might take note that you've linked to nothing but videos here. You seem to lack the patience (and perhaps other characteristics) necessary to sit and read a few pages of mildly technical documentation.
As for the rest of the more reasonable readers here I think you all would enjoy watching the videos in this posting.
The last one had over 425 000 views (and climbing) compare that to Al Gore`s crap which had only 1/10 of that to date
1) Al Gore is not a climate scientist and NO ONE here, on the mainstream science side of this argument has brought him up since "An Inconvenient Truth" was in the theatres eight years ago.
2) Be that as it may, his movie grossed $50 million worldwide. I believe that suggests his viewership might exceed your 425,000 views on YouTube.
