Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I stated and as numerous links have pointed out, it is the story of a great number of scientists. You will find NO scientists claiming that it was warmer than today, 1,000 years ago. Do see if you can prove me wrong.That is your story, I’d stick to it.
Done.As I stated and as numerous links have pointed out, it is the story of a great number of scientists. You will find NO scientists claiming that it was warmer than today, 1,000 years ago. Do see if you can prove me wrong.
www.sciencedirect.com
Ok, sounds good to me.As I stated and as numerous links have pointed out, it is the story of a great number of scientists. You will find NO scientists claiming that it was warmer than today, 1,000 years ago. Do see if you can prove me wrong.
Stay the course good buddy!
Al Gore tell you that??The Greenland ice sheet is melting. By 2100 it will likely have added half a meter to global sea level all by itself.
No. John Kerry.Al Gore tell you that??
Global cooling!Remarkably mild weather up here in Mid-Australia. It's supposed to be Summer and we have had a few warm days; mostly less hot than usual.
Quite nice actually. A reminder that the temps here are in CENTIGRADE! Mostly less than 80oF.....in summer???
Toowoomba Weather Forecast, QLD 4350 - WillyWeather
Toowoomba weather forecast updated daily. BoM weather radar, satellite and synoptic charts. Current conditions, warnings and historical recordswww.willyweather.com.au
Greg
No, he didn't. Perhaps you're confused about this, but Al Gore is not a scientist.Al Gore tell you that??
Accepting the opinion of 99% of the world's climate scientists and the mountains of empirical and scientific evidence supporting them isn't the least bit ironic.
This is one of the clearest cases of projection I think I have ever seen. If you think the opinion of thousands of active, degreed scientists, experts in the specific field in question is somehow trumped by your faulty interpretation of an offhand comment in an email, you're being delusional.Translation: I have nothing but creamed cheese to sell.....
This is one of the clearest cases of projection I think I have ever seen. If you think the opinion of thousands of active, degreed scientists, experts in the specific field in question is somehow trumped by your faulty interpretation of an offhand comment in an email, you're being delusional.
So 64 out of 11,944, or 0.5%, take the view that humans are the main cause of global warming. But that includes all abstracts, including those that did not take a position. It would be nice to take the 64 as a percent of those that did take a position. Unfortunately, in their data set, Cook et al put 4a, those that do not address the cause of global warming, with 4b, those that express the view that humans’ role in global warming is uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to separate them, but we can’t unless we have the even rawer data. So let’s generously conclude that everyone in category 4 has expressed no view. That’s a total of 7970, leaving a total of 3,974 that have expressed a view. The 64 who think the main cause is humans is, drum roll please: 1.6%.1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% : 64
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize: 922
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it: 2910
4,No Position: 7970
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW: 54
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify: 15
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%: 9
Your article does not include a working link. I did a search and found it here: 1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming - EconlibTrouble is that 97% of scientists do not think this has much to do with mankind and that the true figure is 1.6%
You might like to check your own possible delusions .
1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming
Here are the categories that Cook et al state. I have added the numbers that Bahner found beside each.
So 64 out of 11,944, or 0.5%, take the view that humans are the main cause of global warming. But that includes all abstracts, including those that did not take a position. It would be nice to take the 64 as a percent of those that did take a position. Unfortunately, in their data set, Cook et al put 4a, those that do not address the cause of global warming, with 4b, those that express the view that humans’ role in global warming is uncertain or undefined. It would be nice to separate them, but we can’t unless we have the even rawer data. So let’s generously conclude that everyone in category 4 has expressed no view. That’s a total of 7970, leaving a total of 3,974 that have expressed a view. The 64 who think the main cause is humans is, drum roll please: 1.6%.
AGW refers to alleged global warming caused by us .
On CNN Crossfire, the conservative think tank Heritage Institute's David Kreutzer said,"somebody like me, who is probably more sceptical than you are about this issue, would be included as a supporter of the consensus, whereas I am not? Many major scientists have complained that, in the review of their papers, they have been included in that consensus."
