Less Than One Third Of Scientific Papers Published Endorse Climate Change? But, but OBAMA!....

[jc456]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I'd say both.

Man has no influence on climate and Obama is lying about it.

See the issue is that there isn't evidence. There's a whole forum for this. Go read up. Look at this thread in the Environment forum.

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

 

[idb]

You're misreading the study.
They searched for as many peer-reviewed papers as they could find that mentioned "global warming" and "global climate change".
Of all of the papers that mentioned global warming 33.6% of them expressed an opinion on it's causes.
So, there's your sample...that's the method they used to find papers that expressed an opinion - which was what they were studying.

The study said Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming...

They ENDORSED the view of anthropogenic global warming and is not a neutral group or sample.

Exactly.
You've got it.

They discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.
32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

No, they also discard the papers that did not endorse the view of anthropogenic global warming which includes those who REJECT it also.

No, sorry, that's wrong.
If you look at my figures, 0.7% of the total number of papers rejected AGW.
They were counted, not rejected.

They only discarded the 66.4% that expressed no opinion.

They did not support the claim that man caused global warming, that means only 33 percent did.

33% percent of what?

 

[2aguy]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

Man changes local factors...not global factors.....

 

[2aguy]

So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.

When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.

Jim, you and Breibart are full of shit. I do check out the original papers. And I routinely watch the videos from the AGU convention. The con is being pulled on people like you that do not read those papers. No, they don't say, Global Warming caused this. They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming? Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places? Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

Wrong......glaciers melt, and freeze...the question you dodged is wether man is involved in that process...and we are not.

There used to be mile high glaciers where I sit....they are gone, long before man showed up.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

 

[airplanemechanic]

They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming? Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places? Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

Let's break this little wondrous piece down into its more wondrous components:

Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming?

Because they aren't melting.

Why Asia's Glaciers Are Mysteriously Expanding, Not Melting

Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places?

Because that's a lie too.

Global Warming Study Ridiculed After Temperatures DROP - Breitbart

Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

You can't back this up at all so I won't even bother debunking it.

And nobody is denying climate CHANGE. It's been changing for 4 billion years. What liberals have been unable to prove is that it's caused by man. Nope. Correlation does not equal causation. What does this mean? For the liberals out there too busy in dresses in the womens bathroom to study, it means that just because their is correlation between two variables doesn't mean one causes the other.

 

[idb]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

"How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered"
Where does that happen?

 

[JimBowie1958]

So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.

When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.

Jim, you and Breibart are full of shit. I do check out the original papers. And I routinely watch the videos from the AGU convention. The con is being pulled on people like you that do not read those papers. No, they don't say, Global Warming caused this. They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming? Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places? Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

Wrong......glaciers melt, and freeze...the question you dodged is wether man is involved in that process...and we are not.

There used to be mile high glaciers where I sit....they are gone, long before man showed up.

I would not say that mankind has absolutely ZERO contribution to global warming. But I think it is overwhelmed by the contribution of the suns cyclic activity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

"How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered"
Where does that happen?

I took it as a hypothetical.

 

[Old Rocks]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

And you are wrong on all counts. The science is settled, the absorption spectra of the GHGs have been known for over 150 years. We have increased the amount of CO2 by over 43%, have increased the amount of CH4 by over 250%, and added industrial gases which have no natural analog, and are as much as 1700 times as effective a GHG as CO2.

Virtually the whole of the scientific community accepts that we are raising the temperature of the planet. Where there is controversy is how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic in origin. And controversy as to the speed of the warming, and what the effects of the warming will be.

 

[Old Rocks]

So of the one third, roughly that thought Climate Change is primarily human driven, 97% of them agreed recent warming was human driven?

Why would it be anything different considering the filter on the groups composition, i.e. they think that already since anthropogenic (man-made) global warming = warming that is mostly man-made.”

Hence the 97% Big Lie.

When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World - Breitbart

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.

Jim, you and Breibart are full of shit. I do check out the original papers. And I routinely watch the videos from the AGU convention. The con is being pulled on people like you that do not read those papers. No, they don't say, Global Warming caused this. They just point out the evidence that certain things are happening. Now how do glaciers melt without there being a warming? Why are we now getting record temperatures in many places? Why does every major El Nino now have temperatures that exceed the prior ones.

Wrong......glaciers melt, and freeze...the question you dodged is wether man is involved in that process...and we are not.

There used to be mile high glaciers where I sit....they are gone, long before man showed up.

I would not say that mankind has absolutely ZERO contribution to global warming. But I think it is overwhelmed by the contribution of the suns cyclic activity.

Actually, for the last few years, the TSI has been declining by a small amount, at the very time we are experiancing some major warming.

 

[cnm]

I took it as a hypothetical.

What on earth does that mean?

 

[cnm]

I would not say that mankind has absolutely ZERO contribution to global warming. But I think it is overwhelmed by the contribution of the suns cyclic activity.

The data to support that will be easy to produce no doubt.

 

[cnm]

What liberals have been unable to prove is that it's caused by man.

Hilarity. Climate scientists have produced evidence to support Anthropogenic Climate Change. Climate scientists do not deal in 'proof', they deal in evidence.

As though 'liberals' deal in climate research.

Really, I should know now about discussing 'science' with dumbfuck rightards. I mean they can't even do basic math.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Conservative record of immediatly labeling any scientists as 'liberal' if they produce evidence for something that disagrees with the 'Conservative' meme. It really demonstrates the willfull ignorance on the part of the 'Conservatives', and their willingness to believe any foolishness, no matter how lacking in credibility the source is.

 

[idb]

What liberals have been unable to prove is that it's caused by man. Nope. Correlation does not equal causation. What does this mean? For the liberals out there too busy in dresses in the womens bathroom to study, it means that just because their is correlation between two variables doesn't mean one causes the other.

What does it have to do with 'liberals'?
The evidence has been presented by 'scientists'.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

"How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered"
Where does that happen?

I took it as a hypothetical.

are you trying to make a claim that man has no influence on our ecosystem or climate change? Or are you just trying to paint Obama as a liar?

I think what he is pointing out is the fact that the science is far from settled, and the dissenting science is not being evaluated. How can you make a logical summary if only 1/3 of the input is considered. But yes, Obama is a liar.

And you are wrong on all counts. The science is settled, the absorption spectra of the GHGs have been known for over 150 years. We have increased the amount of CO2 by over 43%, have increased the amount of CH4 by over 250%, and added industrial gases which have no natural analog, and are as much as 1700 times as effective a GHG as CO2.

Virtually the whole of the scientific community accepts that we are raising the temperature of the planet. Where there is controversy is how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic in origin. And controversy as to the speed of the warming, and what the effects of the warming will be.

So the science is settled, oh, except for if the warming is caused by man, how fast it will happen, and what will it do. Ok, if that is settled science in your mind. To me, that sounds like a lot of unknowns in a settled science.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So the science is settled, oh, except for if the warming is caused by man, how fast it will happen, and what will it do. Ok, if that is settled science in your mind. To me, that sounds like a lot of unknowns in a settled science.

REal science is never settled. Everything is up for testing and revision.

The only two things not subject to testing and revision ideally are religion and ideology.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract,

Dumbfuck rightards will be dumbfuck rightards.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

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.
sauce​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

 

[idb]

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract,

Dumbfuck rightards will be dumbfuck rightards.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

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.
sauce​

You just underscored the point of the thread. A misdirected number used to fool people. Very similar to the sketchy math used in low unemployment figures.

Sheesh!
Have a read through the thread...it might explain it for you.

Hah...what am I saying?!!!!