Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....

[toobfreak]

Getting harder to tell what the topic is here so that it can be moderated.. Started out as a "what people think about GW" thread and moved to other GW specifics.. Would be good to stay close to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread. Or start a new ones...

Best as I can tell this is the ENVIRONMENT forum and the OP thread was about climate change and the poll showing that people are not buying it so much anymore, so the topic should be about things relating to the environment, evidence relating to, supporting or refuting the veracity of climate change. The post I just added shows the latest scientific evidence that the Chicxulub impact caused in a few hours the emissions of as much greenhouse gas as man puts out in 3,000 years thereby forever refuting the claim that man is producing 100 times more greenhouse gas than nature and if the Earth can rebound from that, it will rebound from ANYTHING man can ever do.

 

[Crick]

Remember this, from the first Republican President?

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.


"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



Oh, noooozzzzz!!!!

Now we're gonna have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas!!!

The interpretation of these poll results come from Marc Morano (formerly Climate Communications Director for Sen James Inhofe) at Climate Depot.com (known conspiracy/pseudoscience website)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember this, from the first Republican President?

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.


"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



Oh, noooozzzzz!!!!

Now we're gonna have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas!!!

The interpretation of these poll results come from Marc Morano (formerly Climate Communications Director for Sen James Inhofe) at Climate Depot.com (known conspiracy/pseudoscience website)

The only conspiracy is the global warming scam.

 

[Crick]

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?

 

[Marion Morrison]

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic. What do all naval bases possess?

Piers. Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored. As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers. Problem.

Let's see.. If they were built in 1920s at about 1"/decade, that's a whole 8 or 9"... About the size of foot long dog at Sonic.. LOL....

And it'll be another 8 or 9" in ANOTHER 80 years.. I think the Sea Bees can handle this WITHOUT the politicos grandstanding..

But I wager the BIGGER concern is adding another ENTIRE ocean to chase the Chinese and Russians around in. Might need an "Arctic Fleet Command" that operates a whole 3 or 4 months a year by 2070...

I heard Sonic dogs were made from chicken beaks n feet.

Hebrew National or Nathan's, they are not! 1 sec.. Yeah Nathan's is what I like.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?

Obviously not. Otherwise the Climategate perps wouldn't have had anyone to suppress.
No need to prevent a paper from being published if all the papers agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist. O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.

Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.

"...all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training...."




Let's check:

1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.




You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.

And Political Chit continues to be an idiot and a liar. And afraid to reference that '31,000' scientists source. OISM is a fruitcake organization in the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. They support many rightwingnut causes, and are considered to be the fringe of the fringe. A rebuttal to their nonsense;

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:

• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:

• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.

In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.

list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results

No one ever said that there aren't a whole lot of fools.....


....bet you're concerned, huh?

 

[Crick]

“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

o A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

o A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

o James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] 13,926/13,950 = 99.828%

142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143] 9,135/9,136 = 99.989%

143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[145]

145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:

o In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

o Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

31) Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.

32) Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For every practical purpose, it is unanimous

 

[Flopper]

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?

Obviously not. Otherwise the Climategate perps wouldn't have had anyone to suppress.
No need to prevent a paper from being published if all the papers agree.

The serious papers on climate change appear in the journals of scientific associations and academies of science not in websites devoted to supporting or denying climate change. Most of these published papers are too scientific for the layman. Last year there were over 12500 papers published. From the list I saw, none were devoted to defending or denying climate change. Those papers go back a number years. These papers all deal with minutia such as Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene, The demise of the largest and oldest African baobabs, Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017, Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rain-forest food web, etc...

It's difficult to find any new published scientific papers supporting or denying climate change. Although this a subject of great interest among the cottage industry of AGW support and denial and lay press it's of little interest to the real scientific community because that issue was resolved years ago. Unlike the lay press, science journals don't repeal the same papers over and over.

 

[Crick]

You can often tell whether or not they accept it or reject is as a presupposition to their work. And if you cannot, they don't get counted.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?