Similarly, contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer claimed in Congressional testimony last year that he's included in the 97 percent."what they agree on is so innocuous that all of what you call deniers agree with it, as well. That the world is getting warmer, all right? And that some of that warming is due to man, maybe a significant amount."
"There's a recent paper by John Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers which have been published in the scientific literature to see what fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming. Well, it turns out that the 97% consensus that they found, I am indeed part of and Senator Sessions mentioned he would agree with it too. And my associate John Christy, he agrees with it. In fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in that business. All are part of that 97% because that 97% includes those who think humans have some influence on climate. Well, that's a fairly innocuous statement."
This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent."Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause"
Hence for example, one of Roy Spencer's five papers captured by our literature search was put in this category, because it proposes negative feedbacks will minimize future global warming. His other four papers fell into the 'no position' category; therefore, overall Spencer was not included in the 97 percent as he claimed in his testimony to US Congress. Rather, Spencer's research is included in the 2 percent of papers minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming (the final 1 percent of papers were uncertain about the cause). Spencer has also said, "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural," so his opinion is consistent with the 2 percent."implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming"
Temperatures on Greenland haven't been this warm in at least 1,000 years, scientists report | CNN
After years of research on the Greenland ice sheet -- which CNN visited when the cores were drilled -- scientists have reported temperatures there have been the warmest in at least the past 1,000 years.www.cnn.com
The Greenland ice sheet is melting. By 2100 it will likely have added half a meter to global sea level all by itself.
Crick, I will ask again, and you will ignore as usual, but how many scientists make up your percentage? You know, how many scientists out of how many scientists? 75/77? That's only 97%. post a link with the numbers. I don't take creeps word as authority to figures.Accepting the opinion of 99% of the world's climate scientists and the mountains of empirical and scientific evidence supporting them isn't the least bit ironic.
Your article does not include a working link. I did a search and found it here: 1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming - Econlib
One of two links in a comment provided by one of the authors of the study in question (Dana Nuccitelli) provided this debunking of the OPs claim
MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire get the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming wrong
Contrarians who think they're part of the 97 percent hold fringe views consistent with the 2–3 percent scientific minority
MP Graham Stringer doesn't understand the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. Photograph: Christopher Thomond
Dana Nuccitelli
Fri 14 Feb 2014 09.00 EST
217
In May 2013, my Skeptical Science colleagues and I published a paper showing that of peer-reviewed climate publications over the past 20 years that take a position on the cause of global warming, 97 percent agree that humans are responsible. Since that paper was published, it's been met with extensive denialism.
The reaction of denial is not surprising, because an expert consensus is a powerful thing. People can't be expert in every subject, so we defer to the consensus of experts on many subjects. For this reason, climate scientists are the most trusted sources of climate science information. As we documented in our paper, research has also shown that when people are aware of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to accept the science and support climate policy to address the problem.
Hence, those who support the status quo and oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have long engaged in a disinformation campaign to misinform the public about the expert consensus. Their efforts have been successful, as evidenced by the 'consensus gap' whereby the public believe scientists are split on the cause of global warming; a stark contrast to the reality of the 97 percent consensus.
The consensus gap.
One of the most common contrarian reactions to the results of our paper has been to claim that 'skeptics' are included in the 97 percent as well. For example, in a recent hearing reviewing the UK 4th carbon budget, Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) Graham Stringer said of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming,
On CNN Crossfire, the conservative think tank Heritage Institute's David Kreutzer said,
Similarly, contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer claimed in Congressional testimony last year that he's included in the 97 percent.
These statements are all incorrect, ignoring a significant part of our research. They are based on one of the categories used in our study regarding "implicit endorsements" of human-caused global warming. A paper that was included in this category:
This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent.
However, this argument only considers one of the seven categories used in our study. Another critical category, the "implicit rejections" included any paper that (emphasis added):
Hence for example, one of Roy Spencer's five papers captured by our literature search was put in this category, because it proposes negative feedbacks will minimize future global warming. His other four papers fell into the 'no position' category; therefore, overall Spencer was not included in the 97 percent as he claimed in his testimony to US Congress. Rather, Spencer's research is included in the 2 percent of papers minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming (the final 1 percent of papers were uncertain about the cause). Spencer has also said, "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural," so his opinion is consistent with the 2 percent.
For those desiring papers with more explicit positions on the cause of global warming, we also used categories that only included papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming. We asked the scientific authors to rate their own papers, and of the papers in those categories (237 total), 96 percent agreed that humans are responsible for the majority of the current global warming.
Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming. Moreover, in order to be part of the 96 percent expert consensus, they must explicitly agree that humans are responsible for the majority of the global warming over the past half-century (a position the latest IPCC report took with 95 percent confidence).
Those like Spencer, and possibly Stringer and Kreutzer, who believe the human influence on the climate is minimal, hold fringe views that are consistent with just 2 to 3 percent of the peer-reviewed climate science literature.
So Crick, what is it they all agree on? you didn't post the questions? Why not? My video link does. Come on man, grow some balls and start contributing you lazy bug.Your article does not include a working link. I did a search and found it here: 1.6%, Not 97%, Agree that Humans are the Main Cause of Global Warming - Econlib
One of two links in a comment provided by one of the authors of the study in question (Dana Nuccitelli) provided this debunking of the OPs claim
MP Graham Stringer and CNN Crossfire get the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming wrong
Contrarians who think they're part of the 97 percent hold fringe views consistent with the 2–3 percent scientific minority
MP Graham Stringer doesn't understand the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. Photograph: Christopher Thomond
Dana Nuccitelli
Fri 14 Feb 2014 09.00 EST
217
In May 2013, my Skeptical Science colleagues and I published a paper showing that of peer-reviewed climate publications over the past 20 years that take a position on the cause of global warming, 97 percent agree that humans are responsible. Since that paper was published, it's been met with extensive denialism.
The reaction of denial is not surprising, because an expert consensus is a powerful thing. People can't be expert in every subject, so we defer to the consensus of experts on many subjects. For this reason, climate scientists are the most trusted sources of climate science information. As we documented in our paper, research has also shown that when people are aware of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to accept the science and support climate policy to address the problem.
Hence, those who support the status quo and oppose efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have long engaged in a disinformation campaign to misinform the public about the expert consensus. Their efforts have been successful, as evidenced by the 'consensus gap' whereby the public believe scientists are split on the cause of global warming; a stark contrast to the reality of the 97 percent consensus.
The consensus gap.
One of the most common contrarian reactions to the results of our paper has been to claim that 'skeptics' are included in the 97 percent as well. For example, in a recent hearing reviewing the UK 4th carbon budget, Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) Graham Stringer said of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming,
On CNN Crossfire, the conservative think tank Heritage Institute's David Kreutzer said,
Similarly, contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer claimed in Congressional testimony last year that he's included in the 97 percent.
These statements are all incorrect, ignoring a significant part of our research. They are based on one of the categories used in our study regarding "implicit endorsements" of human-caused global warming. A paper that was included in this category:
This particular category doesn't state how much global warming humans are causing, and hence climate contrarians claim that because they admit humans are causing some global warming, they should be included in the 97 percent.
However, this argument only considers one of the seven categories used in our study. Another critical category, the "implicit rejections" included any paper that (emphasis added):
Hence for example, one of Roy Spencer's five papers captured by our literature search was put in this category, because it proposes negative feedbacks will minimize future global warming. His other four papers fell into the 'no position' category; therefore, overall Spencer was not included in the 97 percent as he claimed in his testimony to US Congress. Rather, Spencer's research is included in the 2 percent of papers minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming (the final 1 percent of papers were uncertain about the cause). Spencer has also said, "I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural," so his opinion is consistent with the 2 percent.