Obviously not. Otherwise the Climategate perps wouldn't have had anyone to suppress.
No need to prevent a paper from being published if all the papers agree.

The serious papers on climate change appear in the journals of scientific associations and academies of science not in websites devoted to supporting or denying climate change. Most of these published papers are too scientific for the layman. Last year there were over 12500 papers published. From the list I saw, none were devoted to defending or denying climate change. Those papers go back a number years. These papers all deal with minutia such as Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene, The demise of the largest and oldest African baobabs, Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017, Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rain-forest food web, etc...

It's difficult to find any new published scientific papers supporting or denying climate change. Although this a subject of great interest among the cottage industry of AGW support and denial and lay press it's of little interest to the real scientific community because that issue was resolved years ago. Unlike the lay press, science journals don't repeal the same papers over and over.

Once again you push a lying narrative that a lot of people "deny" climate change, when skeptics all agree climate does change. It is an old stupid narrative that needs to go away since the lies behind it are stupid as hell!

I see that you are not digging for contrary papers very well, there are THOUSANDS of published papers not supportive of the AGW conjecture:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

85 Papers: Low Sensitivity

There are more out there...…..

Then that first post in the thread, which you ignored, show that climate change concern isn't that important to people, only the few warmist people like you who swallows the stupid doomsday propaganda.

"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

 

[Marion Morrison]

“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

o A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

o A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

o James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] 13,926/13,950 = 99.828%

142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143] 9,135/9,136 = 99.989%

143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[145]

145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:

o In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

o Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

31) Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.

32) Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For every practical purpose, it is unanimous

TL ; DR

What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda?

Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.

 

[Flopper]

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?

Obviously not. Otherwise the Climategate perps wouldn't have had anyone to suppress.
No need to prevent a paper from being published if all the papers agree.

The serious papers on climate change appear in the journals of scientific associations and academies of science not in websites devoted to supporting or denying climate change. Most of these published papers are too scientific for the layman. Last year there were over 12500 papers published. From the list I saw, none were devoted to defending or denying climate change. Those papers go back a number years. These papers all deal with minutia such as Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene, The demise of the largest and oldest African baobabs, Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017, Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rain-forest food web, etc...

It's difficult to find any new published scientific papers supporting or denying climate change. Although this a subject of great interest among the cottage industry of AGW support and denial and lay press it's of little interest to the real scientific community because that issue was resolved years ago. Unlike the lay press, science journals don't repeal the same papers over and over.

Once again you push a lying narrative that a lot of people "deny" climate change, when skeptics all agree climate does change. It is an old stupid narrative that needs to go away since the lies behind it are stupid as hell!

I see that you are not digging for contrary papers very well, there are THOUSANDS of published papers not supportive of the AGW conjecture:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

85 Papers: Low Sensitivity

There are more out there...…..

Then that first post in the thread, which you ignored, show that climate change concern isn't that important to people, only the few warmist people like you who swallows the stupid doomsday propaganda.

"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

We are not on the same page. When I say published papers, I am referring papers written by research scientist and publish in recognized society journals, not articles based on papers, or selected papers over the last 10 years or excepts from papers on blogs. There were plenty of papers in society journals disputing AGW, 10 or 15 years ago. Since then the numbers have dwindled while the number coming out of web sites whose business is to support or deny AGW has increased.

 

[Crick]

“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

o A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

o A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

o James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] 13,926/13,950 = 99.828%

142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143] 9,135/9,136 = 99.989%

143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[145]

145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:

o In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

o Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

31) Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.

32) Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For every practical purpose, it is unanimous

TL ; DR

What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda?

Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.

Did you perhaps post this in the wrong place? This post (and this thread) concerns the consensus for AGW.

 

[Marion Morrison]

“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

o A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

o A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

o James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] 13,926/13,950 = 99.828%

142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143] 9,135/9,136 = 99.989%

143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[145]

145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:

o In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

o Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

31) Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.

32) Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For every practical purpose, it is unanimous

TL ; DR

What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda?

Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.

Did you perhaps post this in the wrong place? This post (and this thread) concerns the consensus for AGW.