For those desiring papers with more explicit positions on the cause of global warming, we also used categories that only included papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming. We asked the scientific authors to rate their own papers, and of the papers in those categories (237 total), 96 percent agreed that humans are responsible for the majority of the current global warming.
Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming. Moreover, in order to be part of the 96 percent expert consensus, they must explicitly agree that humans are responsible for the majority of the global warming over the past half-century (a position the latest IPCC report took with 95 percent confidence).
Those like Spencer, and possibly Stringer and Kreutzer, who believe the human influence on the climate is minimal, hold fringe views that are consistent with just 2 to 3 percent of the peer-reviewed climate science literature.
Hahahahahaha this whole article is a complete joke. From the very start of it, the picture that it shows is from the prior summer. Ice melts during the summer. They won't show a picture of how it is currently, during winter, because ice forms during the winter.Temperatures on Greenland haven't been this warm in at least 1,000 years, scientists report | CNN
After years of research on the Greenland ice sheet -- which CNN visited when the cores were drilled -- scientists have reported temperatures there have been the warmest in at least the past 1,000 years.
The Greenland ice sheet is melting. By 2100 it will likely have added half a meter to global sea level all by itself.
This is one of the clearest cases of projection I think I have ever seen. If you think the opinion of thousands of active, degreed scientists, experts in the specific field in question is somehow trumped by your faulty interpretation of an offhand comment in an email, you're being delusional.
I have never even suggested that consensus produces science. What I have consistently argued is that consensus is a valid measure of the acceptance, by scientists, of a scientific theory. There is no other way to do so.No, YOU are the one who irrationally promote the idea that consensus produces science which is utter nonsense.
Do you think the world's scientists are not supporters of reproducible research? THEY are the ones agreeing with the IPCC conclusions which are, in turn, based on their own study conclusions.Your inability to get past this stupid consensus infatuation shows that you are not a supporter of Reproducible research you go on and on over how many believe people in something which is boring and wasteful.
You have not shown that any significant number of active, published climate scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions.I have shown repeated examples of people bucking the consensus successfully
The history of science is filled with failures. That is how it progresses. That progress produces a more and more accurate and a more and more detailed understanding of how nature actually works. If the understanding and knowledge of science didn't improve over time, then science itself would be failing. It quite obviously is not.and even showed the numerous consensus failures over the last few centuries
Do you remember when dark matter and dark energy were discovered? How about when it was found that the expansion of the universe was accelerating? How about the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background? The invention of the LASER? The first production of a Bose-Einstein Condensate? The merger of the EM and Weak forces? The discovery of magnetic stripes in the ocean floor? The mitosis-limiting nature of DNA telomomeres? The discovery of quarks? The discovery of high-temperature super conductors? The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? I remember all these things happening. All of those and hundreds more represented major shifts in our understanding of how the universe works. I did not resist them. I questioned some when I first heard of them, but I read the research and I read the opinions of scientists on that research and I accepted them. I find such changes exciting. For not only do such things represent major steps in our journey upward but they always open up countless other questions no one had ever thought before to ask. The process is endless, but the granularity becomes finer and finer and finer.you ignore it because you are being irrational and that scientists are humans who can and have been wrong before stop treating them as gods!
That rather blows the charge that non-consensus views don't get published.I have also posted HERE at POST 66 a long list of published research showing there is plenty of papers that doesn't support the AGW narrative at all.
You can't name me one.There have been too many AGW failures to accept it anymore you should move on.
Whereas I believe they are trumped by empirical climate evidence of a cooling planet with atmospheric CO2 above 600 ppm which proves water vapor is a net negative feedback.If you think the opinion of thousands of active, degreed scientists, experts in the specific field in question is somehow trumped by your faulty interpretation of an offhand comment in an email, you're being delusional.