Why did they exclude grass from plants that absorb CO2 in their studies, nimrod?

 

[Crick]

From "1350 Peer Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments"

Criteria for Inclusion: All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology.

The vast majority of skeptical arguments against AGW's validity would be classified as 'nit-picking'. They do not refute or overturn AGW. Such papers will be included in this list. That they need only be "written by a skeptic" means they are not required to concern the climate or warming at all.

Listed under
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

Tol (2016)
Abstract
Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

Does this refute the consensus? No. Does this refute AGW? No.

Dean (2015) [This seems to be what would pass for an abstract in a real paper]
I read the study by Cook et al with great interest [1]. The study used levels of endorsement of global warming as outlined in their table 2; however, I could see no mention as to how these levels were created and how reliable they were in terms of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa). Best practice on rater reliability indicates that both inter-rater and intra-rater should have been measured and documented in a study such as Dr Cook's [2] and I am surprised that this fact appears to have been neglected. It would be of considerable benefit to readers for some robust rate reliability metrics to be included, if at all possible.

Tol (2016) above, seems to be a repeat of Dean (2015). Same comments would apply

Tol (2014b)
Abstract
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

The shotgun approach. Only the abstract is available without purchase so none of these claims may be verified. This appears to be the exact same paper as Tol (2014a) but the accumulator has opted to count these as two distinct papers

Tol (2014a)
Abstract
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

This is the original version of Tol (2014b)

Legates (2013)
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Legates paper has been an offensive joke since the day it first appeared. Legates counts papers as supporting AGW if and only if they quote IPCC conclusions verbatim. As a result he gets numbers wildly in divergence with any other study of the topic. His paper could not be published in any climate-related journal, so it was rewritten as one concerning education and was reviewed by referees and published in a journal having zero expertise in climate science or the climate science literature. 100% bullshit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

o A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Eos. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

o A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

134) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

o James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] 13,926/13,950 = 99.828%

142) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143] 9,135/9,136 = 99.989%

143) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

o His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

144) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

o In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[145]

145) Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here. If you had kept abreast at all you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.

The Oregon Petition is statistical crap. No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories. From third party attempts we get:

o In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

30) "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

o Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

31) Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.

32) Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing. The consensus is not 97%. For every practical purpose, it is unanimous

TL ; DR

What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda?

Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.

Did you perhaps post this in the wrong place? This post (and this thread) concerns the consensus for AGW.

Consensus???????

Nonsense.


1. “… where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.



Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

3. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!



You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.


A research group by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the Kyoto Protocol to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

This petition reads, in its entirety:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

the petition bore 31,487 signatures as of October 2016: The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?


This unintentional humor from the Snopes attempt to marginalize the petition: “Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification…”

That pretty much describes the global warming scam.

We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”

What's their motive, you dunce?

 

[Crick]

Probably the same motivation as yours.

Where is the evidence that the 9,000 self-described PhDs aren't actually 200 PhDs and 8,800 unqualified liars?

And I may have missed it, but did you refute James L Powell four studies finding better than a 99% consensus from a sample of thousands of papers and thousands o authors?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"The oceans have long been considered our planet's heat sponge - a 2014 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that the oceans had absorbed 93% of the excess heat that greenhouse gases have trapped within the Earth's atmosphere."

The Oceans Are Warming Even Faster Than We Previously Thought

Peer reviewed, right?

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

"Page not found.

We have a new website and as a result many links to documents have changed. All the information from the previous website is on our archive page here: archive.ipcc.ch."

Gigantic several orders of magnitude oopsies

 

[PoliticalChic]

Probably the same motivation as yours.

Where is the evidence that the 9,000 self-described PhDs aren't actually 200 PhDs and 8,800 unqualified liars?

And I may have missed it, but did you refute James L Powell four studies finding better than a 99% consensus from a sample of thousands of papers and thousands o authors?

So....you realize that pretending that the scam t based on science....which it is not.....is career advancement, and bread on the table with grants...
....but there is nothing to be gained by telling the truth.


Exactly.


That leaves simpletons still parroting the Left's propaganda....raise your paw.